United States
          Environmental Protection
                    Office of the
                    (A-101 F6)
December 1992
Building State  and Local
Pollution Prevention Programs
1. Status and Trends
2. Findings and Recommendations
                      State and Local Environment Committee
                             National Advisory Council
               for Environmental Policy and Technology


There is increasing evidence of the value and attractiveness of pollution prevention as a
basic strategic approach to achieving both environmental and economic health. There has
been a steady emergence of new laws and government-sponsored education and technical
assistance programs to promote pollution prevention. The private sector has a critical role
in taking voluntary actions to reduce the sources of pollution. However, government
actions and policies can stimulate or thwart even voluntary efforts, and the existing
structure of environmental protection programs presents both opportunities and obstacles
for promoting pollution prevention. The State and Local Environment Committee of the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
examined status and trends in State and local pollution prevention programs and analyzed
issues affecting progress in making pollution prevention the dominant strategy for
environmental protection.  A major challenge is finding the delicate balance between
fostering voluntary and cooperative efforts and keeping up the consistent regulatory
pressure that often motivates firms to seek pollution prevention solutions.

The Committee's recommendations suggest what the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) can do to take advantage of the early successes in government efforts to
promote pollution prevention and build even greater momentum for action. The
recommendations address:

••     Providing leadership and building broader support for pollution prevention;

••     Integrating pollution prevention into mainstream environmental programs;

»•     Modifying management accountability and funding systems to support prevention

*•     Improving technical capacity and the infrastructure for information exchange
       about pollution prevention;

••     Clarifying the appropriate roles for Federal, State, and local governments in
       fostering pollution prevention; and

•*     Expanding the role of pollution prevention in meeting the environmental goals
       of the wastewater pretreatment program.


This report was written as a part of the activities of the National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and technology (NACEPT), a public advisory committee
providing extramural policy information and advice to the Administrator and other
officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Council is
structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of policy matters related to the
effectiveness of the environmental programs of the United States. This report has
not been reviewed for approval by EPA and hence, the report's contents and
recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the EPA,
nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute a
recommendation for use.

                       NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

                     State and Local Environment Committee

 Tom Looby
 Office of Environment
 Colorado Department of Health
 Denver, Colorado
Vice Chair:

George Britton
Deputy City Manager
Water and Environmental Resources
Phoenix, Arizona
 Larry Cole
 Beaverton, Oregon

 Terry Foecke
 Minneapolis, Minnesota

 Scott E. Fore
 Vice President
 Environmental, Health and Safety
 Safety Kleen Corporation
 Elgin, Illinois

 J. William Futrell, Esq.
 Environmental Law Institute
 Washington, D.C.
Lillian Kawasaki
General Manager
Department of Environmental Affairs
Los Angeles, California

James Power, Jr.
Retired Director
Division of Environment
Kansas Department of Health
Topeka, Kansas

Don Richardson
Executive Director
Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts
Little Rock, Arkansas
Designated Federal Official:

Donna A. Fletcher
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

INTRODUCTION                                                         1

PART I:     FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                      5

             Leadership and Support for Pollution Prevention                       8
             Roles and Responsibilities                                         12
             Prevention in Mainstream Environmental Programs                     14
             Management Accountability and Funding                             17
             Technical and Management Capacity                                 20
             Prevention Opportunities in the Wastewater Pretreatment Program        24

PART II:    STATUS AND TRENDS                                       29

I.    Overview: Progress  and Challenges                                  31

             Exhibit 1-1: Components of Pollution Prevention Programs              37
             Exhibit 1-2: EPA Definition of Pollution Prevention                    3 8
             Exhibit 1-3: Model Pollution Prevention Initiative                      39

II.    Promoting Prevention  through Voluntary  Action                     41

      A. Assistance Programs                                                44
             Pollution Prevention Assistance Programs                            44
             Small Business Assistance under the Clean Air Act                     47
             Economic Development and Business Assistance Programs              48

      B. Voluntary Toxics Reduction Programs                                  50

      C. Incentives Programs                                                 52

             Exhibit 2-1: Phases in Implementation of Prevention Measures           43
             Exhibit 2-2: Needs from the Company Perspective                     53
             Exhibit 2-3: Economic Development and Business Assistance Programs    53

III.   Promoting  Prevention  through Regulatory Mechanisms               55

      A. Multi-Media Integration Efforts                                        57
      B. Pollution Prevention in Environmental Permits                           60
      C. Pollution Prevention in Inspections and Enforcement                      64
      D. Facility Planning Laws                                              69
      E. Pollution Prevention in the Wastewater Pretreatment Program                70

             Exhibit 3-1: Pollution Prevention in Enforcement Settlement Agreements   68
             Exhibit 3-2: Pollution Prevention in a Wastewater Permit                73


      Selected Bibliography
      Participants in National Workshop

"Why not avoid creating pollution in the first place?"  This simple question is
revolutionizing the way we think about environmental protection.

Since the modern environmental movement began two decades ago, our basic protection
strategy has been to treat and manage wastes before they enter the environment. We have
made significant progress in cleaning air, water, and land resources by limiting the amount
of releases allowed and by prescribing control technologies to be used in achieving these

At its heart, the "treat and manage" strategy is based on an assumption that pollution is an
inevitable byproduct of human activity. Today, we are coming to understand that much
pollution can be avoided altogether, and that many wastes that cannot be avoided entirely
can be substantially minimized.  Further, the steps involved in minimizing waste can lead to
more efficient and profitable production.  With the concept of preventing pollution as a
stalling point, we are entering a new era in environmental protection.

The need for change stems in part from acknowledged shortcomings of the traditional
approach to environmental protection. The existing system is founded on an  array of
Federal, State,  and local requirements, each addressing a particular activity and its releases
to a single medium. As we develop controls for the more subtle environmental threats that
remain, the regulatory umbrella encompasses literally hundreds of thousands  of facilities,
many of them very small. This increasingly complex system often includes overlapping and
even conflicting requirements, resulting in high transaction costs to both the administering
agencies and regulated entities. Even if they are in full compliance  now, companies cannot
assume they are protected from liability for future environmental damages.  Yet companies
that want to innovate and go beyond what the law requires may find their efforts stymied
by rigidity in the existing system. From an environmental protection standpoint, a serious
concern is that we have learned that controls on discharges to one medium can sometimes
result in transferring the pollution to another. Pollution prevention  cuts through many of
these problems by seeking permanent reductions in the generation of wastes throughout a

Despite its common sense appeal, the shift to a prevention-oriented  strategy will not come
about quickly or easily. Bureaucracies have built up at the Federal, State, and local levels
to implement single-media, command-and-control programs. The generation of
environmental  professionals who are now working in government and the private sector
was trained to design and execute end-of-pipe solutions.  Enormous public and private
investments have been made to construct the treatment facilities and install the control
equipment that is now in place. And there are strong constituencies vested in the existing
system, including influential environmental activists and legislative committees in
Washington and in the States.

Nonetheless, as weaknesses in the current system are becoming more widely understood, a
consensus is emerging that pollution prevention offers the promise of a more rational,
efficient, and ultimately cost-effective approach to environmental protection.  A growing
body of evidence indicates that employing source reduction and waste minimization
techniques can not only produce the obvious environmental benefits of reducing pollution
overall but can also result in cost savings  and avoided future liability for the firms which


adopt them. This potential for serving both environmental and economic goals makes the
prevention-oriented strategy especially attractive.

Government efforts to promote prevention are growing. For the past several years, and
often with EPA support, State and local governments all around the country have been
establishing programs to promote pollution prevention. Typically, these programs provide
technical assistance, education and training,  and other incentives to businesses to encourage
adoption of pollution prevention measures.  EPA and many States have also established
special programs to get  businesses to commit to substantial voluntary reductions in
emissions. On the legislative front, Congress adopted a national Pollution Prevention Act
in 1990 that is designed to encourage pollution prevention; some waste minimization
provisions were already in place under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Many State laws establish environmental technical assistance programs for businesses, and
more than a third of the States have now enacted prevention laws that require facilities to
develop plans for how they will reduce the source and production of wastes. Additional
legislative action at both national and State levels is likely.

While the bulk of government-sponsored prevention efforts have been voluntary thus far,
there are also many experimental and pilot efforts using regulatory or quasi-regulatory
mechanisms to promote prevention. Many States - and EPA - are beginning to include
pollution prevention provisions in some permits and enforcement settlement agreements.
Multi-media inspection  and permitting initiatives are often intended to identify prevention
opportunities as a means for addressing environmental impacts on a "whole facility" basis.
EPA and many  States are also seeking ways to incorporate prevention directly into the
design of regulations by, for example, including source reduction as a "best available
technology."  Some local wastewater treatment agencies are promoting prevention as a
way for industrial dischargers to meet their pretreatment requirements.  In addition to these
more traditional regulatory mechanisms, a variety of market-based policies, such as
assessing fees based on emissions and providing tax credits for environmental investments,
are being tried.

We are in the midst of a transition now, and we have not yet figured out how to adapt our
government institutions, policies, and programs so that pollution prevention becomes the
dominant strategy for environmental protection.  We have made substantial progress in
cleaning and protecting air, water, and land resources under the existing command-and-
control system,  and basic components of this system are here to stay.  We are not likely to
abandon the role of government in establishing and assuring compliance with requirements
for environmental protection, although we may modify the way government carries out
these responsibilities.  Our challenge is to find  ways to make the shift that neither
jeopardize the environmental progress we have made under the existing system nor stifle
the actions that could lead to significant permanent reductions in the amount of pollution
that is generated.

NACEPT State and  Local  Environment  Committee:
Focus on Building State and  Local Pollution  Prevention Programs	

In the Spring of 1991, William K. Reilly, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), asked the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology (NACEPT) to help the Agency in promoting pollution prevention.  He
asked the Council to recommend steps EPA  could take to overcome the policy,
institutional, technical, and educational barriers that are impeding more widespread
adoption of pollution prevention. Recognizing that a variety of factors will influence

 whether and how pollution prevention becomes the dominant approach to environmental
 protection, each of the NACEPT Committees began exploring factors relevant to its
 particular areas of interest.

 From its inception, the principal objective of the NACEPT State and Local Environment
 Committee has been to foster improved State and local government capacity for carrying
 out their environmental management responsibilities. The Committee recognizes the critical
 role of the private sector in  taking voluntary actions to reduce the sources of pollution.
 However, government actions and policies can stimulate or thwart even voluntary efforts
 by the private sector. Further, the existing structure of environmental protection programs
 presents both opportunities and obstacles for promoting pollution prevention. Since
 government has a key role to play, the Committee focused its attention on the governmental
 activities that have been undertaken thus far to promote pollution prevention and the
 adjustments to governmental institutions needed to foster greater progress.

 Since pollution prevention efforts are still relatively new and the shape that national efforts
 will take is still being formed, the Committee saw an excellent opportunity to consider how
 to make optimum use of the resources and unique capabilities of Federal, State, and local
 governments in this area. In keeping with Federalism principles and the basic alignment of
 responsibilities for national environmental programs, it is clear that State and local
 governments will have major responsibilities in implementing whatever pollution
 prevention initiatives emerge at the national level. They are already leading the way by
 experimenting with a variety of mandatory and voluntary approaches. The Committee
 decided to focus its efforts on finding ways to foster growth in State and local pollution
 prevention efforts.

 Despite the demonstrated political appeal presented by the twin benefits of environmental
 and economic improvement, pollution prevention programs are still quite small.  Even in
 those States with the  most developed programs, they reach only a tiny fraction of the
 businesses that might benefit from source reduction measures.  The integration of pollution
 prevention into routine environmental program operations has barely begun, and there are
 enormous untapped opportunities for building pollution prevention into the range of
 government programs and services that are designed to foster economic development.

 To carry out its charge, the Committee and its  staff examined the current status of State and
 local efforts to promote pollution prevention and the issues such programs face,  giving
 particular attention to the relationship of these efforts to EPA programs and policies.  The
 Committee reviewed existing documents; interviewed key government and private sector
 experts; and commissioned papers on the topics of implementing State and local  prevention
 programs, incorporating pollution prevention into permits and enforcement actions, and
 leveraging business assistance programs to promote prevention. The Committee's
 information-gathering process culminated with a national workshop, during which 60
 participants from all levels of government, business and industry, academia, and the
 advocacy community provided their insights on issues and opportunities for building State
 and local pollution prevention programs.
Tart I of this  report present
recommendations for achieving greater progress in building  State and local
pollution [....prgyentign ....programs. _ __ _ _„
Parti: Findings and Recommendations summarizes key issues affecting State and local
pollution prevention programs and highlights opportunities for strengthening these efforts.
The Committee's recommendations suggest what EPA can do to take advantage of the early

State and local successes in promoting pollution prevention and build even greater
momentum for action.

The Committee's recommendations address:

•      Providing leadership and building broader support for pollution prevention;

•      Integrating pollution prevention into mainstream environmental programs;

       Modifying management accountability and funding systems to support
       prevention efforts; and

       Improving technical capacity and the infrastructure for information exchange about
       pollution prevention.

In addition, the Committee's recommendations outline the appropriate roles of Federal,
State, and local governments in fostering pollution prevention; specific actions EPA should
take are also discussed in the context of individual recommendations. Finally, the
Committee highlights the opportunity for adopting pollution prevention as a strategy for
meeting the environmental goals of the wastewater pretreatment program.
Part  II  analyzes trends  in  government  pollution  prevention efforts and the
issues and challenges to be addressed if the  prevention approach to
The analysis in Part II: Status and Trends in State and Local Pollution Prevention Programs
provides more detailed background for the Committee's recommendations.  It begins with
an overview of progress in building prevention programs and the principal challenges
which remain.  The next section assesses State and local programs to promote prevention
through voluntary action, including business assistance programs, voluntary toxics
reduction programs, and incentives programs. The third section analyzes issues and
opportunities for integrating pollution prevention into regulatory mechanisms such as
environmental permits, enforcement activities, and facility planning laws.
                              IMPORTANT  NOTE

       The concept of pollution prevention can be applied to every sector of the
       economy, and there are significant prevention opportunities in such arenas as
       energy, agriculture, and mining.  Because of its limited time and resources,
       the Committee chose to focus its attention on pollution prevention efforts designed
       to reduce pollution from industrial sources, where EPA has thus far made the
       greatest investment.  The Committee recognizes the importance of continued
       efforts to foster greater implementation in the other sectors as well.

Building State and Local Pollution Prevention Programs

                 PART I:



The steady emergence of new laws and government-sponsored education
and technical assistance programs, as well as actions to reduce toxics that
industry has taken voluntarily, suggest that the concept of pollution prevention
is taking hold. The State and Local Environment Committee of the National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
examined trends in pollution prevention efforts around the country and found
innovative policies and programs at all levels of government, creative uses of
authorities and resources, and cooperative partnerships between public and
private sector entities.  Many of these promising developments were aided
by financial  support, technical assistance, and encouragement from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Committee endorses pollution prevention as an effective and efficient
approach to environmental management, and  believes there is great potential
for expanding support for and adoption of pollution prevention in both the
public and private sectors. The successes of the early pollution prevention
efforts demonstrate the attractiveness and value of pollution prevention as a
basic strategic approach to achieving both environmental and economic health.
Perhaps even more importantly, the cooperative spirit that characterizes so
many State and local prevention efforts may help to break down the lack of
trust between and among government officials, business leaders, and
environmental advocates that has served to impede our ability to find solutions
to environmental problems.

For the most part, the early government pollution prevention initiatives have
occurred outside the mainstream of traditional environmental programs —
either as functions of organizationally  separate entities (e.g., technical
assistance programs housed at universities) or as special projects within
a regulatory  agency (e.g., multi-media inspections or permitting and
voluntary toxics reduction programs).  However, the realities of the
existing environmental regulatory system place significant constraints on
innovators inside and outside the government.  As more voluntary actions
are being undertaken, the line between regulatory programs and voluntary
efforts is  becoming increasingly blurry - creating both tensions and
opportunities. Some progress can be made by continuing with additional
special projects and initiatives.  However, for the full potential of pollution
prevention to be realized, it must become an  integral part of the way the
responsible government agencies perceive and carry out their daily functions -
the norm, rather than the unique - so that the government is consistent in
its message to the industrial community.

The findings and recommendations in this Part I of the Committee's final
report summarize key issues affecting State and local pollution prevention
programs and highlight opportunities for strengthening these efforts; they are
based on  the more detailed background and analysis of status and trends in
pollution prevention programs that is contained in Part II.  Because NACEPTs
charge is to advise the Administrator of EPA, the Committee's recommendations
focus on steps EPA can take to resolve policy matters and provide support
services that would bolster State and local capacity to implement pollution
prevention programs.

                             1.  Leadership and Support
                              for  Pollution  Prevention
EPA has a critical leadership role to play in promoting pollution prevention. Its actions and
decisions must send a consistent message that prevention is the strategy of choice for
.environmental protection.	

EPA top managers have been voicing their support for pollution prevention for several years
now, but skeptics point out that EPA's actions have not always been consistent with iis
prevention message.  Some suggest that by still advocating recycling, EPA may be
undermining the development of a source reduction ethic. Many industry officials say they
see little evidence yet of the regulatory flexibility they need to be able to innovate. Staff in
EPA and the State and local environmental agencies say they do not see the rhetoric  of
pollution prevention  being backed up by changes in the  way they and their programs are

The confusion about what activities the term "pollution prevention" should encompass
has been a significant barrier to designing  and evaluating programs; goals were unclear.
EPA's recent issuance of its definition of pollution prevention (5/28/92) represents an
important step forward in articulating a national policy that can guide future efforts.
However, the range of definitions embodied in State laws and regulations will continue to
present policy challenges.

While it is hard to find anyone who disagrees conceptually with the idea of pollution
prevention, there are important constituencies inside and outside EPA who are concerned
about the practical implications of implementing pollution prevention and other integrated
approaches.  Many environmental agency  staff members are reluctant to assume new,
broader responsibilities that involve understanding disciplines outside their particular
expertise. Media program managers are resistant to efforts to re-invent or re-shape the
regulatory wheel, particularly in times of heightened competition for resources among
programs. Regulatory agency staff accustomed to viewing members of the regulated
community as adversaries are wary of adopting a more cooperative relationship or of
recognizing voluntary efforts.  They are joined by legislators and activists who fear that
hard-won environmental laws and standards could be weakened by providing greater
flexibility in implementation.  Business leaders, even those who embrace the pollution
prevention approach, fear that it could lead to more burdensome requirements.

If EPA is to be successful in promoting pollution prevention, the Agency must address the
concerns of these doubters — and bring  them into the fold — because each has the potential
to thwart progress. Many of the Committee's recommendations are intended to build greater
support for prevention efforts by addressing these concerns.
Industry is often motivated to seek pollution prevention solutions as a way to reduce regulatory
J^HSi^LS0^^                                                              s s.___

Firms who adopt pollution prevention often cite a desire to reduce current and potential
regulatory pressures as a principal reason they sought to reduce their sources of pollution.
While some may also be motivated by the potential cost savings to be realized, the existence


of a Strong regulatory climate is an essential ingredient in a firm's decision to adopt a
prevention strategy.
A broader "bandwagon" of support among policy makers and opinion leaders at the Federal,

The support of political leaders, the business community, and other opinion leaders is
essential to securing visibility, funding, and needed authorities - but relatively few are
aware of the potential economic and environmental benefits pollution prevention offers.

Elected political leaders will respond when they learn that supporting pollution prevention
programs can provide a rare political "win-win" because such programs are both
pro-business and pro-environment. Programs that provide technical assistance and other
benefits, such as tax incentives or low-cost loans for prevention investments, can
demonstrate a State's or community's interest in creating a friendly climate for business
while fostering environmental improvement. Further, toxic use reduction and waste
minimization can simplify regulatory life for the business community.  Other benefits
include reducing friction between government and businesses, reducing the need for new
waste disposal capacity, and enhancing permit streamlining opportunities.
Economic development entities and financial institutions are natural allies of pollution
Most State and local governments support a variety of programs to foster economic
development and assist businesses. Although the primary purpose of such programs is
economic improvement, they could be enlisted to promote pollution prevention as a way to
realize the potential cost savings from energy efficiency and waste reduction.  Managers of
business assistance programs indicate that many of the questions they receive from their
clients are related to environmental compliance matters.  At this time, however, there are
few links between pollution prevention and general business assistance programs.

Unfortunately, in many States and communities, economic and environmental agencies
have traditionally seen each other as adversaries; it will take  strong leadership to overcome
long-standing barriers to cooperation. However, pollution prevention does offer a unique
opportunity to address mutual interests:  promoting environmentally and economically
sound development by encouraging source reduction and waste minimization.

Credit is essential to businesses being able to make investments in expansion or in needed
environmental equipment. The best technical assistance program will fail if firms are
unable to raise the capital they need to make changes. Therefore, the understanding and
support of financial institutions is essential to a successful prevention effort. Since financial
institutions have a direct interest in environmental matters, however, they are also potential
allies. They are very concerned about potential environmental liability because a business
faced with huge cleanup costs may ultimately default on a loan — which means that the
lender may end up owning contaminated property. Similarly, insurance companies have an
interest in helping their clients avoid future liability.  Businesses which adopt pollution
prevention can be a better credit risk, and financial institutions and insurers may be willing
to provide support to programs that conduct audits and provide technical advice to

 1-1   Provide national  leadership  in  promoting  pollution prevention  as  the
	strategy of choice for environmental management.	

 1-la  EPA  should continue fostering a strong environmental regulatory
       climate that pushes companies to seek prevention  alternatives.

       •      Continue development and enforcement of stringent regulations
              governing waste disposal and releases to the environment.

 1-lb  EPA  should assure that its actions and  decisions are consistent with
       its  pollution  prevention  message.

       •      Adopt procedures to assure that pollution prevention opportunities are fully
              identified and taken advantage of in all EPA regulatory, enforcement, and
              program management decisions.

       •      Assign highest funding priority to efforts that prevent pollution.

 1-lc  EPA  should develop and  implement a careful strategy  for building
       greater consensus and  support for pollution prevention.

       *      Develop information demonstrating the economic, environmental, and other
              benefits of pollution prevention as a strategy for environmental protection,
              and use it in outreach activities.

       •      Develop a consensus-building process to address the major concerns of the
              key constituencies at the national level, including Congress, business
              groups, environmental organizations, and environmental agency officials.

       •      Identify and address the specific issues of concern to mid-level
              managers in environmental agencies.

 1-ld  EPA  should develop and  implement a pollution prevention education
       strategy to  foster prevention as both an  ethical standard and a
       practical  goal for all endeavors.

       •      Elements of the strategy should address traditional educational settings
              (e.g.,  elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, universities) as
              well as other means for reaching citizens (e.g., in the workplace, through
              news media  and entertainment programs).

 1-2   Build support for pollution prevention  by State and local
	policy makers.	

 l-2a  EPA  should develop an outreach strategy, working with national
       organizations representing elected officials,  to educate  them  about
       pollution  prevention and  how to build effective prevention programs.

       •      Educate Governors, State legislators, and local elected officials about policy
              and program initiatives around the country.

       •      Foster adoption of State/local policies and programs to implement prevention
              measures in the operation of government agencies.

       •      Promote use of regulatory consultation service with State environmental agency
              and EPA that is separate from enforcement activities, similar to the OS HA
              consultation process.

 l-2b  EPA  should develop and disseminate  information about  potential
       economic and environmental benefits to States and communities of
       prevention  efforts

       •      Conduct analyses and disseminate information on such topics as how a
              pollution prevention program can:

                    Improve the attractiveness of a State or community to existing
                    businesses, bond purchasers, and potential investors;
                    Save jobs by helping companies reduce compliance costs;
                    Reduce the need for waste disposal capacity;
                    Avoid costs in capital improvements to wastewater treatment
                    plants and drinking water works; and
                    Other benefits to States and communities as a whole (not just
                    benefits to individual businesses).
 1-3   Forge new alliances with  economic development entities  and financial

 l-3a  EPA  should expand its work with  national  economic development
       organizations as well as with the other  Federal agencies which have
       relevant programs.

       •      Establish links and develop joint efforts with economic development
              programs at the Federal, State, and local levels.

       •      Identify opportunities for use of mechanisms and programs not traditionally
              linked to environmental protection to promote prevention (e.g., loan and
              grant programs in commerce, economic development, housing agencies;
              assuring compliance with community reinvestment requirements).

 l-3b  EPA  should expand efforts to educate financial institutions and the
       insurance  industry about the benefits of pollution  prevention and
       examine the role pollution prevention might have in  helping to
       resolve lender  liability concerns.

       •      Encourage financial institutions, other lenders, and insurers to incorporate
              prevention considerations into their decision-making processes.

       •      Address the financial and credit needs and problems of small businesses
              wishing to make environmental improvements.
                                      1 1

                          2.  Roles and Responsibilities
Roles and responsibilities of Federal, State, and local governments in promoting pollution
 Several of the challenges to be faced in building State and local pollution prevention
 programs relate to the need for better leadership, regulatory policy, technical capacity, and
 coordination. Setting out the appropriate roles and responsibilities of Federal, State, and
 local governments for pollution prevention would improve coordination, foster efficient use
 of resources at each level, avoid confusion in policy matters, and facilitate exchange of
 information.  Ideally, each level of government will carry out the functions and activities
 for which it is best suited within a system that is mutually supporting. However, a national
 framework is needed to help guide investments at  each level of government and help to
 avoid duplication of effort and conflicts.

 The relationships between Federal, State, and local governments are made more complex by the
 introduction of pollution prevention  as a means for addressing environmental issues.  In the
 traditional environmental programs,  at least the framework for intergovernmental relationships is
 established by law; but no over-arching national law sets out this framework for pollution
 prevention.  In addition, the relationship between pollution prevention and the existing statutory
 and regulatory structure is still unclear, especially since voluntary actions by industry often cross
 single-media program boundaries and go beyond  what the laws require. In addition, new State
 laws requiring facility planning or toxic use reduction have been adopted in  about a third of the
 States — and each is  different.

2-1   Clarify roles and responsibilities  between Federal,  State, and   local
	governments for pollution  prevention.	

Because of the early stage in development of pollution prevention programs and the wide
variability of coverage, content, and depth, appropriate roles and responsibilities can only
be defined in general terms at this time.   The chart on  the page which follows provides a
general framework for EPA, State, and local roles in promoting pollution prevention.

It is important to note that many of the actions shown on the chart can be carried out only if
Congress (or State legislatures) are willing to provide new authorities or more flexibility in
administering existing authorities. It is also important not to over-estimate the
government's role in being able to foster pollution prevention: the private sector plays the
most critical role in implementation.

                          PROMOTING POLLUTION  PREVENTION:
Work as  high  profile initative
(mayor,   city council, agency

Tie  economic  development,
job  retention  benefits
to  environmental  benefits

Build  partnerships  with
businesses,   universities,
financial   institutions
Work as  high  profile initiative
(governor,   legislators,   agency

Tie  economic  development,
job  retention  benefits to
environmental   benefits

Build  partnerships  with
business   leaders,  universities,
financial   institutions

Implement  prevention   in
State operations

Support  local  pollution
prevention   initiatives
Give highly  visible  leadership
emphasizing  commitment  and
follow  through;  stress  economic
and   environmental  benefits
environmental   benefits
Set,  publicize national
goals,  objectives

Give visibility  to  prevention
leaders  in  business,  State
and   local  governments

Research,   publicize
economic  benefits  of
pollution  prevention  for
businesses,  communities

Fund  demonstration   projects
integrating  Federal,  State,
local  resources
Leverage  investments  in
community  to   finance
pollution    prevention
(e.g.,  Community Development
Block  Grants,  Community
Reinvestment   Act)
 Generate  technical  assistance
 through  universities,  private

 Leverage  State  departments  of
 commerce, economic  develop-
 ment  to  provide  support for
 assistance  efforts,  provide
 loan/grant  and  other  support
 to businesses  doing  prevention
Catalyze  other Federal
agencies  for joint  efforts,
implementation   within
own  operations

Include   Commerce,  Small
Business  Administration,
Economic Development
Administration,   Trans-
portation, Energy,  Defense,
Comptroller  of  Currency
Use  local  mechanisms  such
as zoning  and  ordinances,
building codes,  POTW
pretreatment   program

Target bank  deposits with
lenders  willing  to aid
businesses  implementing
prevention  initiatives

Use TRI, other  data to
set  priorities

Set goals  and  measurable
work  activities

Regionalize  services
and  activities
 Use  executive orders,  seek
 new  authorities  if  needed

 Provide  regulatory  flexibility
 to businesses,  communities
 trying   pollution  prevention

 Participate  in  development
 and  implementation of
 national  strategies  and

 Strive  to  develop  one-stop
 industry-based  regulatory
 and  pollution prevention
Use executive  authorities,
seek new  authorities  if needed

Provide  regulatory   flexibility
to  those  trying  polluton

Provide  flexible  funding,
oversight  of  States  and  locals
where   pollution  prevention/
multi-media  initiatives  are
being  tried

Develop  and  implement
national  strategies  for:
•  Research
•  Training
•  Technology  Transfer

            3.  Prevention in Mainstream Environmental Programs
Top-level managers voice support for pollution prevention, but the rhetoric has not yet been
translated^                                                                  $.______

Political leaders and senior managers of environmental agencies are attracted to pollution
prevention as a good, multi-media planning device.  Because targeting can be based on such
factors as amount of emissions and risks involved, these leaders can get a sense of where the
environmental problems really are.  Further, pollution prevention can result in more effective
use of environmental agency staff through better targeting of resources to facilities presenting
the highest risk, giving multi-media attention to problems, and focusing on fundamental
solutions to environmental problems that will have long-lasting effect.

However, the goals, objectives, and expectations for pollution prevention are unclear to
mid-level managers of the mainstream, media-specific environmental programs of EPA and
State and local governments. These agency officials  believe they are receiving mixed messages:
EPA (or State) top management touts pollution prevention as the strategy of choice, but staff
involved in the day-to-day operations of mainstream programs see no tangible changes in the
kinds or amounts of work they are expected to perform.  Many program managers are resistant
to the new approaches, particularly  when they involve resource-intensive coordination or a
more cooperative relationship with the regulated community.
Integration of prevention into mainstream environmental programs has been spotty
and slow.
For the most part, the rhetoric in support of pollution prevention has not been translated into
changes in the day-to-day operations of environmental programs at the Federal, State, and
local levels. The potential for using regulations, permits, and enforcement actions to
promote prevention has barely been tapped. In short, with a few exceptions, the prevention
message has simply not yet resulted in many changes in the way the established
environmental programs conduct their activities.

Throughout the environmental bureaucracies, prevention projects and initiatives are
commonly viewed as distinct, add-on efforts having little relevance to the mainstream
programs. Many times, such projects are conceived of and conducted by staff who are
organizationally located outside the mainstream program involved. Consequently, while the
individual projects may be very successful, the results  are not being used by program
officials to affect real, lasting changes in the way the program operates.

In their defense, the mainstream environmental programs are already overburdened and
underfunded. Media program managers have little impetus to take on new voluntary
responsibilities such as pollution prevention, especially when they must take any resources
required out of their existing, inadequate pool - and then get no offsetting relief in the tasks
they are expected to accomplish.
Unease about the interface between regulatory and non-regulatory pollution prevention
efforts continues.
Until recently, most pollution prevention efforts were non-regulatory - using education and
technical assistance to persuade businesses to adopt prevention measures. Now, however, an


increasing number of environmental agencies are seeking ways to incorporate pollution prevention
into the regulatory arena, such as in permit writing and enforcement.  Even voluntary reduction
efforts eventually bump up against the regulatory system.

No longer academic are questions such as how should pollution prevention be defined or
should companies be given compliance flexibility in exchange for going beyond what the
law requires. Such matters affect implementation of existing national laws and regulations.
Where delegated national laws and programs are involved, there will be calls for national
guidance and criteria to assure consistency. Since these are complex  issues that go to the
heart of the traditional command-and-control system, resolution will not come without
considerable controversy.

Another concern is the relationship between technical assistance efforts and regulator}'
programs. Regulatory agencies that take on technical assistance functions find themselves
in a "white hat/black hat" role conflict.  Many see the philosophic underpinnings of
technical assistance as fundamentally incompatible with the functions of a regulatory

Many advocate providing incentives as a way to encourage companies to implement
prevention measures.  At this time, there is little understanding of how the non-regulatory or
quasi-regulatory mechanisms being proposed to promote prevention, such as market
incentives and tax policies, really affect business behavior.
A cohesive system for promoting prevention does not yet exist, and there is potential for

Many successful EPA pieces of a pollution prevention program are in place, such as the
33/50 voluntary reduction program, special prevention grants and projects, technology
research efforts, media-specific prevention projects, and energy conservation programs.
However, the parts are not very well connected within EPA, and only on an ad hoc basis
with programs at the State and local level.

Meanwhile, there has been a proliferation of fragmented EPA-supported technical
assistance efforts; many "specialize" in a particular environmental program area based on
source of funding (hazardous waste, solid waste, air).  Still more fragmentation is likely in
light of new Clean Air Act-required technical assistance programs, the proposed RCRA
"extension" effort, and additional prevention grants. Further, pollution prevention
programs are not well linked to State and local programs for energy and water conservation
or economic development that often have comparable objectives.  Many of these programs
receive Federal funds from other agencies such as Commerce, Energy, and Interior.

Prevention projects are being developed, managed, and/or funded throughout EPA
Headquarters and Regional offices as well as in the Office of Research and Development.
This decentralization makes it quite difficult to find out what pollution prevention projects
have  been undertaken or funded by EPA. In addition, the results or products from the
projects cannot be readily found. (It is even more difficult to find out about prevention
projects not tied to EPA funding.)  This situation has already led to some duplication of
effort. In addition, there is little emphasis given to evaluating project results and
transferring successful practices and products to others.  Finally, there are weak links
between pilot and special prevention projects and routine program operations; project
results are not often translated into permanent changes in affected programs.

3-1   Clarify goals and  expectations for  prevention efforts and develop  a
       cohesive strategy to build prevention into mainstream  environmental

3-la  EPA  should establish  clear goals and expectations for  what  its
       programs offices should do to incorporate pollution prevention into
       their  routine activities and to accommodate  multi-media and
       prevention   innovations.

       •      Set out goals and expectations regarding incorporation of prevention in
              mainstream programs at the Federal, State, and local levels.

       •      Assure follow-through by making needed modifications in oversight,
              accountability, and performance evaluation systems.

       *      Modify accountability measures for permits and enforcement to
              provide greater "credit" for multi-media and prevention solutions.

3-lb  EPA  should develop an overall strategy for incorporating pollution
       prevention  into  its programs, including both multi-media and single
       media components.

       •      Prepare an overall strategy covering priority setting (based on risk and other
              relevant factors), plans for addressing policy issues,  developing needed
              technical expertise, and Federal-State-local relations; establish timefraines
              for implementation.

       •      Develop written strategies for incorporating pollution prevention into each
              of the media programs as well as a strategy addressing priority multi-media

3-lc   EPA  should continue and expand industry cluster approaches  to regulation
       development to  enhance identification  of prevention opportunities and
       address  multi-media  issues.

       •      Provide for adequate participation of States in regulatory cluster activities.

       •      Assure that pollution prevention information developed through this process is
              disseminated to State and local governments, and incorporated into the
              clearinghouse and other information networks.

3-Id  EPA  should take steps to  assure that the results of  pilot  projects are
       translated  into needed changes in routine program  operations.

       *      Strengthen links between special projects and mainstream programs, and
              plan for use of results in making lasting policy and procedural changes

3-le  EPA  should begin  a  deliberative process to resolve policy issues
       associated  with integration of pollution prevention into regulatory

              Address such priority issues as: (1) providing regulatory flexibility or
              extended compliance deadlines in exchange for additional reductions; and
              (2) developing and enforcing prevention permit conditions.

              Assure dissemination of results of policy determinations to EPA, State, and
              local officials; monitor implementation to assure that policies are followed
              and to identify additional issues.
                 4.  Management Accountability and Funding
Traditional approaches to funding and EPA oversight of States present significant barriers
to pollution preyenrion^
Addressing the need for flexibility in the administration, funding, and oversight of
environmental programs is perhaps the most important factor that will foster adoption of
pollution prevention and multi-media approaches to environmental management.  From its
inception, the State and Local Environment Committee has consistently advocated for
changing oversight and funding policies and practices to give State and local governments
more flexibility in designing and managing their environmental programs. There have been
many incremental reforms over the years, and the Committee endorses the current efforts of
EPA's State Capacity Task Force to find additional ways to improve the way EPA supports
State and local environmental protection programs.

The adoption of pollution  prevention as a basic strategy for environmental protection has
potentially profound effects on current environmental programs and the relationships that
have built up over the years between EPA, States, and local governments. Until the
oversight and accountability system is modified to better mesh with pollution prevention
developments, it will be a significant barrier to progress. The existing oversight and
budget systems have little  ability to encourage or give credit to State and local innovative
approaches to environmental management such as implementation of facility planning laws,
cooperative projects with other agencies, programs to provide technical assistance, or
public private partnerships.

The "mismatch" is already being experienced by States with new multi-media
organizational structures or new toxics use reduction laws. Some of the innovative and
far-reaching State laws and policies simply do not fit into existing media-specific laws,
structures, and policies. If States are not granted some flexibility in interpreting national
program requirements,  they will be stymied in implementing their new laws — even if
implementation would bring about greater environmental results than would strict
adherence to national requirements. Finding a solution to this problem is complicated by
the fact that State and local pollution prevention  laws and programs originated at the grass
roots level rather than under some "national" design,  so there are considerable variations
among them.

Despite the support of many senior State and EPA managers, most bureaucratic structures
have no natural home or voice for multi-media efforts. Because most agencies are
organized along single-media lines, any multi-media project automatically requires special
arrangements for management, oversight,  and funding.  Funding can be especially

troublesome, because current laws severely limit the ability to use grant funds across
single-media program lines.
State and local governments need relief from counterproductive requirements as well as
Current accountability methods and oversight practices tend to promote status quo
approaches to implementing environmental programs. The accountability measures used to
judge program performance are particularly important, because they drive the bulk of
program activities.  In other words, what gets counted is what gets done. State and local
governments may be forced to perform inspections or write media- specific permits based
on an EPA scheme that does not take into account their unique needs or their own preferred
strategy for meeting environmental goals. In the current system, credit is given for routine
program activities such as writing permits and taking enforcement actions, but there is no
mechanism through which to get credit for a successful voluntary reduction effort or
technical assistance program. It is also difficult to get credit or funding for participation in
a multi-media effort or for actions that require the cooperation of multiple agencies or

States are often inhibited from trying new ideas about incorporating pollution prevention
into their routine activities because they fear that EPA will intervene or override their
actions.  At a minimum, trying something new is likely to add to the transaction costs
between EPA and the State.  Ultimately, if EPA does not like what a State does or its
interpretation of a requirement, EPA retains authority to pull back the permit or override
the enforcement action.
Sustainability of prevention programs is uncertain, especially in light of tight Federal and

Pollution prevention cannot become a widely adopted practice unless government resources
are available to promote the concept and to take the steps necessary to integrate it with
environmental regulatory efforts. State and local governments -- already strapped for
resources and overburdened with responsibilities — may simply not be able to spare the
funds and personnel needed.  It is hard for "nonessential" programs such as technical
assistance to compete for resources with mandated regulatory functions at any level of
government. EPA funding for pollution prevention through special grants and projects
cannot be relied upon completely either, both because these types of programs are the most
vulnerable to cutbacks and because most prevention funds have been intended to help start
programs that would become self-sustaining later. For this reason, pollution prevention
will most likely receive sustained EPA funding if it is built into routine, mainstream
program funding mechanisms.

In a few States, new laws now levy fees on waste generators as a means for assuring
sustained resources for their technical assistance programs; other programs charge a small fee
for certain direct services. Many pollution prevention programs have successfully entered into
partnerships with private sector organizations and universities to provide services.

As a new area of government endeavor in a time of shrinking resources, special care must be
taken to assure  that pollution prevention programs find the most economical, cost-effective way
to deliver services and to leverage scarce resources to the fullest extent possible.  This includes
taking advantage of existing materials and expertise as well as leveraging existing government
programs such  as small business assistance and economic development programs.


To begin addressing funding flexibility issues, EPA is now encouraging the use of media
State grant funds to support pollution prevention activities to the extent possible given
statutory and program purposes and limitations. A memorandum from the Deputy
Administrator (5/28/92) sets out principles for incorporating prevention-oriented activities
that were used by EPA in negotiating the FY 1993 State workplans that are now beginning
to be implemented. Guidance for negotiating FY 1994 media grant activities (to be issued
in November, 1992), will refine these national principles for incorporating pollution
prevention into grant activities; ensure that interpretations of grant requirements in
EPA/State workplans are flexible enough to support innovative State activities; and
establish an accounting process to ensure that EPA shares information on successful Slate
projects and identifies statutory or other barriers to funding State proposals. The FY 1994
guidance will also address allowing trade-offs and disinvestments from traditional
(non-statutory) program requirements and providing multiple credit for "multi-media"
inspections that emphasize pollution prevention technical assistance.

4-1   Develop and implement new approaches to funding and assessing
	State and local environmental programs	

4-la  EPA should  continue exploring  ways  to  provide for greater
       flexibility in funding, administration, and  oversight of State  and
       local environmental  programs -- using strategic planning and
       pollution prevention as key components of new  approaches.

       •      Develop more flexible management accountability and funding systems that
              can more readily accommodate strategic choices and innovative approaches
              by State and local governments — for pollution prevention and other
              integrated efforts. Flexibility should be linked to risk-based strategic
              planning efforts.

       •      Seek new statutory authority as needed to get flexibility and ability to do and
              fund cross-media efforts, including incorporation of pollution prevention,
              which is inherently  cross-media;  seek multi-year funding authority.

       *      Conduct pilots, analyze results, and incorporate findings into routine

       •      Provide for different structural relationships between EPA and
              States with innovative laws (e.g., facility planning laws) and
              organizational structures (e.g., one-stop permit units).

              Continue and expand set-asides, grants, and other flexible funding
              mechanisms, preferably using an "up to X%" approach for pollution
              prevention and multi-media projects; negotiate efforts during annual work
              plan development process; monitor how flexible funds are actually  used.

       •      Determine the feasibility of designing and implementing a more
              comprehensive approach to assessing the overall strengths and weaknesses
              of State environmental management programs — considering such matters as


              tax and incentives policies and availability of technical assistance and
              financing to help businesses comply ~ in concert with traditional
              environmental measures.

4-2Foster  development of more stable sources of funding for
	pollution  prevention  efforts.	

4-2a  EPA should  maximize its  use of existing funding  mechanisms
       to support pollution prevention efforts.

       •      Continue special set-asides for pollution prevention priority projects.

       •      Implement policy and guidelines ( 5/28/92 and 11/92) on using media
              program grants for pollution prevention purposes. Monitor how the
              flexibility is actually used, and assess its impact on routine media program

       •      Assign highest priority to funding of routine program activities that result in
              pollution prevention (e.g., issuing permits and conducting
              inspections/enforcement that lead to permanent reductions in releases).

4-2b  EPA should  ask  Congress  for adequate funds to support  pollution
       prevention initiatives, and seek  the flexibility needed to support  (hem
       with routine program  funds.

       •      Develop information needed to persuade Congress and the
              White House of the value of pollution prevention initiatives.

       •      Work with Congress (and others) to develop more appropriate measures for
              overseeing EPA and State progress in meeting environmental goals.

4-2b  EPA should  identify and  disseminate information  about
       alternative mechanisms being  used to finance State and local
       prevention programs.

       •      Sponsor analysis of various approaches to funding State and local pollution
              prevention programs, including such mechanisms as fees, waste taxes, and
              public-private partnerships.

       •      Disseminate information to State and local governments about successful
                    5.  Technical and Management  Capacity
Government at all levels has limited technical capacity for pollution prevention, and
Pollution prevention is a new area of endeavor, for both the public and the private sectors.
A wealth of technical information and knowledge is being developed, but not all of it is
being shared effectively with everyone who needs it. There is a need for additional training


and technical support for both the prevention practitioners who provide assistance in the
field and for program staff such as permit writers and enforcement personnel.

Pollution prevention technical information and program management experience is shared
largely on an ad hoc basis through a loose network that includes government and private
sector prevention practitioners, researchers, and program managers. There are
clearinghouses, hotlines, and data bases operated by various Federal and State agencies as
well as by the private sector.  While EPA has a national (and now international) pollution
prevention information clearinghouse, the clearinghouse has been criticized for having a
seriously incomplete and difficult-to-use data base. In response, the Agency recently
embarked on a major overhaul of the clearinghouse.

While pollution prevention information has been developed for various industries,
industrial processes, and businesses, the level of detail and quality varies. Unfortunately,
duplication of effort is common, and there are many examples of comparable technical
materials and training programs having been developed by several different entities.
Not enough is being done to provide the training needed to develop qualified staff or to
assure they have'access to^te^chnical expertise.
In all but the most elementary situations, the ability to recognize pollution prevention
opportunities requires a sophisticated level of knowledge about industry processes and
practices -- as well as of the environmental requirements that apply. Because they are
connected, ideally pollution prevention practitioners would also be familiar with worker
safety and health matters as well as energy conservation. To be able to work credibly with
their industry counterparts, staff at all levels of government involved in either technical
assistance or regulatory efforts will need additional training and access to technical
expertise. Some States have been successful in hiring retired engineers and engineering
graduate students to help bridge some of the gaps in staff capacity.

At this point, the vast majority of environmental agency staff have not yet received even an
"orientation" level of pollution prevention training. Very few have received more extensive
training in such areas as permits and inspections incorporating pollution prevention.
Information clearinghouses do exist in EPA and in many States, but the extent to which
they are able to provide direct help varies, as does their coverage of various industries. The
training needs of senior and mid-level program managers now responsible for new
prevention laws have not yet been addressed.

Government managers need better information about policy, program management, and
organizational issues associated with pollution prevention and other innovative approaches
to envirojTmentaljmanagement.^	,___
Many State and local governments are developing new policies, laws, and programs to
encourage pollution prevention.  These new developments are often broad in scope,
transcending traditional program boundaries and potentially having profound effects on the
way a State or local government carries out its environmental management responsibilities.
However, such State and local policy and management changes are not generally monitored
or analyzed by EPA, even though the experiences of innovating governments would be
valuable to others as well as in the development of national policy.  In addition, existing
EPA policies and practices could inhibit a State or local government's ability to implement
an innovative approach.  At this time, there are few mechanisms through which policy and
management information can be exchanged.

5-1   Build effective mechamsm(s) for sharing  technical  information on
       pollution prevention and related policy, management, and
	organizational issues.	

5-la  EPA should design a national strategy for meeting  technical
       information and training needs, and  provide adequate financial
       support for implementation.

       •     Develop protocols that can be used to assess technical information
             needs, and design a framework for developing and disseminating
             information that makes optimum use of public and private resources.

                    Identify needs of the various audiences, what mechanisms
                    already exist to serve these needs, duplication and overlaps, and
                    gaps in coverage.

                    Acknowledge that pollution prevention programs will be diverse and
                    built from the bottom up (State and local); highlight the need to
                    build capacity at those levels.

                    Analyze how technical assistance programs for businesses
                    (particularly those that receive government funds from
                    EPA, other Federal agencies, and State and local government) can
                    be more effectively linked.

       •     Establish training programs and address ongoing technical needs
             of government practitioners such as permit writers,inspectors, and
             enforcement personnel at all levels of government - Federal, State,
             and local.

       •     Foster a pilot program of "centers of technical excellence" on specific key
             industries to be responsible for: preparing waste audit protocols and other
             technical materials that would be made available nationally (e.g., through a
             clearinghouse), consulting with other technical assistance providers, and
             keeping up with industry developments.

5-lb  EPA should establish an ongoing program to develop  and disseminate
       information to government managers on the design  and
       implementation of pollution prevention programs.

       •     Develop guidance on designing non-regulatory components of a
             pollution prevention program, recognizing that not all will or
             should receive financial support from EPA.

       •     Establish a mechanism through which State and local senior policy
             managers can raise and address management and policy issues associated
             with pollution prevention.

5-lc   EPA should support mechanisms through  which  State and local
       regulatory program staff can share information and experiences on

       integrating pollution  prevention and other multi-media approaches
       into their routine operations.

       •      Establish mechanisms for sharing information and experience in designing
              and implementing pollution prevention and multi-media permit and
              enforcement programs.

                    Address managers' needs for information about:  policy initiatives,
                    organizational structures, intra-agency and inter-agency
                    coordination, and management approaches.

                    Address practitioners' needs for: model provisions, access to
                    industry-specific technical expertise, manuals and protocols, and

5-2   Reap greater benefits from government investments in pollution
	prevention projects.	

5-2a  EPA should develop and implement a system that  will allow the
       Agency to keep  track of the  myriad  pollution prevention
       projects (internal and external) -- and their results -- funded  by
       the various Agency  offices.

       •      Establish systems needed to avoid duplication of effort in development of
              technical materials and training programs; ideally this should include
              information from all sources, not just those developed with EPA support.

       •      Modify grant application and oversight procedures, and staff adequately to
              assure that EPA is not paying for duplicative work and that grant products
              are readily accessible to others.

       *      Maintain an indexed repository of project products and results that can be
              used for evaluation purposes as well as to identify and publicize
              "best practices."

       •      Analyze project results and disseminate "best practices" and "how to"
              materials on program design, policies, and management.

5-3   Develop and share  expertise  on State and local innovations in
	environmental management,  including pollution prevention.	

5-3a  EPA should monitor  and analyze  innovations in State  and local
       environmental programs and policies, facilitate transfer of
       information about  new  approaches,  and broker  policy conflicts.

       •      Establish an EPA unit with responsibility for conducting  analyses
              of innovative State and local policies, organizational structures,
              and programs;  disseminating information to other State and local
              governments; and identifying and addressing policy implications for EPA
              programs and national legislation.

              Designate a senior official in each EPA Region and in  Headquarters as
              liaison between EPA and innovating States to negotiate annual agreements
              and broker disputes as needed.
                          6.   Prevention Opportunities
                    in the Wastewater Pretreatment Program
The wastewater pretreatment program offers a unique opportunity for Federal, State, and
local cooperation in developing a new prevention-oriented strategy for meeting
There are opportunities for incorporating pollution prevention into each of the
environmental regulatory programs.  However, several unique aspects of the wastewater
pretreatment program make it a particularly attractive program through which pollution
prevention can be promoted.  The pretreatment program touches on Federal, State, and
local responsibilities and so seemed appropriate for special attention in considering ways to
build State and local capacity for pollution prevention.

The national pretreatment program was established to prevent pollutants discharged from
industrial facilities to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) from: interfering with the
operation of the wastewater treatment plant, passing through the treatment plant into the
environment, contaminating municipal sludges, and exposing treatment plans workers to
hazardous chemicals.  The program is also intended to improve opportunities for recycling
and reclaiming municipal and industrial effluents and sludges. The objectives of the
pretreatment program are met mainly by regulating commercial and  industrial facilities that
discharge toxic or unusually strong conventional wastes. Approximately 1,500 local
wastewater treatment programs (about  10% of the total number of local programs) are
required to have pretreatment programs because their facilities handle industrial wastes.

For the most part, the pretreatment program has focused on achieving compliance by
POTWs with the procedural and administrative aspects of the program — and less on setting
and enforcing local limits on the industrial sources who discharge to the POTWs. A shift
to to an environmental results-oriented approach would necessarily  reach behind the
discharges of the POTW itself to see what the facilities that send polluted wastewater to the
POTW can and must do to limit their discharges. For many sources, pollution prevention
will be a cost-effective remedy. However, most pretreatment POTWs at this point lack the
technical capacity that would allow them to trace sources of toxics,  understand the
processes and operations of the various industrial facilities, and provide  technical
information on pollution prevention.  Thus far, there has been very  limited investment
nationally in helping them to develop the needed expertise.
The pretreatment program is under increasing pressure to address toxics more effectively,
and POTWs need help in meeting increasing environmental requirements. Pollution
prevention offerejsgme solutions.

Although POTWs have made significant progress in meeting program goals, the
pretreatment program is facing external pressure for reform because several studies have
revealed that it has given insufficient attention to the control of toxics. Some of the
pressure for reform is also coming from the costs that the POTWs themselves must bear to


be in compliance with requirements now coming into place governing such matters as
releases to the air, sludge management, and re-use of water.  Compliance costs are
significantly higher and options more greatly limited if the POTW is handling toxics.

Some of the problems in the pretreatment program that are now surfacing are rooted in the
lack of effluent guidelines, criteria documents, and categorical standards for many
industries. Sludge standards are also lacking. Without these as a foundation, it is difficult
for POTWs to set specific, numeric toxic limits in the permits of their industrial
dischargers.  Some two-thirds of POTWs do not have numerical  toxic limits in  their own
State-issued discharge permits. However, as new categorical standards (now under court-
ordered development) are issued, POTWs will be faced with even more challenging
standards  to meet.

POTWs have been successful in supplementing the categorical standards with local limits
for at least some pollutants, but comparatively few of these limits  are actually based on site-
specific criteria for surface water and sludge quality, potential for interference with the
POTW, or worker health and safety. In addition, many POTWs  do not have numerical
limits for toxics in their surface water discharge permits. Consequently, there is no link
between the POTWs discharge limits and the numerical limits for toxic substances
regulated under permits issued to industrial users that discharge to the POTW.

The experiences of several POTWs now carrying out pilot efforts suggest they can be
effective agents for fostering adoption of pollution prevention by  a large number of
industrial  sources. In the pilot efforts, local POTWs identify individual sources of toxics
entering the system and provide technical advice and other assistance to help the
dischargers implement toxic use reduction and other pollution prevention measures as a
way to meet pretreatment requirements.

The timing is especially ripe for a larger scale pollution prevention initiative within the
national pretreatment program.  In addition to the need to respond to criticisms of the
program, the POTWs themselves, faced with the need to meet costly new air, sludge, and
reclaimed water requirements, will have internal motivation to work effectively with their
industrial dischargers to reduce loadings to the treatment plant.  Another reason for
focusing attention on POTWs is that treatment plants represent enormous investments of
public capital; pollution prevention and water conservation efforts can reduce the need for
expanded or more sophisticated capacity and can protect the investments already made.
The shift to a prevention strategy can happen only gradually and with considerable
investment in developing the needed technical and managerial capacity at the local level.
Efforts will need to be phased in,  ideally targeted to address the highest risk situations
first			___

Increased attention to meeting the environmental goals of the pretreatment program should
lead program managers to embrace pollution prevention as a basic approach to addressing
toxics generally as well as in meeting the costs POTWs now face to comply with new air,
sludge, and reclaimed water requirements.  The implications of such a shift should not be
understated, however. It will take commitment, it will be costly, and it will take time.
However, with the right management perspective and motivation, pollution prevention will
enable POTWs to succeed more easily than at present. Since there are only a few pilot
projects in place thus far, pollution prevention in pretreatment must be considered to be in
the early development phase.  A long term strategy for gradual change is needed that is
sensitive to the technical and financial capacity of POTWs which must manage a diverse
universe of indirect dischargers — who are themselves on a learning curve.  Ideally, efforts

 would be phased in, targeted to address the highest risk situations on a geographic,
 industry, or contaminant basis.


 6-1   Develop a long term strategy for improving the capacity of local
       pretreatment programs,  including adoption of pollution prevention
6-la  EPA  should establish environmental goals and objectives for the
       pretreatment program.

       •      Change current programmatic accountability measures into measures
              focused on environmental goals and objectives.

       •      Accelerate development of criteria and standards for effluent quality and
              sludge, and site-specific limits in POTW permits to reflect such

       •      Use risk-based criteria to identify priority industries, geographic areas,
              and/or pollutants for priority attention.

6-lb  EPA  should improve its  relationship with local POTWs and
       work to address their  concerns and needs.

       •      Provide opportunities for greater interaction between EPA, State,
              and local pretreatment officials to promote better understanding
              of the real world problems faced by local pretreatment programs.

       •      Identify and address policy issues that are barriers to innovative
              approaches by POTWs, such as the definition of an appropriate response
              to significant compliance, and the optional use of mass limits instead of
              concentration limits when it will result in greater loading reductions.

       •      Modify oversight criteria and practices to provide greater
              flexibility to POTWs in how they meet program goals and
              objectives and give credit for innovative approaches such
              as promotion of pollution prevention.

6-lc  EPA  should invest  in building the technical  and  managerial
       capacity of POTWs.

       •      Develop information and provide technical assistance needed to
              help local POTWs understand the impact of discharges on the
              receiving environment and, where there is a potential threat,
              develop appropriate site-specific controls on their industrial dischargers.

       •      Develop needed technical information and training programs for pretreatment
              permit writers, covering such topics as: waste assessments for permit
              applicants, tracing industrial sources of toxics, industrial  processes, and
              pollution prevention alternatives.

6-Id  EPA should support additional pilot initiatives by POTWs  to
       incorporate  pollution prevention, and disseminate the  results.

       •      Identify additional communities seeking to initiate or expand
             efforts to incorporate pollution prevention into their pretreatment programs,
             and support these efforts with EPA funding and technical assistance.

       •      Establish a mechanism through which the technical, resource,
             policy, and oversight issues encountered by these (and previous)
             pilot efforts are raised and addressed.

       •      Develop and implement an outreach strategy to educate
             EPA, States, and other communities about successful approaches.

6-le   Explore  policy  options that would encourage greater  adoption   of
       pollution prevention  as  a  strategy  in local pretreatment programs.

       •      Identify incentives for local governments to incorporate prevention into
             POTW programs.

       •      Explore development of a "demand side/least cost" economic
             model for POTWs (comparable to those used by energy utilities) to
             show potential for reducing the costs of new, expanded, or more
             sophisticated facilities by getting industrial users to adopt water
             conservation and/or pollution prevention measures.

       •      Adopt a policy that will encourage recipients of revolving loans or
             construction grant funds to assure that dischargers have adopted all
             reasonable water conservation and prevention measures that would affect
             the cost of the planned facility.


Building State and Local Pollution Prevention Programs

                  PART II:



                                I.  OVERVIEW:

                       PROGRESS  AND  CHALLENGES
The proliferation of diverse and innovative  State  and  local initiatives
suggests that  pollution  prevention  is becoming a strategy  of  choice for
environmental protection. 	

During the past few years, there has been a steady proliferation of State and local
government initiatives designed to encourage firms to adopt pollution prevention measures.
The prevention efforts underway now in nearly all States and in many communities are
shaping the future of environmental protection efforts; pollution prevention is becoming the
strategy of choice for addressing environmental matters. Pollution prevention offers new,
cost-effective ways to to address emerging environmental issues such as nonattainment of
air quality standards and removal of toxics from municipal wastewater treatment plant

Unlike most other environmental programs, the pollution prevention initiatives targeted to
industrial audiences do not follow a national model established by law or policy. As a
consequence, State and  local programs differ in purpose and philosophy, organizational
location, authority, size and scope of activities, mechanisms used for implementation, and
the services they provide.  See Exhibit 1-1 (page 37)  for a summary of common
components of pollution prevention programs.

The diversity in pollution prevention programs and policies is viewed positively by most
observers as an indicator of State and local creativity and innovation. State and local
governments want to maintain their options in designing and implementing programs in the
way they see fit and in accord with what they can afford. With more national attention to
pollution prevention now, they fear that a new Federal law and/or EPA policy might be
adopted that could force them to change their approach or spend resources they do not
have.   From a national  standpoint, however, the diversity in State definitions of what
qualifies as pollution prevention and the different stages in development of State and local
efforts do make it difficult to evaluate progress and needs.  There is considerable potential
for legislation to be adopted that would be inappropriate for both  the least and most
progressive States.
Pollution  prevention  provides both economic  and  environmental  benefits,
and i  thus has ; Dr°ad ^natujral appeal- _ _ _
The support of political leaders has been critical to the success of many State and local
prevention programs. These elected officials have recognized that supporting pollution
prevention programs can provide a rare political "win- win" because they are both
pro-business and pro-environment.  Programs that provide technical assistance and other
benefits can demonstrate a State's or community's interest in creating a friendly climate for
business, while fostering environmental improvement at the same time. Mayors or
governors can use prevention initiatives to demonstrate their leadership - such as by
establishing special task forces with representatives from the various constituencies and
government agencies, or by issuing executive orders requiring government agencies to take
action to reduce wastes.  Award and recognition programs for prevention accomplishments
generate positive publicity for both political leaders and businesses.

From the business perspective, an advantage to pollution prevention is that it can simplify
regulatory life. Toxic use reduction and waste minimization can help businesses avoid
being subject to certain regulatory requirements and can lead to streamlining the permit
process.  In addition, case studies show relatively quick payback times for many
investments in pollution prevention techniques, and the cost savings realized help
businesses increase their competitiveness.

A benefit to both government and industry is that pollution prevention can minimize
transaction costs and friction between regulatory agencies and businesses. Where laws
allow, States can give preferential treatment in the permit process or other benefits such as
tax benefits and low-cost financing or grants to businesses that adopt progressive pollution
prevention measures. Multi-media inspections can stop complaints about frequency of
inspections, and the multi-media/whole-facility approach to environmental management can
reduce the complexity of agency rules. Many actions to promote prevention can be taken
within the current single-media laws and organizational structures, however, such as by re-
orienting staff, changing existing regulations, or using executive orders and cabinet
instructions to effect changes.

Another potential benefit is that promoting pollution prevention can help State and local
governments address the controversial problem of siting waste disposal facilities. If firms
aggressively adopt waste minimization, the need for additional capacity for waste disposal will
also be minimized. This can help a State meet its capacity assurance requirements under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Further, a State or community is likely to find it easier to build support for siting or expanding
a disposal facility if it has implemented a program for waste reduction first.

Political leaders and managers of environmental agencies have found pollution prevention
to be a good multi-media planning device. Because targeting can be based on such factors
as amount of emissions and risks involved, political leaders can get a sense of where the
environmental problems really are. Environmental agency staff can be used more by
focusing on facilities presenting the highest risk, giving multi-media attention to problems,
and focusing on fundamental solutions to environmental problems that will have
long-lasting effect.
and EPA,   leading to some controversy and confusion about what kinds  of
The seemingly innocuous issue of deciding what is meant by the term pollution
prevention ~ that is, what activities are actually pollution prevention, as contrasted with
pollution control or management — has led to endless debate in virtually every State or local
government trying to develop a program. The debate becomes particularly contentious if
new legislative authorities are being drafted.  Since there is no national legislation
governing State or local government pollution prevention programs, they are free to
develop their own definitions of pollution prevention.  Many different definitions are in
current use.

While details vary, the definitions fall into three general categories: waste reduction, waste
minimization, and source reduction (or toxic use reduction). Each definition presents
positive opportunities for improvement over doing nothing about waste, but there are
important distinctions because the inclusion or exclusion of certain activities within the
definition of pollution prevention can skew the emphasis of the program.  Narrowly
applying a waste reduction definition, for example, could result in  solving one problem at

the expense of creating another. A company might figure out a way to eliminate a waste
stream by leaving the hazardous material in the consumer end product — creating a risk of
exposure to consumers and ultimately putting the hazardous material into the solid waste
stream. If off-site recycling and treatment methods such as incineration are included
in waste minimization,  there is no incentive to prevent the creation of waste; the wastes can
still present hazards while they are being transported and handled. Source reduction/toxic
use reduction represents a fundamental change — questioning whether toxic chemicals
should be used in the first place, going back into the production process itself looking for
ways to eliminate or reduce the use of toxic materials.

TEPA1? defmitioin equateiH^^
defined in the  1990  Pollution Prevention Act, and the  Agency  recently
                                                           _ _ _ „ „. _
The national 1990 Pollution Prevention Act defined pollution prevention as meaning the
same thing as source reduction. Recognizing that not all hazardous materials or waste
matters could be addressed through source reduction, the Act established a hierarchy of
desirable approaches to dealing with waste.  Source reduction is the most desirable
approach, followed by recycling and reuse, then by treatment, and last, by disposal. EPA
set out a blueprint for implementing the national legislation and incorporating pollution
prevention into Agency programs and activities in its Report to Congress: Pollution
Prevention Strategy (1990).

The source reduction/hierarchy definition has guided EPA efforts since the law was
enacted, but because it addressed only industrial waste,  it was generally thought to be too
narrow. In May 1992, EPA issued a broad definition of pollution prevention that it will
use in determining whether a given activity should be classified as pollution  prevention.  In
addition to industrial pollution, the definition addresses energy, agriculture, resource
conservation, and other activities.  The definition focuses heavily on actions that result in
actual source reduction; only in-process recycling is included.  (Note, however, that the
definition of in-process recycling has still not been fully resolved.)  The full  text of EPA's
definition of pollution prevention is included as Exhibit  1-2 (page 38).

In the future, only projects and activities meeting EPA's definition will be eligible to receive
pollution prevention-related grants or flexibility in the administration of EPA programs.
EPA's definition will be used for such purposes as to screen applications for Federal
pollution prevention grants and to determine if a State  should be given flexibility in use of
grant funds or relief from program accountability measures on the grounds that a planned
activity furthers pollution prevention goals.  Significantly, EPA's definition of pollution
prevention does not include off-site recycling. (Recycling activities are funded by EPA,
but through solid waste programs.) National pollution prevention legislation now under
consideration on Capitol Hill would, if enacted, codify a stringent interpretation of
pollution prevention that would affect the eligibility of State and local efforts for program

Ultimately, every State or local government developing or implementing a prevention
program must grapple with the definition issue — especially if pollution prevention becomes
a means for receiving special treatment by the government and/or if legislation is being
considered. However, there are many easy opportunities for reducing wastes and use of
toxic  materials in all kinds of businesses that can be initiated without resolving the debate
about definition.

use  ^	
For the most part, pollution prevention efforts have thus far been voluntary in nature, using
education, technical assistance, and incentives in a variety of forms to persuade businesses
to adopt prevention practices.  After the national Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) was
published, special efforts began at the Federal, State, and to a lesser extent, local levels to
secure voluntary commitments from major polluters for significant reductions in emissions.
New pollution prevention laws have passed in many States.  Now, nearly a third of the
States now require facilities to develop pollution prevention plans, although the new
programs typically rely on voluntary mechanisms to get the plans implemented.

While voluntary efforts still predominate, there is a growing trend toward incorporating
pollution prevention into the regulatory aspects of environmental agency activities.  The
practice cannot yet be considered widespread, but many State and local governments are
including provisions requiring companies to adopt prevention practices into environmental
permits and enforcement settlements. Several State experiments are underway to develop
multi-media environmental permits that would require analysis of prevention opportunities
and then implementation on a whole-facility basis.  Further, EPA and some State agencies
now include explicit consideration of pollution prevention opportunities in the development
of all  new environmental requirements.

The interest in exploring regulatory approaches to achieving pollution prevention is not
expected to wane, and the relationship between regulatory and nonregulatory efforts
promises to be a continuing challenge. There are deep-seated philosophic differences
between those who advocate a strictly voluntary approach and those who believe that an
underpinning of enforceable requirements is needed. EPA and many State and local
governments acknowledge the value of both approaches and are pursuing a combination of
voluntary and regulatory measures.
Many States are  experimenting with  new  organizational structures to
enhance theirability to carry  outjmuU^               	

Because one of the biggest advantages of pollution prevention is that it promotes consideration
of all potential environmental impacts and fundamental solutions, most observers believe that a
multi-media approach would be the ideal. Generally, the States experimenting with multi-
media permitting and/or enforcement are doing so by setting up special task forces or teams.
Representatives from the various media groups participate in a team addressing targeted
facilities or geographic regions. The task force or team approach allows the environmental
problems of a facility to be identified and addressed comprehensively. A key benefit is that
media program staff become exposed to the requirements and issues of the other media
programs — experience they then bring back to their home programs.  This approach also
fosters networking and cooperation among programs. Participation in multi-media projects can
be linked to job promotion opportunities as well.  Some of the difficulties in carrying out
multi-media efforts are common to other "matrix" management situations:  unclear supervisory
controls,  program managers' concern about loss of staff to accomplish already heavy
workloads, and the need for extensive planning and coordination. For these reasons, only a
few multi-media efforts have actually been attempted thus far, focused on the very largest and
most environmentally significant facilities.

A very few States have begun implementing major reorganizations that emphasize functions
that cut across all  media (e.g., permit writing) rather than single-media laws and programs.
Some of these reorganizations were  undertaken in part to improve the State's ability to

promote pollution prevention in regulatory activities and/or to foster implementation of new
toxic use reduction laws. There is evidence to suggest, however, that some State
reorganization efforts are mostly concerned with improving regulatory efficiency. Since
these reorganizations are quite new, it is too soon to tell how well they will work and what
specific problems they face.
difficult, reguihrin£ new approach                            	

Like any government activity, pollution prevention programs will be called upon from time
to time to demonstrate what they have accomplished and to justify their existence.  The
much-maligned traditional approach to measuring accomplishments in environmental
programs -- e.g., counting numbers of permits issued and enforcement actions taken -- is
even more inappropriate for measuring progress in preventing pollution than it is for
measuring progress in meeting environmental goals.

It will be difficult to establish a cause and effect relationship  between the activities of a
prevention program and growth in the adoption of prevention strategies by businesses. A
company's decision to implement prevention measures will hinge on many factors,
including such things as regulatory/enforcement climate, general economic conditions,
company financial condition, availability of capital, and a host of other factors which may
have little to do with whether or not an assistance program was in place or even directly
reached the particular firm involved.  Specific prevention program efforts constitute only a
very tiny part of the overall mosaic and should not take full blame or credit for the extent to
which prevention is adopted by businesses in a State or community.

Specific quantitative improvements such as pounds of pollutant reduced and costs saved at
the facilities  reached by the program are powerful indicators of success.  Measuring trends
in toxic releases, at individual facilities and across a sector or geographic area, can be
useful indicators of whether pollution prevention is catching on. However, the potential
administrative and financial burden of monitoring to gather proof of reductions must be
balanced against the potential that onerous data requirements could discourage firms from
adopting prevention.

Also important are qualitative changes -- such as in changes  in corporate culture, trade
association interest, employee behavior, engineering curricula,  and government-industry
relations — that may also result from promoting the prevention approach. Such changes
may well have the longest lasting effect on the future of the environment and economy.
Further, implementation of pollution prevention measures can serve as a means for helping
business stay in business and increase their competitiveness. The potential dual benefits of
environmental and economic improvement suggests the need for new ways to assess and
report on progress -- one that transcends traditional environmental indicators and looks at
such factors  as jobs retained and costs saved as well.
This  paper will explore current developments and  the opportunities and
challenges ahead  in  building State and local  programs to  promote pollution
prevention^ for^industrial  facilities.	_______»__, _ „

As a foundation for understanding the challenges ahead in building State and local capacity
for promoting pollution prevention, this paper will examine the origins of existing
programs, discuss common components, and explore trends likely to affect the future of
these efforts now that prevention is becoming a more widely accepted approach to
environmental protection.

Most of the pollution prevention programs to be discussed in this paper focus on an
industrial audience, but many more programs exist to address municipal solid waste
recycling, agricultural practices, and energy conservation — all of which also fall under a
broad definition of pollution prevention.  In addition to the programs designed primarily
for "environmental" purposes, there are also literally hundreds of government-sponsored
business assistance efforts which may address environmental matters in the course of their
work.  As will become evident, one of the principal challenges to be faced in building
capacity for promoting pollution prevention is finding ways to link these myriad efforts into
an effective and efficient delivery system.

This paper will examine the issues from the perspective of environmental protection
agencies at all levels of government, since they have primary responsibility for
environmental matters and have been key players in the development of programs to
promote waste reduction and pollution prevention. While many business assistance
programs do provide environmental information, more is known about the specific
pollution prevention activities of the programs developed primarily  for pollution prevention
purposes because they typically share information and experience with others through their
membership in the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. They are also more likely to
be connected in some way to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to be
influenced directly by national environmental policy.

The remainder of this paper addresses common components and issues associated with
various types of State and local programs. For clarity purposes, the discussion is broken
into two general categories of activity:

•      Efforts to promote voluntary  adoption of pollution prevention primarily through
       education, technical assistance, and incentives; and

•      Efforts to integrate prevention into regulatory activities such as permitting and
       enforcement (including new State laws for facility planning and toxic use

However, it should be understood that a State or local program will often use an array of
tools and activities to promote prevention, including components falling under both
categories.  One of the major challenges ahead is working out a relationship between
voluntary and regulatory activities that will be most effective in promoting the adoption of
prevention measures.

Exhibit 1-3 (pages 39-40) shows a model  comprehensive pollution prevention initiative
developed by participants at the national workshop "Building State and Local Pollution
Prevention Programs."

                              COMMON COMPONENTS
       Information  clearinghouse

        Workshops and seminars



           Technical assistance/
       Regulation  interpretation

     On-site technical assistance

                 Waste audits

        Surveys and assessments

       Research and development

   Financial assistance to industry

            Financial assistance
            to local government

              Awards program

               Waste exchange
                            NUMBER OF STATES
                            0    5    10    15
20   25    30   35
40   45
Source: Pollution Prevention 1991: Progress on Reducing Industrial Pollutants, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, October 1991.

 EXHIBIT   1-2
  (Pursuant to the. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and EPA Pollution Prevention Strategy)
 Under Section 6602(b) of the Pollution
 Prevention Act of 1990, Congress established a
 national 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 environmentally 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
 sound 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 effi-
 ciency 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 environ-
 ment (including fugitive emissions) prior to
 recycling, treatment,  or disposal; and reduces the
 hazards to public health and the environment
 associated with  the release 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 de-
 scribed as "in-process recycling" may qualify as
 pollution prevention. Recycling that is con-
 ducted in an environmentally sound manner
 shares many of the advantages of prevention
 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 pollution,
 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 sensi-
 tive ecosystems.  Pollution prevention does  not
 include practices that create new risks of

 In the agricultural sector, pollution prevention
 approaches include: reducing the use of water
 and chemical inputs; adoption of less environ-
 mentally 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 extraction,
processing, transport, and combination of fuels.
Pollution prevention approaches include: in-
creasing efficiency in energy use; substituting
environmentally benign fuel sources; and design
changes that reduce the demand for energy.
    5/28/92 memorandum to EPA staff from F. Henry Habicht II, Deputy Administrator

 Establish  public-private partnerships  to:

     •   Improve  environmental   (management)   efficiency

     •  Assure  environmental and  public  health protection

     •  Assure  economic  growth, stability,  and  community  development
 •  Establish  a total multi-media  program

 •  Integrate  polllution  prevention into  the  State's  strategic  planning
   process, permitting,  and enforcement

 *  Use Total Quality Management (TQM) principles and methods to assure
   continuous process   improvements

 •  Upgrade the  level and quality  of technical assistance

 •  Provide an "incentives"  program  to  motivate industry  to invest in prevention
   strategies;  if permittees  accept the  entry requirements, they will receive
   special  consideration in regulatory  matters

 •  Provide low interest loans, research grants to small  firms implementing
   prevention strategies; assure access to credit

 •  Establish  a program of  rewards  and recognition for  leadership activities

 •  Make full  use of  State and Federal  data for analysis, targeting of efforts

 •  Upgrade the  level and quality  of public  education, stressing prevention

 •  Upgrade pollution prevention  staff positions to  attract quality people
   into the program
  *Developed  by  participants   in  National  Workshop  on  Building  State  and  Local
                  Pollution  Prevention  Programs,  Washington,  D.C.,  January   1992

  Governor issues  an  executive order at a press conference
  along with  key partners in the program
         Environmentalists        State  legislature
         Labor                         Chamber of Commerce
         Attorney General               Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)

   •   Set up  special interagency task force charged with
      establishing the  program in  180 days

      Require each agency chair  to attend bi-weekly progress meetings to
      help  avoid inter-agency  bickering

   •   Set up  high-level  committee to  settle issues between
      media programs and permit-issuance authorities

   *  Report to State  legislature and the  public  on  program successes
      Inter-agency,  multi-media  coordination  of  regulatory programs

      A staff contact in governor's office to give industry and the
      public a point  of direct contact

      A directive to  independent permit-review authorities  to make
      every  legal effort possible to  promote  prevention concepts in
      their  decision-making

      An assessment of resource  needs and funding options, including
      enlisting the assistance  of  leading financial  and business institutions

      An incentives program for permittees to invest  in prevention
      approaches in  order to obtain expedited regulatory processing

      A program to reach out to all  constituents in th e process


                       II.  PROMOTING  PREVENTION
                     THROUGH VOLUNTARY ACTION
Most State and local  pollution  prevention programs are designed
primarily  to  encourage companies to adopt pollution prevention measures
Overwhelmingly, the businesses that have adopted pollution prevention measures have
done so voluntarily. Although the reasons companies choose to implement prevention
measures vary and are not fully understood, most experts point to such factors as: cost
savings to be realized from reductions in the use of input materials and avoidance of waste
disposal costs, the potential for relief from the burden of certain regulations, avoidance of
long term environmental liability, company adoption of total quality management principles
and techniques, and the desire for a good corporate image. Although not strictly a
"voluntary" action, many firms facing compliance problems have chosen to implement
source reduction or other prevention methods rather than traditional, end-of-pipe techniques
for achieving compliance.

Whatever the ultimate motivation for a company's decision to adopt pollution prevention
techniques, knowledge is a prerequisite. For this reason, virtually all of the State and local
pollution prevention programs include education and technical assistance components
designed to let businesses know about the benefits of pollution prevention and the technical
options available. Many of these programs are targeted especially to small businesses,
which may have environmental problems but are not expected to have the technical or
managerial expertise necessary to know about or implement prevention measures.
Newsletters, workshops, and information clearinghouses and hotlines are common
features.  Some programs offer on-site direct technical assistance; some help firms by
funding research and demonstration of new techniques.

Under special initiatives at the Federal and State levels, senior officials of firms releasing
high amounts of toxics to the environment are being called upon to commit their firms to
significant voluntary reductions in releases. Larger firms have managerial,  technical, and
financial resources to bring to bear, and the "jawboning" approach has been successful in
obtaining reduction commitments from literally hundreds of companies.

The design of a program to promote voluntary action and how its  activities
are targeted^ w^                                                     _

Although programs will typically address both environmental and economic objectives, the
relative priority given to each will shape how the program is designed and how its target
audience is defined.  If the primary objective is environmental improvement, program
resources might be targeted to those geographic areas and/or industries with the  greatest
environmental problems.  If economic enhancement is the primary objective,  program
efforts might be targeted to geographic areas or types of businesses  facing the greatest
economic stress and for which environmental compliance problems loom large.

Some programs are using data such as the Toxics Release Inventory to identify facilities
that release the largest amounts of toxics to the environment. The major advantage of this
targeting approach is that it can result in large amounts of reductions. Efforts focus on the

largest facilities, and concentrate on industries using the listed substances. Because these
facilities tend to be medium-to-large in size, they normally will have adequate access to
technical expertise that will enable them to identify and implement pollution prevention
alternatives (e.g., through their own engineers, hired consultants, and/or trade
associations).  EPA and many States have been successful in getting many of the largest
companies to make commitments to voluntary emission reductions (e.g., EPA's 33/50
Program and similar programs at the State level). Incentives such as positive publicity, tax
benefits, and expedited permitting may provide impetus for companies to achieve voluntary
reductions. Typically, States have targeted the larger firms with multi-media releases first
for compliance with toxic use reduction laws and facility-wide permitting efforts.

If the primary objective of the program is to help small businesses retain their economic
viability, reductions in releases  to the environment as a result of program activities will be
smaller and harder to prove.  Most small businesses have problems just dealing with
environmental compliance; they typically lack the managerial, technical, and financial ability
to comply. In  these cases, pollution prevention may be an attractive and cost-effective way
to help businesses come into compliance, or even to remove themselves from under the
regulatory umbrella if they can  stop using toxic materials. However, experience of existing
programs indicates that resolving compliance matters may consume a considerable amount
of program staff time, and pollution prevention is not always involved.  Programs to
address problems of small businesses might include provision of technical assistance and
training as well as financial help such as tax credits for investments, access to grants or low
interest loans to buy needed equipment, and support for technology research.

Exhibit 2-1 (page 43) summarizes the three phases a company typically goes through in
implementing pollution prevention measures, the major barriers encountered in each phase,
and the kinds of assistance a company is most likely to need in each phase. The vast
majority of firms - and especially the small firms - have not even entered the initial phase.
To get started, they need access to technical information about inexpensive, proven
techniques for pollution prevention such as good housekeeping, waste segregation, input
substitution, and minor process changes.  As firms move beyond this phase, they may
need to make significant capital investments in new equipment; then, they need access to
capital and tax incentives. In the last phase, where new technologies need to be developed
or tested, firms need research and development funds  and information about the results of
demonstration projects.

                     PHASES  IN  IMPLEMENTATION
Waste reduction efforts can be categorized into three phases.  Each phase
has different barriers and potential  incentive  mechanisms to overcome  them.
 Inexpensive,  proven
 techniques, such as:     |
 • Good housekeeping    |
 •  Input  substitution     |
 • Waste segregation    |
 • Minor process-xhangesu
 Lack of  information
 on waste reduction

 Lack  of technical
   Information dissem-
   ination, such as
   newsletters and
   technical workshops
 investments,  such as:
 •  Recycling or waste
   water equipment
 •  On-site  treatment
 •  Product changes
Financing not

Lack  of information
 on waste  reduction
  Loan  guarantees
  State loans
  Grants  for project
  Investment tax  credits
  Interest subsidies
  Tax deductions
 Research, development
 and demonstration of:
 • New,  unproven
 Technology not
  available  or not
    Grants for RD&D
    Dissemination  of
     results of RD&D
Source: Economic Incentives for the Reduction of Hazardous Waste. 1985. Prepared by
ICF Consulting Associates for the Toxic Substances Control Division of the California Department
of Health Services.

                            A.  Assistance Programs
I.   Pollution Prevention  Assistance Programs
Assistance-oriented programs assume  that businesses  will  voluntarily adopt
prevention measures  when they have reliable technical and economic
information.                     	^	___™_™™™™™	™™__

The programs designed to assist industry in identifying opportunities for preventing
pollution and in implementing waste minimization measures have much in common with
economic development programs and agricultural and industrial extension services. They
assume that the industrial audience needs objective advice and information about pollution
prevention and that businesses will respond to encouragement, particularly if given
information which contrasts the costs of use and disposal of a toxic material with the
potential benefits of pollution prevention.

Many of the technical assistance-oriented prevention programs can trace their origins to State
training programs designed to foster hazardous waste minimization, funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) during the late 1980s. Other prevention efforts began when EPA made grants
available to States under  the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. The importance of both EPA
funding and the statutory language supporting waste minimization and pollution prevention to
the development and continuance of these programs should not be underestimated.

However, it is important  to understand that some programs emerged as a State or local
government's own response to the perceived needs of its constituents. A major impetus for
waste minimization programs came from public demand opposing the siting of new
hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities;  thus, establishing a pollution prevention
program in some cases was a political accommodation in order to facilitate hazardous waste
facility siting. Some States, concerned about the economic impact on their small businesses
of the high costs of waste management, developed programs designed primarily to help them
reduce their compliance costs through waste reduction. The Federal requirement that States
must assure they have adequate capacity to dispose of their hazardous waste gave additional
impetus to the development of waste minimization programs.

The original focus on hazardous waste minimization still influences the design, staffing,
and operation of many of these programs. Most practitioners try to identify waste
reduction opportunities throughout a facility, recognizing that an integrated "whole facility"
approach 10 waste reduction is a key to avoiding the cross media transfer of pollutants.
However, program staff hired originally for their expertise in hazardous waste matters may
be less prepared to  address air and water issues.

The organizational  location of assistance-oriented programs for industry varies, but they are
usually separated functionally, if not physically, from any regulatory activities that may
deal with the same audience.  In many States, they are located in academic  institutions,
small business centers, or nonprofit organizations, which are generally viewed by the
business community as unbiased sources of advice.   In other States, the assistance program
is housed within the environmental regulatory agency. Even though the assistance function
is typically separated by a "Chinese wall" from regulatory compliance functions in these

cases, such programs do face the hurdle of overcoming their potential clients' fears that a
request for help could lead to an enforcement action.
Assistance  programs provide a range™of~serviceF based  on thelFsizcTand
other  factors, but even the largest programs reach only a small fraction of
facilities that might benefit.	
The services provided by pollution prevention assistance programs range from simply
responding to inquiries by disseminating written materials up to conducting full-scale, on-
site pollution prevention audits. Typical components of assistance-oriented programs, as
well as their advantages and drawbacks, are described below. As would be expected, the
smaller, lower budget programs are generally more likely to provide information than to
provide on-site audit services. Even the largest programs, however, are able to conduct
only a tiny number of audits compared to the number of facilities that might benefit.
A common concern of program officials is the difficulty of hiring and
reta|ning  qualified  pollution prevention _staf£.____	
Ideally, staff would be be familiar with the processes of and pollution prevention
opportunities for the particular industries they deal with as well as with the range of
environmental requirements that apply to it.  The need for highly qualified staff is
particularly true for those who will carry out the more sophisticated prevention efforts such
as on-site assessments and direct technical assistance. An assistance-oriented program that
is mostly an outreach effort providing introductory-level information and written materials
can get by with staff who have a more basic level of training.  These staff can call in
industry experts as needed for industry-specific workshops and seminars. However, if the
program wishes to go beyond general information dissemination and referrals, industry-
specific training is needed. Regulatory staff who are incorporating prevention requirements
into permits and enforcement settlements need, at a minimum, access to someone with
industry expertise to be able to help draft and review technical provisions.

Some States have been successful in hiring retired engineers and engineering graduate
students to help bridge gaps in staff capacity. As the various information clearinghouses
grow, they will improve as sources of technical information that can help build staff
capacity as well.  Another option for gaining industry-specific training is establishing
internships and exchanges between industry and  government  agencies.

Common Program  Components	

* Information Dissemination

Nearly all  programs provide information about pollution prevention, using a variety of
information delivery systems.

Many programs have telephone hotlines, often with 800 numbers, to answer questions on
a range of waste issues. A request for information about regulations or waste management
can provide the entry for a discussion of pollution prevention  opportunities.  Although a
good way  to establish an early presence in the regulated community, the responsive nature
of a hotline makes it difficult to target to a particular audience. The time required to
respond to an individual request may be disproportional to the size of the company or
volume of materials used or wastes generated.

When there is a relatively large audience needing similar information, fact sheets are often
developed and disseminated.  The short written documents (up to four pages), might
include such information as the best available information and advice about a particular
industry's pollution prevention options and considerations for choosing among them.

Manuals and  guides contain more detailed information about pollution prevention for a
particular industry, waste, or use of a substance.  They typically describe processes and
operations in  sufficient detail to allow for site-specific analysis and option identification,
and include a discussion of the pros and cons of various approaches as well as technical
details that would affect the applicability of a particular option to a specific facility. A list of
companies and organizations who can provide needed services or equipment, such as used
oil handlers and vendors  and consultants can be included in a directory of resources.

Newsletters are a relatively inexpensive way to reach a wide audience with pollution
prevention information and announcements about seminars, availability of assistance, and
the like. Some programs mail newsletters to every waste generator or even to all industrial
concerns, but many programs must limit distribution to those with an active interest in
pollution prevention. Many States also include pollution prevention information in other
State newsletters on waste management.

• Education

Educational activities are the second most common program component, considered
essential by many because of the need to transfer large volumes of information to different
audiences. The information provided will ultimately be applied to a specific site.

Industry-specific seminars are widely used to educate company officials about pollution
prevention. Such sessions are usually no more than one day long so they do not place a
strong time demand on the business managers. Often, the seminar begins with a keynote
speaker from either industry or the political arena, who serves as a draw for the session and
sets the tone.  The rest of the session is divided between suppliers describing their
prevention-oriented products and services and industry officials describing how their firms
implemented  pollution prevention. Program staff members generally serve as facilitators,
except when they are uniquely qualified to provide technical assistance. Pollution
prevention topics can also be covered in general waste management seminars.

Designed for  a broader audience, one- or two-day conferences often cover an issue such as
newly-mandated requirements (e.g., facility-wide pollution prevention planning, new
regulations regarding releases to air). They draw heavily on industrial participants for
content.  Conferences might include a special breakfast session with business Chief
Executive Officers at which management issues such as motivating company staff are

Some assistance programs work with adult education programs at community colleges to
incorporate pollution prevention into waste  management and related courses.

Many programs develop curricula to incorporate pollution prevention into traditional
education programs at both the university and K-12 levels

*  Technical  Assistance

From the beginning, providing technical assistance has been a key component of
prevention programs. At one time, technical assistance was considered the primary method
for directly aiding industry.

Technical information, provided in the form of fact sheets, manuals, and guides, can be
considered both as technical assistance or information dissemination.  In some programs,
providing written information is the only form of direct assistance given.

Many programs provide on-site technical assistance to promote pollution prevention, using
a variety of mechanisms. In some cases, program staff visit and assist specific industrial
facilities. In several programs, full-time staff is supplemented by using personnel
specifically employed to conduct on-site assistance; often supplemental staff are student
interns or retired engineers.  Commonly, interns focus on a particular facility for a set
period of time (e.g., an academic marking period) and may have no prior or future contact
with that or any other industrial facility. In these situations, program staff actively support
the students. By contrast, retired engineers typically move from facility to facility and can
become very much like adjunct program staff.

* Research and  Financial Assistance

Many prevention programs conduct applied forms of research such as on-site
demonstrations and pilot projects.  Nearly always conducted in collaboration  with industrial
facilities, these projects may be staffed by either program personnel or the facility's own
employees. Because a project typically requires expenditures of between $50,000 to
$200,000, limited budgets allow only high priority concerns to be addressed. Research
can also be funded by grants or loans to facilities, usually under the condition that the
information that is developed must be made public  through reports and facility tours.

• Awards

A popular feature of many programs is an awards program to recognize businesses for
exceptional pollution prevention efforts. Political leaders such as governors or mayors are
usually involved in the awards ceremonies, and both they and the award recipients enjoy
the favorable publicity which results. The awards  provide an incentive for companies to
adopt prevention practices, and award winners can  become excellent champions for
prevention in the business community.
2.  Small Business  Assistance under Clean Air  Act
Each State is required  by law  to  establish a technical assistance  program to
help small businesses comply with the  new  Clean  Air Act  amendments.
These programs are not always coordinated with  existing pollution
In addition to fostering many innovative regulatory approaches, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 require each State to set up a small business assistance program as
part of its overall plan for implementing the new law. Congress recognized that small
businesses frequently lack the technical expertise and financial resources necessary to
evaluate regulations and determine the appropriate set of actions for compliance.
Therefore, Congress included the provision to assure that small businesses that are
stationary sources of air pollution would have access to the technical assistance they need to
be able to comply.  Each State is required to adopt a small business program and submit it
to EPA for approval by November 15, 1992.

Under this program, States will help small businesses determine which requirements apply
to them and help them obtain required permits. In addition, States will provide information
as well as direct technical assistance on how to use pollution prevention techniques to avoid
accidental releases. Each State will establish an advisory panel to monitor progress and
coordinate these activities through a States ombudsman.

At the national level, EPA will establish a small business ombudsman and operate several
technical service centers and telephone hotlines to provide support to State and local
agencies as they develop small business assistance programs.  The centers and hotlines will
provide a broad range of assistance covering topics including Clean Air Act requirements,
control technologies, pollution prevention methods and alternatives, emission measurement
methods and air pollution monitoring devices, and prevention of accidental releases.
3.  Economic Development  and  Business Assistance Programs
Most States and many  communities support economic development and
business  assistance programs which sometimes  provide  technical assistance
and funding for environmental purposes.  Their potential for promoting
In addition to programs specifically designed to promote pollution prevention as described
above, State and local governments also support a variety of other programs to foster
economic development and assist businesses. Although the primary purpose of such
programs is economic improvement, they could be enlisted to promote pollution prevention
as a way to realize the potential cost savings from energy efficiency and waste reduction.
Managers of business assistance programs indicate that many of the questions they receive
from their clients are related to environmental compliance matters.  At this time, however,
there are few links between pollution prevention and general business assistance programs.

State and local business assistance programs were established to attract, retain, and
encourage the growth of companies. Such programs seek to aid businesses by either
helping them find the resources they need to solve a problem or by building companies
internal capabilities to address their own problems. There is a bewildering array of
programs (see Exhibits 2-2 and 2-3, page 53), but they typically cluster around common
problems facing business: general business advice, marketing, financial, production
technology, facilities and siting, regulatory compliance, staffing, and infrastructure.
Within each category,a variety of subcategories of programs is found in most States:
       General Business Advice
       Management Counseling
       Business Planning
       Management Training
       Dial-In Electronic Bulletin Boards
       Loans/Loan Guarantees
       Loan Packaging/Grantsmanship
       Tax Incentives
       Venture Capital
Market Research Services
Foreign Trade Information/Services
State Manufacturers and
Service Company Directories
Cooperative Marketing Programs

Production  Technology
Technology Extension Services
Technology Data Base Search
  and Referrals to Experts
University/Industry Cooperative R&D
Technology Demonstration Centers

       Facilities and Siting            •      Regulatory  Compliance
       Site Assessment and Qualification          Zoning Advice
       Requirements Assessments                Environmental Compliance Support
       One-Stop Business Licenses Service        Environmental Compliance Support
                                               Environmental Impact Statement
                                                 Preparation Assistance
                                               Public Health and Safety
                                                 Compliance Support

       Staffing                         •      Infrastructure
       Employment Services                     Transportation
       Employee Training Program               Utilities
       Displaced Worker Training Programs       Telecommunications

Federal, State, and local economic development and business assistance programs are most
likely to incorporate pollution prevention when it is viewed as a component of traditional
business concerns rather than as a unique or new category of business problem. A
successful effort will go beyond transferring technology to finding the requisite resources,
arranging for training or for new hires if needed, reconfiguring facilities, and so forth.

Economic development departments and councils and the Chamber of Commerce are often
the lead agencies for small business recruitment, retention, and support services. While in
a given community these agencies or non-governmental organizations might not provide
any pollution prevention service, they usually refer companies to people and programs who
can provide important business assistance services and are adept at facilitating networking
among agencies.

Some of these business-oriented organizations provide direct, hands-on help with
environmental concerns, although this help has primarily involved developing
environmental impact statements. There is growing interest in pollution prevention within
even this kind of service, however, because a business that prevents or minimizes waste
and uses less toxic materials will have an easier time getting needed permits and developing
impact statements.

Many States have passed stringent environmental protection legislation. In order not to
discourage business formation, growth, and recruitment by such legislation, States
increasingly have initiatives to (a) keep businesses informed of requirements and (b) assist
them in implementing the requirements in a timely fashion.

Technology-related information services are available throughout the United States,  many
operating on a regional and national basis.  An example is the Southern Technology
Assistance Center (STAC) at university campuses in Florida.  A NASA-funded Regional
Technology Transfer Center, STAC provides access to an extensive variety of public and
private data basis, offering customized searches for companies. Staff will work with a
client in person or over the phone to define a search, identify relevant literature and experts
to speak with, and to prepare proposals for obtaining government funds for pollution
prevention efforts.

Private sector companies also offer pollution prevention information services as part of
their general packages. Large on-line vendors such as DIALOG have several
environmental data bases that can be searched.  Service firms like TELTECH, Inc.,
provides customized data searches and access to experts, much like that provided by
STAC, for a single fee. To facilitate use by start-ups and young companies, the firm is

under contract with the State of Minnesota to provide technical assistance to qualified small
businesses; similar arrangements are being developed with at least two other States,

Funding for purchasing technology or services takes a variety of forms. For example,
traditional loan programs for production equipment can be tapped. Agencies like the Texas
Department of Commerce welcome pollution prevention as just one of many production-
relevant uses of their loan program. Funding sources are not just limited to government
agencies. Utilities, because their profits are tied to the mandates of a regulatory
commission,  can be an excellent source of pollution prevention funds. For example,
Puget Power has a commercial program providing grants and technical assistance to
builders making energy efficient structures; funds can be used for pollution prevention
technology so long as it is tied with reductions in energy demand.
                  B.   Voluntary Toxics  Reduction Programs
Under  special  Federal and State initiatives,  firms are committing to making
significant reductions intoxic  releases.	

EPA and several States are implementing special programs to encourage industry to
voluntarily reduce their generation of toxic wastes.  These ambitious pollution prevention
programs are designed to get industrial sources to make significant reductions in toxics
quickly  and with an unprecedented degree of flexibility. While the topic of voluntary
reduction programs is covered in this voluntary action section, it is important to note that
these efforts are typically administered through the environmental regulatory agency.
Implementation at a given firm may bump into some of the regulatory concerns discussed
in the next section on regulatory integration.
I.   EPA's 33\50  Program	

EPA's "33/50 Program" aims to demonstrate that voluntary reduction programs can
augment the Agency's traditional regulatory approach by achieving targeted reductions
more quickly than would regulations alone. The 33/50 Program derives its name from the
program's overall goals ~ an interim goal of a 33 percent "reduction by 1992, with an
ultimate goal of a 50 percent reduction by 1995 in environmental releases and off-site
transfers of 17 high-priority toxic chemicals.  Releases reported in the 1988 Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) are being used as the baseline.

In 1988, almost 6,000 companies reported  to the TRI that about 1.6 billion pounds of
chemicals were either released to the environment or transferred off-site to waste
management facilities. In early 1991, EPA approached the 600 companies releasing or
transferring the largest amounts of the  17 targeted chemicals to see if they would
voluntarily develop reduction programs.  Almost half responded to this initial approach,
pledging to reduce  toxic releases or transfers  by 201 million pounds; by July 1992, more
than 700 companies had made pledges to reduce over 300 million pounds.

The central theme of the program is to promote continuous improvement through toxics use
reduction, equipment and process changes, and improvements in handling and operations.
By emphasizing pollution prevention, EPA hopes to instill a new management ethic that
will achieve even greater reductions than the 33/50 goals.

Many companies making commitments to 33/50 reductions indicate they welcome the
opportunity to get formal recognition for what they have undertaken internally.  The effort
corresponds well to industry efforts to incorporate total quality management into their
operations as well as with industry-sponsored programs such as the Chemical
Manufacturer Association's Responsible Care Program.
EPA's program consists of four major elements:
•      Outreach to companies to encourage participation,
•      Public recognition for commitments,
•      Technical assistance to overcome barriers and adopt prevention strategies, and
•      Evaluation of the effectiveness of these cooperative efforts.

The national program targets parent companies with the highest releases. EPA's
Region VII (located in Kansas City and covering four midwest States) is implementing a
geographic variation of this approach by targeting its efforts to the five counties and three
metropolitan areas in the Region with the highest TRI releases.  The Region, working in
cooperation with the States involved, met with business and civil leaders and company
representatives in each of the identified areas to encourage voluntary community-wide
reduction goals for all reported TRI releases.
2.  State Toxics Reduction  Programs

Efforts to get industry to make voluntary reductions have been an important pan of many
State pollution prevention programs for some time, and EPA's 33/50 Program is building
on the foundations built by these State efforts.  States are working with EPA's 33/50
Program in several ways. Some States are using their offices to promote the participation
of industries in the 33/50 Program, and others are tracking the reductions as part of their
own toxics programs. Some States have their own version of 33/50, sometimes to reach
industries or facilities that would not be contacted by EPA's program. Several States
include discussion of the 33/50 Program in pollution prevention workshops and
conferences and distribute information on technologies that can be applied to achieved

EPA and State toxic use reduction  efforts are better coordinated now.
Some conflicts  remain,  however,  when State goals  are different from
jEPAJs_ goals.	M________m»m™m

When it began, EPA's 33/50 Program was not well coordinated with the States, and was a
particular problem for those States with new, mandatory facility planning requirements and
ambitious reduction goals. After this initial period, during which a State advisory group
was formed to help iron out some of these relationship problems, States and EPA are now
working together to foster voluntary reductions. Many States use EPA's program as a way
to leverage participation in their own programs.

Despite the success of voluntary reduction efforts, some difficult issues remain. For
example, some States now have  statutory goals for toxic use reductions for businesses in
their States that are more ambitious that EPA's 33/50 Program goals. State officials report
that some businesses  are stalling on meeting State goals because of this.  Some report that
businesses are reluctant to make voluntary commitments for fear that they will become
requirements in the future. Others fear that their new release levels will be used  as the

baseline for percentage reductions that are required later — making percentage targets more
difficult for them to meet than for their competitors who did not take voluntary action now.
                            C.  Incentives  Programs
Some  States are trying incentive mechanisms such as tax benefits and
expedited permits  to  promote pollution prevention.   Because they are  still
new, their effectiveness and many implementation issues  are not yet
Mechanisms that provide incentives to encourage firms to take voluntary environmental
protection action are receiving increased attention at all levels of government. Under a
variety of policies and programs, States may provide tax benefits, low interest loans,
expedited permits, or other benefits to those who take certain positive environmental steps
such as implementing pollution prevention measures.

While not strictly regulatory in the traditional sense of command-and-control requirements,
implementation of these mechanisms may involve some of the trappings of more traditional
regulatory programs. For example, fairness dictates that there be clear criteria and a
process to assure that only those who truly qualify for incentives receive them.
Outstanding performance can only be identified for awards if there is a benchmark to be
measured against. If a policy results in granting financial benefits or regulatory relief,
there will be considerable interest in how these decisions are being made.

Governments at all levels are looking for ways to improve efficiencies in their
environmental programs and want to know more about alternative policies and how they
work (or do not). However, since most policy initiatives of this kind are relatively new,
their effectiveness and the implementation issues they face have not been studied.

Exhibit  2-2
  Inventory  Control
   &  Management
                                                              Service, Repair
                                                              & Spare Parts
&  Staffing
         & Sales
                 Quality  Assurance
                    &  Testing
                                                 Product Design
                                                 &  Engineering
Exhibit  2-3
                           ECONOMIC DEVLEOPMENT
    Business Development Center
                                            Business Industrial
                                            Development  Center
                     Chamber  of Commerce
                                           Center  for Innovative Technology
        Electric Power
                                 Corporation for
                              Enterprise  Development
     Department of Trade

     	•	.	
     ^	~~~~—
  State Technology Center
                         Office of County
                      Industrial  Development
                                             Department  of
                                         Economic  Development
                                                            Rural  Development
              Industrial  Development
                Finance  Authority
                                                           Small and Minority
                                                          Business  Association
                              Research  Partnership
  Small Business
Development Council
                                                     Foresight Science and Technology


                       III.  PROMOTING PREVENTION
There are many opportunities for integrating pollution prevention into the current media-
specific program structure. Staff responsible for developing regulations can be directed to
identify and consider pollution prevention alternatives when developing technology
requirements and standards. Environmental authorities can be broadly interpreted to allow
prevention best management practices to be incorporated into media-specific permits.
Single-media inspectors can be trained to identify at least the simplest prevention
opportunities as part of routine inspections.  And enforcement staff can push for
incorporation of prevention measures in settlement agreements with violators.  While there
are opportunities for making significant progress in fostering prevention through the
single-media programs, there is a danger that steps taken to prevent pollution in one media
could result in transferring the pollutants to another; implementing prevention measures
might even cause a violation of requirements in another media. For these reasons, a
mechanism is needed to assure that cross-media matters are identified and addressed.

The use of regulatoryiiTieThliiusn^              pollution preventionTTsT
increasJng,bulMhepractice is  new and still relatively  rare. _______

Until recently, most State and local pollution prevention efforts have been voluntary -
relying on education, technical assistance, and incentives to persuade companies  to change
their practices. Now that the concept of pollution prevention has caught on as the most
desirable way to achieve environmental protection goals, there is  growing anecdotal
evidence of efforts to incorporate pollution prevention into the mainstream of environmental
regulation and enforcement. Unfortunately,  lack of information makes it difficult to fully
assess the extent to which pollution prevention is entering into the myriad of individual
regulatory decisions that constitute the day-to-day operations of State and local

While still far from a widespread practice, EPA and many States have started incorporating
prevention provisions into some permits and enforcement settlement agreements. Further
evidence of a trend toward a more regulatory approach is the fact that nearly a third of the
States have recently adopted laws requiring industrial facilities to develop pollution
prevention plans - although it is still uncertain whether States will be able to require the
facilities to actually implement the plans.

Federal and State regulation writers are also starting to consider pollution prevention
opportunities when developing standards and regulations, so future "best available
technology" requirements can be expected to include prevention measures.  For example,
the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires EPA to consider the impact of proposed rules
on opportunities for source reduction.  To begin implementing  this requirement, EPA has
identified 17 industrial categories for which source reduction opportunities will be intensely
evaluated during rule development.  The Agency has adopted specific principles for
analyzing, developing, and implementing rules for these industries that emphasize source
reduction and multi-media issues.

"There Is a continuing debate about  the desirability liFreguIatory approaches
to  pollution prevention.   	

There are constituencies in both the public and private sectors who fear that regulatory
approaches to pollution prevention could strangle the potential for progress. They argue
that pollution prevention does not lend itself to regulation because it is, by its very nature, a
continuous improvement effort that must be developed on a site-specific basis. Further,
monitoring and recordkeeping to "prove" reductions throughout a production facility would
be burdensome at best and simply impossible in some situations. Companies that have
made significant reductions through voluntary action fear that future prevention regulations
might not acknowledge their early reductions, requiring them to reduce pollution by the
same percentage amounts as their competitors who did nothing to reduce emissions on their
own.  Some technical assistance providers  are particularly concerned that regulatory actions
to require prevention could undermine the  trust they have built with their clients that has
resulted in significant voluntary progress.

Meanwhile, many supporters of traditional environmental programs are concerned about changes
that a shift to pollution prevention might entail. They argue that the current system of regulations
and enforcement was built because of a failure on the part of industry to address environmental
concerns, and point out that noncompliance is still common. Consequently, they are more
comfortable with "bright line" enforceable regulations and requirements and distrust the degree of
mutual cooperation between regulatory agencies and industry that is necessarily involved in
pollution prevention. While acknowledging the shortcomings of the existing system, they fear that
more flexible implementation of regulatory requirements could be manipulated to circumvent
compliance with the laws and ultimately weaken environmental protection.

Despite the misgivings, most would agree  that some integration of pollution into regulatory
programs is both inevitable and necessary.  Because even  voluntary actions can be
thwarted by the realities of the existing environmental regulatory system, many observers
believe that the full potential of the prevention approach cannot be realized unless and until
it has become an integral part of all environmental protection activities. The existing
regulatory system presents powerful  opportunities for promoting prevention. Perhaps the
most  "teachable" moments for promoting prevention come when a facility is applying for a
permit or has been found in violation of an environmental requirement.  In a growing
number of cases, the government has successfully negotiated significant and enforceable
commitments from permit applicants or violators for implementing prevention measures.
However, most existing environmental regulations — and the programs that have grown up
to implement them -- are still based on single-media, end-of-pipe approaches. If these
older requirements and implementation systems remain in place without appropriate
adaptations, they could serve as a significant drag on progress toward pollution prevention.
The line between  regulatory and voluntary approaches to pollution
prevention has already blurred, and sorting out an appropriate relationship
                                                                    __ ,_  —
Already, the line between regulatory and nonregulatory approaches is becoming
increasingly blurred. Some aspects of voluntary programs could be termed "quasi-
regulatory." For example, recordkeeping and reporting might be required in order to
determine who should and should not be entitled to an incentive such as a tax break,
expedited permit, or grant or loan.  The facility planning laws that have passed in about a
third of the States typically straddle the enforceability issue; they require facilities to
develop pollution prevention plans but do not give States the authority to assure that plans

are implemented.  Regulatory programs are being forced to address issues raised by the
growth in voluntary prevention efforts, seeking to find ways to acknowledge voluntary
reductions and not to penalize voluntary actions by raising the hurdle for compliance higher
for prevention leaders than for others. And while there may never be an overarching
requirement for pollution prevention, more and more individual regulations will be
developed that incorporate pollution prevention measures.

Advocates of both regulatory and voluntary programs agree that strict regulations
governing discharges and emissions, waste disposal, and liability provide strong incentives
for companies to adopt pollution prevention.  While it is apparent that a link between
voluntary prevention efforts and environmental regulatory programs is needed, the form
and shape of the association is far from resolved. An intransigent regulatory system might
actually derail voluntary efforts, but greater flexibility in implementing and enforcing
existing requirements could provide them with a significant boost. Yet it is unrealistic to
expect that all important polluters will take voluntary actions, for there are many
noncompliers even when regulations are in place. Meanwhile, contacts with the regulatory
agency — such as when a facility applies for a permit or has been found in
noncompliance — can provide some of the best opportunities to promote prevention actions
that go beyond what is required.
of sucices^Mnte

At this point, efforts to integrate pollution prevention into traditional regulatory programs
are still in the early exploration stage. Only a few State and local governments have even
initiated activities in this regard. Since this is still such a new area of activity, there has
been little analysis of the issues facing regulatory programs trying to incorporate pollution
prevention into their routine activities. This section describes several kinds of integration
efforts and the opportunities and problems they present.  Also included is a general
discussion of the facility planning laws now in place in about a third of the States.

Many alternative structures are possible for integrating pollution prevention into regulatory
programs such as permit writing and enforcement. There are different views as to whether
pollution prevention should be housed in a separate unit. Those supporting establishing a
separate unit suggest that until the prevention concept is more widely known, understood,
and adopted within regulatory agencies, a special staff devoted to prevention is needed to
help spread the word and be agents of change. Others suggest that setting up a special unit
reinforces the notion that prevention is an "add on" activity having little to do with
mainstream environmental programs. Because of the institutional resistance to change,
either approach requires a coordinating mechanism that reaches into each media program
and has sufficient clout to push for change. No organizational approach will work,
however, without top management leadership and follow-through.
                      A.   Multi-Media Integration  Efforts

Because one of the biggest advantages of pollution prevention is that it promotes consideration
of all potential environmental impacts and provides fundamental solutions, most observers
believe that a multi-media approach would be the ideal. Generally, the States experimenting
with multi-media permitting and/or enforcement are doing so by setting up special task forces
or teams.  Representatives from the various media groups participate on a team addressing

 targeted facilities or geographic regions. The task force or team approach allows the
 environmental problems of a facility to be identified and addressed comprehensively. Another
 benefit is that media program staff become exposed to the requirements and issues of the other
 media programs -- experience they then bring back to their home programs. This approach
 also fosters networking and cooperation among programs. Participation in multi-media
 projects can be linked to job promotion opportunities as well.  Some of the difficulties of the
 team approach are common to other "matrix" management situations: unclear supervisory
 controls, program managers' concern about loss of staff to accomplish already heavy
 workloads, and the need for extensive planning and coordination. For these reasons, only a
 few multi-media efforts have actually been attempted thus far, and these have typically been
 conducted at very large and environmentally significant facilities.

 A very few States have begun implementing major reorganizations that emphasize functions
 that cut across all media (e.g., permit writing) rather than single-media laws and programs.
 Some of these reorganizations were undertaken in part to improve the State's ability to promote
 pollution prevention in regulatory activities and/or to foster implementation of new toxic use
 reduction laws. There is evidence to suggest that some other State reorganization efforts are
 mostly concerned with improving regulatory efficiency.  Since these reorganizations are quite
 new, it is too soon to tell how well they will work and what specific problems they face.

 provide insights into t^h£ barriers to  be  oyercorne.	

 There is a long history of efforts to promote better integration of environmental programs.
 Most have met with limited success at best. An understanding of the long-standing
 institutional barriers and the current climate for change will help set the context for a
 discussion of multi-media opportunities for promoting pollution prevention.

 The 1986 study Fragmentation and Integration in State Environmental Management,  led by
 Barry G. Rabe of the Conservation Foundation, examined several State efforts to integrate
 environmental programs. The study found that impediments to integration can be found
 among all the major players involved. For example, many environmental agency staff
 members have been trained in narrow, medium-based specializations, and they are
 sometimes reluctant to assume new, broader responsibilities that involve understanding
 disciplines outside their area of expertise. At the division level, media program managers
 are resistant to efforts to re-invent or re-shape the regulatory wheel, particularly in times of
 heightened competition for resources among programs. Meanwhile, legislators tend to
 cling to their authority over individual programs through the structure of committees and
 subcommittees that have been created over the years.  And the researchers and activists
 who have developed expertise are reluctant to give up their roles as the experts in favor of

 The 1986 study concluded that several impediments to integration are enduring, and
 participants in the  1992 workshop on "Building State and Local Pollution Prevention
 Programs" echoed many of the same themes. These impediments will need to be addressed
 if future integration efforts are to be successful.

 *      Lack of analytic framework. Integration efforts have faltered because of an absence
       of clearly formed ideas and the difficulty of analyzing cross-media pollution and
       how it is addressed through integrated management.  While a holistic approach has
       theoretical  appeal, there are no reliable, precise models for understanding cross-
       media pollution or the impacts of integrated management. Since the 1986 study,
       comparative risk has become a unifying theme for setting environmental problems,

and there have been some improvements in data availability as well as in analytical
tools. However, the science for risk analysis and cross-media impact analysis is
still quite crude.  The economic and environmental benefits of facility-wide
pollution prevention adds a compelling new unifying theme.

Lack of qualified staff. Few professionals or agencies have the training or
resources to develop cross-media understanding. There are few enticements for
developing expertise in more than one area and there is litde cross-fertilization
between disciplines; the professional organizations themselves are organized on a
single-media basis.  Permit writers tend to be junior staff and inexperienced;
turnover is high. There is intense competition for skilled personnel, and States are
unable to compete with industry.  Lack of qualified staff is a fundamental
problem that may even be more critical now if pollution prevention is to be the
objective of integrated permits. Devising appropriate pollution prevention measures
requires significant expertise in industry operations as well as understanding of
multi-media impacts and the requirements of a variety of environmental laws.

Strong constituencies for media programs. Media program mangers are generally
comfortable with the existing system. Each medium has a political constituency —
internally and externally (agencies, environmentalists, and industry) ~ that has
considerable dominion over a particular sphere of policy making. These
constituencies are still suspicious of concepts such as providing for more flexible
interpretation of regulations in exchange for greater overall facility reductions that
might lead to weakening the media-specific controls they have won. However,
there is growing recognition that the complexity of environmental requirements may
be getting in the way of achieving the best environmental and economic benefit
from the investments in pollution control that are being made. Consequently,
since integrated permitting is perceived as a solution to this problem, there is
probably greater potential for building the needed political support for it now.

Absence of resources for innovation. Agencies simply lack the time and
funding to pursue integration efforts. Agencies are already strapped
tending to basic duties and occasionally trying to coordinate. If anything,  resource
constraints are even greater than they were during the 1980s. To help States
develop staff capability in this area, EPA has recently provided limited  support to
States for strategic planning, pollution prevention programs, and projects to help
foster innovative efforts.  Most observers believe that more resources will need to
be freed up for integrated activities. There is strong support, especially on the part
of top environmental agency managers, for allowing for more flexible use of
resources made available through the various environmental program grants.

Inflexible requirements. There is little room for flexibility in the current system of
environmental laws and requirements. It is acknowledged that a whole-facility
approach to permitting and compliance might suggest ways that greater overall
reductions in pollution would be best accomplished if some relief were provided  in
meeting regulations for releases to a single medium.  The lack of mechanisms for
making such trade-offs has derailed some attempts at integrated permits and
enforcement settlements.

Program-specific budgeting and accountability measures.  The current
systems for budgeting and overseeing States for implementation of national
environmental programs provide limited opportunities for cross-media integration
activities.   While there are efforts to reform these systems, opportunities are limited
by legal constraints as well as by long-standing practice. Under the current

       structure, State grants are legally tied to specific program appropriations, so there is
       limited room for funding of multi-media activities. Meanwhile, program oversight
       still emphasizes numerical measures of program-specific activities such as permits
       issued and enforcement actions taken.

Authors of the 1986 study offer the following as requisites for a successful effort to
integrate environmental programs:

       •      A well-articulated and clear policy concept;

       •      A political constituency for integration;

              A triggering event -- problem or crisis - to capture attention to
              integration as a potential solution; and

       «      A policy entrepreneur with technical expertise, negotiating savvy, and
              political clout to move the idea.

Conditions now meet at least some of these criteria, and may lead to a greater push toward
integration. The concept of pollution prevention, and the notion that it is best accomplished
on a facility-wide basis, is gaining widespread support. Fiscal constraints at all levels of
government and general economic conditions are forcing a search for more efficient ways
to achieve environmental protection.  For at least some kinds of facilities, integrated
permitting and compliance efforts may provide a solution.
              B.  Pollution Prevention  in  Environmental Permits
Because they are designed for Individual sites, environmental permits
present  potentially  valuable  mechanisms through which  pollution

Most environmental laws and regulations are ultimately implemented through the issuance
of permits to individual facilities.  Permits specify the conditions under which a facility may
operate and the amount of emissions or pollutants that can be released to air, water, or land.
Because permits are designed on a site-specific basis, tailored to the particular needs and
conditions of an individual facility, they are ideal mechanisms through which pollution
prevention and source reduction can be implemented.  The process of applying for a new or
renewed permit itself presents a unique opportunity for examining the practices and
operations of a facility, identifying source reduction and waste minimization opportunities,
and developing plans for reductions.
1.  Integrated, Multi-Media Permitting	,	   	

The lack of coordination among various environmental programs and permits is viewed by
many as a significant barrier to implementing source reduction. Despite a general
understanding about the unity of the environment, environmental programs have become
increasingly fragmented instead of becoming more integrated. Over the years, the trend has
been to continue subdivision of environmental programs into highly specialized and largely
autonomous components.  At the Federal, State, and even local levels, there are now

separate regulatory programs and permit systems addressing air, water, and land, with
relatively few ways to coordinate related elements.  Statutory schemes require permits
under each law, each issued in accord with a different schedule, so the impact of releases to
the environmental is rarely evaluated simultaneously. In some situations, the result can be a
transfer pollution from one medium to another.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, largely in response to industry concerns about
burdensome procedures, many States tried to improve the administrative efficiency of their
permit systems. Such reforms as appointing permit coordinators, providing for
consolidated permit applications, and creating permit information centers were tried.
Although many States had substantive integration as their goal, reforms often resulted only
in streamlining the process to provide regulatory relief. Most of the reform efforts were
ultimately abandoned, with only some of the procedural coordination reforms surviving.
An integrated  permit could be used to consolidate all  requirements and
source reduction goals in  a  single, enforceable document.  Since
developing such permits is very  resource-intensive, the approach is
probably  realistic  only for very large facilities presenting very high risks
(or for very small facilities where developing an  integrated permit might
result in  resource  savings)
With the growth in understanding of cross-media impacts and the desire to promote whole-
facility source reduction, many States agencies have recently renewed their interest in
integrated permitting.  Under a new law in one State,  10 to 15 facilities will be selected to
participate in a pilot program of integrated permitting.  Each participating firm will receive a
facility-wide permit specifying all releases to air, water, and land.  Each firm is required to
prepare a plan specifying numerical source reduction goals; the plan will be incorporated into
the facility-wide permit. In a "pre-pilot" effort, the State established procedures for writing
and enforcing facility-wide permits, using a team approach involving a member from each
media program and the State's pollution prevention office. EPA will assist in the pilot
program under terms of a new Memorandum of Understanding with the State. Although this
State's pilot program may be the most formal, several  other States  are also experimenting
with ways to coordinate permitting activities through special teams and projects.

An integrated permit system offers the potential of consolidating all requirements and
source reduction goals in a single, enforceable document — a potentially powerful tool for
promoting pollution prevention.  However, integrated  permitting should not be perceived
as a panacea. Perhaps the biggest drawback is that integration requires a significant
amount of early planning — a labor-intensive activity that is hard to justify, particularly in a
time of budget crisis and staff shortages.  Many in the business community are not
interested in pursuing integrated permits because they  too are concerned about the resources
involved and the potential for significant delays.

Integrated permits have thus far only been tried at a handful of large facilities. The facilities
were usually targeted based on the amount of the releases; sometimes volunteer facilities
were solicited. Typically, a special team or task force was set up to write the permit,
comprised of members representing the various media programs.  In some cases, external
organizations were also involved in the development and review process. The Amoco-
Yorktown project, under EPA leadership but with extensive participation from States and
external parties, documents the value of a comprehensive emissions inventory. The project
found that 20% of benzene emissions at the plant could be eliminated through economically
profitable source reduction measures.  However, the project also found that major sources
of emissions are not covered under the Toxic Release  Inventory.

While the additional resources required for coordination among offices may be justifiable
for large facilities, particularly if die overall reduction opportunities are great, it may not
make sense to use limited resources this way for small or even medium-sized facilities. On
the other hand, it may be most cost-effective to establish a streamlined multi-media permit
process for certain categories of small facilities, perhaps establishing a special unit to
handle them. To examine integration opportunities for small businesses, EPA  established
a Printing Industry Cluster. The objectives of the cluster approach are to promote industry
use of safe chemicals and pollution prevention practices, coordinate development of new
rules to promote prevention, and develop pilot projects to test incorporation of pollution
prevention methodologies to reduce the cost of reporting and permitting requirements.

The promise of integrated permitting must also be tempered by acknowledgement that the
impediments that stifled permit integration efforts in the past still exist and will make any
future efforts a difficult prospect.

2.  Pollution  Prevention in Permits                                           ~

Provisions governing permitting under the individual media statutes can be interpreted to
have sufficient flexibility to allow for inclusion of pollution prevention measures as a
condition of the permit. For example, a State or local agency could require pollution
prevention "best management practices" (BMPs) as a permit condition under the Clean
Water Act or Clean Air Act. Agencies could design BMPs on a case-by-case basis or
develop generic BMPs that would be applied to all facilities in a given industrial category.

Facilities may be most receptive to seeking technical assistance and implementing pollution
prevention measures during the period between issuance of the facility's permit and the date
when the facility must come into full compliance (sometimes up to three years later),
because the facility has no fear of enforcement during this time.

Nearly a third of the States now have facility planning laws that require facilities to develop
source reduction/toxic use reduction plans.  These laws typically require certain types of
facilities to assess their production processes, identify opportunities for source  or toxic use
reduction, set quantifiable goals, and establish a plan for meeting these goals. As noted
earlier, the State laws do not generally have enforcement provisions that will assure
implementation of the plans. Incorporating appropriate components of the plans into the
various media permits would be one way of assuring compliance.

At this time, however, the facility planning programs are not linked to the permitting
system. Many observers believe that such a link would  be an effective way to promote
pollution prevention. Consolidating the planning program with existing permitting
programs could help to cut down on the extra work that the planning  process requires of
industry. Within regulatory agencies, consolidation could counteract  the notion that
pollution prevention is an "add on" program that is not as important as the agency's
mainstream activities. Combining the planning and permitting programs would foster
integration of pollution prevention in both companies and regulatory agencies.
Several  policy and technical issues remain as  obstacles to writing  and
enforcing permit conditiOT                            	

Several issues need examination when determining whether and how to pursue  a policy of
incorporating pollution prevention into media-specific permits.  The issues centers around
two key questions:

       (1) What is the role of numerical pollution reduction goals? and
       (2) Is it possible to effectively require BMPs?

Traditional permit conditions typically spell out numerical standards that must be met for
discharges and emissions, and may also specify the kinds of equipment and operating
procedures that will be used. Although permits are tailored to a particular facility, the
development of an individual permit is ordinarily preceded by a long regulatory process to
establish the environmental and technology standards to be applied to similar facilities and
environmental conditions. The development of technology  requirements also typically
includes analysis of the costs and benefits of alternatives as well as the economic feasibility
of applying them in an industry. Individual permit requirements are based on the receiving
environmental media (e.g., water body or air quality region) within the context of the
national standards and regulations.

There is no such regulatory and standard-setting history and expertise in the area of
pollution prevention yet.  Requiring specific pollution prevention measures or BMPs to be
adopted is contrary to the notion that firms are in the best position to determine how they
should achieve compliance. There may be standard general  maintenance or housekeeping
BMPs that could be readily applied to all facilities of a kind, but most other BMPs will need
to be designed on a site-specific basis. The question then becomes, however, what
investment in pollution prevention is reasonable and realistic to expect from a given facility
- in other words, under what circumstances would a company's plans for pollution
prevention be judged so inadequate that a permit would not be issued? If site-specific
prevention BMPs became a required part of permits, would  it be necessary to consider
economic feasibility on a site-by-site basis?

A facility pollution prevention plan  will generally include reduction goals,  but
implementation will take  place in most cases through a gradual, continuous improvement
process. The amount of progress that will be made depends on many variables, and many
of these are simply not predictable.  One  of the dangers in incorporating reduction goals as
enforceable standards for a facility to meet is that this would create a disincentive to
establish ambitious goals. Facility planning requirements under the new laws are multi-
media, but it  is unclear how they could be incorporated into the single-media permits that
now exist. Most prevention experts agree that there are situations where the greatest overall
reduction at a facility can  be achieved at the expense of perhaps violating an individual
standard in one medium.  Developing a mechanism that will fairly address these trade-off
issues will not be an easy task. It should be noted, however, that the trade-off issue is not
unique to regulatory programs; the  issue  emerges in voluntary programs as well.

monitoring and enforcement wHI  be  difficult.	

Advocates for a regulatory approach to pollution prevention believe that it  would assure
industry progress because the requirements could be enforced.  However, assuring
compliance with pollution prevention requirements will be difficult even if requirements are
in place. Inspections to see whether a company has  installed its planned process changes,
input product substitutions, and other changes in operations would be time and resource
intensive, and to be thorough would require inspectors to have a level of expertise that they
rarely have.  Based on its experience with the way other programs have  developed,
industry fears that it could be required to prove reductions at every step along its production
process — that it will have to set up an onerous monitoring and reporting system to satisfy
concerns about the ability to enforce.

No doubt these considerations are reflected in the way most of the facility planning laws
have been designed thus far.  Firms are required to develop plans, but implementation is
not "enforceable" in the traditional sense of the word. Firms are expected to get pressure
for implementation because they must publicly disclose their emissions and reduction
plans. Meanwhile, many States are beginning to explore how to translate facility plans into
permit requirements and other regulatory steps to give them additional "teeth."
Permit writers wiffn^
to incorporate pollution prevention provisions into permits. ____

A major concern for incorporating pollution prevention into permits (either single-media or
multi-media) is the need for training and technical support for permit writers.  They will
need to have - or at least have ready access to - industry-specific technical expertise to be
able to develop appropriate prevention provisions or evaluate plans submitted by individual

Some pollution prevention training efforts are underway. In EPA's water program, for
example, Federal and State permit writers receive a general introduction to prevention
concepts as part of an overall permit writing course. However, this orientation- level
material does not equip a permit writer for writing actual prevention provisions to be
included in a permit. The water program also developed a one-day special pollution
prevention workshop for NPDES permit writers covering existing BMPs that can be
leveraged to achieve prevention.  The course also presents a model BMP/pollution
prevention plan that can be used by States with facility planning requirements in new toxic
use reduction laws.

The need for industry-specific training on a cross-media basis is recognized. Given the
complexity of regulatory requirements affecting a single facility and the potential for cross-
media impacts, some argue that emphasis should be given to developing staff who are
expert in particular industries. There are many individual efforts to develop appropriate
materials and courses at the Federal, State, and local levels — as well as by the private
sector.  However, the need for a more coordinated training  strategy is illustrated by the fact
that there are no fewer than four EPA-funded projects to develop training courses on
pollution prevention for the metal finishing industry.
           C.  Pollution  Prevention  in Inspections and Enforcement
The second way that regulatory agencies directly interact with the regulated community is
through the compliance monitoring and enforcement process. Several State and local
governments are beginning to train inspectors to recognize pollution prevention
opportunities and promote adoption of prevention measures while they are conducting their
routine, on-site compliance monitoring activities.  Some agencies are leveraging the
"teachable moment" of finding a company in violation of environmental requirements by
including prevention provisions in enforcement settlements.

I.   Pollution Prevention  in Inspections

For many years, inspectors for a variety of regulatory functions have been giving informal
advice and referrals for pollution prevention. Some inspectors from publicly-owned

treatment works (POTWs), who visit industrial facilities as an important part of their
activities — particularly in large cities -- have been providing pollution prevention
information for eight years and longer. The potential for including prevention in regulatory
inspections is receiving considerable attention and appears to be a growing practice.

•      Technical  Assistance

An inspector from a regulatory agency is many times the only on-site government
representative a facility will see. The inspector can offer information that is specifically
appropriate to a facility, raise pollution prevention as an option  and opportunity, and direct
the facility to other organizations that can help. Because of time constraints and lack of
other resources, however, inspectors are often limited to mentioning simple options in the
context of their other activities at the site. For example, an inspector might notice pollution
prevention opportunities while walking through a facility and suggest that those
opportunities be explored. The inspector can give the facility literature specific to that
industry or to wastes generated or a list of resources such as books, articles, and technical
assistance programs.

Using inspectors to provide technical assistance does present a potential role conflict,
however.  Many inspectors are uncomfortable with wearing both a "white hat" and a "black
hat" at the same time. It is difficult to be providing assistance to the facility with one hand
while documenting violations with the other. Further, if the facility follows advice given
by an inspector that results in later noncompliance, the facility could use this fact as an
affirmative defense in an enforcement action. For these reasons, both government
attorneys and inspectors are wary about blurring  the enforcement and assistance roles.
Some agencies have addressed the role conflict issue by clearly separating the regulatory
staff from the assistance staff.  In other agencies, inspectors provide only general, written
information about pollution prevention and refer  facilities to assistance providers for help.

Some States have a fundamental disagreement with EPA about enforcement philosophy that
is highlighted by this issue. These States argue that the goal of their compliance programs
is environmental improvement — and that enforcement is only one tool for achieving
compliance; providing technical assistance is also valuable. They feel forced to follow
EPA's enforcement approach because they fear EPA will intervene in their cases or take
away their grants  or enforcement primacy.

•      Multi-Media  Inspections

Recognizing that pollution prevention is best accomplished on a facility-wide basis, some
States (as well as EPA) are experimenting with multi-media inspections. A team of
inspectors representing the various media programs inspects a facility at one time. This
provides a complete picture of the facility's operations and compliance problems, which
can then be used to develop a comprehensive, multi-media enforcement action that can be
used to encourage facility-wide pollution prevention efforts.

Like integrated, multi-media permitting, the concept  of multi-media inspections (and
subsequent enforcement) presents an attractive approach to promoting pollution prevention.
However, the same impediments to integrated permits apply:  the advance planning and
coordination involved is resource-intensive; programs are already strapped for resources;
media program managers are reluctant to give up control;  current budget and accounting
systems provide no incentives; and there is a lack of qualified staff.

In addition, the task of training multi-media inspectors is daunting.  For a comprehensive
multi-media inspection, an inspection team would need  inspectors who are qualified to

conduct the most complex level of inspection for each program. In addition, the team
leader would need leadership and team building skills, project manager training, ability to
recognize cross media impacts, and ability to evaluate and merge diverse reports and
information. An active program to develop such leaders would be critical to the success of
a multi-media inspection program at the Federal, State, or local level. If the objective were
to also identify potential pollution prevention opportunities, still more training would be
required.  Clearly, such a qualified individual would be hard to develop, and once
developed, would be hard to retain as a government employee.

Inspectors themselves may need serious convincing about the advantages of multi-media
inspections.  In a 1991 survey of State inspection programs conducted by EPA, inspectors in
half of the 31 States responding said they were "definitely not" interested in conducting multi-
media inspections in the future, and only 6 States said they were "definitely" interested. Six
States reported good success with multi-media inspections, while two reported  poor
experiences. The most commonly reported reasons cited for not being interested in multi-
media inspections were lack of budget and training, poor organizational cooperation, division
of responsibilities among several State agencies, and bad past experience.

To  be~efffieHivFTir7dl^                                              inspectors
wi]]^ need  extensive^jndustr^-js^pecific^^triaming.	_____„_„

There are alternative approaches to conducting multi-media inspections by teams of
program-specific inspectors. Most inspectors conduct inspections for a single media
program, and become  expert in the regulations, requirements and procedures for that media
- which they then apply to a variety of different types of facilities. An alternative approach
is to develop some inspectors who are expert in particular industries, such as industries that
are targeted as significant polluters in multiple environmental media. Industry expert
inspectors would be more familiar with the specific processes of the industry and could
conduct a multi-media inspection. They could also keep up with technological and
pollution prevention developments relevant to the industry to be able to provide  technical
support permit writers and enforcement officials on these matters.

Regulatory agency staff training has become an important part of many State and local
pollution prevention programs. While there is growing interest  in integrating the prevention
concept into regulatory activities such as permitting and enforcement, most regulatory
agency staff have little or no background or experience in pollution prevention techniques.
They  may also be weak in understanding the opportunities, limitations, and tradeoffs
involved in implementing prevention measures in a given industry setting.  In many States,
regulatory staff are trained by staff from the technical assistance programs because of their
direct experience in applying pollution prevention principles to  industrial facilities.

2.   Pollution  Prevention in  Enforcement Actions                             ~

State and local enforcement actions can be potentially powerful mechanisms for promoting
pollution prevention. A facility found in violation of environmental requirements has a strong
incentive to seek ways to come into compliance, and the regulatory agency is in a persuasive
position for encouraging source reduction and other pollution prevention measures.

The first level of enforcement response, usually reserved for minor violations, is a notice of
noncompliance (or other comparable action).  Some State and local agencies discuss
source reduction opportunities in the cover letters they send out with these notices. In one
State  where multi-media inspections are performed, such  letters are viewed as being most

successful when pollution prevention is suggested as a way to address "group violations"
(for instance, air and water violations from the same activity). The letters can also refer the
violator to a pollution prevention technical assistance program for confidential advice.

Pollution prevention provisions can also be included in settlement agreements in
administrative and civil judicial enforcement cases.  Handled differently from State agency
to agency, provisions range from requiring assessments of source reduction opportunities
to requiring firms to implement specific technologies or practices. Since settlement
provisions are designed on a site-specific basis, they provide the same kind of opportunity
as permits do for tailoring prevention measures to the conditions and needs of a particular
facility.  At the Federal level, an EPA policy (February, 1991) on Supplemental
Environmental Projects states that settlements may include enforceable provisions for
prevention measures as a means for correcting the underlying violation or in addition to the
actions needed to correct the violation.  Exhibit 3-1  (page 68) contains examples of how
pollution prevention was  achieved through enforcement agreements.

Including  prevention  provisions  in  enforcement  settlements  raises  issues

Whether and how to include prevention provisions in enforcement actions raises several
issues that are still being debated.  Some feel that a firm which agrees to take steps to
reduce pollution beyond what the law requires should receive a reduced monetary penalty.
(In fact, there is reason to believe this is already happening, but it is difficult to document.)
Others perceive such penalty reductions as wholly inappropriate, pointing out that the
prevention measures might give the company a dual economic benefit from both the
reduced penalty and the cost savings realized from source  reduction. Still others think it an
abuse of government power to use enforcement leverage as a way to get companies to do
more than they are legally required to do. Some believe that only prevention measures that
are clearly tied to the violation at hand should be incorporated into the enforcement action.

Once prevention provisions are included in enforcement actions, they become, in effect, a
permit or regulation governing that facility's operations. Many of the same issues that were
discussed regarding integrated permits and inspections then come into play. And like
permitting and inspections,  enforcement personnel will need extensive pollution prevention
training and access to technical expertise to be successful.

Information about pollution prevention in enforcement actions and sample language is
being shared through a special bulletin  board on the EPA-sponsored Pollution Prevention
Information Clearinghouse.  However, anecdotal evidence based on discussions with
environmental attorneys suggests that few of them know about or use the system.

          Following are examples of how pollution prevention was successfully
          incorporated into EPA enforcement settlements under the Toxic Sub-
          stances Control Act (TSCA) and Community Right to Know Act.
          In 1990, in exchange for an agreement by Sherex Polymers (Lakeland,
          FL) to install equipment within 12 months that would reduce existing filter
          cake waste by 500,000 pounds per year and to increased in-process recy-
          cling of its fatty acids by approximately 250,000 pounds per year, EPA
          agreed to reduce its $294,000 fine for failing to file a TSCA Premanufac-
          turing Notice by $42,000.
          EPA agreed to reduce the final penalty for 3-V Chemical (Charlotte, NC)
          for not making arrangements to test an imported chemical that was subject
          to a TSCA testing requirement. In exchange for the $31,000 penalty
          reduction, 3-V entered a binding commitment to carry out a leak detection
          and repair program and to install in-process recycling equipment to reduce
          the generation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and dichloromethane at the source.
          Seekonk Lace Company (Barrington, RI) failed to meet the reporting
          requirements under the Federal Emergency Planning and Community
          Right to Know Act in its use of acetone to dissolve acetate threads that
          held lace strips together. In exchange for a $10,000 reduction of the
          penalty, Seekonk made process changes that virtually eliminated the use
          of acetone in the process.

                          D.   Facility  Planning Laws
In recent years, there has been a growth in interest in facility planning as a means for
achieving pollution prevention. About one third of the States now have some form of facility
planning requirement in their laws related to pollution prevention. Many have mandated
facility planning, while others define facility planning as an advantageous but voluntary
procedure. The movement toward facility planning in many States can be credited for
expanding the scope and increasing the sophistication of the facility planning procedure.
Much of what can be described as the current model for facility planning has been codified in
State laws and is being disseminated to facilities as sound business practice.

1.   Phases  of Facility Planning

Facility planning for pollution prevention can be broken into four phases:

Assessment         Comprehensive review of all manufacturing and production
                     processes that use, generate, or release toxic or hazardous materials.

Identification       Identification of possibilities for more efficient use
of Efficiency       or processing of those materials in all the processes
Opportunities       in which they appear.

Option Ranking     Ranking of options according to criteria developed by facility
                     management, then prioritizing and scheduling them for

Implementation     Implementation of selected options, including monitoring their
                     effectiveness and ensuring their proper use through ongoing, regular
                     management  and personnel communication procedures.

The planning procedure is then periodically renewed through continual review and
response to developing business conditions.

Elements of Facility  Plans

Some of the  State statutes go into great detail as to what the facility planning process should
involve and the form in which it should be documented.  Many of these States are further
enhancing that definition through new regulations, guidance manuals, and planning assistance.
In addition to providing a basic blueprint for facility plans, State laws usually also include a
system of plan summaries that can serve as the document of record. They also require
progress reporting designed to spark periodic review of the planning process and its

Although there are many variations,  State laws generally include the following in facility
plans. (The Texas law  is  a notable exception. It details plan content but approaches it less

•      A policy statement of management support for pollution prevention, and a schedule
       for meeting these goals.

       A statement of reduction goals, the reasoning behind them, and a schedule for
       meeting these goals.

       A description of efforts initiated in the past that qualify as pollution
       prevention and an assessment of those efforts' successes and failures.

       A detailed, numeric description of current processes in which toxic  chemicals are
       used and hazardous wastes generated (usually produced by teams reviewing and
       assessing those processes).

       Identification of pollution prevention options in specified areas, including (at a
       minimum) changes in a product or its formulation, substitution of raw materials in
       existing processes and products, equipment modification or modernization, and
       changes in operating and maintenance procedures.

       Detailed financial and technical analyses of practical application of identified options
       in light of current operating conditions.

       Detailed criteria or rationale for choosing or discarding identified options for

       A detailed schedule for implementing selected options, and procedures for
       measuring and monitoring their progress in achieving  reductions.

       A description of opportunities for employee involvement and training.

       Certification by responsible corporate officials or facility managers.
                    E.  Wastewater Pretreatement Program:
                     Opportunity for Pollution  Prevention
There are opportunities for incorporating pollution prevention into each of the
environmental regulatory programs. However, several unique aspects of the wastewater
pretreatment program make it a particularly attractive program through which pollution
prevention can be promoted.  The pretreatment program touches on Federal, State, and
local responsibilities and so seemed appropriate for special attention in considering ways to
build State and local capacity for pollution prevention.

The national pretreatment program was established to prevent pollutants discharged from
industrial facilities from interfering with the operation of publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs), passing through the treatment plant into the environment, contaminating
municipal sludges, and exposing treatment plant workers to hazardous chemicals. The
program is also intended to improve opportunities for recycling and reclaiming municipal
and industrial effluents and sludges. The objectives of the pretreatment program are met
mainly by regulating commercial and industrial facilities that discharge toxic or unusually
strong conventional wastes.

The approximately 1,500 local wastewater programs (representing 2,000 POTWs) that are
required to have pretreatment programs in place handle about 80 percent of the nation's
indirect industrial discharges. (The overwhelming majority of POTWs — about

90 percent ~ are not required to have pretreatment programs because they do not handle
industrial wastes). EPA and delegated States are responsible for assuring that local POTWs
fulfill their part in carrying out the program. Under the program, POTWs apply national
categorical standards to individual facilities, regulate discharges from facilities in additional
industrial categories, place supplemental limits on pollutants, and monitor compliance.

A pollution prevention approach wuldhdpwastewat^
control toxics and reduce costs of complying with mounting environmental
Although POTWs have made significant progress in meeting program goals, pressure is
mounting for more effective control of toxics through the pretreatment program. Some of
the pressure is coming from the costs that the POTWs themselves must bear to be in
compliance with environmental requirements now coming into place governing such
matters as releases to the air, sludge management, and re-use of water.  Compliance costs
are significantly higher and options more greatly limited if the POTW is handling toxics.

The pretreatment program is also facing external pressure for reform because several
studies have revealed that the program has given insufficient attention to the control of
toxics. POTWs have been successful in supplementing the categorical standards with local
limits for at least some pollutants, but comparatively few of these limits are actually based
on site-specific criteria for surface water and sludge quality, potential for interference with
the POTW, or worker health and safety.  The slow progress at the local level can be
attributed in part to the limited availability of criteria and technical information for making
these determinations and to the lack of standards for sludge.  In addition, many POTWs do
not have numerical limits for toxics in their own surface water discharge permits.  When
there are no toxic limits in the POTWs permit, there is limited incentive for the POTW to
push for a reduction in toxics by its industrial users.

Promoting pollution prevention is one way that the national and local pretreatment
programs can begin to address these concerns. Several pilot POTW pollution prevention
efforts suggest that further investments in improving local POTW capacity in this area
would be beneficial.  Some communities participating in a pilot effort to provide source
reduction assistance to their dischargers have been  able  to avoid coming under the
pretreatment requirements altogether because they eliminated regulated contaminants from
entering their wastewater facilities; others have been able to avoid buying costly new
equipment needed to treat certain toxics.  Some large cities  are beginning to incorporate
pollution prevention as an integral part of their wastewater programs.   Exhibit 3-2 (page
73) is an example of pollution prevention language now contained in a municipality's
wastewater treatment plant discharge  permit.

From the national standpoint, POTWs are the logical entry point at the community  level for
the introduction of prevention concepts and the development of local strategies. Compared
with other government agencies, POTWs have the most contact with their regulated
industrial community. Wastewater inspectors, as a group,  have the extensive
understanding of industrial process operations that is necessary for identifying
opportunities for waste minimization and source reduction. In addition, other forces affect
the POTWs relationship with its contributing industries.

•      Sewers are treatment plants are the "court of last resort" for disposal of toxic wastes.
       In a 1986 report to Congress,  EPA estimated that 43-62 percent of hazardous wastes
       entering a treatment plant biodegrade. Of the remaining hazardous waste, 14-16 percent
       concentrates in wastewater sludge, 14-25 percent vaporizes into the atmosphere, and

       from 8-18 percent passes through to the receiving waters.  In that same year, EPA
       identified 529 drinking water treatment facilities downstream of POTW discharge points.
       Some wastewater sludge disposal lagoons have been listed as toxic clean-up sites.

       POTWs will soon find themselves in a regulatory "squeeze play" when they find that
       the toxics wastes that do not biodegrade during treatment have nowhere to go. New
       requirements for the control of toxics in effluent discharges, air emissions, and sludge
       will make it increasingly difficult to pass these pollutants along.

       Population increases and industrial development will increase pressure for residential
       and commercial sewer hook-ups. Source reduction and water conservation strategies
       can decrease the need for expanded or more sophisticated facilities — and save substantial
       costs to the ratepayer and community.

       To continue the political support needed to meet increasing costs and ever-increasing
       regulatory requirements, many POTWs will need to find ways to make it easier for
       their customers to comply. Helping businesses adopt pollution prevention measures
       can be a politically attractive approach because of its dual economic and
       environmental  benefits, and its potential for lowering the POTW's need for revenue
       to acquire capacity.
A "demand-side" strategy for wastewater treatment programs holds promise
           SJ^                                               __ __ __ _„_
Because in the past, wastewater treatment programs have emphasized treatment plant
construction,  some State and local waste treatment agencies still tend to focus on
increasing capacity to treat pollutants rather than develop a strategy which also includes
source reduction or waste minimization initiatives. The potential economic benefits of such
a "demand side" strategy include:

*      Decrease in the need for construction subsidies to expand POTW capacity.

•      Reduction in the cost required to comply with POTW sludge regulations.

•      Reduction in costs associated with long-term loss of water, ground-water, and air
       quality from toxics at the POTW and industrial facilities.

•      Community economic improvements because businesses are reducing costs through
       waste  minimization, source reduction, and toxics recycling.

                                             IN  WASTEWA1W
 Pollution prevention language in a
 Phoenix, AZ, wastewater treatment plant1 s
 NPDES discharge permit.


a. Educational Source Control Program

By March 26,1992, the permittee shall submit a
program description to EPA and ADEQ for
implementing an educational source control
program to reduce toxicity. At a minimum, the
program will require the permittee to:

1. Educate the public regarding the impacts that
result when oil, antifreeze, pesticides, herbi-
cides, paints, solvents, or other potentially
harmful chemicals are dumped into drains.

2. Investigate other education programs targeted
at residential and commercial sources of toxic
pollutants (waste minimization and source

3. Educate the public as to the proper use (e.g.,
application methods, frequencies,  and precau-
tions) and proper management of fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, and other potentially
harmful chemicals;

4. Educate automobile service business person-
nel as to the proper disposal of oil, antifreeze
and any other potentially harmful chemicals.

5. Investigate programs which provide conven-
ient means for people to properly dispose of oil,
antifreeze, pesticides, herbicides, paints, sol-
vents, and other potentially harmful chemicals
(recycle if possible).
b. Pollution Prevention through Point Source
Control Measures

1. By April 1, 1992, the permittee shall:

Submit a study plan acceptable to EPA to deter-
mine whether all significant controllable sources
of pollutants are identified and regulated under
the pretreatment program, and to identify fea-
sible waste minimization measures that will
reduce or eliminate toxics loadings to the treat-
ment plant.

2. By October 1,1992, the permittee shall:

Submit a report on controllable sources of
pollution and recommend changes in the pre-
treatment program, where needed.

3.By December 1,1992, the permittee shall:

(a) Submit a report on waste minimization that
identifies reduction target sources (both indus-
trial and domestic), feasible waste technologies
and measures.  The discharger should investigate
waste minimization measures for at least the
following pollutants:
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,
lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc and

(b) Submit a schedule of implementation for the
report required under paragraph 3.a.

4. The permittee shall implement the waste
minimization measures and pretreatment pro-
gram improvements identified in the report
submitted under paragraph  3.a. above in accor-
dance with the  schedule of implementation.

5. Beginning January 1,1992, and continuing
quarterly thereafter, the permittee shall submit a
progress report detailing efforts of compliance
with applicable requirements listed in para-
graphs 1. through 4. above.            	


UOIJU9A9JJ uoijnfloj (BDoq pue  d)B)§


                        SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following materials were prepared specifically for the Workshop on Building State and
Local Pollution Prevention Programs, and may be obtained from the Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management, W^^	

Implementation of Pollution Prevention Programs  at the State  and Local
Levels: Description, Analysis and Summaries.  An overview of existing pollution
prevention programs and the institutional, staffing, and other challenges they face.
Summaries of programs representing different approaches to pollution prevention
programming. (Prepared by the Waste Reduction Institute for Training and Applications

Integrating Pollution  Prevention into the Activities of State and Local
Environmental Protection Agencies.   Major questions  and dilemmas facing States
and localities as they attempt to make pollution prevention a more integral feature of
environmental regulation, permitting, and enforcement.  (Prepared by the Environmental
Law Institute)

Leveraging Economic  Development and  Business  Assistance Programs for
Pollution Prevention.  Common types  of business assistance programs that now exist
at the State and local levels and their potential for incorporating pollution prevention
assistance into their activities.   (Prepared by Foresight Science and Technology)

Local Governments and Pollution Prevention.  Conclusions drawn from
interviews and workshops with local officials by the International City Management
Association (ICMA), the professional organization representing local government officials.
(Prepared by ICMA)

National  Workshop on Building State and Local  Pollution Prevention
Programs.  Minutes from the Workshop provide perspectives of State and local officials,
environmental advocates,  and industry representatives on designing prevention programs,
building support for them, and how EPA can help. (Prepared by EPA Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management).

Profile:  State Pollution Prevention Programs.  Graphic portraying the range of
program components, budgets, and staffing of 389 pollution prevention programs.
(Prepared by EPA Office of Cooperative Environmental Management from draft
information collected by the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.)


Serious Reduction of Hazardous  Waste.  Summary of pivotal 1986 Office of
Technology Assessment report on the need to move from a control-oriented to a
prevention-oriented environmental management program. (From Office of Technology
Assessment, U.S. Congress)

Waste Reduction:  Research  Needs in Applied Social Sciences.  Summary of
report identifying the need for social research on specific topics related to measurement,
institutional and behavioral barriers, policy incentives, and nonindustrial  sectors.  (From a
1990 workshop sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences)

Sustainable  Manufacturing:  Saving  Jobs, Saving the  Environment.  Case
studies and guide to saving jobs and the environment by forming alliances between
environmental and economic interests and developing programs that help  small businesses
save costs by preventing pollution. (From the Center for Neighborhood Technology in

Prevention Programs	

Pollution Prevention 1991:  Progress on Reducing  Industrial  Pollutants.  A
report on trends in industrial pollution prevention in industry and all levels of government.
(From EPA's Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic

Pollution Prevention News. Monthly newsletter containing  articles and case studies
about pollution prevention efforts by  Federal, State, and local governments as well as the
private sector.  (From EPA's Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxic Substances)

Pollution Prevention Quarterly Reports. Quarterly summary of EPA activities to
implement pollution prevention throughout its programs. (From EPA Pollution Prevention
Policy staff, Office of the Administrator)

Pollution Prevention Journal articles:  (I)   State Pollution  Prevention
Programs:   Technical  Assistance  and Promotion;
(2)  State Pollution Prevention  Programs:  Regulatory Integration;
(3) A New Mandate for Pollution Prevention. Overview of State  technical
assistance programs, efforts to integrate pollution prevention into State regulatory and
enforcement programs, and State pollution  prevention laws. (By Terry Foecke, President
of the Waste Reduction Institute for Training and Applications)

Report  to Congress:  Pollution Prevention Strategy.   EPA's strategy  for
implementing the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.  (From EPA's Pollution Prevention
Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances)

Intergovernmental Relations  on Environment
Fragmentation and Integration in State  Environmental Management.
Summary of efforts to integrate State environmental programs and analysis of factors that
impede or assist in achieving integration. (From a book by Barry G. Rabe, Conservation
Foundation, 1986)

Intergovernmental Process and Procedures for Environmental Decision
Making., Analysis of the difficulty of achieving cross-agency coordination in
environmental programs and possible solutions for overcoming barriers to integration.
(From report by Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations)

Protecting the Nation's  Ground Water:  EPA's Strategy for the  1990's.
Key points on Federal-State relationships which may provide a useful framework for
discussing roles and relationships for pollution prevention. (From EPA's July 1991
Financing and  Incentives  for Prevention	

Economic Incentives for the Reduction  of Hazardous Waste._ Conclusions
regarding likely success of various economic mechanisms for fostering waste reduction.
(From a report prepared by ICF, Inc., for the State of California)

Investing in Sustainable Manufacturing: A Study of the  Credit  Needs of
Chicago's Metal Finishing Industry.  Recommendations from the Center for
Neighborhood Technology for getting credit to small businesses needing environmental
improvements. (From a report of the Center for Neighborhood Technology)


 Participant List:  Building State and  Local Pollution Prevention Programs
 	January  21-23, 1992   •  Chantilly, Virginia	
Stephen Albee, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, US-EPA
Keith Anderson, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
John Atcheson, Pollution Prevention Division, US-EPA
Carol Andress, Northeast Midwest Institute
Scott Bernstein, Center for Neighborhood Technology
Janeth Campbell, Florida Department of Envrionmental Protection
Jolen Chinchilli, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Olga Corey, Pollution Prevention Division, US-EPA
Brenda Davis, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University
John Dernbach, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
William Dickinson, Extension Service, US Department of Agriculture
Theresa Dodge, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Paul Doyle, National Conference of State Legislatures
David Duncan, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department
Tono Eulo, California Local Government Commission
Kate English, Staff of Congressman Howard Wolpe
Terry Foecke, WRITAR
Stephen Gage, Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program
Linda Glass, Pollution Prevention Policy Staff, US-EPA
Karl Graham, City of Cincinnati
Hillel Gray, National Environmental Law Center
David Hartley, California Departmentof Toxic Substances Control
Jeanne Herb, New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection and Energy
Frances Irwin, World Wildlife Fund
Cindy Kelly, Environmental Programs, International City County Management Association
Robert Kerr, Kerr and Associates
Paul Keough, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I, US-EPA
Maurice Knight, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Harry Lane, Conservation and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy
Eleanor McCann, Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, Region III, US-EPA
Richard Morgan, Global Change Division, Office of Air, Noise and Radiation, US-EPA
E.A, Mosher, League of Kansas Municipalities
Warren Muir, INFORM
R. Nick Odum, Jr., Springs Industries
Fran Packard, League of Women Voters
LeRoy Paddock, Assistant Attorney General, State of Minnesota
Jay Pendergrass, Environmental Law Institute
Larry Rice, City of Elgin, Illinois
Stephanie Richardson, North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction
Manik Roy, Environmental Defense Fund
Eric Schaeffer, Pollution Prevention Policy Staff, US-EPA
Priscilla Seymour, Texas Water Commission
Senator Dick Springer, Portland, Oregon
Jeff Tryens, Center for Policy Alternatives
Michael Walker, Toxics Litigation Division, US-EPA
Barbara Wells, National Governors' Association
       Also participating were State and Local Environment Committee members George Britton,
       Larry Cole, Scott Fore, Lillian Kawasaki, Tom Looby, Don Richardson, and Jim Powers, as well
       as EPA Office of Cooperative Environmental Management staff Chuck Evans, Donna Fletcher,
       and Abby Pimie




     State and Local Environment Committee
                         December  1992