United ptates;;
EnwxjnmentaU
• Protection 5 %M
C>ffice pf Enforcement and
EPA 300-B-95-008 SS
evri11 o>riP ib iect n a lys i s
-"-"-''--^ &iAX.;Vi';^^ii>..^vi- = -> = -,V;!i" V*r"- -;;-' *:"--=- I--"'»'*'/ -^ fi-1^ i I'^v1. •/--• S V""" :. " & : V -.V:."-"1- =".Ti.iV- I,"f>1/ • ""-.'*"."-;• . *^ ; ">
Aj£w
fi&rj^ ^
, •&?_ -'ff&m
i8»*
8J»
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed witn Soy/Canola Ink on paper
that contains at least 50% recycled Jiber
-------
This document was prepared
by the Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office {2261} in
the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.
Consulting assistance was
provided by Science
Applications International
Corporation (SA1C).
For additional copies of this
document, please contact:
Pollution Prevention
Information Clearinghouse
U,a EPA (3404)"
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: (202)260-1023
Fax: . (202) 260-0178
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, Planning, Prevention, and Enforcement Division gratefully
acknowledges the contributions of the following agencies and individuals that provided information and
comments:
Department of Defense
Colonel. L. Dean Fox
Major Alec Earle
Major Al Trivette
U.S. Air Force Civil Engineering
Mary Grafton
Defense Analysis and Studies Office
CDR Marc McConahy
Office of Assistant Secretary of Navy
(Installations & Environment)
Dr. Get Moy
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Pollution Prevention)
David Price
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
Research Triangle Institute Center for
Economics Research
Keith A. Weitz
Tellus Institute for Resource and
Environmental Strategies
Dr. Deborah Savage
Dr. Allen White
U.S. Department of Energy
Jane Powers
Staff from Department of Energy Office of
Defense Programs,
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and Sandia
National Laboratories
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
James Bridges
Maryanne Curran
Paul Shapiro
Office of Research & Development/Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Jim Craig
Holly Elwood
Eun-sook Goidel
Dr. Martin Spitzer
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Maureen Sullivan
Lynn Vendinello
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Lee Otis
Region 10
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT ANALYSIS OF POLLUTION
PREVENTION PROJECTS
Background 1
Purpose of This Document 2
What is Pollution Prevention? 3
Benefits of Pollution
Prevention 5
How Do You Evaluate Pollution Prevention Investments? 6
Estimating Economic Performance '. 7
Estimating Environmental Consequences 7
Format of This Guidance Manual 8
CHAPTER 2: TOTAL COST ASSESSMENT FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION
Introduction 9
What is Economic Analysis? 9
Definitions and Terms 10
Expanding Cost/Savings Inventories 11
Expanding Time Horizons 14
Comparing Financial Performance '. 14
Getting Started 17
Instructions For Completing The Investment Analysis Worksheet 18
CHAPTER 3: ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Introduction 23
What is a Life Cycle Assessment 24
Applications of a Life Cycle Assessment 26
-------
Beginning to Apply LCA Concepts in Project Analysis 27
Life Cycle Checklist. 28
Conducting a More Detailed Investment Review 29
Instructions For Completing The Life Cycle Assessment Worksheet 32
CHAPTER 4: INCENTIVES AND CHALLENGES TO EXPANDING PROJECT
ANALYSIS PRACTICES
Introduction ..35
Existing Incentives 35
Executive Branch Initiatives 35
Office of Management and Budget Guidance 36
Specific Agency and Facility Initiatives 36
Department of Defense 36
Department of the Interior '. , 37
United States Postal Service 37
Overcoming Existing Challenges 37
Proper Allocation of Cost Categories 38
Placing Value On Future Costs and Benefits 39
Availability of Process Specific Resources 39
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS A-1
APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES B-1
APPENDIX C: READER FEEDBACK SURVEY C-1
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT ANALYSIS
OF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROJECTS
"...Federal facilities will set the example for the rest of the country and
become the leader in applying pollution prevention to daily operations,
purchasing decisions and policies... By stopping pollution at its source
the Federal government can make a significant contribution to protecting
the public health and our environment."
President Bill Clinton
BACKGROUND
On August 3, 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12856, entitled
Federal Compliance With Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements.
This order requires each Federal Agency to:
• Develop an Agency-wide pollution prevention strategy which commits the
agency to source reduction and emphasizing pollution prevention as the primary
means of achieving and maintaining compliance with Federal, State, and local
environmental requirements.
• Establish a voluntary goal to reduce total releases and off-site transfers of toxic
chemicals or toxic pollutants by 50 percent.
• Develop facility-level pollution prevention plans.
* Apply Life Cycle Analysis and 'Total Cost Accounting principles, to the greatest
extent practicable, when evaluating pollution prevention opportunities.
By signing this Executive Order (EO) and emphasizing the importance of
pollution prevention in environmental management, President Clinton has challenged
the Federal government to publicly lead by example by applying pollution prevention in
1
-------
the management of its facilities and in its acquisition practices. By preventing pollution,
the Federal government not only protects the environment and the public's health, but
also saves the taxpayers' money by reducing pollution control costs and long-term
liability for expensive cleanups.
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This guidance manual is designed to assist decision makers at Federal facilities
in complying with the requirements of Section 4-404 of EO 12856. That section
requires Federal facilities to apply Total Cost Accounting and Life Cycle Analysis, to
the greatest extent practicable, when evaluating pollution prevention opportunities.
Specifically, this manual introduces and describes several analytical tools that can be
used to help users identify and quantify the financial and environmental benefits of
pollution prevention projects and alternative opportunities. This information can then
be used to evaluate and justify pollution prevention projects.
This manual is written primarily for the individual who makes decisions regarding
project funding at Federal facilities and for those who recommend and evaluate
potential alternatives. However, any Federal employee involved in the procurement
process can use the concepts in this manual to more accurately evaluate the full
economic and environmental impacts of projects under consideration.
The information provided in this document will help Federal facility managers
choose the best pollution prevention practices and support projects amid competing
resource demands. The analytical tools to evaluate and support pollution prevention
opportunities described in this manual fall into two categories: Economic Analysis and
Environmental Analysis. These two categories are discussed separately, but in reality
they are two integral components of any project review process.
The financial and environmental techniques discussed in this manual expand
upon traditional project analysis to include:
« Associated direct and indirect cost and environmental impacts;
Associated financial and environmental consequences occurring both "upstream"
and "downstream;" and
-------
The environmental impacts throughout all media (air, water, soil) resulting from
competing project alternatives.
Finally, this manual is not intended to be a comprehensive "how-to" text
presenting new research on financial and environmental project review concepts.
Rather, it provides an introduction and a framework for using these important and
evolving tools. Readers who seek more detailed information should refer to the
documents listed in Appendix B.
WHAT IS POLLUTION PREVENTION?
Over the past several years, a new environmental protection concept and
strategy has been developed that focuses on eliminating or modifying activities that
result in adverse environmental impacts. This concept, known as pollution prevention,
has gained widespread support, especially in Federal agencies, as a means to meet or
exceed environmental goals and standards and to reduce resources being spent to
clean up pollution. Pollution prevention is defined in the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 as:
...any practice which reduces the amount of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the
environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or
disposal; and any practice which reduces the hazards to public health and the
environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or
contaminants.
Pollution prevention, referred to here
as source reduction, represents the first step
in a hierarchy of options for managing waste.
Exhibit 1-1 depicts this Environmental
Management Hierarchy. Source reduction is
assigned the highest priority because it
eliminates or reduces wastes at the source of
generation. Recycling is the next preferable
approach, because it invplves the reuse or
regeneration of materials that would
otherwise become wastes into usable
products. Treatment and disposal are viewed
as last-resort measures, since they do not
Exhibit 1>1
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
SOURCE REDUCTION
RECYCLING
TREATMENT
DISPOSAL
-------
involve the reduction or reuse of wastes.
Pollution prevention refers to the use of materials, processes, or practices that
eliminate or reduce the quantity and/or toxicity of wastes at the source of generation. It
includes practices that eliminate the discharge of hazardous or toxic chemicals to the
environment and protect natural resources through conservation and improved
efficiency. Further, pollution prevention encourages reduction in the use of hazardous
materials, energy, and water as the best approach to reducing environmental impacts.
Exhibit 1-2 lists the major types of pollution prevention activities.
Exhibit 1-2
POLLUTION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES
Process Efficiency Improvements
• Perform the same task with less energy or materials by designing new systems or
modifying existing ones.
Material Substitution
• Replace hazardous chemicals with less toxic alternatives of equal performance.
Inventory Control
• Improve materials management practices to prevent product expiration or damage.
Preventive Maintenance
• Routinely check storage areas and containers for leaks and spills.
Maintain equipment in good working order to extend useful life.
Housekeeping
• Keep work areas neat and organized to reduce the chance of spills or releases of
chemicals.
Training
• Train employees in pollution prevention techniques.
-------
Pollution prevention differs from the traditional approach to waste management
not only because it seeks to avoid the generation of waste or environmental releases,
but also because it stresses the relationship between air, land, and water to view the
environment as a whole, rather than as individual segments. Within this framework,
pollution prevention aims to eliminate or reduce waste released to land, air, and/or
water without transferring or shifting pollutants between environmental media.
BENEFITS OF POLLUTION PREVENTION
Practicing pollution prevention may result in a number of economic benefits
These benefits can include fewer Notices of Violation (NOVs) and fewer costs
associated with reporting, compliance, penalties, and environmental liability associated
with hazardous waste generation and use. Pollution prevention can also reduce the
costs associated with waste management. Costs that may be reduced include
expenditures for raw materials, waste handling and storage, transportation and
disposal, training, management overhead, and emergency response. The likelihood of
incurring significant future environmental costs, such as remediation activities, can also
be reduced by using pollution prevention approaches.
In addition, pollution prevention can produce positive health and environmental
benefits. Minimizing the use of hazardous materials creates a safer work place and
reduces the need for expensive health and safety protection devices. A safer work
place will also improve employee morale. In addition, the reduction in hazardous
materials use can decrease the volume of toxic substances released to the
environment from spills, leaks and air emissions that affect human health and the
environment. Exhibit 1-3 presents a list of the most significant pollution prevention
benefits.
Although pollution prevention techniques can result in many benefits, many
Federal facilities have not yet embraced pollution prevention projects. This is due, in
part, to facility environmental funding historically being focused upon regulatory
compliance activities. In addition, traditional governmental economic and
environmental analysis tools do not always consider the total costs, savings, and
environmental benefits from pollution prevention. In short, these traditional analysis
tools often do not provide adequate justification to recommend pollution prevention
opportunities. This manual introduces tools for evaluating and justifying pollution
prevention projects to overcome this barrier.
-------
Exhibit 1-3
POLLUTION PREVENTION BENEFITS
Operating Costs
• Reduced waste storage, handling, treatment, and disposal costs
• Avoided costly alternative treatment technologies
• Reduced raw material and feedstock purchasing costs
• Lowered housekeeping costs
• Reduced operating costs through better management and production efficiencies
• Reduced usage of energy, water and other resource needs
Liability/Risk
• Decreased regulatory reporting requirements and compliance costs
Reduced liability for environmental problems at both on-site and off-site treatment,
storage, and disposal locations
• Reduced work related injuries and worker exposure to hazardous materials
Facility Image
• Improved community relations
Perceived public health/environmental benefits
HOW DO YOU EVALUATE POLLUTION PREVENTION PROJECTS?
This guidance manual introduces Federal facility environmental managers to the
tools necessary to more fully evaluate both the environmental effects and economic
impacts of current operations, pollution prevention opportunities, and competing project
alternatives. Specifically, the manual outlines the key concepts and procedures
involved in using economic and environmental project review tools. While these tools
can be used to evaluate current operations and virtually any type of project, they are
-------
described in this manual in the context of evaluating and supporting pollution
prevention projects.
To effectively use the economic and environmental analysis tools described in
this document when evaluating pollution prevention opportunities, it is necessary to
apply these tools to current operations as well as other project options under
consideration. In this way, greater understanding of the financial and the
environmental effects can be gained and can be compared on an equal basis.
Estimating Economic Performance
Economic analysis is the most commonly used method to determine how scarce
resources should be allocated. An accurate estimate of the costs associated with the
development and use of a product or process is central to the internal decision making
and strategic planning process. Pollution prevention projects must compete on equal
footing with other funding requests.
The easiest and most common economic evaluation is one that compares the
up-front purchase price of competing project alternatives. However, the up-front
purchase price is typically a poor measure of a project's total cost. Costs such as those
associated with maintainability, reliability, disposal/salvage value, and
training/education must also be accounted for in the financial decision making process.
This guidance manual provides Federal facility decision makers and their
advisors with an introduction to the tools to expand upon traditional economic analysis
processes to identify more of the costs associated with a particular operation or
process at a facility. The approach discussed in this guidance manual is designed to
allow Federal facility managers to expand their traditional economic analysis framework
by adding new cost elements to existing modeling techniques. This approach gives
flexibility to the economic analysis process and allows each analysis to be tailored in
scope and detail to reflect both available data and specific project review needs.
Further, basic cost data already embedded in existing facility-level models can be used
to minimize the effort needed to secure required data.
Estimating Environmental Consequences
In addition to economic performance, the environmental consequences of
current practices and alternative opportunities should be factored into project review
7
-------
processes. When environmental consequences are considered, the pollution
prevention alternatives can be assigned appropriate weight. Through this process,
project opportunities that reduce one type of pollution by transferring the environmental
impacts to another media (e.g., from water to atmospheric releases) can be identified
and eliminated.
Environmental analyses can be used to examine environmental impacts along
various points in the life cycle of the product, process, or activity. This may include
extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation and
distribution, use/re-use/maintenance, recycling, and final disposal. Environmental
analyses, like economic analyses, can be tailored in scope and detail to reflect both
available data and specific project review needs.
FORMAT OF THIS GUIDANCE MANUAL
The remainder of this guidance manual provides more specific guidance and
application examples using each of the pollution prevention tools discussed above.
Chapter 2 presents economic analyses, and Chapter 3 discusses environmental
analyses. Both of these chapters provide an introduction to the basic analysis
procedure and include worksheets that illustrate how the concepts can be applied.
Chapter 4 discusses incentives, potential challenges and possible solutions to
expanding investment analysis practices. A glossary of terms, a list of additional
resources, and a reader response survey are located at the end of the manual in
Appendices A, B, and C, respectively.
8
-------
Chapter 2
TOTAL COST ASSESSMENT
FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is designed to assist Federal facility managers in identifying a
broader and more accurate array of economic costs associated with current operations
and with alternative project opportunities. These tools will help uncover areas of cost
savings that result from pollution prevention projects that are often overlooked in
traditional costing processes. With these tools, managers will be better equipped to
answer the questions: "Does pollution prevention pay? And if so, how much?"
The chapter first discusses how traditional project analysis procedures can be
expanded upon to more accurately reflect the economic costs and benefits of pollution
prevention activities. Next, a worksheet with step-by-step instructions is provided to
illustrate how these new concepts can be used. Together, this discussion will provide
facility managers with the framework necessary to begin using economic analysis
principles to more accurately evaluate the financial viability of pollution prevention
projects.
WHAT IS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS?
Economic analysis involves tabulating the financial costs, revenues, and savings
that a project is expected to generate. These estimates provide the data necessary to
evaluate the economic advantages of competing projects. All Federal agencies require
some form of financial performance analysis as part of the investment decision making
process.
Unfortunately, economic analysis methods historically have minimized or ignored
the economic benefits of pollution prevention projects by incorporating too few cost
areas in the analysis and by examining costs over too short of a period of time. Not
surprisingly, methods to improve economic justification for pollution prevention projects
involve addressing these shortcomings.
-------
Definitions And Terms
Over the last few years, researchers and managers
working to promote pollution prevention have been
developing techniques to evaluate projects that account
for the economic benefits of pollution prevention. Several
systems and models have been developed, and
numerous terms are currently used to define these
systems. These systems and models all involve
expanding the traditional project evaluation methods to
address the issues stated in this chapter. For the sake of
clarity, the following section provides a short description
of three approaches currently being advocated in the
Federal government. These definitions were developed by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Many facility managers may be familiar with these
approaches, yet call them by a different name.
Total Cost Accounting. Total Cost Accounting,
also referred to as Full Cost Environmental Accounting, is
used in management accounting to represent the
allocation of all direct and indirect costs to specific
products, product lives, or operations.
Total Cost Assessment. Total Cost Assessment
has come to represent the process of integrating
environmental costs into capital budgeting analyses. It
has been defined as the long-term, comprehensive
financial analysis of the full range of costs and savings of an investment experienced
by the organization making the investment.
P2/Finance
P2/Finance is a pollution prevention
financial analysis and cost
evaluation software program and
users guide designed to help
managers identify and calculate the
costs associated with existing
operations and potential
investments. The spreadsheets
contained within P2/Finance prompt
users to enter cost and savings
data in a broad range of categories.
Once data is entered, P2/Finance
calculates and reports cost data,
annual cash flows, and projected
financial performance using a
variety of performance indicators.
P2/Finance is designed to run with
Lotus 1-2-3., or Excel. The
software and users guide is
available at no charge to all
Federal, state and local government
agencies from the EPA's Pollution
Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (MC 304), 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC,
20460. Phone: (202) 260-1023.
Life Cycle Cost Assessment. Life Cycle Cost Assessment represents a
systematic process for evaluating the life cycle costs of a product, product line,
process, system, or facility from raw material acquisition to disposal by identifying
environmental consequences and assigning monetary value.
Additional definitions for commonly used terms can be found in Appendix A.
10
-------
Expanding Cost/Savings Inventories
For pollution prevention projects to
compete fairly with pollution control and
competing alternatives, more potential costs
and savings must be considered. In addition
to including direct costs, the cost inventory
should also include indirect costs, liability
costs, and less tangible benefits. Exhibits 2-1
and 2-2 provide a list of capital and operating
costs that environmental managers can use to
determine the financial costs and savings
associated with a particular project
opportunity.
The challenge for any Federal facility
decision maker or project analyst seeking to
use an expanded cost/savings inventory for
investment analysis is that some of the cost
data associated with a particular piece of
equipment or process may be difficult to
obtain. Quantifying some of these costs may
be a challenge because they may be grouped
with other cost items in existing overhead
accounts. For example, waste disposal costs
for existing processes are often placed into a
facility overhead account, whereas an
expanded cost inventory would call for these
costs to be directly allocated to the product or
process that produces them. Consequently, it
is not expected that information for all the
cost categories will be identified during
analyses. Managers and analysts should use
the list of categories contained in Exhibits 2-1
and 2-2 to incrementally expand their existing
financial analyses whenever possible.
Total Cost Assessment
Pilot Study
The Postal Service recently completed
a financial analysis using TCA to
evaluate pollution prevention projects
for the vehicle painting and oil handling
processes at the USPS Vehicle
Maintenance Facility in Hartford, CT.
Financial data concerning existing and
alternative oil handling and painting
processes were tabulated and
compared. Costs associated with
existing painting operations
(conventional spray guns and low
solids, high VOC paint) were compared
to five alternatives using high volume,
low pressure (HVLP) spray guns,
water-based primers, and/or paints with
varying levels of solids and VOCs.
Costs associated with existing oil
handling practices (using virgin oil and
disposing waste oil through a vendor)
were compared against alternatives
involving using virgin oil and disposing
of waste oil via an on-site waste oil
burner, and using re-refined oil
purchased from a vendor that takes
USPS waste oil for re-refining. In both
cases, the financial analysis indicated
that various alternatives to existing
operations could provide substantive
conomic benefit. The study used
P2/Finance, a computerized
spreadsheet to help track costs and
measure financial performance.
Ordering information for P2/Finance is
contained in Appendix B.
11
-------
Exhibit 2-1
INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL CAPITAL COSTS1
Purchased equipment
• Equipment
• Delivery
• Sales tax
• Insurance
• Price for initial spare parts
Materials
• Piping
• Electrical
• Instruments
• Structural
• Insulation
• Other materials (e.g.,
painting, ducting)
Utility systems and
connections
• General plumbing
• Electricity
• Steam
• Water (e.g., cooling,
process)
• Fuel (e.g., gas, oil)
• Plant air
• Inert gas
• Refrigeration
• Sewerage
Site preparation (labor.
supervision, materials)
• Site studies
• Demolition and clearing
• Old equipment/rubbish
disposal
• Grading, landscaping
• Equipment rental
Start-up/Training (labor.
supervision, materials)
• In-house
• Contractor/vendor/
consultant fees
• Trials/manufacturing
variances
• Training
Construction/Installation (labor. Regulatory/Permitting (labor.
supervision, materials)
• In-house
• Contractor/vendor/
consultant fees
• Equipment rental
Planning/Engineering (labor.
supervision, materials)
• In-house
planning/engineering (e.g.,
design, drafting,
accounting
• Contractor/vendor/
consultant fees
• Procurement
supervision, materials)
• In-house
• Contractor/vendor/
consultant fees
• Permit fees
Working Capital
• Raw materials
• Other materials and
supplies
• Product inventory
Protective equipment
Contingency
• Future Compliance Costs
• Remediation
Back-End
• Closure/ decommissioning
• Disposal of inventory
• Site survey
Adapted from An Introduction to Environmental Accounting as a Business Management Tool: Key
Concepts and Terms, USEPA, and P2/Finance Users Manual, Teilus Institute, Boston, MA. 1993.
12
-------
Exhibit 2-2
INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL OPERATING COSTS2
Direct Materials
• Raw materials (e.g.,
wasted raw materials
costs/savings)
• Solvents
• Catalysts
• Transport
• Storage
Direct Labor
• Operating (e.g., worker
productivity changes)
• Supervision
• Manufacturing clerical
• Inspection/QA/QC
Utilities
• Electricity
• Steam
• Water (e.g., cooling,
process)
• Fuel (e.g., gas, oil)
• Plant air
• Inert gas
• Refrigeration
• Sewerage
Waste Management (Labor.
Supervision. Materials)
• Pre-treatment
• On-site handling
• Storage
• Treatment
• Hauling
• Insurance
• Disposal
Regulatory Compliance
(Labor. Supervision,
Materials)
• Permitting
• Training (e.g., Right-To-
Know training)
• Monitoring/inspections
• Notifications
• Testing
• Labeling
• Manifesting
• Recordkeeping
• Reporting
• Generator fees/taxes
• Closure/postclosure care
• Financial Assurance
• Value of marketable
pollution permits (e.g.,
SOx)
• Avoided future regulation
(e.g., Clean Air Act
amendments)
Insurance
Future Liability
Fines/penalties
Cost of legal proceedings
(e.g.. transaction costs)
Personal injury
• Property damage
• Natural resource
damage
• Superfund
Revenues
• Sale of product (e.g.,
from changes in
manufacturing
throughput, market
share, corporate image)
• Marketable by-products
• Sale of recyclables
Adapted from An Introduction to Environmental Accounting as a Business Management Tool: Key
Concepts and Terms, USEPA.. and P2/Finance Users Manual, Tellus Institute, Boston, MA. 1993.
13
-------
Expanding Time Horizons
Another concept that is helpful in uncovering more of the true economic benefits
of pollution prevention projects is to expand the evaluation of costs and savings over a
longer time horizon, usually five or more years. This is because many of the costs and
savings from pollution prevention take years to materialize, and because the savings
from pollution prevention projects often occur every year for an extended period of time.
For example, some pollution prevention projects may result in recurrent savings as a
result of less waste requiring management and disposal every year. Conventional
project analysis, however, often confines costs and savings to a'three to five year time
period. Often, this time horizon is shorter than the useful life of the item or equipment
being evaluated. Using this traditional time frame in project evaluation will exclude
some of the areas of savings generated by pollution prevention projects.
Comparing Financial Performance
While expanding cost inventories and time horizons can greatly enhance the
ability to accurately portray the economic consequences of a single pollution
prevention project, financial performance indicators are needed to allow comparisons to
be made between competing project alternatives. Three methods of comparison are
currently in widespread use: Payback Period, Net Present Value, and Internal Rate of
Return.
The simplest and most common approach used by Federal agencies is to
conduct a payback analysis that estimates the amount of time it will take to recover the
capital expenditures. Net present value, an approach that is gaining popularity among
Federal agencies and facilities, is also advocated by many economists as a more
accurate approach to project evaluation. Both techniques are useful and offer specific
advantages/drawbacks for Federal facility decision makers. The third approach,
Internal Rate of Return, is rarely used within the Federal government but is described
below for use by readers who encounter it. Analyzing economic impacts using two or
more of these approaches will provide even more insight.
Payback Period. Payback period analysis is the investment performance
indicator most commonly used by many Federal agencies. The purpose of a payback
analysis is to determine the length of time it will take before the costs of a new projects
are recouped. The formula used to calculate Payback Period is:
Payback Period (in years) = start up costs / (annual benefits - annual costs)
Payback Period = $800 / ($600 - $400) = 4 years
14
-------
Those investments that recoup their
costs before a set "threshold" period of time
(usually 3-5 years) are determined to be
projects worth funding. Payback period
analysis does not discount costs and savings
occurring in future years. In addition, costs
and savings are not considered if they occur
in years later than the threshold time in which
a project must pay back in order to be funded.
There are also examples where critical
pollution prevention projects may have a
payback slightly longer than an established
threshold, but have been implemented due to
significant intangible benefits.
Net Present Value. The Net Present
Value (NPV) method is based upon the
concept that a dollar today is worth more than
a dollar in the future (commonly referred to as
the time value of money). Specifically, this
method progressively reduces (discounts) the
value of costs and revenues occurring in
future years (cash flows). Federal facilities
discount projected cash flows by a rate that is
periodically determined and published by the
Office of Management and Budget3. These discounted annual cash flows are then
added to calculate the "Net Present Value" of the investment. The higher the NPV, the
more attractive the project. Since most Federal Government projects do not result in
revenues, the NPV of the most attractive project will have the smallest negative number
(closest to zero).
Use of Payback Period Analysis
The military often uses payback analysis
as part of its justification process for
evaluating pollution prevention projects.
The military typically looks for projects
that pay back in 3 years or less.
Examples of results from the Air Force
using payback analysis to evaluate
projects as part of the Tidewater
Interagency Pollution Prevention Program
initiative are given below:
Analysis of replacing a solvent parts
washing station with a biodegradable
detergent system indicated a 7 month
payback.
Analysis of antifreeze recycling system
indicated a payback of 2 years based
on a recycling rate of 1000 gallons per
year.
This method is particularly useful when comparing pollution prevention projects against
alternatives that result in higher annual waste management and disposal costs. The
increased costs of current operations (or of investment options that do not reduce
wastes) will tend to lower their net present value. This method easily accommodates
the use of an expanded cost inventory when calculating all costs and benefits.
At the time of printing, the appropriate OMB discount rate is 7.3% for 3 year investments, 7.6% for 5
year investments, 7.7% for 7 year investments, 7.9% for 10 year investments, and 8.1% for 30 year
investments. Updated rates are available from OMB's Office of Economic Policy at (202) 395-5873.
15
-------
NPV = Initial investment (expressed as a negative number) +
discounted net yearly cash flows
Note: Net yearly cash flow = discounted cash inflows
discounted cash outflows
For example:
$100,000 initial investment (-100,000) + $300,000 discounted savings -$100,000
discounted costs = $100,000
Internal Rate of Return. The Internal Rate of
Return (IRR) method is not commonly used in Federal
investment decision making. Unlike in Federal NPV
calculations, where cash flows are discounted by a
rate (determined periodically by OMB) and then
added, the purpose of IRR calculations is to
determine the interest rate at which NPV is equal to
zero. If that rate exceeds the hurdle rate (defined as
the minimum acceptable rate of return on a project),
the investment is deemed worthy of funding. Federal
decision makers using the IRR method should use the
discount rate developed by OMB or their specific
Agency as the hurdle rate (currently 7.9% for 10 year
investments, see footnote 2). Therefore, the IRR
equals V in the following equation:
Use of NPV Analysis
Many private sector companies and
some government agencies c,:rrently
use NPV to analyze financial
performance of environmental projects.
Hyde Tools Company used NPV
analysis to document over $15,000 in
benefits from a pollution prevention
project that involved a rinse water
recycling project.
Tektronix Corporation used NPV
calculations to document over $90,000
in benefits from a process modification
to its painting system that dramatically
reduced paint consumption.4
Initial Cost + cash flow year 1/(1 +r)1 + cash flow year 2/(1 +r)2 +
cash flow year 3/(1+r)3... + cash flow year n/(1+r)n = O
Summary of Pollution Prevention Case Studies with Economic Data (by SIC Codes)
EPA/OPPTS Document # 742-S-94-001 January 1994.
16
-------
In practice, IRR is usually calculated using a process of trial and error, where
different interest rates are tried until the correct internal rate of return is found. That
rate is then compared to the hurdle rate.
In many instances, decision makers at Federal facilities may have little choice
concerning which of the above methodologies to use. The choice of payback, NPV, or
IRR may be dictated by either policy or common practice. Whichever method is used,
the challenge for decision makers is to expand the content of their analysis to reflect
the true costs and savings as accurately as possible.
GETTING STARTED
The concepts discussed in this chapter can be used to help identify, calculate,
and demonstrate the economic benefits that result from pollution prevention projects.
They can be used to provide a fair and more complete comparison of two or more
competing project alternatives, or can be used to comoare proposed projects to the
costs of existing operations.
As discussed earlier, managers seeking to expand their existing economic
analysis methods to better capture the benefits of pollution prevention should
incorporate as many of the concepts discussed in this chapter as practical. Managers
who cannot isolate and quantify all of the items they have identified in their expanded
cost inventory should nevertheless research and include cost data on all of the items
for which they can collect reliable information. Similarly, the time horizon for the
analysis should be extended as far as possible, given available data and the type of
project evaluation method in use at their facility. Incorporating these concepts is often
an incremental process. Even small steps toward expanding inventories and extending
time horizons can result in funding approval for pollution prevention projects that would
otherwise face rejection.
A worksheet has been provided at the end of this chapter to illustrate the use of
these concepts. This and similar worksheets can help the reader analyze the costs
and benefits associated with current operations, pollution prevention projects, and
alternative project opportunities. The worksheet demonstrates ways of capturing more
cost categories by better allocating costs to specific activities, expanding the cost areas
included in the analysis, and expanding the time horizon over which the project is
analyzed. Note that the lists of potential costs and revenues have been abbreviated for
ease of use. Facility decision makers likely will need to revise this worksheet to include
items relevant to their own analysis.
17
-------
The worksheet also provides for the calculation of two measures of financial
performance, a simple payback analysis and a net present value calculation (which
incorporates the time value of money). Both of these calculations can help in making
comparisons between competing project options or in comparing a proposed project
against current operations. IRR calculations are not included on the spreadsheet due
to the infrequent use of IRR in the Federal government. Readers wishing to make use
of a worksheet incorporating IRR should refer to P2/Finance (see Appendix B).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE PROJECT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
The following instructions are designed to assist managers in completing the
project analysis worksheet. When completing the worksheet, recognize that data might
not be available to complete all requested information. By completing only a few
sections of the worksheet with data that otherwise would not have been collected, the
accuracy in evaluating project opportunities will be enhanced.
Begin by determining the purpose of the analysis, the audience to whom it will
be directed, the facility or Agency's decision making criteria, and the format in which
the analysis must be presented. This information will be critical in ensuring that the
scope of the analysis is appropriate, and that the completed analysis will be presented
in a readily understood and accepted manner. If these worksheets will be used to
compare project alternatives, or to compare a potential project to current operations, a
separate worksheet should be completed for each option under consideration.
Sections 1-3 Identify the economic consequences associated with the activity
under review. The specific items (i.e., categories of cash outflows)
mentioned in the worksheet may not represent a complete list of
costs incurred at your facility. If so, add new categories as
appropriate. Refer to Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2 for lists of capital and
operating cost categories. If you are conducting a payback
analysis, completing information for only the initial year is
acceptable provided that data are available to describe annual
costs and annual savings. If you plan to analyze the financial
performance of the investment using a NPV calculation, you need
to estimate future costs and benefits. NOTE: IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION.
THESE CALCULATIONS WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE
USE OF THE OMB NOMINAL DISCOUNT FACTOR.
18
-------
To allow comparisons with other project options, two measures of economic
performance are included in the worksheet. To conduct a payback analysis, refer to
section 4. To conduct a net present value analysis, refer to sections 5 through 8.
Section 4
This section calculates the number of years that it will take to
recoup the initial capital expenditure. This value is obtained by
dividing the initial investment to establish the project by the net
annual benefits (obtained by subtracting the expected annual cash
outflows from the expected annual cash inflows). If only a payback
analysis is needed, skip the following steps.
Section 5
For each year included in the evaluation, calculate the annual net
cash flow by subtracting the capital expenditures (Section 1) and
annual cash outflows (subtotals from Sections 3,4,5) from the
annual cash inflows (Section 2).
Section 6
Calculating the NPV requires determining the value of future cash
flows today. To do this, present value factors are used to discount
future cash flows. As of January 1995, OMB recommends using a
7.9% nominal discount factor for evaluating performance of 10 year
investments. Therefore, the present value (PV) factors assume a
7.9% rate. For more current information, refer to OMB Circular A-
94, call OMB at 202/395-5873, or contact the cost analysis office in
your organization. OMB's nominal discount rate for investments of
various duration are included in Table 1.
Section 7
Multiply the net cash flows (Section 7) by the PV factors (Section 8)
to determine the present value today of the cash flow in each year.
Section 8
Add all the annual discounted cash to determine the Net Present
Value of the process. If the value is positive, the project is cost-
beneficial. If more than one investment is being analyzed, the
project with the greatest NPV is the most cost-beneficial.
19
-------
tablet
PRESENT VALUE FACTORS FOR NOMINAL
DISCOUNT RATES (OMB JANUARY 1995)
Yearl
Year 2
Year3
Year 4
Years
Year6
Year?
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Year 18
Year 19
Year 20
Year 21
Year 22
Year 23
Year 24
Year 25
Year 26
Year 27
Year 28
Year 29
Year 30
7.3%
0.93197
0.86856
0.80947
7.6%
0.92937
0.86372
0.80272
0.74602
0.69333
7:7%
0.92851
0.86212
0.80048
0.74325
0.69012
0.64078
0.59496
7.9%
0.92678
0.85893
0.79604
0.73776
0.68374
0.63368
0.58729
0.54429
0.50444
0.46750
8.1%
0.92507
0.85575
0.79163
0.73231
0.67744
0.62668
0.57972
0.53628
0.49610
0.45893
0.42454
0.39273
0.36330
0.33608
0.31090
0.28760
0.26605
0.24611
0.22767
0.21061
0.19483
0.18023
0.16673
0.15424
0.14268
0.13199
0.12210
0.11295
0.10449
0.09666
20
-------
After completing the analysis, write a narrative to accompany the analysis that
explains the results. Be sure to include a discussion of the economic benefits of the
proposed pollution prevention projects that were not able to be quantified, and a
discussion of the non-economic benefits that may tip the scales in favor of the pollution
prevention project if the economic analysis is too close to call.
Electronic versions of the spreadsheet on the next page are available on disk in
Lotus 1-2-3 or Excel format from EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
(see Appendix B for contact information).
21
-------
UJ
III
X
§
CO
52
O
in
g
a.
(£
1
Z
S
3
X
o
a
UJ
co
UJ
O
.
CO
-
o o o
^^ (0 (0 (O 5^
UJ tO to tO O
a:
M
SAAOIdINi
HSVO
i
I
CO
UI
UI
UI
X
H-
Ul
w
O
r
S
2
g 3
< ^
m x
° w
< <
a. o
R
8
o
R
o
CD
O
>
a.
CO
.£
I
UJ
>«
u.
u
£
°-
UJ
z
-------
Chapter 3
ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION
Historically the project review process has considered only those environmental
investments such as remodeling or plant expansion.
Therefore managers require analytical tools that accurately and
easily incorporated into the review process.
Many public and private organizations in
the United States and abroad actively promote
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a means to
evaluate environmental consequences and
impacts. LCA is a procedure to identify and
evaluate "cradle-to-grave" natural resource
requirements and environmental releases
associated with processes, products, packaging,
and services. LCA concepts can be particularly
useful in ensuring that identified pollution
prevention opportunities are not causing
unwanted secondary impacts by shifting
burdens to other places within the life-cycle of a
product or process. LCA is an evolving tool
undergoing continued development.
Nevertheless, LCA concepts can be useful in
23 •
LIFE CYCLE
Over the past 20 years,
environmental professionals have
oecome more aware that the
consumption of manufactured
products and services can adversely
affect supplies of natural resources
and the quality of the environment.
These effects occur at all stages of
the life cycle of a product, beginning
with raw materials extraction,
continuing through materials
manufacture and product fabrication,
and concluding with product
consumption and disposal.
-------
gaining a broader understanding of the true environmental effects of current practices
and of proposed pollution prevention opportunities.
This chapter begins with an introduction to LCA and a discussion of its
components. Next, tools are presented to help Federal facility decision makers begin
to apply LCA concepts to existing and potential projects. The LCA descriptions are
adapted from existing LCA reference documents. The abbreviated discussion in this
user's manual is intended to provide Federal facility managers with a concise, easy to
follow introduction to incorporating environmental considerations into the project review
process. For a detailed discussion on conducting a comprehensive life cycle
assessment, consult EPA's Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guideline and Principles
and other LCA reference documents provided in Appendix B.
WHAT IS A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT?
A life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool to evaluate all environmental effects of a
product or process throughout its entire life cycle. This includes identifying and
quantifying energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment,
assessing their environmental impact, and evaluating opportunities for improvement.
Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the possible life stages that can be considered in a LCA and the
typical inputs/outputs measured.
The unique feature of this type of assessment
is its focus on the entire "life cycle," rather than a
single manufacturing step or environmental emission.
The theory behind this approach is that operations
occurring within a facility can also cause impacts
outside the facility's gates that need to be considered
when evaluating project alternatives. Examining
these "upstream and downstream" impacts can point
out benefits or drawbacks to a particular opportunity
that otherwise may have been overlooked. For
example, examining whether to invest in
washable/reusable cloth towels or disposable paper
towels in a vehicle maintenance facility should include
a comparison of all major impacts, both inside the
facility (e.g., disposing of the paper towels) and
"outside the gate" (e.g., wastewater discharges from
the off-site washing of the reusable towels).
MAJOR LCA CONCEPTS
LCA is a tool to evaluate the
environmental consequences of a
product or activity across its entire life.
An LCA can consist of the following
components: Goal Definition and
Scoping, Inventory, Impact and
Improvement Analyses.
LCA can be used in process analysis,
material selection, product evaluation,
product comparison, and policy-making.
LCA can be used by acquisitions staff,
new product design staff, and staff
involved in investment evaluation.
24
-------
Unlike the financial analysis techniques described in the previous chapter, LCA's
provide data on environmental releases and their effects. Some LCA proponents
advocate further efforts to assign costs to LCA data. This is often described as a Life
Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA). This chapter will focus on LCA. Those readers
interested in finding out more about LCCA should refer to Appendix B.
Exhibit 3-1
LIFE CYCLE STAGES
INPUTS
Raw
Materials
Other
Resources
(Energy, Water)
Raw
Material
Acquisition
Manufacturing
Use/Reuse/Maintenance
Recycle/Waste
Management
OUTPUTS
Atmospheric
Emissions
Waterborne
Wastes
-* Solid
Waste
Co-products
Other
Releases
In general, LCA is a process which includes the following components.
Goal Definition and
Scoping:
Inventory Analysis:
This is a screening process which involves defining and
describing the product, process or activity; establishing the
context in which the assessment is to be made; and identifying
the life cycle stages to be reviewed for the assessment.
This process involves identifying and quantifying energy, water
and materials usage, and the environmental releases (e.g., air
emissions, solid waste, wastewater discharge) during each life
cycle stage.
25
-------
Impact Assessment: This process is used to assess the human and ecological effects
of material consumption and environmental releases identified
during the inventory analysis.
Improvement This process involves evaluating and implementing opportunities
Assessment: to reduce environmental burdens as well as energy and material
consumption associated with a product or process.
APPLICATIONS OF A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
LCA provides vital information on the environmental consequences associated
with pollution prevention projects and competing alternatives. Using LCA can provide
Federal facility decision makers with another ranking criterion to use when evaluating
and prioritizing competing project opportunities. For instance, LCA can provide
information to assist in addressing decisions, such as:
Does it make environmental sense to replace a solvent degreaser with a caustic
cleaner? Does the elimination of VOC emissions resulting from this change off-
set the discharge of heavy-metal laden caustic cleaner to the wastewater
treatment plant?
What are the environmental trade-offs associated with disposable vs. reusable
dinnerware in the cafeteria? How does the solid waste impact of disposable
dinnerware compare with the increased water needed to wash reusable plates
and utensils?
Does replacing paper towels in the restrooms with reusable cloth or hand dryers
increase or decrease the total impact on the environment?
Facility managers can also use a LCA approach to verify that a project that
effectively solves one particular pollution problem does not result in cross-media
shifting of pollution to another media (e.g., from waterborne to atmospheric releases).
By examining all resource inputs (e.g., energy, materials, water) and environmental
releases (e.g., air, water, and solid waste) across the entire life cycle of the product,
process, or activity, a LCA can identify cross media transfers and transfers of pollutants
to other life cycle stages.
26
-------
BEGINNING TO APPLY LCA CONCEPTS IN PROJECT ANALYSIS
Gaining a complete understanding of a proposed project's environmental effects
requires identifying and analyzing inputs and releases from every life cycle stage.
However, securing and analyzing this data can be a daunting task. In many cases
Federal facility decision makers may not have the time or resources to examine each
life cycle stage or to collect all pertinent data.
Therefore, the remainder of this chapter will discuss the steps required to begin
applying LCA concepts and principles to project analysis. Examples will demonstrate
steps within selected life cycle stages. These stages will generally begin when
materials and equipment enter Federal facility property, in recognition of the fact that
data on materials and releases occurring outside Federal facility fencelines may be
difficult to obtain. Tools are presented that will help decision makers with limited
resources begin to use LCA concepts.
Before beginning to apply LCA concepts to projects under review, facility
managers must first determine the purpose and the scope of the study, 'in determining
the purpose, facility managers should consider the type of information needed from the
environmental review (e.g., Does the study require quantitative data or will qualitative
information satisfy the requirements?). Once the purpose has been defined, the
boundaries or the scope of the study should then be determined. What stages of the
life cycle are to be examined? Are data available to study the inputs and outputs for
each stage of the life cycle to be reviewed? Are the available data of an acceptable
type and quality to meet the objectives of the study? Are adequate staff and resources
available to conduct a detailed study? Exhibit 3-2 lists some of the major LCA
definitions and scoping issues.
The definition and scoping activity links the purpose and scope of the
assessment with available resources and time and allows reviewers to outline what will
and will not be included in the study. In some cases, the assessment may be
conducted for all stages of the life cycle (i.e., raw materials acquisition, manufacturing,
use/reuse/maintenance, and recycling/waste management). In many cases, the
analysis may begin at the point where equipment and/or materials enter the'facility. In
other cases, primary emphasis may be placed on a single life cycle stage, such as
identifying and quantifying waste and emissions data. In all cases, managers should
ensure that the boundaries of the LCA address the purpose for which the assessment
is conducted and the realities of resource constraints. Whenever possible, include in
27
-------
the analysis all life-cycle stages in which significant environmental impacts are likely to
occur.
Exhibit 3-2
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED IN DEFINING AND SCOPING
A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
Have the boundaries of the assessment been determined (i.e., have the life cycle stages been
identified)?
Are data sources available to describe the inputs and outputs for these stages?
Is the available data of an acceptable type and quality to meet the objectives of the
assessment (e.g., is the data verifiable enough to be used in justifying capital budgeting
investments)?
Is a life cycle checklist appropriate for reviewing the proje^ or is a more detailed life cycle
assessment needed?
Determining the purpose and scope of the study will help to identify the type of
environmental analysis that should be conducted. This chapter provides an
introduction to two tools that are useful when applying LCA concepts: 1) Life Cycle
Checklist and 2) Life Cycle Assessment Worksheet. For more detailed information on
conducting a comprehensive life cycle analysis, consult the reference documents listed
in Appendix B.
Life Cycle Checklist
Conducting a LCA that includes all life-cycle stages will provide decision makers
with the most complete understanding of environmental consequences. However, if
resources are limited and an in-depth, quantitative analysis is not practical, a Federal
facility manager may consider using a simple checklist to identify and highlight certain
environmental implications associated with competing projects. A checklist using
qualitative data instead of quantitative inputs can be very useful when available
information is limited or as a first step in conducting a more thorough LCA. In addition,
a Life Cycle Checklist should include questions regarding the environmental effects of
current operations and/or potential projects in terms of materials and resources
consumed and wastes/emissions generated. Exhibit 3-3 provides a sample checklist.
The checklist used by an individual facility can be tailored to emphasize areas of
specific concern. For example, a facility in an area of the country where landfill space
28
-------
is limited may want to emphasize the collection and evaluation of solid waste
generatfon data Similarly, a facility located in arid or semi-arid areas may want to
collect and evaluate information relating to water consumption.
Exhibit 3-3
SAMPLE LIFE CYCLE CHECKLIST
Issue
^•wna
Material Usage
-—•
Resource Conservation
Local Environmental
Impacts
Global Environmental
Impacts
Toxicity Reduction
Question
Does the project minimize the use of raw
materials?
Does the project minimize energy usage?
Does the project minimize water usage?
Does the project eliminate or minimize impacts to
the local environment (i.e.. air, water, land)?
Does the project eliminate or minimize impacts
known to cause global environmental concerns
(e.g., global wanning, ozone depletion, acid rain)?
Does the project improve the management of toxic
materials and/or processes which result in
human/ecological exposure?
Using a life cycle checklist has specific advantages and disadvantages when
compared to the other forms of life cycle assessment. The principle advantage «, that
completion of a checklist is relatively easy to perform and requires limited resources.
On the other hand, a life cycle checklist does not provide a detailed or complete
^8^^ of tt5e environmental consequences associated with the act.v.ty under
review. Instead, this method only provides general qualitative data.
Conducting A More Detailed Project Review
If more detailed information concerning the environmental consequences of
pollution prevention projects is required, an environmental manager may consider
SnduSng a more in-depth analysis to identify and evaluate the resource and material
"puts and the environmental releases associated with each life cycle stage. This is a
more resource intensive operation than using a life cycle checklist. Therefore, def.n.ng
29
-------
and scoping the analysis to fit available resources while including all significant areas
of environmental impact is very important.
The first step in identifying and evaluating the inputs and outputs associated with
life cycle stages under review is to describe and understand each step in the process.
One common method to do this is to construct a system flow diagram for the product,
process, or activity being studied. Each step within the relevant life cycle stages is
represented by a box. Each box is connected to other boxes that represent the
preceding and succeeding step. A simple example of a process flow diagram is
illustrated below. In this example, the life cycle stages covered within the diagram begin
at the point a solvent is purchased for use and enters a Federal facility property. Each
of these boxes can be further divided into detailed process flow steps.
Purchase
Solvent
Use Solvent
Dispose of
Solvent
When all relevant steps for each stage of the product, process, or activity under
review have been identified, the flow diagram should be expanded to identify the
specific energy and material inputs, and the specific environmental releases associated
with each box on the diagram. This step is of crucial importance, because data on
these identified inputs and releases will be collected later, and will form the basis for all
findings and conclusions. The diagram below illustrates the inputs and releases for
each step in the sample flow diagram.
Purchase
Solvent
INPUTS
Solvent
Packaging
OUTPUTS
Packaging
Use Solvent
INPUTS
Electricity
OUTPUTS
Air Emissions
Excess Solvent
Dispose of Solvent
INPUTS
Electricity
Packaging
OUTPUTS
Waste Solvent
Air Emissions
Once a flow diagram has been developed, personnel conducting the LCA should
identify sources of information that will describe and quantify the material and energy
inputs, and the environmental releases associated with each box in the process flow
diagram. Possible sources of information for each stage are presented in Exhibit 3-4.
30
-------
Exhibit 3-4
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Raw Materials Acquisition
Data specific to a particular materials processor
. Government, academic, trade association, or industry studies of aggregate data
=> U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Manufacturers
=> U.S. Bureau of Mines, Census of Mineral Industries
=> U.S. Department of Energy, Monthly Energy Review
=> Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Kirk-Othmer
Manufacturing
Data specific to a particular materials processor
• Government, academic, trade association, or industry studies of aggregate data
Use/Reuse/Maintenance
• Engineering studies
• Facility process flow diagrams
• Environmental studies and reports
=> Hazardous waste (state Annual reports or Federal biennial reports)
=> Toxics Release Inventory reports (as of 1994)
=> Compliance assessment reports
=> Routine testing and monitoring data (e.g., air emissions, waste water discharge)
=> Solid waste disposal records
• Utility bills
• Supply and acquisitions databases of materials used on-site
• Equipment suppliers
• Facility staff or contractors performing maintenance or operations work
Recycle/Waste Management
• Facility staff or responsible contractors, equipment vendors
• Data specific to a particular waste management firm
• Government, academic, trade association, or industry studies of aggregate data
31
-------
Although quantitative data are preferable (and are necessary to accurately and
completely conduct an impact assessment), qualitative data may be acceptable in
cases where quantitative data are lacking.
A worksheet and instructions are provided to help readers complete a sample
process flow diagram. The intent of this worksheet is to acquaint Federal facility
managers with a form that can be completed for each project option or process change
under consideration. This life cycle-based worksheet is organized into three sections.
The first section asks for a flowchart of the process steps/activities to be included in the
analysis. The second section asks for inputs (i.e., raw materials, energy, and water),
and the third section asks for outputs (i.e., products, air, water, and land releases).
The worksheet provides space for four process steps. If more than four process steps
are to be examined, continue the analysis on a copy of the original form.
Using this or any other life cycle worksheet has specific advantages and
disadvantages when compared to conducting a complete LCA. The principle
advantage is that it provides a more detailed analysis of the process than the checklist,
and it is easier to conduct than a complete LCA. On the other hand, it does not
encompass the full environmental impacts of a process or activity life cycle stage.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET
The following instructions are designed to assist managers in completing the life
cycle assessment worksheet. The worksheet is intended to help Federal facility
managers gain a more complete understanding of the life cycle environmental
consequences associated with existing processes, potential pollution prevention
projects, and competing project alternatives. When completing the worksheet, do not
worry if data are not available to complete all requested information. Even by just
completing a few sections of the worksheet, the information on each individual line can
still be useful in evaluating and comparing the environmental performance of existing
processes and potential projects. However, be aware that completing only certain
sections of the worksheet may provide misleading results. For example, completing
sections on solid wastes and releases to air without entering data on releases to water
may bias the analysis toward projects whose primary environmental consequences
result from water pollution. Similarly, collecting and analyzing data on a limited number
of life cycle stages may bias the analysis toward projects whose primary environmental
effects occur upstream or downstream from stages under analysis.
32
-------
The information requested on the worksheet can be indicated either numerically or
by description only. Descriptive information is often the only information available.
Specific instructions follow:
Line 1: Indicate the process steps that are to be reviewed. For example, a life cycle
analysis of a solvent degreaser tank system might examine the following
three activities: acquisition of solvent, use of tank, and disposal/recycling of
waste materials.
Line 2a: For each of the process steps indicated in Line 1, identify the raw materials
used. Examples of typical materials include chemicals, parts, and minerals.
Do not forget to include associated packaging materials such as cans,
cardboard, and plastic wrap.
Line 2b: Indicate the energy involved with operating the process activity. Three
common energy source categories have been included (i.e., electricity,
natural gas, and fuel). Include other categories if needed. If numerical data
are available, it is possible to sum together all entries from the same energy
source (i.e., electricity usage from each of the process steps examined).
Line 2c: Indicate the quantity of water consumed in each of the process steps being
evaluated. Note that water could be coming from surface sources (e.g.,
pumped in from a nearby river), from a well, or from purchased city water.
Line 2d: Indicate other inputs, as needed. Some process steps that can generate
additional inputs include pre-process cleaning, process cleaning and
maintenance supplies required in the upkeep of the process.
Line 3a: For each process step, indicate the products that result. Be aware that the
products often become the inputs to the next step in the sequence.
Line 3b: Indicate numerically or by description the air releases associated with the
process step. Examples of typical releases from an industrial process include
particulates/dust and solvent vapors. Numerical records of air emissions can
often be found on permitting applications or in engineering records. If
numerical data is not available, provide a narrative list of emissions.
Line 3c: Indicate the wastewater discharges and liquid hazardous wastes associated
with each process step
Line 3d: Identify the solid waste generated from each process step. If possible list the
type/quantity of solid waste and how it is managed (e.g., 10 pounds of
cardboard that are recycled or 5 cubic yards of sludge that is landfilled).
Electronic versions of the spreadsheet on the next page are available on disk in
Lotus 1-2-3 or Excel format from EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
(see Appendix B for contact information).
33
-------
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
PROCESS
STEPS
H INPUTS
m OUTPUTS
—
2a Raw Materials (units)
*
2b Energy Usage
Electricity (kW-hr) + +
Natural Gas (cubic ft) + 4
Fuel (gallons) + +
Otfier + +
2c Water Usage (gallons) + +
2d Other Inputs (units)
3a Products, Useful By-Products (Item and amount)
3b Releases to the Air (Including gaseous wastes)
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
3c Releases to the Water (Including liquid wastes)
+ +
+ +
+ +•
+ +
3d Solid Wastes
+ +
+ +
—
4* s
+ a
+ S3
+ =
.+ x
•f st
+ a
-f =
-*• =
..•
+ =
+ «
+ =
+ =
+ *
+ =
34
-------
Chapter 4
INCENTIVES AND CHALLENGES TO EXPANDING PROJECT
ANALYSIS PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION
This section discusses various incentives given to Federal facility decision makers
to expand upon project analysis models and to incorporate broader inventories (both
economic and environmental) and expanded time horizons. In addition, some common
challenges and barriers to incorporating these principles are discussed, along with
some ideas on ways to overcome the obstacles.
EXISTING INCENTIVES
Many Executive branch, legislative, and agency-specific policies and mandates are
in effect that encourage and/or require Federal facilities to incorporate the principles
discussed in this report into the project review process. Many of these policies and
mandates were developed to encourage Federal agencies to develop an understanding
of the true cost of government activities, as well as acknowledge the value of promoting
pollution prevention activities in reducing future government liabilities. Further
discussion of key policies, initiatives, and examples of Agency activities are provided
below.
Executive Branch Initiatives
Executive guidance, in the form of Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance
With Right-To-Know Laws And Pollution Prevention Requirements, was signed August
3, 1993. Among other provisions, this EO requires all Federal facilities to implement
total cost accounting and life cycle analysis principles in the review of all current and
planned activities (including pollution prevention programs and initiatives). The goal of
this EO is to encourage pollution prevention activities by promoting the use of a
budgeting analysis tool that will accurately reflect the true costs of current operations
and the sometimes hidden benefits offered by pollution prevention.
35
-------
Office of Management and Budget Guidance
As the lead agency responsible for establishing standardized Federal budgeting
procedures, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued a memorandum
encouraging Federal facilities to use total cost assessment principles. This September
1991 memorandum from the Director of OMB to Senior Agency Procurement
Executives stated that Federal facilities need to use "life cycle" cost analysis principles
to reflect the indirect and hidden costs not generally addressed in the traditional
budgeting process. This memorandum suggested that factors such as energy
conservation, reduction of waste streams, and product substitution required more
emphasis in agency acquisition plans and encouraged agencies to take advantage of
existing life cycle costing training curricula. In November 1992, OMB established a
position on total cost assessment by preparing a policy directive entitled, Procurement
of Environmentally-Sound and Energy-Efficient Products and Services. As part of this
directive, OMB recommended that each Agency "employ life cycle cost analysis,
whenever feasible and appropriate, to assist in making product and service selections."
Specific Agency And Facility Initiatives
Some Federal agencies have issued their own policies and guidance documents to
further emphasize the importance and value of implementing an expanded concept of
project-analysis and review. Examples of the types of initiatives some agencies have
pursued are described below.
Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DoD), through the broad-based Directive 4210.15;
Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention, stated that its policy is to select, purchase,
use and manage hazardous materials over their life cycle so that the DoD incurs the
lowest cost to protect human health and the environment. A key component of this
policy is to eliminate hazardous materials or substitute less hazardous materials in
processes and products rather than simply managing or treating the hazardous waste
created. For DoD facilities, meeting this intent can be accomplished by incorporating
total cost assessment and life cycle analysis principles into the budgeting and
procurement process.
36
-------
Department of the Interior
The Department of Interior (DOI) also has a procurement policy which encourages
the use of comprehensive economic and environmental investment reviews rather than
simple comparisons of purchase prices in the evaluation of procurement alternatives.
Several DOI bureaus have supplemented the efforts of DOI headquarters by
establishing their own policies. For example, the National Park Service (NPS)
developed an Integrated Solid Waste Alternative Program (ISWAP) in March, 1991
which instructs the national parks and associated offices to purchase products based
on life cycle principles.
United States Postal Service
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has issued various policy directives that address a
wide range of waste reduction programs including life cycle based costing models. At
USPS, procurement costs are now calculated using total cost accounting analytical
techniques that take into consideration long-term effects such as: savings in labor and
raw materials, transportation needs, storage concerns, operating costs, environmental
factors concerning waste handling, treatment and disposal costs, regulatory
compliance costs, and potential liability.
OVERCOMING EXISTING CHALLENGES
Although various incentives have been issued to encourage Federal facility decision
makers to implement comprehensive project review practices, not all facilities are
currently using these review practices for pollution prevention. Facilities that have
experimented with using these concepts instead of traditional budgeting principles have
encountered challenges that have required the development of innovative solutions.
The following sections highlight some of the challenges facility personnel have
encountered and discusses possible solutions. For further information, refer to EPA's
Pollution Prevention Benefits Manual and other reference documents listed in Appendix
B.
37
-------
Proper Allocation of Cost Categories
Compared with the traditional project analysis processes, expanding the analysis to
include broader cost inventories requires a more detailed data tracking system.
Currently, many government agencies utilize tracking systems that group together
many inventory categories into facility-wide overhead accounts. These types of
tracking methods make it very difficult to identify all of the discreet costs that will be
impacted by proposed project alternatives. Pollution prevention activities, in particular,
are at a disadvantage because many of the savings that result from these projects
(such as energy, sewage, water, permitting, and waste disposal) often occur in areas
lumped into overhead accounts.
To overcome this challenge, staff performing project analyses must first identify the
exact data needs for the project under review. Then, a comparison can be made to
information available from traditional recordkeeping systems in order to identify
information gaps resulting from items being lumped together or reported on a facility-
wide basis. To eliminate the data gaps, one of several approaches can be employed:
For the simplest of challenges where several inventory categories have been
combined, a review of the input data developed by each department in a facility
may reveal the data for the particular project in question. For example, while the
accounting department indicates on its books only the total quantity of copier
paper used at the entire facility, a review of department specific expenses would
likely reveal a more detailed account of paper use by location.
For categories that are aggregated for the whole facility and not by specific
project (e.g. water usage), engineering estimates or a facility walk through may
be used to generate an estimate allocation to specific projects.
For aggregated categories that cannot be easily allocated on a project specific
basis by either of the above two methods, it may be useful to discuss the data
needs both with the vendors that supplied the original equipment to see if any
baseline consumption data exist and/or auditing professionals to identify what
types of measurement devices or meters could be located at the specific project
to meet the data needs.
38
-------
Placing Value On Future Costs And Benefits
Estimating future costs and benefits can become a difficult task for anyone
conducting project analyses. Quantitatively estimating future costs for items such as
property clean-up and environmental compliance upon facility decommissioning can be
a very difficult task. A useful approach is to group future costs into one of two
categories; recurring costs, or contingent costs.
Recurring costs include items that are currently incurring costs and are anticipated
to continue incurring costs into the foreseeable future based upon regulatory
requirements. These include permits, monitoring costs, and compliance with regulatory
requirements. The first step in estimating the future costs of these items is to
determine how much the facility is currently paying. Then estimate how much the cost
can reasonably be expected to escalate in the future. For example, if monitoring costs
are currently $100 and are expected to rise with inflation, a conservative estimate
would be a 4% annual increase. Consequently, the monitoring costs for the following
year would be estimated at $104, assuming that monitoring requirements do not
become more stringent. Note that when using the Economic Worksheet in Chapter
Two, it is not necessary to escalate these values because the worksheet already takes
inflation into account when calculating present values.
Contingent costs include catastrophic future liabilities such as remediation and
clean-up costs. While current activities can lead to these future costs, quantitative
estimates of these liabilities are difficult to obtain. Often the only way to include these
future liabilities in the budgeting process is to qualitatively describe estimated liabilities,
without attempting to define these costs using dollar amounts. If a pollution prevention
option is being considered, a comparison highlighting the areas in which future liability
would be reduced by implementing the pollution prevention option should be included.
For example, this approach could be used to describe the future benefit of switching
from lead-based paint to water based paint. Most likely, the best option may be to fully
describe the potential liability if the change is not made and, if possible, document the
remediation cost that could result if a liability event occurred today.
Availability of Process Specific Resources
Although most agencies are now incorporating the principles described in this
chapter at some level, resources remain scarce. Some managers have been able to
39
-------
utilize existing costing software programs, while others have been able to refer to
private sector experience. It may also be useful to identify other facility managers
within your own agency that have recently implemented pollution prevention projects to
discuss the budgeting techniques they used. In June 1995, EPA published a document
titled "Incorporating Environmental Costs and Considerations into Decisionmaking: A
Review of Available Tools and Software." This document is listed in Appendix B and
can be ordered through EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse.
40
-------
Appendix A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Discount Rate- The interest rate (sometimes called the Present Value Factor) used to discount future
cash flows to their present values. This represents the rate of return that could be earned by investing in
a project with risks comparable to the project being considered. Federal facilities generally use a
discount rate determined by the Office of Management and Budget.
Hurdle Rate- In Internal Rate of Return calculations, the minimum rate of return that a project must
Generate in order to be considered worthy of investment. Federal facilities usually use the discount rate
determined by the Office of Management and Budget as the hurdle rate. Projects that provide a rate of
return below this rate will not be pursued.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR): The discount rate at which the net savings (or NPV) on a project are
equal to zero. The IRR of a project can be compared to the hurdle rate to determine economic
attractiveness. The General IRR rule is:
If IRR >or = hurdle rate then accept project.
If IRR < hurdle rate then reject project.
Life Cycle Assessment: A method to evaluate the environmental effects of a product or process
throughout its entire life cycle, from raw material acquisition to disposal. This includes identifying and
quantifying energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment, assessing their
environmental impact, and evaluating opportunities for improvement.
Life Cycle Costing: A method in which all costs are identified with a product, process, or activity
throughout its lifetime, from raw material acquisition to disposal, regardless of whether these costs are
borne by the organization making the investment, other organizations, or society as a whole.
Net Present Value (NPV): The present value of the future net revenues of an investment less the
investment's current and future cost. An investment is profitable if the NPV of the net revenues it
generates in the future exceeds its cost, thatris, if the NPV is positive.
Payback Period: The amount of time required for an investment to generate enough net revenues or
savings to cover the initial capital outlay for the investment.
Pollution Prevention: Any practice that reduces the amount of environmental and health impacts of
any pollutant released into the environment prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal. Pollution
prevention includes modifications of equipment and processes; reformulation or redesign of products and
processes; substitution of raw materials; and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or
inventory control.
Total Cost Assessment (TCA): A long-term comprehensive financial analysis of the full range of
costs and savings of an investment that are or would be experienced directly by the organization making
or contemplating the investment.
A-1
-------
Appendix B
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
The following government publications are available to assist Federal facility environmental
managers conduct an investment analysis of pollution prevention projects. Also included is a
list of guidance manuals to assist environmental managers identify and develop pollution
prevention projects. Finally, a list of various Federal and State agencies which provide direct
technical assistance on pollution prevention topics and projects is provided on the pages that
follow.
Project Analysis Guidance Documents
1. Total Cost Assessment: Accelerating
Industrial Pollution Prevention through
Innovative Project Financial Analysis, with
applications to the Pulp and Paper Industry
EPA/600-R-92-002
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC)
401 M Street. SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
This document outlines and justifies a total
cost assessment approach to evaluate
pollution prevention opportunities. This
report applies a TCA method to analyze
several actual investments in the pulp
and paper industry. It also reviews
several TCA methods.
2. Environmental Accounting Resource Listing
EPA/742-F-94-004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
This resource listing presents selected
information sources organized in the
following categories (1) Activity-based
costing, (2) Bibliographies, curricula,
and definition of terms, (3) Corporate
environmental accounting, (4) Federal
government, military and logistics
applications, (7) Pollution prevention,
and (8) Quality costs.
A Primer for Financial Analysis of Pollution
Prevention Projects
EPA/600-R-93-059
The Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45628
513-569-7562
This document introduces the time value of
money concept into analysis of pollution
prevention investments.
Life-Cycle Assessment: Inventory
Guidelines and Principles
EPA/600-R-92-245
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7562
This document describes the environmental
aspects of a life cycle assessment. The
major life cycle stages and data
gathering techniques are discussed.
A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle
Assessment
Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for
Environmental Education, Inc.
1101 14th Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
This document provides information about
product, process, and activity life-cycle
assessments.
B-1
-------
6. Life Cycle Assessment
Z760-94
Canadian Standards Association
178 Rexdale Boulevard
Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario
Canada M9W1R3
This manual provides technical guidance on
conducting life cycle assessments and
reporting assessment results.
7. Guidelines for Assessing the Quality of Life-
Cycle Inventory Analysis
EPA/530-R-95-010
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
This document identifies the issues and
challenges confronting LCA
practicioners as they seek to gather
quality data for Life Cycle Inventories.
The document outlines a possible
framework for assessing and
documenting data quality and discusses
specific techniques to support the data
quality assessment process.
8. Life Cycle Assessment: Public Data
Sources for the LCA Practicioner
EPA/530-R-95-009
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
This document provides LCA practitioners
with potentially useful public data
sources for preparing LCAs.
9. Development of a Pollution Prevention
Factors Methodology Based on Life-Cycle
Assessment: Lithographic Printing Case
Study
EPA/600-R-94-157
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7562
This report describes a preliminary pollution
prevention factors methodology which
was developed using a streamlined life-
cycle assessment approach. The
lithographic printing industry was
selected as the test industry.
10. United States Postal Service Hartford
Vehicle Maintenance Facility Waste
Minimization/Pollution Prevention Study
U.S. Postal Service
Northeast Area Office
This report provides a financial analysis of
alternatives to the vehicle painting and
oil handling processes used at the
Hartford Vehicle Maintenance Facility.
Data collection and analysis for the
Total Costs Assessment was performed
with the use of P2/Finance, a flexible
spreadsheet developed by Tellus
Institute.
11. Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual:
Environmental Requirements and The
Product System
EPA/600-R-92-226
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7562
This report promotes the reduction of
environmental impacts and health risks
through a systems approach to design
by integrating environmental,
performance, cost, cultural, and leagal
requirements in effective designs.
B-2
-------
12. Federal Agency Environmental Management
Program Planning Guidance
EPA/300-B-95-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
This document discusses the data elements
that will be reported to EPA under the
A-106 process and provides insijht into
the rationale underlying those data
elements.
13. Survey of Resources Available for
Estimating the Environmental Costs of Major
Defense Acquisition Programs
n^SW903-94-C-0043
Office of the Director
Program Analysis & Evaluation
1800 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1800
This report is the first from the Survey of
Resources Available for Estimating the
Environmental Costs of Major Defense
Acquisition Programs. It identifies
existing environmental management
(EM) cost estimating methods, data
bases, engineering case studies, and
management systems to determine their
usefulness for estimating EM costs for
major defense acquisition programs.
14. Survey of Resources Available for
Estimating the Environmental Costs of Major
Defense Acquisition Programs
DASW903-94-C-0043
Office of the Director
Program Analysis & Evaluation
1800 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1800
This report is the second from the Survey of
Resources Available for Estimating the
Environmental Costs of Major Defense
Acquisition Programs. It presents a cost
breakdown structure and a cost driver
category structure for environmental
management.
15. Evaluation of Environmental Management
Cost-estimating Capabilities for Major
Defense Acquisition Programs
MDA903-94-C-0043
Office of the Director
Program Analysis & Evaluation
1800 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1800
This report, which is the last from the
Survey of Resources Available for
Estimating the Environmental Costs of
Major Defense Acquisition Programs,
provides assessments of the most
promising cost analysis tools based on
testing their capabilities against the cost
breakdown structure developed earlier in
the project
Pollution Prevention Planning Documents
16. Federal Facility Pollution Prevention: Tools
for Compliance
EPA/600-R-94-154
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7562
B-3
-------
17. Pollution Prevention in the Federal
Government: Guide for Developing
Pollution Prevention Strategies for Executive
Order 12856 and Beyond
EPA/300-B-94-007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
18. Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Guide
EPA/300-B-94-013
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
19. Facility Pollution Prevention Guide
EPA/600-R-92-008
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7562
20. Pollution Prevention Directory
EPA/742-B-94-005
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-9801
21. Abstracts of Pollution Prevention Case
Study Sources
EPA/742-B-94-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
22. Summary of Pollution Prevention Case
Studies With Economic Data (By SIC
Codes)
EPA/742-S-94-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
Agency Guidance Documents
23. Navy Shore Installation Pollution Prevention
Planning Guide
Doc. #OPNAV-P45-120-10-94
Office of Chief of Naval Operations
2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington. DC 20350
703-602-5334
24. U.S. Air Force Installation Pollution
Prevention Program Manual
United States Air Force
Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE)
AFCEE/ESP
8106 Chennault Road
Building 1161
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5318
1-800-233-4356
25. Army Pollution Prevention Plan Manual: A
Guide for Army Installations
Army Environmental Policy Institute
430 10th Street, NW
Suite 5105
Atlanta, GA 30318
404-875-6813
26. Guidance for Preparation of Site Waste
Minimization and Pollution Prevention
Awareness Plans
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
301-427-1570
B-4
-------
Technical Assistance Programs
1. Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PM
211-A
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1023
The Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC) is a free,
nonregulatory, information and referral
service of the U.S. EPA. PPIC includes
a repository of pollution prevention
information and a telephone reference
and referral hotline.
2. Enviro$ense (ES)
EPA Systems Development Center
200 N. Glebe Road
Arlington, VA 22203
703-908-2092 (modem)
http://wastenot.inel.gov/envirosense
ES is a free, 24-hour electronic network
accessible by personal computer
equipped with a modem or direct
connect through Internet WWW. ES
consists of message centers, bulletins,
electronic documents, technical
databases, case studies and issue-
specific conference listings.
3. Federal Agency Mini-Exchange (FAME)
EPA Systems Development Center
200 N. Glebe Road
Arlington, VA 22203
703-506-1025 (modem)
FAME is a database on the Pollution
Prevention Information Exchange
System which provides information on
pollution prevention/recycling efforts at
Federal facilities.
4. Defense Environmental Network and
Information Exchange (DENIX)
DECIM Office
Hoffman 2, Room 12S49
200 Stovall Street
Alexandria, VA 22332
1-800-642-3332
703/325-0002
DENIX is a Department of Defense
communications platform for the
dissemination and exchange of
environmental information across all
DOD components.
5. PRO-ACT
AFCEE
8106Chennault Road
Building 1161
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5318
1-800-233-4356
(210) 536-4214
DSN 240-4214
PRO-ACT is an environmental information
clearinghouse and hotline provided by
the Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE). PRO-ACT
services are provided free of charge to
all Air Force personnel.
6. Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI)
Dorothy Williams
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7562
CERI serves as the exchange of scientific
and technical environmental information
produced by EPA in brochures, capsule
and summary reports, handbooks,
newsletters, project reports, and
manuals.
B-5
-------
7. Center for Waste Reduction Technologies
(CWRT)
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
345 East 47th Street
New York, NY 10017
212-705-7407
CWRT was established in 1989 by the
American Institute of Chemical
Engineers to support industry efforts in
meeting the challenges of waste
reduction through a partnership with
industry, academia, and government.
8. The National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable
David Thomas
218 D Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-543-7272
The Roundtable is a group of pollution
prevention program at the State and
local level in both the public and
academic sectors. The member
programs are engaged in activities
including multi-audience training and
primary to post-secondary pollution
prevention education.
9. Northeast States Pollution Prevention
Roundtable (NE Roundtable)
Terri Goldberg, Program Manager
Northeast States Pollution Prevention
Roundtable / Northeast Waste
Management Officials' Association
85 Merrimac Street
Boston, MA 02114
617-367-8558
The NE Roundtable was initiated in 1989 by
the Northeast Waste Management
Officials' Association to assist State
programs, industry, and the public in
implementing effective source reduction
programs.
10. Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention
Research Center
Madeline Grulich, Director
Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention
Research Center
411 University Street, Suite 1252
Seattle, WA 98101
206-223-1151
The Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention
Research Center is a non-profit public-
private partnership dedicated to the goal
of furthering pollution prevention in the
Pacific Northwest.
11. Waste Reduction Institute for Training and
Applications Research, Inc. (WRITAR)
Terry Foecke
Waste Reduction Institute for Training and
Applications Research
1313 5th Street, SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414-4502
612-379-5995
WRITAR is designed to identify waste
reduction problems, help find their
solutions, and facilitate the
dissemination of this information to a
variety of public and private
organizations.
12. Waste Reduction Resource Center for the
Southeast (WRRC)
Gary Hunt
Waste Reduction Center for the Southeast
3825 Barrett Drive
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-6787
WRRC was established to provide
multimedia waste reduction support for
the eight states of U.S. EPA IV
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee).
B-6
-------
Federal Facility Pollution Prevention
Contacts
Department of Agriculture
William Opfer
Environmental Health Engineer
Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
202-205-0906
Central Intelligence Agency
Larry McGinty
Chief, Environmental and Safety Group/QMS
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC 20505
703-482-4533
Coast Guard
T. J. Granito, Environmental Compliance and
Restoration Branch
P2 and Recycling Coordinator
U.S. Coast Guard
USCG(G-ECV-IB)
2100 2nd Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593
202-267-1941
Department of Commerce
Jack Murphy
Environmental Compliance Officer
Office of Management Support
U.S. Department of Commerce
Room 6020
14th and Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20230
202-482-4115
Department of Energy
Susan C. Weber
Waste Minimization Division
Office of Waste Management (EM-334)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
301-903-1388
Department of the Interior
Connie Kurtz
Environmental Protection Specialist
Division of Hazardous Materials Management
Department of the Interior, MS 2340-MIB, Room
2349
Office of Environmental Affairs
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
202-208-7554
Department of Justice
Marvin Fink
Safety and Health Manager
Security and Emergency Planning Staff
U.S. Department of Justice, Room 6525
10th and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
202-514-5076
Department of Transportation
Janet Krause
Environmental Engineer
Office of the Secretary
Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-0038
Department of the Treasury
William McGovern
Chief, Environmental Compliance Division
Department of the Treasury
Treasury Annex
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220
202-622-0043
Department of Veterans Affairs
John Staudt
Chief, Hazardous Materials Management
Division
Department of Veterans Affairs, 138C-4
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
202-233-7863
B-7
-------
Economic Development Administration
Dr. Frank Monteferrante
Senior Environmental Specialist
U.S. Department of Commerce
Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 7019
Washington, DC 20230
202-482-4208
Federal Aviation Administration
Tom Halloway
Manager of Hazardous Materials and Special
Projects Staff
Federal Aviation Administration, AEE-20
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
202-267-8114
Food and Drug Administration
Dr. Naresh K. Chawla
Chief, FDA Safety Office (HFA-205)
Food and Drug Administration
7500 Standish Place
Rockville, MD 20855
301-594-1718
General Services Administration
Karone Peace
Safety and Environmental Division
Environmental Branch (PMS)
General Services Administration, Room 4340
18th and F Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20450
202-501-3518
National Aeronautical Space Administration
Olga Dominguez
Environmental Management Division
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA Headquarters, Code JE
Washington, DC 20546
202-358-1093
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
I. Sam Higuchi, Jr.
Senior Environmental Compliance Officer
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
SSMC-2/OA3X1 Room 4434
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-0845
National Security Agency
Barbara Krupiarz
Project Manager, Pollution Prevention Program
Environmental Service Division
National Security Agency, (APS-13), Room
AT200
Department of Defense
9800 Savage Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755-6000
410-684-7305
Postal Service
Bernie Denno
Environmental Specialist
U.S. Postal Service, Room 6830
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260-2810
202-268-6014
Tennessee Valley Authority
Paul Schmierbach
Environmental Compliance Department
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, TN 37902
615-632-6644
State Pollution Prevention Programs
ALABAMA
Alabama Waste Reduction and Technology
Transfer (WRATT) Program
Daniel E. Cooper, Chief
Special Projects
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
1751 Congressman William L. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
205-260-2779
ALASKA
Pollution Prevention Office
David Wigglesworth, Chief
Pollution Prevention Office
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
P.O. Box O
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800
907-465-5275
B-8
-------
Waste Reduction Assistance Program (WRAP)
Kristine Benson
Alaska Health Project
1818 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Suite 103
Anchorage, AK 99517
907-276-2864
ARIZONA
Arizona Waste Minimization Program
Sandra Eberhardt, Manager
Pollution Prevention Unit
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue, Rm. 558
Phoenix, A2 85012
602-207-4210
ARKANSAS
Arkansas Pollution Prevention Program
Robert J. Finn
Hazardous Waste Division
Arkansas Department of Pollution Prevention
and Ecology
P.O. Box8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
501-570-2861
CALIFORNIA
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Mr. Kim Wilheim
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Pollution Prevention, Public and Regulatory
Assistance Division
400 P Street
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
916-322-3670
Tony Eulo
Local Government Commission
909 12th Street
Suite 205
Sacramento, California 95814
916-448-1198
California Integrated Waste Management Board
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826
Recycling Hotline: 800-553-2962
General Public Information: 916-255-2289
COLORADO
Pollution Prevention and Waste Reduction
Program
Kate Kramer, Program Manager
Pollution Prevention Waste Reduction Program
Colorado Department of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80220
303-692-3003
Michael Nemeck
Colorado Public Interest Research Group
(COPIRG)
1724 Gilpin Street
Denver, Colorado 80218
303-355-1861
CONNECTICUT
Connecticut Technical Assistance Program
(CONNTAP)
Andrew Vecchio
Connecticut Technical Assistance Program
(ConnTAP)
Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management
Service
900 Asylum Avenue
Suite 360
Hartford, Connecticut 06105-1904
203-241-0777
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Liz Napier
Bureau of Waste Management
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
203-566-5217
B-9
-------
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
Delaware Pollution Prevention Program
Philip J. Cherry
Andrea K. Farrell
Pollution Prevention Program
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
302-739-5071/3822
Herb Allen
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
302-451-8522/8449
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Office of Recycling
Evelyn Shields, Recycling Coordinator
D.C. Department of Public Works
65 K Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-727-5887
George Nichols
Department of Environmental Programs
Council of Governments
777 North Capitol St., NE
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002-4201
202-962-3355
Kenneth Laden
Environmental Policy Division
D.C. Department of Public Works
2000 14th St., NW
Washington, DC 20009
202-939-8115
Ms. Ferial Bishop, Administrator
Environmental Regulation Administration
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs
2100 MLK Avenue, SE
Suite 203
Washington, DC 20020
202-404-1136
Waste Reduction Assistance Program (WRAP)
Janeth A. Campbell, Director
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
904-488-0300
GEORGIA
Georgia Multimedia Source Reduction and
Recycling Program
Susan Hendricks, Program Coordinator
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
4244 International Parkway, Suite 104
Atlanta, GA 30334
404-362-2537
HAWAII
Hazardous Waste Minimization Program
Jane Dewell
Waste Minimization Coordinator
State of Hawaii Department of Health
Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
Five Waterfront Plaza, Suite 250
500 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu. HI 96813
808-586-4226
John Harder
Department of Health
Office of Solid Waste
5 Waterfront Place, Suite 250
500 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-586-4373
IDAHO
Division of Environmental Quality
Joy Palmer
Katie Sewell
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
1410 North Hilton Street
Boise, ID 83720-9000
208-334-5879
B-10
-------
ILLINOIS
IOWA
Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and
Information Center (HWRIC)
Dr. David Thomas, Director
Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and
Information Center
One East Hazelwood Drive
Champaign, IL61820
217-333-8940
Office of Pollution Prevention
Mike Hayes
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217-785-0533
INDIANA
Office of Pollution Prevention and Technical
Assistance
Joanne Joice, Director
Charles Sullivan, Environmental Manager
Office of Pollution Prevention and Technical
Assistance
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
105 South Meridian Street
P.O. BOX6015
Indianapolis, IN 46225
317-232-8172
Indiana Pollution Prevention Program
Rick Bossingham, Coordinator
Jeff Burbrink, Agricultural Pollution Prevention
Coordinator
Environmental Management and Education
Program
2129 Civil Engineering Building
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284
317-494-5038
Iowa Waste Reduction Center (IWRC)
John Konefes, Director
Kim Gunderson, Environmental Specialist
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0185
319-273-2079
Waste Management Authority Division
Tom Blewett, Bureau Chief
Scott Cahail, Environmental Specialist
Waste Management Authority Division
Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines, IA50319
515-281-8941
KANSAS
State Technical Action Plan (STAP)
Tom Gross, Bureau Chief
State Technical Action Plan
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
913-296-1603
Kansas State University RITTA Program
Lani Himegarner, Program Manager
Engineering Extension Programs
133 Ward Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-2508
913-532-6026
KENTUCKY
Kentucky Partners - State Waste Reduction
Center
Joyce St. Clair, Executive Director
Kentucky Partners - State Waste Reduction
Center
Ernst Hall, Room 312
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY 40292
502-588-7260
B-11
-------
LOUISIANA
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Gary Johnson, Waste Minimization Coordinator
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2263
504-765-0720
MAINE
Maine Waste Management Agency
Gayle Briggs
Maine Waste Management Agency
State House Station 154
Augusta, ME 04333
207-287-5300
MARYLAND
Waste Management Administration
James Francis
Hazardous Waste Program
Waste Management Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway, Building 40
Baltimore, MD 21224
410-631-3344
Maryland Environmental Services
George G. Perdikakis, Director
Maryland Environmental Services
2020 Industrial Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
301-974-7281
Technical Extension Service
Travis Walton, director
Technical Extension Service
Engineering Research Center
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
301-454-1941
MASSACHUSETTS
Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use
Reduction
Barbara Kelley, Director
Richard Reibstein, Outreach Director
Massachusetts Department of Environment
Office of Technical Assistance
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
617-727-3260
Toxics Use Reduction Institute
Jack Luskin
Director of Education and Outreach
Toxics Use Reduction Institute
University Avenue
Lowell, MA 01854
508-934-3262
MICHIGAN
Office of Waste Reduction Services
Nan Merrill, Manager
Office of Waste Reduction Services
Environmental Services Division
Michigan Departments of Commerce and
Natural Resources
116 West Allegan Street
P.O. Box 30004
Lansing, Ml 48909-7504
517-335-1178
MINNESOTA
Minnesota Office of Waste Management
Kevin McDonald, Sr., Pollution Prevention
Planner
Minnesota Office of Waste Management
1350 Energy Lane
Suite 201
St. Paul, MN 55108-5272
612-649-5750/5744
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Eric Kilberg, Pollution Prevention Coordinator
Environmental Assessment Office
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
612-296-8643
B-12
-------
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program $
(MNTAP)
Cindy McComas, Director
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
Environmental Health School of Public Health
University of Minnesota
1313 5th Street, S.E., Suite 207
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-627-4555/4646
MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi Waste Reduction/Waste
Minimization Program, Mississippi Technical
Assistance Program (MISSTAP) and Mississippi
Solid Waste Reduction Assistance Program
(MSSWRAP)
Dr. Caroline Hill
Mississippi Technical Assistance Program/
Mississippi Solid Waste Reduction Assistance
P.O. Drawer CN
Mississippi State, MS 39762
601-325-8454
Thomas E. Whitten, Director
Waste Reduction/Waste Minimization Program
Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
601-961-5171
MISSOURI
Waste Management Program (WMP)
Becky Shannon, Pollution Prevention
Coordinator
Hazardous Waste Program
Division of Environmental Quality
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
205 Jefferson Street
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314-751-3176
Environmental Improvement and Energy
Resources Authority
Steve Mahfood, Director
Tom Welch, Assistant for Planning and Project
Development
Environmental Improvement and Energy
Resources Authority
225 Madison Street
P.O. Box 744
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314-751-4919
MONTANA
Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
Dan Fraser
Water Quality Bureau Chief
Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Room A-206
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
406-444-2406
Jeff Jacobsen
Montana State University Extension Service
807 Leon Johnson Hall
Bozeman, MT 59717-0312
406-994-5683
NEBRASKA
Hazardous Waste Section
Teri Swarts, Waste Minimization Coordinator
Hazardous Waste Section
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
402-471-4217
NEVADA
Business Environmental Program
Kevin Dick, Manager
Business Environmental Program
Nevada Small Business Development Center
University of Nevada - Reno
Reno, NV 89557-0100
702-784-1717
B-13
-------
Doug Martin
Bureau of Waste management
Division of Environmental Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
702-687-5872
Nevada Energy Conservation Program
Curtis Framel, Manager
Nevada Energy Conservation Program
Office of Community Services
Capitol Complex
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, NV 89710
702-885-4420
NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Pollution Prevention Program
Jean Herb, Director
Office of Pollution Prevention
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
CN-402
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-777-0518
New Jersey Technical Assistance Program
(NJTAP)
Kevin Gashlin, Director
New Jersey Technical Assistance Program
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Hazardous Substance Management Research
Center
Center for Environmental and Engineering
Sciences
323 Martin Luther King Boulevard
Newark, NJ 07102
201-596-5864
NEW YORK
Bureau of Pollution Prevention
John lanotti, Director
Bureau of Pollution Prevention
Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation
and the
Division of Solid Waste
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7253
518-457-7276
NORTH CAROLINA
Pollution Prevention Program
Gary Hunt, Director
Stephanie Richardson, Manager
Pollution Prevention Program
Office of Waste Reduction
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
919-571-4100
OHIO
Ohio Technology Transfer Organization (OTTO)
Jeff Shick, State Coordinator
Jackie Rudolf
Ohio Technology Transfer Organization
Ohio Department of Development
77 South High Street, 26th Floor
Columbus, OH 43255-0330
614-644-4286
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Roger Hannahs
Michael W. Kelley
Anthony Sasson
Pollution Prevention Section
Division of Hazardous Waste Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box1049
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
614-644-3969
B-14
-------
OKLAHOMA
ft
Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance
Program
Chris Varga
Hazardous Waste Management Service, 0205
Oklahoma State Department of Health
1000 Northeast 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1299
405-271-7047
OREGON
Waste Reduction Assistance Program (WRAP)
Roy W. Brower, Manager
David Rozell, Pollution Prevention Specialist
Phil Berry, Pollution Prevention Specialist
Hazardous Waste Reduction and Technical
Assistance Program
Hazardous and Solid Waste Division
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
503-229-6585
PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Environmental Resources
Meredith Hill
Assistant to Deputy Secretary
Office of Air and Waste Management
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
717-772-2724
Center for Hazardous Materials Research
Roger Price
Center for Hazardous Materials Research
University of Pittsburgh Applied Research
Center
320 William Pit Way
Pittsburgh. PA 15238
412-826-5320
1-800-334-CHMR
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program
(PENNTAP)
Jack Gido, Director
PENNTAP
Penn State University
110 Barbara Building II
810 North University Drive
University Park, PA 16802
814-865-0427
RHODE ISLAND
Hazardous Waste Reduction Program
Richard Enander, Chief
Janet Keller
Office of Environmental Coordination
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management
83 Park Street
Providence, Rl 02903-1037
401-277-3434
Eugene Pepper, Senior Environmental Planner
Hazardous Waste Reduction Section
Office of Environmental Coordination
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management
83 Park Street
Providence, Rl 02903
401-277-3434
SOUTH CAROLINA
Center for Waste Minimization
Ray Guerrein
Center for Waste Minimization
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
802-734-4715
SOUTH DAKOTA
Waste Management Program
Wayne Houtcooper
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
Joe Foss Building
523 E. Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
605-773-4216
B-15
-------
TENNESSEE
UTAH
Department of Health and Environment
Paul Evan Davis
Bureau of Environment
Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment
14th Floor, L & C Building
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-0455
615-741-3657
Waste Reduction Assessment and Technology
Transfer Training Program (WRATT)
George Smelcer, Director
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
Cam Metcalf (Suite 606)
Center for Industrial Services
University of Tennessee
226 Capitol Boulevard Building
Nashville, TN 37219-1804
615-242-2456
Carroll Dugan, Section Manager
Waste Reduction and Management Section
Tennessee Valley Authority
Mail Code HB 2G-C
311 Broad Street
Chattanooga, TN 37406
615-751-4574
TEXAS
Center for Hazardous and Toxic Waste Studies
John R. Bradford, Director
Center for Hazardous and Toxic Waste Studies
Texas Tech University
P.O. Box 4679
Lubbock,TX 79409-3121
806-742-1413
Department of Environmental Quality
Sonja Wallace, Pollution Prevention Co-
Coordinator
Stephanie Bernkopf, Pollution Prevention Co-
Coordinator
Office of Executive Director
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810
801-536-4480
VERMONT
Pollution Prevention Program
Gary Gulka
Pollution Prevention Division
Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
802-244-8702
Paul Maskowitz, Chief
Recycling and Resource Conservation Section
Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
802-244-8702
VIRGINIA
Waste Minimization Program
Sharon Kenneally-Baxter, Director
Waste Minimization Program
Virginia Department of Waste Management
Monroe Building, 11th Floor
101 N. 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804-371-8716
B-16
-------
WASHINGTON
Waste Reduction, Recycling and Litter Control
Program
Stan Springer
Joy St. Germain
Peggy Morgan
Waste Reduction, Recycling and Litter Control
Program
Washington Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
206-438-7541
WEST VIRGINIA
Pollution Prevention and Open Dump Program
(PPOD)
Richard Ferrell, Environmental Analyst
Waste Management Section
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301
304-558-4000
WISCONSIN
Department of Natural Resources
Lynn Persson, Hazardous Waste Reduction and
Recycling Coordinator
Kate Cooper, Assistant Recycling Coordinator
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921 (SW/3)
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
608-267-3763
WYOMING
Department of Environmental Quality
David Finley, Manager
Pat Gallagher, Senior Environmental Analyst
Solid Waste Management Program
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
122 West 25th Street
Herschler Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307-777-7752
B-17
-------
Appendix C
READER FEEDBACK SURVEY
This manual has been developed to make analysis of pollution prevention projects easier
to understand and implement. We would appreciate your feedback on this manual to improve
future editions and to be able to supply additional support as needed. Please .take the time to
respond to the questions below, and send it back using the address given at the end of this
survey. Thank you.
1. Will the methodologies discussed in this manual be helpful to you? Why or why not?
2. Are you currently using any of the financial analysis concepts described in this manual? If so
what kind of success have you had?
3. Are there cost elements of your particular projects that are not covered in this manual that need
to be addressed?
4. What topics covered in this manual would you like to see explained in greater detail?
C-1
-------
5. Does your facility or operation use any type of software program that automates the cost
accounting process for pollution prevention or other projects? If so, please describe.
6. Additional comments:
If you are interested in receiving an electronic copy of the spreadsheets contained within this manual,
please fill in your name, address and preferred spreadsheet format below. In addition, EPA intends to
make electronic versions of the manual and spreadsheets available through the Enviro$ense bulletin
board (703- 908-2092)and World Wide Web site on the lnternet( http://wastenot.inel.gov/environsense).
Please send me electronic versions of the manual spreadsheets in the following format:
Excel Lotus 1 -2-3
Name:
Address:
E-Mail Address:
MAIL/FAX TO:
Mr. Rick Brenner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
401 M Street, SW (OE-2261)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-6177 (telephone)
202-260-9437 (facsimile)
C-2
-------
------- |