LvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of the Administrator (1102) EPA-100-R-94-003
Office of Pollution Prevention Spring T994
and Toxics {7401}
Encouraging State Innovation:
Preventing Pollution
Through Grant Flexibility
Recycled/Recyclable
PrintedwithSoy/Canolalnkonpaparthat
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
Oi
ur grant flexibility offers support to state
(agencies that have developed some of the
most innovative and effective pollution pre-
vention 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 ..."
-Administrator Carol M. Browner
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Current Support for Pollution Prevention
Through Media Grants 4
Maine 5
Massachusetts 7
New York 9
Ohio 11
Alaska 13
Media Grant Flexibility Activities
in Other States 15
Future Directions 17
Appendices: Regional Pollution Prevention Coordinators
Memorandum on State Grants Guidance:
Integration of Pollution Prevention
Memorandum on EPA Definition of
"Pollution Prevention"
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Every year, the Environmental Protection Agency disburses over $600
million to help support states implement federal programs like the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act. EPA's Pollution Prevention Grant Guidance, in effect since November
of 1992, provides states with the flexibility to use these funds to support multi-
media, pollution prevention initiatives to the extent permitted by statute or
regulation. This report:
»J» Summarizes the goals of the pollution prevention grant guidance.
*J* Describes state pollution prevention projects in Maine, Massachusetts,
New York, Ohio and Alaska that are being supported through federal
grant flexibility. Also included are contacts in EPA regions and states for
readers who would like more information about these innovative projects.
»*» Summarizes the obstacles and opportunities that regional and state staff
have encountered in developing these projects in particular, and in apply-
ing the pollution prevention grant guidance in general.
•t» Includes a copy of the grant guidance and the definition of pollution
prevention.
•J» Identifies the staff person responsible for coordinating implementation of
the guidance in each region.
*In February of 1994, EPA Administrator Carol Browner reiterated her support of
the guidance and asked programs and regions to submit annual reports docu-
menting their efforts to implement this policy and identify barriers to its success.
It is EPA's hope that states will continue to find ways to work with regional
offices to take advantage of this flexibility.
For further information and additional copies of this report, please contact Tom
McCully at 202-260-8617.
-------
INTRODUCTION
EPA's Pollution Prevention Media 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 pollution prevention grant guidance clearly authorizes the substi-
tution of new pollution prevention measures in exchange for any requirements
not prescribed by statute or regulation. The objectives of the Guidance are to:
<» ensure flexibility in grant requirements, and support and reward states who
are investing in pollution prevention approaches;
»:« promote the growth of pollution prevention approaches in federally-funded
state environmental programs;
«> share information on successful programs and identify statutory and
regulatory barriers to grant support faced by such programs; and
* build self-sustaining state pollution prevention programs.
The 1994 fiscal year was the first year since issuance of the Guidance. The follow-
ing provides information on some examples of state pollution prevention initia-
tives supported under various media grants during FY94. In many cases, the
groundwork for these initiatives was laid prior to issuance of EPA's Pollution
Prevention Media Guidance. Nevertheless, the Guidance did play a role in
demonstrating EPA's commitment to grant flexibility, and it gave states and
Regions greater impetus for serious consideration of grant-funded pollution
prevention projects.
-------
WHICH MEDIA
GRANT PROGRAMS
ARE AFFECTED BY
THE GUIDANCE?
Beginning with the FY94 EPA grants cycle, the guidance will apply to all of the
Agency's media-specific state grant programs, including the following:
* The Clean Air Act §105
State Grants;
• Air Pollution Planning and Control — Radon
* The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act §3011 — Hazardous Waste —
Underground Storage Tanks;
* The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act §23(a)(l)—Pesti-
cides;
<» The Toxic Substances Control Act §28 — Enforcement Activities under § 313
of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act — Lead
Grants;
* The Clean Water Act — §106 — Surface Water, §104(b)(3) — Wetlands and
Water Quality Management, and §319(h) — Non-point Source Management.
The law does not apply to Superfund grants, which are specifically targeted to
remedial action rather than prevention.
EPA also administers a small grant program to help support state pollution preven-
tion programs. The Pollution Prevention Incentives for States (PPIS), which pro-
motes multimedia activities and requires a 50% match from applicants, provided
approximately $6.0 million to states in FY94. For further information about how to
apply for funding under this program, please call Lena Hann at 202-260-2237.
FY95 EPA Operations Grant Program Funding'
Water
43.6%
RCRA
17.8%
Air
31.0%
Total = $610.5 million
Excludes CWA Title VI and Superfund
* Based on President's FY95 request
Pesticides &
Toxics
7.6%
Figures as of May 5,1994
-------
CURRENT SUPPORT FOR
POLLUTION PREVENTION THROUGH
MEDIA GRANTS
In the summer of 1993, EPA's Pollution Prevention Policy Staff surveyed Regional
pollution prevention coordinators, as well as media program offices, to determine
the extent to which pollution prevention projects were being incorporated into
FY94 grant negotiations. Based on preliminary responses from that survey effort,
and on follow-up contacts with both state and regional personnel, several states
were selected for more in-depth review. The goal was to develop a number of
"success stories" to show how media grant flexibility could be used to promote
pollution prevention.
The five states and their pollution prevention initiatives profiled in the following
pages are:
3 State: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Project: Watershed-based source reduction and pollution prevention
program along the Androscoggin River
IJ State: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Project: Multimedia, prevention-based, facility-wide enforcement
inspections (Waste Prevention F.I.R.S.T.)
£! State: NY State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)
Project: Multimedia Pollution Prevention Program (M2P2)
Zl State: Ohio EPA
Project: Pollution prevention strategy and comprehensive pollution
prevention planning
State: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
Project: Redirection of federal and state grant matching dollars to
support pollution prevention activities (3-5% "set-aside")
Other states and regions are also exploring ways to utilize media grants to support
pollution prevention. Although these efforts are not profiled in detail here, infor-
mation from additional states are summarized briefly after the five detailed state
write-ups, including program "briefs" for such efforts in California, Connecticut,
Florida, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.
-------
POLLUTION
PREVENTION GOAL:
WATERSHED SOURCE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES
STATE: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
PROJECT: The Androscoggin River Project: A watershed-based pollution prevention
program
CONTACT: Ron Dyer, Commissioner's Office, ME DEP — 207-287-4152
Mark Mahoney, EPA Region 1 — 617-565-1155
ABSTRACT:
DESCRIPTION OF
PROJECT:
A redirection of water program media grants will support a five-year watershed-
based pollution prevention project in the Androscoggin River basin. Activities
include pollution prevention education/training for local governments and citi-
zens; regional pollution prevention planning; and special pollution prevention
efforts targeted at nonpoint sources of water pollution, POTWs, and large indus-
trial sources such as paper mills. The principal benefit of the project is the oppor-
tunity to involve a wide range of local agencies, citizens, industry, municipalities/
as well as media program offices in a single, unified plan to comprehensively
address pollution prevention in a single river basin. If this approach works, it may
serve as a model for the other watersheds in Maine.
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 targeted area — the Androscoggin River and its watershed. This 5-year
project will address both point and non-point source problems via a comprehen-
sive program whose features include:
* Education (citizen workshops, state/city agency cross-training, etc.)
* Watershed Management Team Planning (to identify and work cooperatively
on regional pollution prevention issues)
* Nonpoint and Small Point Source Pollution Prevention (via a 12 community
pilot project on the Little Androscoggin tributary)
«> Municipal Pollution Prevention (technical assistance to local POTWs to
improve source identification and pollution reduction efforts)
-------
Industrial Pollution Prevention (extending the current success with source
reduction technical assistance task forces at International Paper to other
paper mills along the river)
BENEFITS:
<» The Androscoggin Project is a watershed-based, pollution prevention pro-
gram, with opportunities for many cross-program activities. Two examples
are:
the municipal pollution prevention element will include education and
implementation help for household hazardous waste collection activi-
ties; and
the industrial pollution prevention element will consist of multimedia
teams looking for source reduction opportunities at industrial facilities
along the river.
«J* 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 pollution problems in a high priority target area — the
Androscoggin River Basin.
<» Depending on the success of this pilot project, DEP may use it as a model for
the other watersheds in Maine.
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. This does not
mean, however, that other areas will get no inspection or compliance attention.
The following are examples of some FY94 resource shifts:
<* In the 106 water grant program, 45 reconnaissance level inspections (3560s)
will be substituted for 45 comprehensive inspections (CSIs or CEIs). 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.
* Groundwater education will be focused in the Androscoggin basin.
<« Resource shifting will occur under the UIC program. Previously, the UIC
effort consisted of state-wide inspections of floor drains; for FY94 that will
be done on a regional basis—i.e., in the Androscoggin.
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION GOAL:
SOURCE REDUCTION TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE
STATE: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
PROJECT: Waste Prevention F.I.R.S.T. — Multimedia, prevention-based, facility-wide
enforcement inspections
CONTACT: Patricia Deese Stanton, Assistant Commissioner, MA DEP — 617-292-5765
Mark Mahoney, EPA Region 1 — 617-565-1155
ABSTRACT: DEP has adopted a whole-facility pollution prevention approach to much of its
compliance and enforcement activities. In both FY93 and FY94, grant outputs for
air, water and waste were negotiated as a single compliance/enforcement package.
The Region and state are currently trying to develop and field-test a multimedia
inspection protocol to meet media program inspection requirements. Benefits of
the project include: (1) promoting pollution prevention through whole-facility
approach; (2) supporting source reduction as opposed to control solutions for
compliance problems; (3) efficiencies gained from a multimedia approach; 4) clear
definition of compliance roles in inspection protocol; and 5) inspection of more
facilities.
DESCRIPTION OF
PROJECT:
Massachusetts DEP first piloted a multimedia, pollution prevention-based inspec-
tion and enforcement program beginning in 1986, known as the Blackstone Project.
Based in part on the outstanding results of that project, Massachusetts has adopted
a state-wide, prevention-based approach to compliance and enforcement called
Waste Prevention FI.R.S.T. (Facility-wide Inspections to Reduce Sources of
Toxics). Grant flexibility to support Waste Prevention F.I.R.S.T. was first utilized
in FY93; the FY94 grant agreements include the basic conceptual structure incorpo-
rated into the FY93 agreements:
* negotiate grant outputs from air, water, and waste as a single compliance/
enforcement package;
«:» exchange some of the facilities on EPA priority lists for state-determined
high priority facilities (for inspections);
* allow 10% of the state discretionary inspections to be at facilities that do not
appear on any media inspection lists.
-------
In addition, the FY94 agreements also provide the following flexibility:
<* joint (DEP and Region 1) effort to develop compliance tests, based on a
facility's past performance and records, to make it possible to postpone
inspections (for up to one year) included under national priorities; and
«> DEP will receive credit for 100% of "incidental" inspections —multimedia
inspections at facilities targeted under one media program which, while
regulated under another media program, were not targeted for inspections
under that program during the current fiscal year.
New flexibility, either under FY94 supplements or for FY95 agreements, is being
explored. These additional measures include:
* a multimedia inspection protocol;
* allocation formulas for multimedia inspection costs; and
* new tracking and reporting procedures.
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 innova-
tions which have been initiated in Massachusetts:
«> Promoting pollution prevention through whole-facility approach: multime-
dia compliance/enforcement — and potentially the proposed inspection
protocol — will force inspectors to consider the facility as a whole, rather
than as a set of discrete media releases.
<» Avoid push towards control solutions for compliance problems: compliance
personnel begin to think about assisting companies in developing problem-
solving abilities, rather than in terms of specifying the solution to a compli-
ance problem.
«:* Efficiencies from the multimedia approach: over the long term, the multime-
dia approach may result in greater resource efficiency in compliance efforts.
*• Clear definition of compliance roles: the draft protocol defines the roles of
compliance personnel more precisely.
<» Inspections of more facilities: more screening inspections, either by them-
selves or as part of multimedia inspections, will make it possible to inspect
more industrial facilities.
DISINVESTMENTS: Disinvestmei.es have included both reductions in the numbers of inspections
required at nationally-targeted facilities and changes with respect to the extensive-
ness of the types of inspections required.
-------
POLLUTION-PREVENTION GOAL:
MULTIMEDIA, WHOLE-FACILITY INSPECTIONS
STATE: NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
PROJECT: Multimedia Pollution Prevention Program (M2P2)
CONTACT: John lanotti, Director, Pollution Prevention Unit, NYSDEC — 518-457-7267
Janet Sapadin, EPA Region 2 — 212-264-1925
ABSTRACT: M2P2 is a multimedia pollution prevention program focused on 400 facilities with
the highest environmental releases and/or greatest environmental impacts in the
state. In the first year, M2P2 targeted regulatory activities on 49 facilities. FY94
workplan commitments involving multimedia compliance inspections and en-
forcement activities are supported by Region 2's RCRA program. Full implementa-
tion of M2P2 would: 1) focus environmental management resources on major
sources of pollution; 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 to the regulated commu-
nity that pollution prevention is a genuine priority.
DESCRIPTION OF
PROJECT: New York's Department of Environmental Conservation has initiated a multime-
dia pollution prevention (M2P2) program which will focus regulatory efforts on
the 400 facilities (the first 49 during 1993-1994) DEC has determined are respon-
sible for 95% of releases of pollutants to air, water and land. Multimedia teams
will design and carry out comprehensive, in-depth multimedia inspections, and
will review and evaluate the facilities' pollution prevention plans (mandated by
state law). Under the RCRA grant agreement between Region 2 and DEC:
«> State resources allocated to evaluating facility pollution prevention plans
(accepted by the Region as meeting the waste minimization program certifi-
cation required on permits and manifests) are treated as meeting a RCRA
program requirement.
<• Inspection commitments in the FY93 workplan were modified to accommo-
date multimedia compliance inspections.
»I» For FY94, some of the some of the RCRA inspections called for under the
grant will be for facilities included in the M2P2 program, requiring more
-------
resources than inspections of other facilities. To accommodate these longer
inspections, the workplan reduces the total number of required inspections.
BENEFITS: Providing flexibility for full implementation of the M2P2 program would:
«J» focus environmental management resources on the major sources of pollu-
tion 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;
«J» educate state and local personnel in multimedia pollution prevention; and
*> 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 necessarily specifically 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.
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION GOAL:
POLLUTION PREVENTION INTEGRATION
STATE: owo EPA
PROJECT: Pollution prevention strategy and comprehensive pollution prevention planning
CONTACT: Michael Kelly, Office of Pollution Prevention, Ohio EPA — 614-644-2980
Cathy Allen, EPA Region 5 — 312-353-3387
ABSTRACT:
Ohio has utilized RCRA grant funds from the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) to
support the state's Office of Pollution Prevention (OPP). Activities have included:
development and implementation of statewide, multimedia pollution prevention
strategy, on-site pollution prevention technical assistance for RCRA generators,
and industry-specific pollution prevention fact sheets. Benefits have been: 1)
initiation of pollution prevention activities under the RCRA grant; 2) development
of an overall long-term pollution prevention strategy for the state, involving all
divisions of Ohio EPA; and 3) support for the staff of OPP.
DESCRIPTION OF
PROJECT: Under the Great Lakes Initiative, Ohio EPA 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. The most important activities
were:
development of a multimedia Pollution Prevention Strategy applicable to the
entire state and involving all of the Agency's divisions and programs;
pollution prevention technical assistance provided to five facilities in the
Lake Erie basin;
development of a guidance manual for waste minimization planning for
RCRA TSD facilities required to develop plans under their Part B permits,
and of guidance for Class IUIC wells on how to develop waste minimiza-
tion and treatment plans required under state law;
review of waste minimization and pollution prevention in Ohio EPA en-
forcement settlements and report on related enforcement policy issues.
-------
For FY94, the 3011 grant workplan includes the following activities:
* revision and implementation of the Pollution Prevention Strategy;
<» pollution prevention/waste minimization technical assistance at four addi-
tional RCRA facilities in the Lake Erie basin and development of case stud-
ies;
•> provision of pollution prevention technical assistance (using the guidance
manual developed in FY93) to at least twelve TSD facilities required to
develop plans, either as a result of UIC planning requirements, or as a
condition of a Part B permit;
* preparation of an additional five pollution prevention fact sheets.
BENEFITS: The principal benefits of support for pollution prevention under the RCRA 3011
grant have been:
* 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;
* 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.
-------
PREVENTION GOAL:
. I
POLLUTION PREVENTION INTEGRATION
STATE: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
PROJECT: Pollution prevention "set-aside"—redirects 3-5% of grant dollars to support pollu-
tion prevention activities
CONTACT: David Wigglesworth, Pollution Prevention Office, ADEC — 907-273-4303
Carolyn Gangmark, EPA Region 10 — 206-553-4973
ABSTRACT:
DESCRIPTION OF
PROJECT:
Alaska and Region 10 have an agreement under which a percentage of funds from
media grants are set aside to support pollution prevention activities. 3% of core
grant funds were redirected in FY93; 4% in FY94; 5% slated for FY95. The Pollution
Prevention Office (PPO) uses the funds to coordinate multimedia pollution preven-
tion activities within ADEC (integrating pollution prevention into media programs
and training of ADEC employees) and throughout the state (traditional technical
assistance, education, and outreach). Benefits include: 1) advancement of the policy
framework necessary to make pollution prevention integration a reality; 2) increased
training and knowledge among ADEC employees about pollution prevention tech-
nologies and techniques; and 3) incorporation of pollution prevention into selected
program activities —permits, inspections/ enforcement, etc.
The goal of the set-aside agreement between Alaska and EPA is to move ADEC'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 out-
reach. The initiative seeks to advance pollution prevention: 1) as a core part of the
missions of the various media programs; and 2) through the services of a stream-
lined Pollution Prevention Office whose mission is to:
»> Promote and coordinate pollution prevention activities within the state (con-
tinuing a history of success in building pollution prevention partnerships
with local agencies, nonprofits and businesses).
* Provide technical support to DEC employees, businesses and the general
public, as well as continued direct technical assistance to communities and
industry.
* Help coordinate the integration of pollution prevention into all DEC programs.
-------
BENEFITS: The state of Alaska and EPA have made important steps toward addressing
obstacles to pollution prevention integration. The set-aside should be viewed not
only for its program-oriented results, but also in its own fight for:
* the policy dialogue it is generating about pollution prevention;
* the tough questions that it is raising about disinvestments;
«> the types of obstacles and opportunities it is uncovering regarding pollution
prevention integration; and
* the role it is playing in applying these policy discussions in a real world
setting.
The main benefits of the pollution prevention integration efforts will be to:
«J« advance the pollution prevention policy framework necessary to make true
integration a reality;
* increase training and knowledge among department employees about
pollution prevention technologies and techniques; and
<» 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.
DISINVESTMENTS:
Because of the small fraction of funds involved (3% in the first year), the impact of
the re-direction has been minimal with respect to core program activities. No
program office felt strongly that they couldn't do essentially all of their program
efforts. Some minor resource shifting occurred. For example:
* The Drinking Water Office had fewer sanitary surveys done. Also, Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) grant money originally targeted to lead and
copper public education went to an innovative rural water supply commu-
nity education effort coordinated by the Pollution Prevention Office.
<» The Pollution Prevention Office coordinated cross-program pollution pre-
vention-type activities — for example, "The Year of the Car." Each office
contributed a share of funds (through the set-aside process) towards this
successful educational and outreach effort.
-------
MEDIA GRANT
FLEXIBILITY ACTIVITIES IN
OTHER STATES
CALIFORNIA: The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Will carry out several
activities under the CAA105 grant, such as:
* Compiling available information on pollution prevention opportunities and
approaches for industrial categories; the APCD will co-sponsor a pollution
prevention workshop to disseminate this information, as well as distributing
it to sources during annual compliance inspections.
«:» Preparing an energy conservation plan for inclusion in the 1994 Air Quality
Management Plan.
«> Providing information and assistance to small companies (fewer than 100
employees) interested in voluntarily reducing the number of employee car
trips.
CONNECTICUT: Connecticut is targeting the state's major emitters, identified through 1991 TRI
data, for inspections coupled with pollution prevention assistance. Focus is on
working with companies to achieve reductions in pollutants and toxic chemicals.
One objective is incorporation of waste reduction measures in permits.
Connecticut's program includes activities by the Air, Water and Waste Bureaus.
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.
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 pre-
vention element for the state's RCRA enforcement program, and for pollution
prevention training and technical assistance associated with such RCRA enforce-
ment 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 techni-
cal assistance and trains small businesses in waste minimization/pollution pre-
vention.
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Under a RCRA SOn grant, New Hampshire will carry out "partial" small quan-
tity generator (SQG) inspections in place of one comprehensive SQG inspection.
Inspectors will use the opportunity to provide resource information to assist
facilities in identifying and undertaking pollution prevention measures.
NEW JERSEY:
New Jersey is using funds from its RCRA 3011 grant, in combination with fund-
ing from a PPIS grant, to support the development of a multimedia, facility-wide
permitting program. Facilities are required to develop pollution prevention
plans. The 3011 grant supports the RCRA portions of this activity.
-------
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Some general recommendations on how to improve the grant flexibility process
emerged from these examples and from additional information provided by
Regional and state contacts.
PLANNING PROCESS 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.
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
ADVOCATES
If integration of pollution prevention into media grant outputs 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. 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 un-
likely that the state would pursue grant-flexed pollution prevention initiatives. In
both cases, the pressure of meeting existing program objectives was cited as the
principal barrier to proposing anything new.
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. 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. One option would be to explore the possibility of a core multime-
dia 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 ele-
ment of EPA's state support.
SPECIAL MEDIA
PROGRAM INITIATIVES
Several states have been able to take advantage of media grant "flexibility" pro-
vided through special media program initiatives — e.g., the Great 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. States and Regions
should look at the opportunity for using such special media program initiatives to
support pollution prevention-based projects.
-------
Appendices:
Regional Pollution Prevention Coordinators
Memorandum on State Grants Guidance:
Integration of Pollution Prevention
Memorandum on EPA Definition of
"Pollution Prevention"
-------
-------
REGIONAL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
COORDINATORS
617-565-4522 (1155)
fax 617-565-3346
Abby Swaino/Mark Mahoney (PAS)
USEPA Region I
JFK Federal Bldg Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
913-551-7336
fax 913-551-7063
Steve Wurtz
USEPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
212-264-1925
fax 212-264-9695
Janet Sapadin (2-PPIS-OPM)
USEPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
303-293-1471
fax 303-294-1198
Sharon Riegel (8PM-SIPO)
USEPA Region VIII
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
215-597-0765
fax 215-597-7906
Cathy Libertz/Jeff Burke (3ES43)
USEPA III
841 Chestnut Bldg
Philadelphia, PA 19107
415-744-2190 (2192)
fax 415-744-1796
Eileen Sheahan/Bill Wilson (H-l-B)
USEPA IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
404-347-7109
fax 404-347-1043
Carol Monell
USEPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
206-553-4072 (8579)
fax 206-553-6647
Carolyn Gangmark/Robin Meeker
USEPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
312-353-3387
fax 312-353-5374
Cathy Allen (ME-19J)
USEPA Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
214-655-6580
fax 214-655-2146
Robert Lawrence/Donna Tisdall (8M-PP)
USEPA Region VI
1445 Ross Ave., 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
ORD
Emma Low George
USEPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Mailstop 466
Cincinnati, OH 45261
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Nov 12,1992
OFFICE OF
• THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: State Grants Guidance: Integration of Pollution Prevention
FROM: F. Henry Habicht II
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
This memorandum announces the Agency-wide pollution prevention Guidance, beginning
with the FY94 State grants cycle. It has four goals:
• Promoting pollution prevention in State programs supported through Federal
grants by establishing National Principles to guide workplans negotiated between
Regional Offices and States;
• Ensuring that grant requirements as interpreted by EPA/State workplans are flex-
ible enough to support innovative State pollution prevention activities;
• Establishing a simple accounting process to share information on successful State
projects, and identify statutory or other barriers to funding State proposals; and
• Building sustained State capacity in pollution prevention to the extent consistent
with statutory grant requirements.
All of these objectives are subject to any statutory and regulatory limitations that apply in
specific circumstances.
The Guidance should help integrate pollution prevention into the Agency's activities as re-
quired by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. By emphasizing flexibility, the Guidance
complements other Agency efforts to build a productive environmental management system
in partnership with the States, and improve coordination with existing State pollution preven-
tion programs.
In general, this Guidance applies to all of the Agency's media-specific State grant programs,
but particularly to the following: Clean Air Act §105—Air Pollution Planning and Control;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act §3011—Hazardous Waste; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicidet and Rodenticide Act §23(a)(l)—Pesticides; Toxic Substances Control Act §28—
Enforcement and Enforcement Activities under §313 of the Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-to-Know Act; and Clean Water Act §106—Surface Water, §104(b)(3)—Wet-
lands and Water Quality Management, and §319(h)—Non-Point Source Management.
Building on the Agency's many successful pollution prevention efforts, beginning in FY94
EPA's grant programs—working with States—should explicitly promote pollution preven-
tion in State workplans (also called agreements). This memorandum will be incorporated into
the annual Agency Operating Guidance as well as program-specific Guidance developed this
winter with the advice of the State/EPA Operations Committee. Program Guidance, intended
to tailor the Agency-wide commitment to each grant program, will be applied by Regional
Offices and States in the development of grant-assisted work.
-------
The National Principles stated below should help guide development of EPA/State
workplans. There should be reflected in program-specific Guidance, weighed in workplan
discussions, and used to qualitatively assess program progress in integrating pollution pre-
vention. In applying these Principles, Regional Offices should use or expand upon the menu
of flexibility options below to respond to State needs to the extent possible. Annual accom-
plishment reports, discussed below, will help assess EPA's progress in supporting pollution
prevention-oriented State workplans and initiatives.
National Principles
Guidance for each grant program covered by this document should make clear that pollution
prevention—as defined in the Agency-wide memorandum of May 28,1992 (attached)—is EPA's
preferred approach to environmental management where technically and economically feasible.
Consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act, the Guidance should further the integration of pol-
lution prevention into State activities—e.g. inspections and permits—that are supported by EPA
grants. While pollution prevention is not mandated, the Principles are intended to ensure that it is
•considered fairly in EPA/State workplans.
Specific proposals from States that are consistent with these Principles should be considered good
candidates for funding through the grant programs. In addition, Regional Offices should take the
initiative to suggest pollution prevention approaches, drawing upon program-specific Guidance
and implementation workshops. Regional Offices and States are expected to use their discretion
in applying these Principles; they are not obligatory elements of every negotiated workplan, but
rather factors for serious consideration in the negotiation process.
The Principles are:
1) The workplan applies the EPA definition of pollution prevention (see memorandum of May
28,1992) consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the 1991 EPA Pollution
Prevention Strategy.
2) The workplan reflects an explicit preference for pollution prevention and identifies pollu-
tion prevention activities, products, or approaches.
3) The workplan incorporates pollution prevention as a priority in environmental management
decisions made by the grantee as part of the grant-assisted activities.
4) The workplan encourages opportunities to modify existing or to develop new equipment,
technology, processes, procedures, products, or educational or training materials to promote
pollution prevention.
5) The workplan encourages institutional coordination—including coordination with existing
State pollution prevention programs—and multi-media opportunities for pollution preven-
tion.
6) The workplan complements or builds upon existing EPA pollution prevention projects (e.g.
the work of multi-media industry clusters such as the Source Reduction Review Project, and
the use of pollution prevention in enforcement settlements).
7) The workplan identifies and applies measures and ways of documenting pollution preven-
tion progress as part of the grant-assisted activities (e.g. provides opportunities for measur-
able pollution prevention).
8) The workplan includes activities or approaches that may serve nationally as innovative mod-
els for other State or local programs. Workplans also should encourage innovative ap-
-------
preaches already developed by other State or local programs, and improve coordination
to build on existing successes.
9) The workplan structures grant output information so that EPA can make pollution pre-
vention data and experience available to other States and the Pollution Prevention In-
formation Clearinghouse.
Clearly, both partners must comply with any applicable statutory or regulatory requirements
and take into account other factors that may be important. Regional Offices and States may
identify additional Principles to guide workplan requirements.
Flexibility
Many Regional Offices already have made adjustments to accommodate flexibility needs.
The purpose of this Guidance is to encourage such flexibility. Whenever possible, workplans
should accommodate State flexibility needs associated with incorporating pollution preven-
tion approaches into their grant-assisted activities. That means working within the param-
eters of statutory and regulatory requirements to arrive at an agreement that is practical and
meets the parties' needs. Options for flexibility include (but are not limited to):
a) Adjustments in numbers or types of required outputs including, for example, (1)
trade-offs or disinvestment from traditional requirements (non-statutory and non-
regulatory) and (2) multiple credit for a single "multi-media" inspection that em-
phasizes pollution prevention.
An example of (1) is RCRA's RIP-Flex Guidance, which allows
disinvestment from national priority activities and re-investment in Regional
or State priorities: up to 25% of enforcement resources in FY92 and '93.
An example of (2) is being tested in Region One with Massachusetts'
Blackstone project. The key issue is how to "bean-count" a single multi-
media inspection claiming to satisfy enforcement requirements under mul-
tiple statutes and promote pollution prevention technical assistance.
b) Adjustments in timing of non-statutory and nonregulatory EPA deadlines.
c) Identification of a percentage of funds for pollution prevention within each media
program, coordinated by a pollution prevention office.
For example, Region 10 has agreed to Alaska's request to allow the State to
identify 3% (5% over the next two years) of grant program monies—RCRA,
air, and water—for pollution prevention, to be coordinated by the pollution
prevention office. The monies will be reflected in specific activities reason-
ably related to each program's contribution and statutory objectives. The
annual EPA/State Agreement will explicitly identify pollution prevention
activities and specific disinvestments in each program.
d) Adjustments in traditional or administrative procedures or schedules to ease EPA/
State interaction.
Annual Accomplishment Report
To allow EPA to evaluate progress in integrating pollution prevention into State grant pro-
grams, each Regional Office should provide an annual report summarizing pollution preven-
-------
tion accomplishments (e.g. activities, products, approaches, etc.), as reflected in grants-as-
sisted work. The report may take any form and may draw upon reports developed to satisfy
other requirements.
While program-specific Guidance may elaborate further, each report should identify: a) suc-
cess stories, including innovative State projects funded under this Guidance; and b) any bar-
riers (statutory or otherwise) that led a program to reject State proposals or to decide against
including pollution prevention approaches. In addition, recommendations on regulatory, ad-
ministrative, or other changes to improve flexibility would be helpful. Your contribution of
this information is key to making pollution prevention a reality in EPA's on-going bread and
butter work.
Conclusion
Incorporating pollution prevention into EPA's policies and programs is a collaborative effort
requiring EPA to work in concert with our State partners. The National Principles and Annual
Reports described above will help us to measure our progress and build on our successes.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MAY 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Definition of "Pollution Prevention"
FROM: F. Henry Habicht II
Deputy Administrator
TO: All EPA Personnel
EPA is seeking to integrate pollution prevention as an ethic throughout its activities, in
accordance with the national policy expressed in the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
Your individual efforts to push development of new opportunities, approaches, and pro-
cesses to prevent pollution are impressive and exciting.
While the concept of pollution prevention is broadly applicable—a tool to accomplish many
environmental tasks—this memo attempts to guide more consistent use of the term in our
activities and written materials. Pollution prevention requires a cultural change—one which
encourages more anticipation and internalizing of real environmental costs by those who
may generate pollution, and which requires EPA to build a new relationship with all of our
constituents to find the most cost-effective means to achieve those goals.
The following EPA "Statement of Definition" is a formal embodiment of what has been the
Agency's working definition of pollution prevention, and is consistent with the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 and the Agency's 1991 Pollution Prevention Strategy. It makes
clear that prevention is our first priority within an environmental management hierarchy
that includes: 1) prevention, 2) recycling, 3) treatment, and 4) disposal or release.
While it is subject to further refinement, this definition should provide a common reference
point for all of us. As you review and apply the definition in your work, please keep the
following points in mind:
• As always, whether the pollution prevention option is selected in any given
situation will depend on the requirements of applicable law, the level of risk
reduction that can be achieved, and the cost-effectiveness of that option.
• Accordingly, the hierarchy should be viewed as establishing a set of prefer-
•ences, rather than an absolute judgement that prevention is always the most
desirable option. The hierarchy is applied to many different kinds of circum-
stances that will require judgement calls.
• Drawing an absolute line between prevention and recycling can be difficult.
"Prevention" includes what is commonly called "in-process recycling," but not
"out-of-process recycling." Recycling conducted in an environmentally sound
manner shares many of the advantages of prevention, e.g. energy and resource
conservation, and reducing the need for end-of-pipe treatment or waste
containment.
-------
As EPA looks at the "big picture" in setting strategic directions for the decade ahead, it is clear
that prevention is key to solving the problems that all our media programs face, including the
increasing cost of treatment and cleanup. In the common-sense words of Benjamin Franklin,
"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Please use the Statement of Definition of Pollution Prevention in all of your EPA activities.
POLLUTION PREVENTION: EPA STATEMENT OF DEFINITION
(pursuant to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
and the Pollution Prevention Strategy)
Under Section 6602(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress established a na-
tional policy that:
• pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible;
• pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe
manner whenever feasible;
• pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmen-
tally safe manner whenever feasible; and
• disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last
resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.
Pollution prevention means "source reduction," as defined under the Pollution Prevention Act,
and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants through:
increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or other resources,
or
protection of natural resources by conservation.
The Pollution Prevention Act defines "source reduction" to mean any practice which:
reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering
any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive
emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and
reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the re-
lease of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
The term includes: equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifica-
tions, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements
in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control.
Under the Pollution Prevention Act, recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal are
not included within the definition of pollution prevention. Some practices commonly described
as "in-process recycling" may qualify as pollution prevention. Recycling that is conducted in
an environmentally sound manner shares many of the advantages of prevention—it can reduce
the need for treatment or disposal, and conserve energy and resources.
Pollution prevention approaches can be applied to all pollution-generating activity, including
those found in the energy, agriculture, Federal, consumer, as well as industrial sectors. The
impairment of wetlands, ground water sources, and other critical resources constitutes pollu-
tion, and prevention practices may be essential for preserving these resources. These practices
may include conservation techniques and changes in management practices to prevent harm to
sensitive ecosystems. Pollution prevention does not include practices that create new risks of
concern.
-------
In the agricultural sector, pollution prevention approaches include:
reducing the use of water and chemical inputs;
adoption of less environmentally harmful pesticides or cultivation of crop strains
with natural resistance to pests; and
protection of sensitive areas.
In the energy sector, pollution prevention can reduce environmental damages from extrac-
tion, processing, transport, and combustion of fuels. Pollution prevention approaches in-
clude:
increasing efficiency in energy use;
substituting environmentally benign fuel sources; and
design changes that reduce the demand for energy.
For more information contact:
- the Pollution Prevention Policy Staff (202-260-8621), or
- the Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(202-260-3557)
-------
------- |