United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of The Administrator
and Office Of Pollution
Prevention And Toxics
EPAIOO-R-94-oot
March 1994
&EPA
State Pollution Prevention
Initiatives Utilizing Media-
Program Grant Flexibility
PrMod on {apcrthat cantatas
a l«nt 50% raeyctod 6bw
-------
-------
STATE POLLUTION PREVENTION INITIATIVES
UTILIZING MEDIA-PROGRAM GRANT FLEXIBILITY
prepared for:
Thomas McCully
Pollution Prevention Policy Staff
Office of the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
prepared under contract 3W-2387-NTSA
-------
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............ .....
II. FINDINGS . .... ... . .
'••'•••'•• 3
III. STATE POLLUTION PREVENTION INITIATIVES UNDER MEDIA
PRO^O AIUI f*Q A KITO * " »»«*^«» tvi^Ulr\
••.;•••. •••••••........... 8
A. MAINE .'•; ..... 0
.*•••••••••••• • 8
B, MASSACHUSETTS . . . . .... 1*
. ._. . lo
C. NEW YORK ..,..................._ 20
D. OHIO •••••••••.:......................... 27
E. ALASKA . , , .... .".
F. OTHER STATES . ... r ......... ... .......... 40
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The "Pollution Prevention Media Grant Guidance" of April 1993 urges the
Regions and states to adopt a new perspective on meeting their environmental
objectives. It recommends that states and Regions pursue pollution prevention
alternatives as the preferred approach to meeting media-program goals under EPA's
grants to the states. While the Guidance does not alter regulatory or statutory
requirements under the various media programs, it does promote use of the
maximum possible flexibility in pursuit of those goals.
• The Guidance is an outgrowth of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and
of EPA's policy to employ multimedia pollution prevention wherever feasible to
achieve environmental improvement. The Guidance defines "pollution prevention"
... source reduction and other practices that reduce the amount
of pollutants entering a waste stream prior to out-of-process
recycling, treatment, energy recovery or disposal. Prevention
includes improvements to manufacturing, such as the
substitution of non-toxic hazardous materials, redesign of
products to reduce environmental impacts, in-process recycling,
niodification of equipment, and housekeeping measures such as
improved maintenance. It also encompasses both increased
efficiency in the use of energy and water and other practices
that protect natural resources through conservation.
The Guidance not only reflects changes in EPA's objectives, but responds to
a growing emphasis on pollution prevention by state environmental agencies
which have led the way in promoting pollution prevention over end-of-pipe controls
wherever feasible. A few states are actively integrating pollution prevention into
their regulatory programs in order to augment current regulatory strategies.
EPA Administrator Carol Browner has stated that: >
' f ' ' ' • \ •
Our grant flexibility offers support to state agencies that have
developed some of the most innovative and effective pollution
prevention programs in the country. It is also consistent with
our goal of building pollution prevention into mainstream
programs like permitting, inspection, and enforcement, which
are largely carried out by states with some support from EPA
Finally, the guidance is an important first step toward meeting
the President's directive in Executive Order 12875 to,
-------
consider any application by a state, local or tribal
government for a waiver of statutory or regulatory
requirements...with a general view toward utilizing
flexible policy approaches at the state, local and tribal
level in which the proposed waiver is consistent with the
applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise
appropriate.
EPA has supported the growth of state programs for several years through
the Pollution Prevention Incentives for States (PPIS) grants. These grants,
however, have been competitive and time-limited (usually three years). In addition,
the total of EPA's PPIS grants only amounts to approximately 1 % of the annual
EPA media grants (about $500 million) to states. If pollution prevention is to be
fully integrated into state regulatory programs, more substantial and continuous
support is required from EPA.
EPA's Pollution Prevention Grant Guidance is a first step toward providing
greater support for state pollution prevention efforts and toward promoting a shift
In emphasis to pollution prevention in the joint state/federal environmental
programs. The objectives of the Guidance include:
o ensuring flexibility in grant requirements, to support and reward states
investing in pollution prevention approaches;
o promoting the growth of pollution prevention approaches in federally-
funded state programs;
/ " •
o sharing information on successful programs and identifying statutory
and regulatory barriers to grant support faced by such programs; and
o building self-sustaining state pollution prevention programs.
The 1994 fiscal year is the first year since issuance of the Guidance. This
report provides information on some examples of pollution prevention initiatives
supported under the media grants during FY94. These initiatives may or may not
have happened as a result of the Pollution Prevention Media Guidance, but they
reflect, to varying degrees, the objectives of the Guidance.
-------
II. FINDINGS
State-Specific Findings * •
'--> • ,'.••' • .
This report focuses on special pollution prevention initiatives under the
media program grants in five states: Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and
Ohio. These states provide examples of some of the alternatives and opportunities
for pollution prevention and multimedia approaches under the media grants:
State: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
P2 Goal: Program Integration
Project: Redirection of Federal and State grant matching dollars to
support pollution prevention activities
Alaska and Region 10 have reached an agreement under which a percentage
of funds from media grants are set aside to support pollution prevention
activities by the Alaska Department off Environmental Conservation (DEC),
primarily through DEC'S Pollution Prevention Office. Under the agreement,
3% of the core grant funds were redirected in FY93 and 4% FY94; the
amount will increase to 5% in FY95. The Pollution Prevention Office uses
the media grant support to provide and coordinate multimedia pollution
prevention activities within DEC and throughout the state. Within DEC,
activities have included coordination of pollution prevention planning,
integration of pollution prevention into DEC activities and training of DEC
employees. The Pollution Prevention Office is also involved in building
pollution prevention partnerships with local agencies, non-profits and
businesses and providing pollution prevention technical support to
businesses and communities. Disinvestments from standard media activities
appear to have been limited, either because of flexibility in timing, or
because of utilization of pollution prevention approaches for meeting
program goals. /
State: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
P2 Goal: Watershed Source Reduction Activites
Project: Pollution prevention in the Androscoggin River watershed
Maine and Region 1 have agreed to a redirection of water program media
grants to support a five-year watershed-based pollution prevention project in
the Androscoggin River basin. Although the project is funded primarily
through water program grants, it is a multimedia project. Activities include
pollution prevention education and training for local governments and
citizens; regional pollution prevention planning; and special pollution
prevention efforts targeted at noripoint and small sources of Water pollution.
-------
POTWs and large industrial sources such as paper mills. While more
resources will, be directed toward the targeted geographic area, other areas
will still receive attention; for example, under the 106 -grant, 45
comprehensive inspections elsewhere in the state will be replaced by 45
reconnaissance inspections.
State: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
P2 Goal: Source Reduction to Achieve Compliance
Project: Multimedia, 'prevention-based, facility-wide enforcement
inspections
Massachusetts' Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has adopted
a whole-facility pollution prevention approach to much of its compliance and
enforcement activities. In both FY93 and FY94, DEP and Region I agreed to
negotiate grant outputs for air, water and waste as a single
compliance/enforcement package, although grant outputs are still linked to
single media programs. Region 1 provided DEP flexibility to select state-
determined high priority facilities for inspections in place of a proportion of
facilities on the EPA priority lists, and agreed to provide credit for
inspections at 10% of such state-discretionary facilities which were on no
media inspection lists, but at which inspectors identified unregistered waste
streams. An example of a disinvestment to promote the alternative facility-
wide approach is an agreement to reduce the number of targeted major
inspections under the 106 water grant to 85%. The Region and state are
currently trying to develop and field-test a multimedia inspection protocol
which might be able to meet media program inspection requirements.
State: NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
P2 Goal: Multimedia Inspections
Project: Multimedia Pollution Prevention Program (M2P2)
New York has developed a multimedia pollution prevention (M2P2) program
focused on the 400 facilities with the highest environmental releases and/or
greatest environmental impacts in the state; in the first year, the M2P2
program is targeting regulatory activities on 49 facilities. Region 2's RCRA
program has supported development of FY94 workplan commitments
involving multimedia compliance inspections and enforcement activities.
Workplans for the water and air programs are on a later schedule. The
state's Department, of Environmental Conservation (DEC) believes that, as
more of the 400 facilities are brought into the M2P2 program, increased
grant flexibility will be necessary.
-------
State: Ohio EPA
P2 Goal: Pollution Prevention Integration
Project: Pollution prevention strftegV development, using RCRA grant
authority
Ohio has utilized RCRA grant funds from the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) —
targeted to regulatory activities involving RCRA facilities in the Great Lakes
drainage basin - to support the state's Office of Pollution Prevention.
Activities under the grant have included development (in FY93) and
implementation (beginning in FY94) of a statewide multimedia pollution
prevention strategy, providing on-site pollution prevention technical
assistance for RCRA generators, and development of industry-specific
pollution prevention fact sheets. Because GLI provided supplementary RCRA
3011 funds, disinvestments were not required to meet pollution prevention
goals during FY92 - FY94.
General Findings
Some genera! points emerged from these examples and from additional
information provided by Regional and state contacts and information:
Planning Process
o Successful pollution prevention initiatives under the media grants appear to
occur most readily where either the Region, the state or both have
established a planning process that reviews the potential for pollution
prevention alternatives as a part of overall program objectives. Such a
process is most important where the pollution prevention project involves all
media and not just a single program.
Pollution Prevention Advocates
o If integration of pollution prevention approaches into media grant projects is
to achieve its greatest potential, it is important that both Regions and states
serve as advocates. Some Regional staff commented that little could be
done to provide flexibility for pollution prevention under the grants unless the
state program personnel strongly advocated pollution prevention measures.
But some state agency staff observed that unless the state program offices
received a strong signal from the Region that pollution prevention initiatives
were preferred to business-as-usual, it was unlikely that the state would
develop pollution prevention initiatives. In both cases, the pressure of
meeting existing program objectives was cited as trie principal barrier to
proposing anything new. In addition, there were situations both where state
-------
programs proposed pollution prevention initiatives which were turned down
by the Region and where Regional offices unsuccessfully sought particular
state program initiatives.
Diversity of Approaches/Negotiation Flexibility
Just as there is diversity in the approaches of pollution prevention initiatives
within state programs, there is a significant degree of variation in how
Regions and states negotiate workplans under the media grants. Negotiating
flexibility can depend on various facets of state-Regional relationships, or on
the state-delegation status of particular elements of state programs. No
single approach may be appropriate to all state-Regional relationships;
maximum flexibility is needed by all parties in the negotiation process.
Core Multimedia Pollution Prevention Grants
Matching state pollution prevention multimedia activities to the structure and
requirements for the media program grants often creates a significant
challenge of interpretation. Several state, and some Regional, personnel
stressed the importance of a core multimedia pollution prevention grant -
possibly based on a percentage tap of current media grants - to promote
and sustain state pollution prevention initiatives. The Alaska program
provides the closest current example of such an approach. Unlike the PPIS
grant, this would need to be clearly identified as a continuing core element
of EPA's state support.
Progress Under RIP-Flex
Familiarity appears to increase the likelihood of success. EPA's Office of
Solid Waste instituted the RIP-flex (RCRA Implementation Plan flexibility)
initiative in FY89. It allowed trade-offs under which up to 15% of RCRA
grant funds could be used for RCRA initiatives (including waste
minimization) other than the national RCRA priorities. In FY92, the amount
was increased to 25%. Several state programs have taken advantage of
RIP-flex, for one or more years, to promote waste minimization, or
sometimes multi-media initiatives at RCRA facilities.
Special Media Program Initiatives
Several states have been able to take advantage of media grant "flexibility"
provided through special media program initiatives - e.g., the Grfcdt Lakes
Initiative or Gulf of Mexico components of the RCRA 3011 grant. Some
states have been able to successfully utilize such grant funds both to
support specific pollution prevention activities related to the area of concern
-------
under the initiative and to support more general state pollution prevention
activities. Over the longer term; however, continuity of support for state
multimedia pollution prevention efforts iplikely require incorporating fundinq
for pollution prevention into components of the grants beyond the soecial
initiatives. »Hwwai
Disinvestments
The degree of disinvestment in current grant-supported media program
activities to provide flexibility for supporting pollution prevention initiatives
varies significantly between states. Alaska's program required a specific re-
programming of media grant funds to support the pollution prevention
program. Maine and Massachusetts required flexibility for re-targeting media
funds on state-selected facilities and priorities, and for a more inclusive
interpretation of what would count as meeting the required numbers of
appropriate regulatory actions under the media grants. Ohio has been able
to develop a statewide plan while avoiding disinvestments through use of
supplementary special initiative funds under the RCRA program
Disinvestments are likely to become an increasingly important issue as states
develop new initiatives further from the beaten track.
Progress for FY95
For many state grants which did not incorporate pollution prevention in
FY94, states and Regions are beginning negotiations now to include
pollution prevention components in FY95.
-------
PREVENTION INITIATIVES UNDER MEDIA
The following summaries provide examples of varied state pollution
prevention initiatives and workplan agreements. Five state projects are presented
in some detail, while a few additional projects are summarized briefly.
A. MAINE
EPA REGION: \
TITLE OF PROJECT: THE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER PROJECT
TYPE OF PROJECT: WATERSHED-BASED POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
PROJECT GOAL: WATERSHED SOURCE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES
MEDIA GRANTS SUPPORTING PROJECT: MOSTLY CWA GRANTS
106
604(b)
UIC
-319
104(g)
— Small Community Grants
104(b)(3)
ABSTRACT: Maine and Region 1 have agreed to a redirection of water program media
grants to support a five-year watershed-based pollution prevention project in
the Androscoggin River basin. Although the project is funded primarily
through water program grants, it is a multimedia project. Activities include
pollution prevention education and training for local governments and
citizens; regional pollution s prevention planning; and special pollution
prevention efforts targeted at nonpoint and small sources of water pollution
POTWs and large industrial sources such as paper mills. The principal
benefit of the project is the opportunity to involve a wide range of local
agencies, citizens, industry, municipalities, as well as the media program
offices at DEP in a single, unified goal of comprehensively addressing
pollution problems in a high priority target area-the Androscoggin River
Basin. If this approach works, it may serve as a model for the other
watersheds in Maine.
8
-------
BACKGROUND
i •
On October 16, 1992, the EPA Regional Administrator sent a letter to each
of the six State Commissioners inviting proposals for innovative pollution
prevention projects that could be supported through base media grant mechanisms.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had been thinking of doing a
watershed-based pollution prevention project focused on the Androscoggin River.
The Androscoggin watershed is a high priority area environmentally, and one in
which the DEP has had considerable success with source reduction technical
assistance efforts at a major pulp and paper facility (International Paper in Jay,
ME). They wanted to extend that success to both point and non-point sources
within the entire watershed area. The DEP Water Bureau Director, Steve Groves,
initiated discussions with the EPA Regional Water Division Director, Dave Fierra,
exploring the feasibility of such a project under existing CWA base grants.
Subsequent to these management-level discussions, the DEP Water Grants
Coordinator, Paul Dutram, began contacting the different Region 1 Program
Directors responsible for the various CWA base grants.
The reason discussions were started prior to submitting a written proposal
was that DEP wanted the Program Directors to understand the watershed basin
approach and the rationale for geographic targeting, it was felt that a little upfront
leg-work and consensus-building would be most beneficial. Because Region 1 does
not use a State/EPA Agreement (SEA) process, negotiations for work products and
goals tend to be carried out at the staff level for each of the individual media
grants. This,can take a lot of time-especially for non-traditional uses of grants.
The formal proposal from Maine to Region 1 on the Androscoggin Project was
submitted in May of 1993, several months behind the asked-for proposal date of
November 15, 1992, but in time for the start of the regular grant negotiation and
award process for FY 94. As of September 1993, Region 1 Water Management
Division expects to concur with most of the disinvestments once Maine provides
additional information on specific tasks and outputs.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a watershed-based pollution prevention project, funded by a range of
CWA grants, whose main concept is to shift Maine DEP Water Bureau focus of
activities to a single geographically targeted area (the Androscoggin River and its
watershed). Although funded through flexible use of single media funds (CWA),
the project is a multi-media effort, with aspects that include both RCRA and CAA
concerns. It is a long-range (5-year) project to address both point and non-point
source problems via a whole-watershed pollution prevention program whose
principal features include:
-------
o Education (citizen workshops, state and city agency cross-training,
etc.) ,
o Watershed Management Team Planning (to identify and work
cooperatively on regional pollution prevention issues)
o Nonpoint and Small Point Source Pollution Prevention (via a 12
community pilot project on the Little Androscoggin tributary)
o Municipal Pollution Prevention (largely through technical assistance to
local POTWs aimed at improving performance with respect to source
identification and reduction)
o Industrial Pollution Prevention (extending the current success with
source reduction technical assistance task forces at International
Paper to other paper mills along the river)
One of the interesting features about the educational efforts will be a strong
focus on Total Quality Management (TQM) principles and techniques with respect
to furthering the goals of pollution prevention. The TQM approach will be applied
in training and workshops geared to citizen education, community programs, as
well as DEP agency-wide. In the community programs, for example, a TQM team
will be formed with a DEP person serving as facilitator. Community leaders will
select members for the TQM team. This Community Management Team then is
responsible for identifying actual and potential sources of pollution in their
community and for training volunteers. Individual members of the Team will
receive in-depth TQM training at DEP headquarters. This approach encourages
direct involvement of the public in critical issues that affect their communities.
The 12-community pilot project in the Little Androscoggin Basin will be the
first place DEP plans to use the Community Team approach. The participating
towns have a range of both point and non-point source problems, and the teams
will be constituted in such a way as to address the most serious issues for that
individual community. For example, one town has significant non-point source
discharges because it has no sewage treatment plant. Another town has non-point
sources that are largely agricultural. In the other towns, it is a mix of industrial
point sources and municipal POTW problems. Therefore, the pilot will test the
Community Team approach in a defined tributary watershed of manageable size
with a good mix of land uses and pollution problems. Lessons learned from this
pilot will be applied to the larger watershed in subsequent years of the project.
DEP's successful experience with technical assistance at one of its largest
pulp and paper mills. International Paper, located along the upper reaches of the
Androscoggin in Jay, ME, encouraged them to propose a similar approach to other
10
-------
paper mills in the basin for this project. The technical assistance involved asoects
tlhn^fl pCtlPn,3nd otherPollutlon Prevention and environmental management
mi» h»H • 3 K,"9 time' IP and DEP*ad * verv adversarial relationshipfThe
mill had major problems with chlorine releases, as weir as with discharges of
ammonia, phosphates and high BOD. Two years ago, in the process of re
aSantin9tthf,NTDES PeKmlt' DEP SU"eSted that IP ^nrtto^rece^ng ichnicai
assistance to help locate the source of their problems and address them in a more
pro-active and cooperative way. A multi-media pollution prevention guidance
was organized consisting of both mill operators and DEP technical
f?0m0ni7nnnh?HNPPES J*6"1* neS°tia Be^ause thf Androscoggin Project is a watershed-based approach
there are opportunity for considerable cross-program activities-for example the
municipal pollut.on prevention project element will include education and
.mplementatidn help for household hazardous waste collection activities. Also th^
industrial pollution prevention element will consist of multimedia P2 teams lookinq
for source reduction opportunities at industrial facilities along the river Maine's
Po ution Prevention Coordinator, Ron Dyer, who is in the Commissioner's Office
^L~ responsible *>r coordinating air, water and land program involvement In 111
coofdLtCfn ir^ °fKthe Androscd99in Pr°le«. Funds for this multi-media
coordination effort are being provided through a PPIS grant from Region 1
Perhaps the greatest benefit of the project is the opportunity to involve a wide
range of local agencies, citizens, industry, municipalities, as well as the media
program offices at DEP in a single, unified goal of comprehensively addressing
pollufon problems ,n a high priority target area-the Androscoggin River Basin If
this approach works, DEP hopes it could serve as a model for the other watersheds
in iviainG. ' • < •' ' .
11
-------
DISINVESTMENTS
For most of the grant programs supporting the Androscoggin Project,
disinvestments was not a major issue. The concept of geographic targeting simply
means that more resources will be placed in this particular basin, however, this
does not mean that other areas will get no inspection or compliance attention. In
the 106 program, for example, 45 reconnaissance level inspections (3560s) wiil be
substituted for 45 comprehensive inspections (CSIs or CEIs) in FY 94. The CSIs
and CEIs will be performed only at those facilities in the state with significant
operational and compliance problems as determined by DEP staff. The monitoring
needs of the Androscoggin basin will receive first priority. Limited assistance will
be available elsewhere for significant problems. Also, groundwater eduction will
be focused in the Androscoggin basin. Another resource shift will occur under the
UIC program. Previously, the UIC effort consisted of state-wide inspections of
floor drains; for FY 94 that will be done on a regional basis--i.e., in the
Androscoggin.
The most discussion occurred with respect to the 319 (IMPS) grant program.
Because what was being proposed in the Community Management Team approach
involved elements of eduction and outreach, some staff at Region 1 felt the funds
could not legally be used since 319 funds are congressionally mandated for
Implementation activities. However, after considerable discussion, it was
demonstrated that because the Community Teams would be tasked to work on
specific NPS problems, identified through the TQM approaches they learned in
training and workshops, then there was a nexus between the education and
Implementation areas and funds could indeed be used. The negotiation process
can become so drawn out at times that it becomes difficult to get grant
commitments completed. But it is also recognized that the first year of any new or,
innovative use of traditional base grant monies can be the most trying and that
negotiations in subsequent years should not be as difficult.
CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Ron Dyer, Pollution Prevention Coordinator, Commissioner's Office
ME Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
207-287-4152
Mark Mahoney, Pollution Prevention Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 1
.617-565-1155
12
-------
B. MASSACHUSETTS
'' ''*&
EPA REGION: 1
/ ' - ' , - . ' • ' , ''
TITLE OF PROJECT: WASTE PREVENTION FIRST
TYPE OF PROJECT: FOCUSES STATE/FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
ON HIGHEST SOURCES OF POLLUTION & WHOLE-FACILITY
P2 APPROACH .
PROJECT GOAL: SOURCE REDUCTION TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE
MEDIA GRANTS SUPPORTING PROJECT:
- RCRA 3011
CAA 105
CWA 106
ABSTRACT: Massachusetts' Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has adopted
a whole-facility pollution prevention approach to much of its compliance and
enforcement activities. In both FY93 and FY94, DEP and Region I agreed to
negotiate grant outputs for air, water and waste as a single
compliance/enforcement package, although grant outputs are still linked to
single media programs. The Region and state are currently trying to develop
and field-test a multimedia inspection protocol which might be able to meet
media program inspection requirements. Benefits of the project include: (1)
Promoting pollution prevention through whole-facility approach; (2) Avoiding
the push towards control solutions for compliance problems; (3)
Efficiencies gained from a multimedia approach; 4) Clear definition of
compliance roles in inspection protocol; and 5) Inspections of more facilities.
BACKGROUND
Under the FY94 core media grant agreements between Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and EPA Region I, Massachusetts
and the Region are continuing and expanding a process to support innovative state
multimedia pollution prevention initiatives in compliance and enforcement. Some
of these initiatives are already included in the FY94 agreements, while others are
under active consideration for grant amendments. DEP calls its program "Waste
Prevention FIRST" (Facility Wide Inspections to Reduce the Sources of Toxics).
Region I is supporting the initiatives under grants for air, water and waste.
Support for innovative pollution prevention measures under the FY93 core
'. 13 '• . • '• , -" ,
-------
media grant agreements was an outcome both of major program restructurino hv
R\oioannd, ac*w son~.<* Po"ution prevention initiative's u'nder S5TSS2 by
Region I. Region I's Regional Administrator first requested proposals from the
states for mnovat.ve pollution prevention activities under the core grams during a
strategic plannmg meeting with the state commissioners in June 1992 In
accordance w,th the state's 1989 Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA)
Massachusetts DEP has established an organizational framework for exam™ a I
of its act.vrt.es ,n order to promote toxics use reduction and pollution prevention.
R.anJon19f-8' °EP lau"?hued • P|lot Pr°iect targeted on platers in the upper
B ackstone River area which combined multimedia inspections with referrals of
violating facilities to the state's non-regulatory Office of Technical Assistance
(OTA) for recommendations on pollution prevention opportunities at the facility
The object.ves were to focus inspections on the whole facility, rather than separate
media releases, and to encourage pollution prevention as the preferred mode of
compliance.
*hio Jnn»l991;hMaSSaChUSettS W°n a Ford Foundation grant under which it was
able to plan a three-year process of implementing the Blackstone model statewide
It is now standard practice in all state regions, for the initial compliance inspections
of manufacturing or industrial facilities to be facility-wide Such insoectons
include all relevant compliance inspections, while additionally screening for
unregistered waste streams in all regulated media. Inspectors provide some
technology transfer during inspections and in follow-up correspondence, and they
of Technical Assistance {OTA) and the Toxics u-
annr Jl FebHrU8ry, ^ ?EP reor9anized in 9««er to support the facility-wide
approach and to facilitate integrating a prevention bias into regulatory activities
The new organization structure includes an Office of Program Integration (OPI) in
headquarters at the same organizational level as the media divisions OPI is
responsible for integrating .media policies and programs around pollution prevention
ln the re9ions' staff has been reorsanized
Following the Regional Administrator's request to the states in June 1992
the Region began a senior management cross-program planning process on how to
build pollution prevention into media grants. A subsequent letter from the Regional
Administrator to the states in October 1992 requested proposals from the states
by mid-November for innovative pollution prevention projects to be carried out
under the media grants. Different EPA Regional division directors were assigned
the lead in negotiating the agreements with each state.
Because Massachusetts already had substantial experience in implementing
14
-------
pollution ^prevention regulatory initiatives due to the Blackstone project and the
planning for statewide implementation, it was able to respond q^cklyTo Repton I's
meT/Lnt'f^0831- "*" ** ? r^**<^^™™rt. in terms^ndard
media grant agreements, complex multimedia approach. J>iangara
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
n0™/*0r b°th the FY^3 and FY94 "*«» Oranta. DEP and EPA Region I agreed to
negotiate grant outputs from air, water and waste as a senate
compliance/enforcement package. Basically, this involved negotiating a sinqle
grant "statement" for compliance & enforcement/which was Included ascart £
each of the individual grants. However, all grant outputs are still linked to sinoje
media programs, and are reported as such. s«ngie
Areas in which the Region I has provided increased flexibilitv to
Massachusetts include both the types of inspections for which credi Is povideS
and the mechan.srp for Regional review arid comment. In FY93, Region I agreed to
>tated,scret.onary" inspections. This involved exchanging some
the EPA pnonty lists for facilities the state determined would be
for inspections. The state had media-specific criteria
air, for example, the state wanted to focus on small sources
because Massachusetts was a rionattainment area for ozone- in th
program, DEP prioritized facilities identified as large quantity Generator*
but not as nprmittoH e«,,r~es of air anH «,ot«r r«i ^Ud"V*V generators »v.vxusj,
.es or air and water releases (although, because of the
priority RCRA facilities in the state, this required no
RCRA facilities).
Iso agreed that 10% of the state discretionary inspections
t were not on any of the media inspection lists. Credit
however, in those instances> where unregistered
°UtPUtS are*Sti" SpeCific f°r each grant, however, the state must meet
qU'reme,ntS f°r 6aCh °f the media" To he|P Massachusetts meet to
h e9|OI?a .onagers have pushed towards what they believe to be the
, flexibility. An example of the type of flexibility involved is that unde?
the 1
water grant, the goal is inspection of 100% of major permitted
last year Region.) allowed Massachusetts to change its inspectioV i
±Cnn^th%nrbHeL0f tar9eted maj°rs t0 85%' and also avowed changes the
proportions of the different types of inspections.
Under the agreement, compliance managers in Region I meet quarterly with
state representatives. Region I has agreed to coordinate review and comments by
15
-------
I^!169-0"!! media pr°9rams on DEP/S multimedia compliance/enforcement
actions, m that comments go into a single letter. For reporting pUraSaSTS
nsoections are treated a« einnia.m^:., u M poses, me
inspections are treated as single-media.
The FY94 grant agreements have already been completed, and include the
basic conceptual structure (national priority and state discretionary elements!
comrrate£t V^K^3 a9reements' ln additjon< DEP and the Regto* devT.opS
compliance tests based on past performance and records) that made it possible to
postpone inspection of some facilities included under national priorities- those
facihties must be inspected next year. The state will also receive credit?S 1\QO%
of incidental inspections -- multimedia inspections at facilities targeted under one
media program which, while regulated under another media program, were not
targeted under that program during this fiscal year.
whinh B°-hJh! ,State 3nd Re9i°n' however' are sti» exploring further measures
which might help to mst.tut.onalize and expand the Massachusetts approach -
either as supplements to the FY94 grant agreements, or under the FY95 arant
agreements. These additional measures include a multimedia inspection protocol
allocate formulas for multimedia inspection costs, and new tracking and reporting
Two Region I/DEP interagency workgroups began work on the protocol and
reporting issues in June 1993. Workgroup members committed to one day everv
other week for workgroup meetings and one day every other week for work related
to the projects through December 15th - an overall six-month 20% time
commitment for each of the approximately three dozen predominantly senior field
stair involved.
Multimedia Inspection Protocol:
The multimedia inspection protocol workgroup is attempting to develop an
inspection protocol for a multimedia inspection (the Waste Reduction FIRST
inspections referred to previously) which will both meet the minimum
requirements of an inspection under the media-specific programs and serve
to identify source reduction opportunities at the facility. In addition the
workgroup is looking for opportunities to streamline inspections, focusing on
the most environmentally critical factors at a facility. DEP plans to pilot the
protocol in the spring of 1994 for full-scale implementation in FY95.
By late November, the workgroup had developed a proposal that included
three types of inspections:
a comprehensive compliance review of all aspects of a facility's
operations;
16
-------
an inspection providing detailed review of activities which could cause
significant risk to the public, and gathering information on source
reduction opportunities; ''-" '•
> . • - ' - . >
.--,.• a screening inspection for major environmental problems or obvious
non-compliance.
While there was no consensus on what constituted 'significant risk/ the
workgroup was charged to spell out a protocol for the second type of
inspection in some detail.' Further, one major purpose of the workgroups
was to make sure all national guidance was considered in the protocol. EPA
review is still necessary to determine whether the draft protocol is adequate
for inspection requirements under all media prograrns, so that multimedia
inspections conducted with the protocol could count under each grant. DEP
will run a pilot of the protocol at 30-50 facilities under the FY94 grant. If
the protocol is approved, the state plans to move to full-scale
implementation in FY95.
Reporting:
One of the problems DEP identified with respect to FIRST inspections was
the need to disaggregate information for reporting to each of the EPA media-
specific compliance data systems, as well as to the Massachusetts Facility
Master File (FMF) system, which aggregates data on a facility-by-facility
basis. DEP believed the reporting burden on inspectors was both heavy and
inefficient. The purpose of the second workgroup was to identify minimum
reporting requirements which would meet federal data needs, as well as
more efficient methods for transfer of information from inspections.
BENEFITS
There are several types of benefits related to the grant flexibility initiatives
being undertaken or reviewed between Region I and Massachusetts. Basically,,
they are ;all related to providing greater scope for the pollution prevention program
innovations which have been initiated in Massachusetts:
(1) Promoting pollution prevention through whole-facility approach:
The multimedia compliance/enforcement approach in general, and potentially
the proposed inspection protocol in particular, force inspectors to consider
the facility as a whole, and to consider it as a production unit rather than as
a set of discrete media releases. As a result, some of the best enforcement
actions are coming from field people, who are now asked to give
''•: ' , -17 .-''•''.'•'<'• -•••'".
-------
. consideration to how cases could be settled and to identify possible source
reduction or other solutions.
(
(2) Avoid push towards control solutions for compliance problems:
Two changes have occurred as the result of training of inspection and
enforcement personnel in a multimedia pollution prevention approach. First,
compliance personnel are now more likely to tell a facility to hire a state-
certified Toxics Use Reduction Planner than to hire a pollution control
engineer to recommend solutions to compliance problems. Second,
inspectors are more likely to incorporate specific pollution prevention
recommendations into compliance reports, and state experience has shown
that companies are then more likely to contact OTA for assistance. The
overall long-term benefit of implementation of the FIRST approach is that
compliance personnel begin to think about assisting companies in developing
problem-solving abilities, rather than in terms of specifying the solution to a
compliance problem.
• '
(3) Efficiencies from the multimedia approach:
Over the long term, although not initially, the multimedia approach appears
to result in greater efficiency in compliance efforts. Analysis of the
Blackstone project indicated that there were no cost-saving efficiencies at
pilot scale - although more environmental protection could be achieved at
the same cost. After five years, however, inspections in the Blackstone area
are beginning to show cost-efficiencies at middle-sized facilities - where one
experienced inspector can see the whole range of compliance problems -
although not at extremely large, complex facilities.
(4) Clear definition of compliance roles in protocol:
As Massachusetts expanded the scope of its FIRST program beyond the
Blackstone pilot project area, some compliance staff were confused over the
relationship of compliance and technical assistance responsibilities. The
draft protocol defines the roles of compliance personnel more precisely.
(5) Inspections of more facilities:
Allowing more screening inspections, either by themselves or as part of
multimedia pollution prevention inspections, will make it possible to inspect
more industrial facilities (of which there are 11-12,000 in the state). During
the Blackstone project and subsequently, DEP inspectors found numerous
facilities with unpermitted releases. Many facilities which initiated
operations during the 1980s appear to have done so without proper
18
-------
permitting, and some of these may pose significant environmental risks.
••&•
DISINVESTMENTS
Disinvestments have included both reductions in the numbers of inspections
required at nationally-targeted facilities (as noted above with respect to the water
grant) and changes with respect to the extensiveness of the types of inspections
required. In addition, while no one has yet quantified the impact, the workgroup
process for developing the alternative protocol and reporting requirements has been
extremely resource-intensive. Many senior inspectors, for example, have been
spending 20% of their time on the process, which takes effort away from their
standard activities.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
An additional major remaining issue is financial allocations under the grants.
Typically, the grants support the work of media-specific compliance personnel
(e.g., an air inspector is supported by the 105 air grant). Under Massachusetts'
new reorganization, inspectors are not identified by media responsibilities.
Allocation of support by time sheets could be extremely cumbersome. At present,
DEP is trying to develop a system under which facilities are classified by media and
complexity. DEP is proposing that time spent by compliance personnel in working
on a compliance problem at a facility might then be allocated between grants
based on a formula related to the classification of that facility.
CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Patricia Deese Stanton, Assistant Commissioner
MA Department of Environmental Protection
617-292-5765
Mark Mahoney, Pollution Prevention Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 1
617-565-1155
19
-------
C. NEW YORK
EPA REGION: 2 ,
TITLE OF PROJECT: MULTIMEDIA POLLUTION PREVENTION (M2P2)
TYPE OF PROJECT: FOCUSES STATE/FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
ON HIGHEST SOURCES OF POLLUTION & WHOLE-FACILITY
P2 APPROACH
PROJECT GOAL: MULTIMEDIA INSPECTIONS
MEDIA GRANTS SUPPORTING PROJECT:
RCRA3011
ABSTRACT: New York has developed a multimedia pollution prevention (M2P2) program
focused on the 400 facilities with the highest environmental releases and/or
greatest environmental impacts in the state. In the first year, the M2P2
program is targeting regulatory activities on 49 facilities. Region 2's RCRA
program has supported development of FY94 workplan commitments
involving multimedia compliance inspections and enforcement activities.
Workplans for the water and air programs are on a later schedule. Full
implementation of the M2P2 program would 1) focus environmental
management resources on the major sources of pollution in New York; 2)
allow DEC/EPA to deal with whole facilities as production entities, rather
than medium by medium; 3) promote pollution prevention as the preferred
means of environmental compliance; 4) educate state and local personnel in
multimedia pollution prevention; and 5) demonstrate that pollution prevention
is a genuine .priority and encourage regulated facilities to look at the most
effective whole-facility approach to environmental objectives.
BACKGROUND
State Pollution Prevention Activities:
New York has initiated several measures both to promote pollution
prevention as the preferred approach for facilities to meet environmental objectives
and to focus available state environmental management resources on facilities
posing the greatest environmental risk. In 1990, New York's legislature passed a
law requiring the largest hazardous waste generators (more than 1,000 tons/year)
to develop hazardous waste minimization plans by 1991, with other generators
20
-------
(down to 25 tons/year) to be phased in through 1996. While the 1990 law
focused only on hazardous waste generators and waste minimization planning,
New York's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is currently
proposing regulations (draft 6 NVCRR Part 378) which would also apply pollution
prevention planning requirements to toxic releases by permitted facilities to the
other media. In addition, DEC is addressing pollution prevention planning
requirements under permit and enforcement actions.
In addition to requiring pollution prevention facility planning of the largest
generators of pollution, New York has taken additional steps to focus management
resources on the most significant polluters. For example:
o Using hazardous waste biennial report and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
data, DEC has identified approximately 400 facilities in the state responsible
for 95% of releases of pollutants to air, water and land; these "400/95"
facilities will receive priority consideration in targeting the use of DEC'S
regulatory program resources. ,
o Under New York's water program, resources have been directed away from
full review of all permit renewals under the SPDES (state pollution discharge
elimination system) program. Henceforth, renewals will be handled with
only administrative processing; .Facilities which fit into the Environmental
Benefit Permit Strategy (identified on the basis of factors such as discharge
levels of toxics, problem areas identified by the public or the state, facilities
targeted under the state multimedia program, non-compliance history) will
have their permits fully reviewed and modified as needed. DEC'S resource
analysis had shown that a large proportion of state permit review resources
was being spent on permits involving no changes and no problems. These
resources will now be available for review of permits involving environmental
priorities. EPA Region II support for this reallocation of resources is
incorporated in the September 1992 Strategic Plan of the Region's Water
Management Division.
i ' ' , ' ' - . ' _ ' -
Starting in 1993, DEC has further developed the pollution prevention and
resource reallocation efforts into a new program -- the multimedia pollution
prevention program (M2P2). This program (discussed further in the next section)
is the focus of the current round of negotiations between the state and Region II
on media grant flexibility.
Grants Negotiations: .
Negotiations between New York and EPA Region II over the media grants are
carried out program-by-program, Region ll's Policy & Program Jntegration Branch
. , •' -21 '•:••' ••.-•/•••-'
-------
has the responsibility for coordinating the process for the Region, and is also
responsible for coordinating pollution prevention issues.
Initial discussions on overall strategy are held between the New York and
EPA Regional division directors for each program. Subsequent meetings on issues
involve Regional and state branch/bureau chiefs. Issues on which agreement is not
reached are raised to the division directors. Draft workplans are subsequently
developed at the DEC bureau level in consultation with the Regional program
managers; these negotiations are thus activity-specific. Once again, outstanding
issues are raised to the division directors for resolution.
Not all of the program workplans are on the same cycle. Since New York's
fiscal year (April - March) differs from the federal fiscal year, grant and workplan
cycles do not always correspond. (The state's workplan for activities under the
106 water grant and the 105 air grant for the period April 1993 - March 1994, for
example, are partially funded by both the federal FY93 and FY94 grants. The
RCRA 3011 workplan, however, is on the federal fiscal year cycle.)
In March 1993, the Acting Regional Administrator sent a memorandum to
the Region's division directors with the new EPA pollution prevention media grant
guidance. It stated explicitly that "beginning in FY'94, Region II will view Pollution
Prevention as a criterion for media grant funding." A similar letter was sent to the
state Commissioners. The letter notes that the principles in the grant guidance on
pollution prevention "should help in drafting specific media grant programs...."
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
As a further evolution of its previous pollution prevention and risk-
management prioritizing efforts, DEC has developed a multimedia pollution
prevention (M2P2) program. DEC is working with the Region II media programs in
an effort to find ways in which the media grants can be utilized to support selected
activities under the M2P2 program. At trie same time, DEC is negotiating with
EPA headquarters and testifying in Congress on the need DEC believes exists for
greater flexibility for states to determine the environmental priorities to be funded
by the EPA core grants - including the need to institute some genuinely multimedia
basic program grants.
The M2P2 program will focus regulatory efforts on the 400/95 facilities
(discussed above). To manage the M2P2 program, New York's Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) created a Pollution Prevention Unit reporting to
the Deputy Commissioner responsible for all media divisions (replacing the former
Pollution Prevention Unit within the Hazardous Waste Division); the new unit began
to operate in April 1993. The Pollution Prevention Unit is responsible for
22
-------
coordinating the efforts of the media divisions in planning and meeting M2P2
objectives. In addition, an M2P2 Coordinator has been appointed within each
region by the Regional Directors. ? -
Under the M2P2 program (initiated for the 1993-1994 planning year), each
of DEC'S nine regions has selected at least 10% of the facilities located in the
region which appear on the 400/95 list for emphasis in the first year of the
program. Regional staff from ail media programs participated in the selection
process. The criteria (developed by DEC headquarters) included TRI and hazardous
waste generation data, applicability of pollution prevention facility planning
requirements, location of sensitive receptors, public concern,* ongoing enforcement,
compliance record and other factors. DEC plans to cover as many of the 400
facilities as possible under the M2P2 program by the year 2000.
For each of the forty-nine facilities designated, the region selects a facility
coordinator and a multimedia team. (Where appropriate, the facility coordinator
would be from the program reflecting the primary types of releases from the
facility). The teams will then design and carry out comprehensive, in-depth
multimedia inspections. DEC is developing training for inspectors so that they are
broadly educated .in the other media for which they have not previously been
responsible. Inspectors will be acquainted with pollution prevention planning
requirements so that they can review the facility plans stored on-site as part of
their inspections.
The first of the media workplans negotiated since implementation of the
M2P2 program is thie RCRA grant workplan, which took effect in October 1993.
The RCRA program has been particularly amenable to New York's pollution
prevention initiatives. Under RCRA sections 3002(b) and 3005(h), hazardous
waste generators and treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) must
certify that they have a waste minimization program in place. Region II has
accepted plans developed under the New York pollution prevention facility planning
requirement as meeting this certification. State resources allocated to ensure that
facilities are submitting the plans, and evaluating their adequacy and accuracy, are
thus treated as meeting a RCRA program requirement. In addition, the Region's
RCRA program has encouraged DEC to conduct multimedia compliance inspections
and has been agreeable to revising inspection and enforcement workplan
commitments to accommodate this effort. The FY93 DEC workplan was revised
to include limited M2P2 activities. For FY94, Region II was able to accommodate
plans for M2P2 under the RCRA grant. Of the total number of RCRA inspections
called for under the grant, for example, a specified number will be for facilities
included in New York's M2P2 program, and will require more resources than
inspections of other facilities. The grant accommodates reduced output of total
inspections to accommodate those longer M2P2 inspections.
23
-------
•IQOO worMan for the 106 water grant was not yet finalized in December
1993. Factors which could facilitate workplan agreement under the water grant
are that the M2P2 facilities include facilities considered to be of major concern by
EPA as well, and that the New York; water program has more than met minimum
levels inspections under the water grant in the past. On the other hand as
increased resources are needed to meet M2P2 objectives, resources will become
increasingly scarce to meet other water objectives under the water grant.
The current approach under each of the grants is to seek support for the
activities in the M2P2 program which relate to specific media program objectives.
People are charged to a grant in terms of their job eligibility; While it would
theoretically be possible to split everyone's time between different media-related
activities, that is not the approach currently being taken. Thus, for example, if a
facility had predominantly water problems and the inspector were from the water
program, the inspection would be allocated to the water grant. This would not,
however, preclude such a water inspector from seeing air or RCRA problems.
As in the case of the workplan for the 106 water grant, agreement has not
yet been reached on the workplan for the 105 air grant for New York's 1994 fiscal
year. EPA has included a "Multi-media Pollution Prevention" objective, however, 5n
the draft workplan, which includes some M2P2 activities; DEC has requested
substitution, where appropriate, of M2P2 inspections for inspections otherwise
mandated (e.g., of NSPS, NESHAP, PSD sources).
Currently, funding for the central coordinating role of the Pollution
Prevention Unit is not covered under the media grants. Some support is provided,
however, through an EPA PPIS {Pollution Prevention Incentives for States) grant.
BENEFITS
Providing flexibility for full impUsmentation of the M2P2 program would:
focus environmental management resources on the major sources of
pollution in New York;
allow DEC/EPA to deal with whole facilities as production entities,
rather than medium by medium;
promote pollution prevention as the preferred means of environmental
compliance;
educate state and local personnel in multimedia pollution prevention;
24
-------
demonstrate to the regulated community that pollution prevention is a
genuine priority for the regulators, and encourage regulated facilities
to look at a facility's environmental compliance requirements in terms
of the most effective whole-facility approach to environmental
objectives.
DISINVESTMENTS
While not tied to the M2P2 program, some disinvestments have been
negotiated to make possible the reallocation of resources to priority activities of the
type which make an M2P2 program feasible. Under the FY93 plan for the water
program, for example, reduction by 20% in inspection coverage of major facilities
is allowed for facilities with consistent compliance records. In addition, as noted
previously, SPDES permit renewals have been allowed without permit reviews.
Both of these disinvestments involve aspects of the types of flexibility and
reallocation of resources required to carry out the M2P2 program.
Specific disinvestments and ^allocations of resources, if necessary, will be
known after the completion of the FY94 workplans. In the initial year, need for
disinvestments may be limited by the fact that New York greatly exceeds the
required level of matching funds under the grants, and that many of the facilities
designated under the M2P2 programs are priority facilities for the different media
programs. In subsequent years, as more of the 400/95 facilities are incorporated
into the M2P2 program, with attendant increases in resource demands for those
facilities, it may become increasingly difficult to meet both the M2P2 requirements
and other media-specific program obligations.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
As increasing numbers of 400/95 facilities are, included in the M2P2
program, New York believes that the difficulties of meeting both M2P2 and EPA
media-specific grant requirements are likely to grow. Individual M2P2 inspection
and enforcement actions require more resources than single media, non-P2 actions
(although DEC expects that efficiencies from the multimedia approach should
develop at some point). One current M2P2 enforcement case, for example, is
expected to consume substantial numbers of FTEs and several years to bring to
completion. Additional sources will continue to be included in the program until
the year 2000, by which time it is planned that as many of the 400 facilities as
possible will be covered.
New York views the media grant guidance from headquarters - particularly
in air - as becoming increasingly specific and detailed, thus narrowing the realm of
eligible activities under the grant and making an M2P2 approach more difficult to
support.
. " ! 25 ' -' ' : .••• .''
-------
CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION
John lanotti, Director, Pollution Prevention Unit
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation
518-457-7267
Janet Sapadin, Pollution Prevention Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 2
212-264-1925
26
-------
D. OHIO
EPA REGION: 5
TYPE OF PROJECT: MULTIMEDIA POLLUTION PREVENTION SUPPORT FOR RCRA
i : • FACILITIES; COMPREHENSIVE POLLUTION PREVENTION
PLANNING
PROJECT GOAL: POLLUTION PREVENTION INTEGRATION
MEDIA GRANTS SUPPORTING PROJECTS:
RCRA 3011
- CWA 104(b)(3)
ABSTRACT: Ohio has utilized RCRA grant funds from the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) -
targeted to regulatory activities involving RCRA facilities in the Great Lakes
drainage basin -'to support the state's Office of Pollution Prevention.
Activities under the grant have included development (in FY93) and
implementation (beginning in FY94) of a statewide multimedia pollution
prevention strategy, providing on-site pollution prevention technical
assistance for RCRA generators, and development of industry-specific
pollution prevention fact sheets. The principal benefits of support for
pollution prevention under the RCRA 3011 grant have been: 1) initiation of
pollution prevention activities under the RCRA grant; 2) development of an
overall long-term pollution prevention strategy for the entire state involving
all divisions of Ohio EPA; and 3) support for the staff of OPP.
BACKGROUND
Ohio has two state requirements for generators and treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) which specifically promote waste minimization. The first
requires generators using commercial TSDFs for disposal of more than 200 tons
per year of hazardous waste to complete a Waste Management Alternative Plan
(WMAP). The WMAP must consider current and potential waste minimization
efforts. The second requires Class I underground injection control (UIC) wells for
hazardous and other wastes to develop a waste minimization and treatment plan,
with the first plan due in May 1994.
Ohio EPA has used RCRA funds for waste minimization since FY91. Waste
minimization activities have been the responsibility of the Pollution Prevention
Section within the Division of Hazardous Waste Management. In July 1993, Ohio
EPA created a free-standing Office of Pollution Prevention (OPP) outside of the
Division of Hazardous Waste Management; OPP is the current locus of waste
• - ' ,'• - 27 ••.'•• • -'. •'• ' '. . '- •
-------
minimization and pollution prevention activities. OPP continues to have a close
relationship with the Division of Hazardous Waste Management, and accesses
RCRA funds through an agreement with the Division.
While some support for waste minimization and pollution prevention under
the 3011 grant for FY93 resulted from EPA's RIP-Flex guidance (allowing re-
allocation of up to 25% of resources to meet state or Regional priorities) the
principal support from the 3011 grant has come from the RCRA Great Lakes
Initiative (GLI) - the RCRA component of an EPA effort to place special effort and
resources into cleaning up the Great Lakes. Under the RCRA GLI component
special efforts are to be targeted on RCRA facilities in the Great Lakes drainage
basin (defined specifically in terms of zip codes). GLI began in FY92, and provided
funding for additional RCRA-related activities to protect the Lake Erie basin While
the activities required some tie to RCRA facilities, Region 5 and Ohio EPA agreed
that reviewing RCRA facilities from a multimedia pollution prevention perspective
was an appropriate use of the funds. The Great Lakes Initiative is one component
of the 3011 grant, comprising about 5% of the total RCRA program cost for Ohio.
Region 5 held a meeting of staff responsible for grants management after
headquarters issued the pollution prevention grant guidance, and the Deputy
Regional Administrator sent a letter supporting inclusion of pollution prevention in
the individual grants. Both of these actions, however, came late in the process of
workplan development for FY94 grants.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
There are several components to the pollution prevention initiatives under
the 3011 grant. Starting in FY92 and continuing in FY93, using both RIP-Flex and
the Great Lakes Initiative funds, inspectors carried out approximately 70 visits to
generators in which a review of compliance was combined with a waste
minimization or multimedia pollution prevention emphasis, and an effort to promote
pollution prevention-oriented responses by the generators. Pollution Prevention
Section staff participated in some of these inspections, both to provide pollution
prevention training to Division staff and to talk to generators about the
opportunities and benefits of pollution prevention as a preferred means for
achieving compliance. This effort is continuing in FY94.
The activities of the Pollution Prevention Section were directly supported by
the Great Lakes Initiative portion of 3011 in FY93, and those of OPP will continue
to be supported in FY94. In FY93, the grant directly supported 7.25 staff in the
Section; in FY94, five staff of OPP are funded. In addition to the 3011 grant, Ohio
EPA is receiving support for pollution prevention activities of the Division of Water
Pollution Control in FY94 under the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 104(b)(3)
28
-------
grant.
Under the Great Lakes Initiative, the Pollution Prevention Section -(later OPP)
carried out several activities in FY93. While these activities are specifically
applicable for the Great Lakes basin, they are also more generally applicable
throughout Ohio:
o Coordinated Ohio EPA's development of a multimedia Pollution Prevention
Strategy involving all of the Agency's divisions. While developed under the
grant for the Lake Erie basin, the plan is basically applicable to the entire
state, and focuses on measures to integrate pollution prevention into all of
Ohio EPA's regulatory and non-regulatory activities.
f •..-(' . . '
o Provided pollution prevention technical assistance to, and prepared reports
for, five facilities in the Lake Erie basin. ,
"**.-> ' ' ' • .
o Developed a guidance manual for waste minimization planning for RCRA
TSD facilities required to develop plans under their Part B permits, and
developed guidance for Class I UIC wells on how to develop the waste
minimization and treatment plans required by May 1994.
o Developed ten waste minimization/pollution prevention fact sheets focused
on the needs of small and medium-sized businesses, including five on
pollution prevention technical alternatives and others on general or legal
pollution prevention topics.
o Identified policy, regulatory and statutory barriers to waste
minimization/pollution prevention.
o Reviewed the use of waste minimization and pollution prevention in Ohio
EPA's enforcement settlements, and prepared a report on related
enforcement policy issues.
o Studied lab waste in the Lake Erie basin, as a precursor to developing and
distributing information on pollution prevention for lab wastes.
For FY94, the 3011 grant workplan includes the following activities, which
are being carried out by OPP under agreement with the Division of Hazardous
Waste Management:
o Revision and implementation of the Pollution Prevention Strategy (e.g.,
provide support for implementation of a pollution prevention-oriented
enforcement strategy).
29
-------
o Provision of pollution prevention/waste minimization technical assistance at
four additional RCRA facilities in the Lake Erie basin, and development of
case studies.
o Using the pollution prevention/waste minimization planning guidance manual
developed under the FY93 grant, provision by OPP of pollution prevention
technical assistance to at least twelve TSD facilities required to develop
plans either as a result of the UIC Class I facility planning requirement or as
a condition of a Part B permit.
o Preparation of an additional five pollution prevention fact sheets.
Under the CWA 104(b)(3) grant, Ohio EPA's Division of Water Pollution
Control has obtained support for a two-year project to work in partnership with a
POTW to promote pollution prevention studies and implementation by industrial
dischargers - particularly those that discharge to combined sewer overflows
(CSOs). The program will run from October 1993 to September 1995 at a total
cost of about $150,000, 80% of which will be funded under the grant. The grant
funding will be passed through to the POTW, which will work with five to ten
facilities on identification and implementation of pollution prevention opportunities.
Subsequent monitoring will help to determine the effectiveness of these pollution
prevention measures in reducing the environmental impacts of the CSOs.
BENEFITS
The principal benefits of support for pollution prevention under the RCRA
3011 grant have been:
o
o
initiation of pollution prevention activities under the RCRA grant;
development of an overall long-term pollution prevention strategy for the
entire state involving all divisions of Ohio EPA; and
support for the staff of OPP.
DISINVESTMENTS
Because the Great Lakes Initiative provided supplementary funds under the
RCRA 3011 grant, disinvestments were not required to meet the pollution
prevention goals established under the FY92-FY94 grants. Whether disinvestment
will be needed under future grants depends both on the extent of the changes
proposed and the continuation and funding level of the Great Lakes Initiative.
30
-------
Similarly, the pollution prevention initiatives under the CWA 104(b)(3) grant
require no disinvestment from other water program activities or requirements.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Because the GLI funding is a special initiative under the RCRA grant, there is
concern about continuity-for the pollution prevention initiatives undertaken under
the grant.
CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Michael Kelly, Chief, Office of Pollution Prevention
Ohio EPA
614-644-2980
Cathy Allen, Pollution Prevention Coordinator ,
U.S. EPA Region 5
312-353-3387
31
-------
E. ALASKA
EPA REGION: 10 .. '
TJTLE OF PROJECT: ALASKA DEC SET-ASIDE INITIATIVE
TYPE OF PROJECT: REDIRECTS 3-5% OF CORE GRANTS TO SUPPORT DEC'S
POLLUTION PREVENTION OFFICE wrum DECS
PROJECT GOAL: POLLUTION PREVENTION INTEGRATION
MEDIA GRANTS SUPPORTING PROJECT: ACROSS ALL MEDIA
RCRA
SDWA
CWA 106 (wastewater)
CWA 106 (groundwater)
. - CWA Title VI (WQ Standards)
CWA319(NPS)
- Pesticides
UST
CAA 105
FC/0 (205g)
ABSTRACT: Alaska and Region 10 have reached an agreement under which a percentage
of funds from media grants are set aside to support pollution prevention
activities by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC,
5%mof U °U9h DECy°llution Prevention Office. Under the agreement;
Jyfe pf the core grant funds were redirected in FY93 and 4% FY94- the
amount will increase to 5% in FY95. The Pollution Prevention Office uses
the media grant support to provide and coordinate multimedia pollution
prevention activities within DEC and throughout the state. Within DEC
fn^nStL T lrClUded coprdination of Pollution prevention planning,'
integration of pollution prevention into DEC activities and training of DEC
employees. The Pollution Prevention Office is also involved in building
pollution prevent.on partnerships with local agencies, non-profits and
businesses and providing pollution prevention technical support to
busmesses and communities. Benefits of the set-aside with respect to
program mtegration are that it will: 1) advance the pollution prevention
policy framework necessary to make true integration a reality; 2) increase
Sn 8" kn°w'ed9ue am°ng ADEC emP'°yees about pollution prevention
technologies and techniques; and 3) incorporate pollution prevention into
selected act.v,t.es~e.g., permits, inspections/enforcement, etc.-in order to
stimulate single media and cross program understanding of the role of
pollution prevention in environmental protection.
32
-------
BACKGROUND .
• "jr., • , '' '.... ••&£ " '
In 1992, EPA Region 10 and the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) entered into a three-year agreement to redirect a percentage of
the total eligible federal media grant and state matching dollars to support DEC'S
Pollution Prevention Office. Starting in FY 93, 3% of the core grant funds were
redirected, increasing to 4% in FY 94, with another increase to 5% intended for FY
95. The concept of set-aside media grant support was first brought to the
attention of Region 10 in, 1991 during the FY 92 State/EPA Agreement (SEA)
process. Although Region 10 supported the set-aside concept, funding was not
provided for FY 92. Funding for start up of Alaska's Pollution Prevention Office
had been via EPA competitive grants. It was the recipient of one of the first grants
under EPA's Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance (SRRTA) grant
program in 1989. These funds helped build DEC'S pollution prevention program
which included cooperative technical assistance activities conducted in association
with the Alaska Health Project, a private nonprofit group. One aspect of the
SRRTA grant award was a requirement that DEC identify methods for sustaining
the pollution prevention program beyond expiration of SRRTA support. Another
motivating factor in seeking media grant set-aside support was the. Office's interest
and determination to integrate pollution prevention into all DEC offices and
activities. «
During the FY 93 SEA process, the proposal surfaced again. This time top
management within both EPA and DEC pushed for the initiative and, after
considerable discussion and negotiation, the funding re-direction was approved.
Several factors helped bring this about, but the principal ones were:
o Sustained management support at both EPA and DEC
o Program-level champions of the initiative, again at both EPA and DEC
o A unified vision for DEC-wide pollution prevention integration
o Demonstrated need for resources to keep the PRO operating
While there was a core group of management and program-level supporters,
there were also some media program staff and managers at both EPA and the state
who resisted the initiative. Negotiations on the first (FY 93) set-aside workplan
were; most challenging because a number of individual media programs that
contributed funds wanted specific media-focused deliverables that did not foster
the goal of the set-aside concept to build a core multi-media, integrated pollution
prevention effort. A compromise was reached between the needs of the various
media programs and the broader goals of the PRO. The workplan negotiation
•-•;•-. • 33 ; '" ' .
-------
process for FY 94 improved with better internal (DEC-wide) review and discussion
yvhich allowed for a more centralized and focused presentation on deliverables to
Region 10. The negotiation process is time-consuming because of the large
number of specific grants-about a dozen media base grants are currently being
tapped for the set-aside.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Alaska Set-Aside Initiative seeks to advance pollution prevention on two
main fronts: 1) as a core part of the missions of the various media programs (i.e.,
integrating pollution prevention into the regular activities and responsibilities of all'
of the DEC media offices); and 2) through the services of a streamlined Pollution
Prevention Office whose mission is to:
o Promote and coordinate pollution prevention activity within the state
(with a focus toward continuing a strong history of success in building
pollution prevention partnerships with local agencies, nonprofits and
businesses). .
o Provide technical support to DEC employees, businesses and the
general public, as well as continued direct technical assistance to
communities and industry.
o Help coordinate the integration of pollution prevention into all DEC
programs.
The goal of the set-aside agreement between EPA and the state is to move
DEC'S pollution prevention efforts beyond a project-based program and to provide a
relatively stable source of funding for the broad, cross-cutting activities that PPO
will now be responsible for in terms of program integration and community
outreach. A large measure of EPA's "buy-in" to the agreement was EPA's
recognition that Alaska has,an outstanding record in pollution prevention, with a
history of many innovative and effective prevention concepts and projects. This
three-year re-direction of a small fraction of media grant funds was deemed a good
investment, considering the Office's track record. The set-aside grant funding will
provide the needed resources and time for PPO to become an integral and
important part of DEC'S overall pollution prevention mission. It will also support
the Office's effort to have a stable source of funding to fulfill their role as a core
program. In some ways, therefore, the set-aside process itself is as important as
the specific pollution prevention deliverables that are called for in the yearly
workplans.
During FY 93, the following positive results were seen:
34
-------
o Creation of a Pollution Prevention Policy Council, chaired by the
Deputy. Commissioner to advance policies for incorporating pollution
prevention into primary department functions such as enforcement
and inspections. '
o Establishment of a department-wide Pollution Prevention Steering
Committee to formulate a pollution prevention "skeletal" plan for the
department, identify targets for pollution prevention initiatives, and
develop a mission for the Pollution Prevention Office.
o Commitment from the state of Alaska to cdntinue funding DEC'S
pollution prevention activities-this state "piggyback" money would
have been withheld in the absence of EPA's set-aside support.1
o Development of a protocol to tack and assess department efforts to
integrate pollution prevention within its programmatic functions-both
internally and externally.
o Establishment of ADEC regional office pollution prevention staff and
activities via the distribution of resource, i.e., dedicated funds to
support pollution prevention staff at each of three main regional
offices (1/2 FTE/office by FY 95).
o Creation of a functioning Pollution Prevention Office2 to coordinate
pollution prevention integration efforts and to assist with
implementation of pollution prevention activities at the field staff level.
Goals for FY 94 and FY 95 include the following:
o Continued development and expansion of the role of the Pollution
Prevention Policy Council in program integration, including
development of a policy on inspections and enforcement settlements,
as well as on utilization of the General Management Order on pollution
prevention. A series of training meetings will be held to educate
1 As with many states, Alaska has pressing financial problems. Shortfalls in DEC's operating
budget have been experienced for the last few years. Activities such as pollution prevention are often seen as
"expendable." EPA's financial commitment was central to convincing the state to continue some base funding for
thePPO. /
2 Formerly housed within a media division (Hazardous and Solid Waste Section), the Pollution
Prevention Office has now been moved up to the Director's Office of Environmental Quality which oversees all
program activities.
•: . • - - . '' '. ' 35 ' ' . •;
-------
department managers and staff about these policy goals and
objectives and to enlist their input on implementation.
Development of a department-wide targeting effort that will identify
where best to emphasize pollution prevention within media proaram
act.vit.es; targeting will look at multi-media, pollutant-specific cross-
cutting activities. ••'.»• "aj»
Exploration of opportunities for incorporating pollution prevention into
department permits and fostering cross program coordination.
Increased collaboration and coordination across programs via training
education and the use of centralized pollution prevention resources in
the PPO. Implementation of a water pollution prevention partnership
involving the department's water programs and communities in the
Yukon area of the state.
Push towards more multi-media, multi-grant, deliverables for FY 95 to
avoid the fractured media-specific deliverable approach in earlier
workplans.
BENEFITS
As stated before, it seems that the process itself is as important as anv
pollution prevention product or deliverable that may arise out of the set-aside
effort. This was a new initiative, with no models or precedents. Policies and
procedures had to be developed in-process, so to speak. But it has been a
tremendous opportunity to get management and. staff focused on the issue of how
to provide continuing, sustainable polfution prevention support. Especially in the
area of integration, the state of Alaska and EPA have made important steps toward
addressing some of the obstacles for pollution prevention integration. The set-
aside should be viewed not only for its program-oriented results, but also in its
own right for:
1. the policy dialogue it is generating about pollution prevention
2. the tough questions that it is raising about disinvestments
3. the types of obstacles and opportunities that it is uncovering
regarding pollution prevention integration
4. the role it is playing in applying these policy discussions in a real
world setting
36
-------
For many small state pollution prevention programs that got their start via
EPA competitive grants such as SRRTA and PPIS, the issue of sustained funding is
very important. Once the seed money is ^gone—what happens to the program?
Either it maintains itself via traditional state budgetary means, gets absorbed
somehow into one or more media programs, or dies. No one in Region 10 or the
state of Alaska was willing to accept the latter alternative. Flexible use of media
grants was the answer to allow DEC'S pollution prevention program the
opportunity, time and resources to make that difficult transition from a short-lived,
competitive grant-based program to one which is an integral and indispensable part
of the way Alaska's environmental protection programs do business.
The main benefits of the department-wide pollution prevention integration
effort will be to:
. - )' - , • -
o advance the pollution prevention policy framework necessary to make
true integration a reality;
o increase training and knowledge among department employees about
pollution prevention technologies and techniques; and
o incorporate pollution prevention into selected department activities-
e.g., permits, on a pilot basis, or inspections/enforcement-in order to
stimulate single media and cross program understanding of the role of
pollution prevention in environmental protection.
In addition, the set-aside initiative helps EPA to meet its own strategic goals
with respect to fostering pollution prevention in the states.
DISINVESTMENTS
Specific information on disinvestments which may have occurred under each
of the 10 or so media grants contributing funds to the set-aside initiative was
difficult to obtain. Because of the small fraction of funds involved (3% in the first
year), it was expected that the impact of the pollution prevention re-direction
would be minimal with respect to core activities. No program office felt strongly
that they couldn't dp essentially all of their program efforts, even with the
redirection on funds. Essentially, they felt they would simply "absorb" the loss.
Some internal flexibility was available because of different time schedules for
different grant products. In a few cases, programs may .have "bumped the
schedule" for some inspections (e.g., facilities usually visited annually now slated
for a biennial inspection). Perhaps the most concrete examples came from the
Drinking Water Office where fewer sanitary surveys were done. Also, SOW A grant
money which was originally targeted to lead and copper public education and to
'--..• 37 ' • " ' • .
-------
support National Drinking Water Week went instead to an innovative rural water
supply community education effort coordinated by the Pollution Prevention Office.
Much of rural Alaska still gets its drinking water from fairly primitive sources (e.g.,
hand carried from untreated, hand-dug wells). This community-based outreach
effort worked toward creating greater public understanding about the relationship
between certain sanitary and domestic activities and the resultant water quality of
nearby impacted drinking water sources. In this way, a more holistic watershed
approach was pursued.
Another method of "deflection" was to pass on some of the normal pollution
prevention-type activities done under the grant to the Pollution Prevention Office.
In that way, the activity did occur (there was no functional disinvestment), but not
under the direction of that particular program office. An example of this was an
effort called "The Year of the Car." Each office contributed a share of monies
(through the set-aside process) towards this educational and outreach effort
coordinated by the Pollution Prevention Office. "The Year of the Car" successfully
demonstrated the various multi-media pollution ramifications of the automobile,
from raw materials to emissions to lifestyle changes and implications. Posters and
materials were distributed at all Department of Motor Vehicle offices statewide.
The program offices got a lot of good feedback on the effort and they realized that
they could not have done such an integrated, cross-media effort alone.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Re-directing a portion of each of the major media grants toward pollution
prevention can be a double edged sword-while it is hoped that Alaska's set-aside
initiative will help facilitate integration of pollution prevention concepts and
practices into the everyday workings of the individual media offices, there is also
the danger that those same media offices will view the transfer of "their" funds to
a separate PPO as actually moving pollution prevention out of their reach. It's like
the old phrase, "I gave at the office." There may be little incentive for the media
programs to come up with their own pollution prevention integration efforts if they
think the someone else is doing that work for them. The Pollution Prevention
Policy Council, therefore, plays a critical role-allowing the media offices to remain
stakeholders in the process.
Another issue is what happens after FY 95? In the FY95 workplan for the
SEA, EPA and the state agreed they would work together to create a plan for
addressing the set-aside beyond FY95. While new PPIS grants may help to
maintain the Pollution Prevention Office and some of the integrgtion efforts
underway, this level of activity would be difficult to achieve without the set-aside
base grant flexing.
38
-------
CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION
David Wigglesworth, Pollution Prevention Office
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
907-273-4303
Carolyn Gangmark, Pollution Prevention Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 10
206-553-4973
39
-------
F. OTHER STATES
California
The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) will carry out
several activities under the CAA 105 grant:
Compile available information on pollution prevention opportunities
and approaches for industrial categories similar to those in the
County; the APCD will co-sponsor a pollution prevention workshop to
disseminate this information, as well as distributing it to sources
during annual compliance inspections.
Prepare an energy conservation plan for inclusion in the 1994 Air
Quality Management Plan.
Provide information and assistance to small companies interested in
voluntarily reducing the number of employee car trips (since a state
law bars mandatory APCD action with respect to companies of fewer
than 100 employees).
Connecticut
Connecticut is targeting the state's major overall and media-specific
emitters, identified through 1991 TRI data specific sites for both inspections
and pollution prevention assistance. The focus is on working with
companies to achieve reductions in generation of pollutants and in use of
toxic chemicals; among the objectives is incorporation of waste reduction
measures in permits. Connecticut's program includes activities by the Air,
Water and Waste Bureaus. Support for the program is being provided under
the CAA 105 grant, the CWA 106 grant and the RCRA 3011 grant, and
involves some disinvestment in base inspection and enforcement activities.
In addition, Connecticut will be re-targeting some pesticide inspections under
its FIFRA grant to large lawn care companies; the inspections will include
evaluation of pollution prevention opportunities, particularly with respect to
rinsate and wash water collection systems.
40
-------
Florida
Florida's pollution prevention program is receiving support under the Gulf of
Mexico component of the RCRA 3011 grant for development of a pollution
prevention element for the state's RCRA enforcement program, and for
pollution prevention training and technical assistance associated with such
RCRA enforcement actions.
Hawaii
Funding is being provided under the RCRA 3011 grant to support one full-
time waste minimization coordinator position. The coordinator provides on-
site technical assistance and trains small businesses in waste
minimization/pollution prevention.
New Hampshire
Under the RCRA 3011 grant, New Hampshire will carry out "partial" small
quantity generator (SQG) inspections in place of one comprehensive SQG
inspection and two inspections of closed landfills. Inspectors will use the
opportunity provided by the SQG .inspections to provide information on
resources to assist the facilities in identifying and undertaking pollution
prevention measures. ,
New Jersey
New Jersey is using funds from its RCRA 3011 grant, in combination with
funding from a PPIS grant, to support the development of a multi-media,
facility-wide permitting program. Facilities are required to develop pollution
prevention plans. The 3011, grant supports the RCRA portions of this
activity. t
41
-------
------- |