United States
        Environmental Protection
Communications, Education,
and Public Affairs
Volume 20, Numbers 3 & 4
Fall 1994
How Green
Works Better,
Costs Less

                                 xvEPA  JOURNAL
United States
Environmental Protection Agency

Carol M. Browner
A Magazine on National and Global Environmental Perspectives
Fall 1994     •    Volume 20, Numbers 3 &4    •     EPA 175-N-94-004
Communications, Education,
and Public Affairs

Loretta M. Ucelli
Associate Administrator

Miles Allen
Director of Editorial Services
Karen Flagstad, Ph.D.
Senior Editor

Catharina Japikse
Assistant Editor

Ruth Barker
Photo Editor

Nancy Starnes
Assistant Editor

Marilyn Rogers
Circulation Manager

Francheska Greene
From the Editors
 Leighton Price
 Editorial Consultant
 Design Credits
 Ron Farrah
 James R. Ingram
 Robert Flanagan
 Front cover: Ozone bubbles upward in a
 drinking-water treatment process known as
 ozonation. Like many new environmental
 technologies, ozonation has raised both
 hopes and questions. It is a promising new
 process that may be more effective against
 microbial contamination than other
 processes commonly used to treat public
 water supplies—primarily chlorination. At
 this juncture, however, questions remain as
 to the comparative health risks of
 ozonation byproducts versus those of
 Robert Essel photo. The Stock Market.
  In keeping with the theme of this EPA Journal, an article in the
  Wall Street Journal of November 22 cited evidence that corporate
investments in energy-saving technology can cause productivity
to jump by as much as 16 percent.  Reported gains in profits from
boosted productivity actually exceeded money saved through
energy conservation. Among the examples mentioned were
Wal-Mart's store in Lawrence, Kansas, where departments with
sky lights log higher per-square-foot sales than those without; a
Boeing aircraft factory where energy-saving lights illuminated the
inside of parts so that a worker could see what she previously
worked on through touch; and a Reno, Nevada, post office where
better lighting coincided with workers sorting more mail per hour
with fewer errors.

The examples cited in the Wall Street Journal are noteworthy not
only because they are green-technology success stories, but also
because they highlight a few of the ways in which environmental
and economic gains can be two sides of the same endeavor.  In
this country, there are numerous such success stories and suc-
cesses in the making, including those profiled in this magazine.
At the same time, to state a premise shared by our contributors,
there is a clear need to promote further advancements in environ-
mental technology. Simply put, we need more technologies that
work better and cost less, technologies not only to clean up the
environment but to prevent pollution from happening in the
first place.

In this issue, we are fortunate to have an article by Vice President
Al Gore introducing the role of environmental technologies in
securing a sustainable future-a future in which a clean environ-
ment supports a high quality of life, and technological advance-
ment means economic growth and better jobs for American
workers.  The theme section of the magazine concludes with an
article by the distinguished economist John Kenneth Galbraith
that explores an aspect of what he has called "the economic case
for  the environment." Q
 EPA JOURNAL Subscriptions
The annual rate for subscribers in the United States is $7.50. The annual rate for subscribers in foreign countries is $9.40. The price of a single copy of EPA
journal is S3.25 in United States and $4.06 if sent to a foreign country. Prices include mailing costs. Subscriptions to EPA journal as well as other federal
government magazines are handled only by the U.S. Government Printing Office. To subscribe to EPA Journal, send a check or money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. The requests should be mailed to: P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. To change address, call or write: The U.S.
Government Printing Office, Public Documents Department, Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC 20402; (202) 512-2262.
EPA journal is printed on recycled paper with vegetable-based inks.

Be nice to yourself, or to someone else special

                      &EPA JOURNAL
The $7.50 Gift that
keeps right on giving!
               AND PROGRAMS —from local to global
 If you are currently a subscriber, you
 know how the special people on your
list, friends, college students, or family
members, will appreciate your
thoughtfulness in sending them a gift
subscription to EPA JOURNAL.
If you're not a subscriber, it's about time
you were nice to yourself.
                                 What else can you give or receive that
                                 comes four times a year, is dedicated to
                                 making ours a better world, and is
                                 ONLY $7.50? EPA JOURNAL makes for
                                 an imaginative, educational, year-round
                                 gift and is a real bargain, too!

                                 Simply check the boxes on the other side
                                 and fill in the name and address of the
                                 person you want to receive a subscription.
MORE THAN ONE? You can copy and fill out the reverse side of this card for as
many subscriptions as you wish to give.
WINNER! EPA JOURNAL took FIRST PLACE in the 1991 "Blue Pencil
Competition," a prestigious Award that makes a subscription even more valuable.

                       ORDER FORM
                                                                  Order Processing Code   5401
EH YES, enter	subscriptions to EPA JOURNAL for $7.50 per year ($9.40 foreign).
The total cost of my order is $	.  Price includes regular domestic postage
                                        and handling and is subject to change.
Company or personal name
                                                                           Please type or print
Additional address/attention line
City, State, ZIP Code
                                                                Daytime phone including area code
Purchase Order No.
May we make your name/address available to other mailers?

Please Choose Method of Payment:
EH Check payable to the Superintendent of Documents

n GPO Deposit Account
                                                       Q YES
I  I Visa or MasterCard Account
            Credit card expiration date
Authorizing Signature
                                                          To fax your orders (202) 512-2233

                                                          Mail to:
                                                          New Orders
                                                          Superintendent of Documents
                                                          P.O. Box 371954
                                                          Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

                                                          Thank you for your order!

                                                          This form may be photocopied.


Making  Economic and  Environmental Sense
How Green Technonogy Works Better, Costs Less
 6   Environmental Technologies
     for a Sustainable Future
             by Vice President Al Core

 9   EPA's Technology Innovation Strategy
            by Carol M. Browner

 13  Environmental Business Segments
            by Grant Ferrier

 14  Questions the Reader Might Ask
            An Interview with David Gardiner

 18  Breakthrough in Plastics Recovery
            by Brian Moore

 20  Analytical Technology To Go
            by Sandra Wester

   1  Green Chemistry at Work
            by John Frost

 24  EPA's SITE program:
     Sharing Innovation Risks with Industry
            by Alfred Lindsey and Meg Kelly

 27  "Lasagna" in the Making
            by Catharina Japikse

 28  EPA's CRADA Agreements:
     Sharing Expertise with Industry
            by Peter W. Preuss

 3Q  Colorado's Pollution-Prevention
            by Paul Ferraro

 32  U.S. TIES:
     Diffusing Technologies Abroad
            by Jamison Koehler and Stephen Lingle

 QA  The International Market for
     Environmental Goods and Services
            by Wendell Fletcher and Rodney Sobin

 37  The Case for an
     Environmental Technology Act
           by Senator Max Baucus
39 The Economy, the Environment,
    and Public Opinion
          by David Rockland and Givyn Fletcher

41  The "Living Industry" and the Environment
           by John Kenneth Galbraith

    The Irish Potato Famine
           by Catharina Japikse

    The Plague
           by Wolfgang Luckmann


The U S Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress to protect the nation's land, air, and water systems. Under a mandate of national
 nvironmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions which lead to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
 f  atural systems to support and nurture life. EPA Journal is published by EPA. The Administrator of EPA has determined that the publication of this
   odical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this Agency. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been
Penroveci by tne Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect EPA policy. No permission
a  ded to reproduce articles except those showing a specific copyright claim; no permission needed to reproduce photos credited to EPA. Contributions
ned inquiries are welcome and should be addressed to: Editor, EPA Journal (1704), Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

   Reassessment Reaffirms  Dioxin-Cancer Link
    EPA has released a public
    review draft of its reassessment
    of the health effects ofdioxin.
    The draft reaffirms a 1985
    assessment in which the
    Agency concluded that dioxin is
    a proven animal carcinogen and
    a probable human carcinogen.
    The draft reassessment also
    incorporates evidence suggest-
    ing that at some dose, dioxin
    exposure can result in
    noncancer health effects in
    humans. These might include
    developmental and reproductive
    effects, immune suppression,
    and disruption of regulatory
    hormones.  The reassessment is
    the most exhaustive scientific
    review of a single compound
    ever made by EPA and repre-
    sents the cutting edge of
    environmental toxicology, but it
    is not yet complete. Once
    public comments have been
    taken on the draft, the Agency's
    Science Advisory Board will
    conduct a formal scientific peer
    review. The process should
    conclude in late 1995.

    The Washington Post
    reported:  ".. . The study  ..
    said that most adverse [non-
    cancer]  effects from dioxin
    occur at a level 10 to 100
    times that to which most
  Americans are exposed... .
  The controversy over dioxin
  dates to the Vietnam War,
  when returning troops
  complained of tumors
  resulting from dioxin-tainted
  Agent Orange, a herbicide
  sprayed on vegetation in
  Vietnam. Environmentalists
  also laid blame for a wide
  range of health and ecologi-
  cal woes on dioxin. When
  the EPA made the 1985
  assessment that dioxin was a
  probable carcinogen in
  animals and humans,
  chemical industry executives
  and some scientists chal-
  lenged the findings and
  asked that the EPA reexam-
  ine the potency of dioxin. In
  1991, EPA researchers began
  to reassess.... The EPA's
  conclusions about the cancer-
  causing qualities of dioxin
  are based largely on recent
  scientific research into the
  molecular reactions pro-
  voked by the chemical
  compound when it enters
  animal cells....  The
  findings are also based on
  several new studies of
  human populations exposed
  to dioxin in which the rate of
  cancer among exposed
  individuals rose sharply.
 Anticipating the EPA's
 findings, parts of which were
 leaked last May, environ-
 mentalists have called for
 severe restrictions on ..  .
 dioxin. The environmental
 group Greenpeace has called
 on the Clinton administra-
 tion to ban chlorine, for
 example, and in a Thursday
 news conference, Ellen
 Silbergeld, a dioxin specialist
 at the Environmental
 Defense Fund, suggested
 that the same kinds of
 controls be put on dioxin
 that are now placed on lead.
 But industry groups caution
 against overreaction.. .."

 The Wall Street Journal
 said: ''.. . Substantial 'data
 gaps,' important to under-
 standing dioxin's effects,
 need to be filled in, the
 report says. For example,
 direct evidence is lacking to
 show that any cancer or
 noncancer effects-such as
 developmental and  repro-
 ductive impacts, immune
 suppression and disruption
 of regulatory hormones-
 occur in humans at everyday
 exposure levels, the report
 says. But, the study con-
 cludes, it can be inferred that
the average exposures are
close to ones known to cause
such effects in laboratory
animals.  It is likely that
there are several unknown
dioxin sources, the study
said. The EPA will ask that
industry, public interest
groups, state and local
governments, academia and
hospitals examine their files
to find any information on
dioxin sources, as well as
releases and levels of dioxin
in air, water, soil, food,
animal feed and human
tissues. The agency said
that in addition to general
exposure, some individuals
or groups may be exposed
to dioxin-like compounds
from 'special/ more intense
sources such as occupational
exposures, nursing mother's
milk or fishing.... The
agency plans by next
February to propose strict
air standards for reducing
dioxin and other emissions
from medical waste incin-
erators. The EPA also
recently proposed emission
standards for municipal
waste incinerators, [and]
stringent water effluent
standards for pulp and
paper mills and waste
EPA Awarded
$1.9 Million
Grant for

Under President Clinton's
National Service Program,
EPA has received a $1.9
million award to conduct
several AmeriCorps projects
that will help address the
environmental needs of
disadvantaged communities
in nine states, ranging from
the Mexican border to Alaska.
Specifically, the projects will:

• Help clean up polluted
drinking-water wells at the
U.S.-Mexico border.

• Help revitalize inner-city
neighborhoods in Boston,
Providence, Newark, San
Francisco, Atlanta, and
Washington State by working
on radon and lead abatement
and restoring urban streams
and parks.
• Help Alaskan native
villages with waste manage-
ment and water quality.

• Reduce air pollution by
helping public schools in
Oregon to install energy-
efficient lighting.

• Help clean up the
Anacostia River in Washing-
ton, DC.

  AmeriCorps is the center-
piece of the Corporation for
National and Community
Service, created by the 1993
National Community Service
Trust Act.  The program offers
opportunities for Americans
of all ages to perform commu-
nity service and earn educa-
tion awards and modest
salaries in return for their
                                                                                                       EPA JOURNAL

Tougher Rules
Proposed for Drinking Water
 Under new rules proposed by
 EPA, limits on the amount of
 disinfectant byproducts
 allowed in drinking water
 would be lowered and, at the
 same time, safeguards would
 be strengthened against
 disease-causing microorgan-
 isms such as cryptosporidium^
 the parasite behind
 Milwaukee's crisis last spring.
  Chemicals used to disinfect
 drinking water, such as
 chlorine, form byproducts
 that can harm  human health.
 For example, chronic expo-
 sure to excessive amounts of
 trihalomethanes, a class of
 byproducts, can cause cancer,
 liver and kidney damage,
 heart and neurological effects,
 and effects on  fetuses.  The
 proposed rule  would lower
 the maximum  contaminant
 level for total trihalomethanes
 from 100 micrograms per liter
 to 80. To make sure that in
 meeting these  stricter stan-
 dards water suppliers  don't
 inadvertently increase the risk
 of contamination, the rule sets
 for the first time a limit on
 cryptosporidium and tightens
 existing limits  on other
 microorganisms. The
 cryptosporidium limit would
 be met through enhanced
 water filtration.
  The  new limits on disinfec-
 tion byproducts would
 initially apply  to 13,000-out
 of 80,000-public water
 systems and would cost an
 estimated $1 billion annually.
 For most customers, the cost
 would  be less than $2 a
 month; for a very few-one
 percent-it would be over $16
 a month. The higher costs
 would  occur in water systems
 serving fewer than 10,000
 people. Precise cost estimates
                             Emissions  Standards
                             Proposed for Marine Engines
Tougher rules for drinking
water target disinfection
byproducts and

for the rule to strengthen
safeguards against microor-
ganisms are not available;
however, it is expected that
the national costs would be
less than $500 mill ion.
   Because of the technical
complexity, the controversy
over public health impacts,
and the potential cost of
controlling disinfection
byproducts, EPA formed a
team of state and local
officials, water industry
representatives, and represen-
tatives of consumer and
environmental groups to
develop a consensus on the
rules. They are the first
"negotiated regulations" to be
proposed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. As part
of the consensus, EPA and
drinking-water suppliers are
planning to fund a five-year,
$50-million research program
on disinfection byproducts
and microorganisms.
Working in cooperation with
the marine industry, EPA has
proposed the nation's first
emissions  standards for
marine engines. The stan-
dards proposed would apply
to all new  outboard, inboard,
sterndrive, and personal
watercraft engines (such as Jet
Skis and Wave Runners).
Manufacturers would begin
phasing in the new standards
over a nine-year period,
beginning with the 1998
model year. The technology
developed will create a new
generation of low-emission,
high-performance engines.
Older models would be
unaffected by the new
  The 12 million marine
engines now in the United
States give off about 700,000
tons per year of hydrocarbon
(HC) and nitrogen oxide
(NOx) emissions; the new
generation of marine engines
is expected to reduce NOx
emissions by 37 percent and
HC emissions by more than
75 percent.  HC and NOx
emissions create ground-level
ozone, which can irritate the
respiratory tract, causing
chest pain and  lung inflam-
mation.  Ozone can also
aggravate existing respiratory
conditions such as asthma.
  Of all  "non-road" engines,
only lawn and garden engines
emit higher levels of HC, a
1991 EPA study found; only
farm and construction
equipment emit higher levels
of NOx.  New standards for
lawn and garden engines
were proposed  in May.
Standards for land-based,
non-road diesel engines such
as those  in farm and construc-
tion equipment were finalized
in June.
  It is expected that the
design changes necessary to
reduce emissions will also
improve performance and
fuel economy, make starting
easier and acceleration  faster,
and produce less noise, odor,
and smoke.
Proposed standards would for the first time
reduce air pollution from boats.
FALL 1994

 Common Sense Initiative  Begins With  Six Industries
ERA's Common Sense Initia-
tive, in which whole industry
strategies will be developed to
replace the current pollutant-
by-pollutant approach to
protecting the environment,
will focus first on six of the
largest: auto manufacturing,
computers and electronics, iron
and steel, metal finishing and
plating, petroleum refining, and
printing. According to the
Department of Commerce,
together these industries spent
more than $8.2 billion in 1992
on compliance with environ-
mental laws; their combined
release of toxic pollutants came
to 395 million pounds,  12.4
percent of all reported emissions
nationally. In announcing the
initiative, Administrator Carol
Browner said:  "The successes
that are available if we continue
down the path of traditional
regulation are incremental at
best.  I don't think anyone in
this country, whether environ-
mental leader or corporate
CEO, believes  incremental steps
will achieve the kind of future
we all want."

The Washington Post
commented:  ". . . The
'Common Sense Initiative'
attempts to achieve three
goals. One is to eliminate
the paradoxical problems
that can occur when the
agency focuses too narrowly
on one pollutant. For
example, when EPA rules led
industries to install smoke-
stack 'scrubbers' to reduce
sulfur-dioxide emissions, air
pollution was reduced-but
the scrubber waste added to
water contamination.
Another is to stop the
traditional practice of
making environmental
policy in response to emer-
gencies such as the Love
Canal incident. A third goal
is to bring about a cease-fire
in the increasingly acrimoni-
ous battles dividing environ-
mentalists and industry by
                                                                       Drop forge
                                                                       operation at
                                                                       factory. The
                                                                       Common Sense
                                                                       Initiative will
                                                                       look at whole
                                                       Jim West photo Copyrighted
inviting specialists from
these groups-along with
other selected 'stakeholders'
with expertise in a particular
industry-to meet regularly
with EPA specialists and
hammer out their differ-
ences. ..  . The plan's provi-
sions, gradually introduced
over the  next couple of years,
could eventually result in a
thorough restructuring of the
24-year-old EPA, replacing
the longstanding offices of
air and water and other
pollution areas with indus-
try-oriented departments,
Browner said. Environmen-
talists were divided over the
plan. William K. Reilly, who
had experimented with
different ways to improve
the agency's record as
Browner's predecessor in the
Bush administration, said it
'sounds like a good idea.'
National Audubon Society
spokesman Maureen Hinkle
disagreed.  'Regulating
pollutant by pollutant has
not been the most efficient
way, but it has produced
some clear successes, like the
banning of DDT,' she said.
'An industry-by-industry
approach will probably not
work any better, in part
because of the vast range of
companies within a particular
industry. What do you do to
bridge those gaps? . . .'"

The Chicago Sun Times
commented:  "... The
administration said Wednes-
day that it is abandoning 25
years of one-size-fits-all
pollution control in favor of
environmental policies
tailored to specific industries,
beginning with such pollution
giants as oil, automotive, steel
and electronics. ... Six
industries, representing one-
eighth of all toxic releases
reported to EPA, 15 percent of
the Gross Domestic Product
and employing 4 million
workers, were chosen as part
of the EPA's pilot program.
Most environmental groups
and affected industries
welcomed the new pollution-
control approach as a depar-
ture from years of litigation
and infighting on environ-
mental issues. Joining the
auto, oil, electronics and
computer, and iron and steel
industries in the pilot project
are the metal plating and
finishing industry and the
printing industry. Browner
said printing is of particular
interest because most of the
nation's 68,000 printers are
small businesses employing
20 or fewer workers. . ..
This will enable the agency
to better promote prevention
by tailoring policies to the
peculiarities of different
businesses,' said Kevin
Mills, director of the Envi-
ronmental Defense Fund's
Pollution Prevention
Alliance. Historically, each
industry regulated by EPA
faced multiple groups of
regulators, each with a
narrowly defined mission
such as air emissions, water
or solid waste. Under
Browner's initiative, teams
representing all areas of
concern would be built
around each participating
industry. If all goes as
planned, the inclusion of
environmental groups and
local interests should
minimize suits and other
snags that delay environ-
mental cleanup.  This is the
kind of thing most of the
states have been looking for,'
said Langdon Marsh of New
York's Department of
Environmental Conserva-
tion	"
                                                                                                        EPA JOURNAL

 Ongoing  Enforcement
 Pipeline to Pay $6.4
 Million for PCB
 Violations in Nine

 Tennessee Gas Pipeline
 Company (TGPL) of
 Houston, Texas, and its
 parent company, Tenneco
 Inc., have agreed to pay
 $6.4 million to settle an
 administrative action
 alleging environmental
 release of polychlorinated
 biphenyls (PCBs) in Texas,
 Louisiana, Mississippi,
 Alabama, Tennessee,
 Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylva-
 nia, and New York. TGPL
 used a PCB-based fluid to
 lubricate air compressor
 systems at 42 stations along
 its 16,000-mile pipeline.
 EPA's action alleges that,
 during maintenance
 operations at the stations,
 PCBs were routinely
 released to the environment
 in violation of regulations
 issued by the Agency under
 the Toxic Substances
 Control Act. PCBs are
 highly persistent, toxic
 compounds that accumu-
 late in food chains as well
 as in the environment. In
 addition to paying the
 penalty, TGPL and its
 parent have agreed to clean
 up the contaminated
 compressor stations and to
 conduct contamination
 studies at various points
 along the pipeline. The
 cleanups will be conducted
 under the Comprehensive
 Environmental Response,
 Compensation, and
 Liability Act (CERCLA),
 commonly known as
 Ore-Ida Foods to Pay
 $1 Million for
 Polluting Snake River

After pleading guilty to five
 criminal violations of the
 Clean Water Act, Ore-Ida
 Foods Incorporated was fined
 $1 million and placed on three
 years' probation in U.S.
 District Court in Portland,
 Oregon. The violations
 included discharging potato
 and other vegetable wastes
 into the Snake River from the
 wastewater-treatment plant at
 Ore-Ida's facility in Ontario,
 Oregon, in violation of the
 company's permit issued
 under the National Pollutant
 Discharge Elimination System
 (NPDES).  EPA's Criminal
 Investigation Division
 initiated the complaint after
 being tipped by an employee
 about data manipulation,
 illegal discharges, and
 tampering with monitoring
 devices at the treatment plant.
 Ore-Ida will pay $250,000 of
 the fine immediately; it has
 until the end of the probation
 period to pay the rest or
 spend it on wastewater-
 recycling equipment at the
treatment plant. The com-
pany has already spent $12
million on upgrading the
plant. Ore-Ida Foods is
headquartered in Boise,
Idaho; it is a wholly owned
subsidiary of HJ. Heinz

Applicator  Convicted
of Spraying Cereal
Oats  with

An Edina, Minnesota,
businessman, Y. George
Roggy, has been found guilty
by a U.S. district court jury in
St. Paul of knowingly spray-
ing an unapproved pesticide
on almost 19 million bushels
of oats used by General Mills
in the production of approxi-
mately 160 million boxes of
cereal, including Cheerios and
Lucky Charms. Roggy's
company, Fumicon, had a
contract to apply an approved
pesticide, Reldan, to oats
stored in General Mills
elevators in Duluth. But
evidence at the trial showed
that for more than a year,
Roggy substituted Dursban, a
pesticide not approved for
stored oats, because it was
cheaper: He submitted
invoices totalling $166,120
that falsely represented he
had used Reldan, thereby
saving $85,319. Roggy faces a
maximum of five years in
prison and/or a fine of
$250,000 on each of 11 counts
of mail fraud; up to three
years in prison and/or a
$250,000 fine on one count of
adulterating foods; and 30
days in prison and/or a
$5,000 fine on one count of
misusing pesticides. Federal
authorities said cereal made
from the oats was not a health
Eastman Kodak
Consents to Clean up
Hazardous Waste
Under a consent order,
Eastman Kodak Company has
agreed to pay an $8 million
penalty and spend millions
more to upgrade, inspect, and
repair the industrial infra-
structure at its 104-year-old,
Rochester, New York, facility,
including an incinerator and
an estimated 31 miles of
industrial sewers.  The
company will implement a
state-of-the-art tracking
system for all of its industrial
wastes and must undertake a
number  of environmental
projects that will benefit the
water quality of the Genessee
River and the air quality in
northwestern New York.
  This is the first lawsuit
attacking pollution from
leaking sewers that EPA has
brought under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act. Eastman Kodak violated
the act by failing to identify
hazardous wastes and by
allowing the unlawful
disposal of various hazardous
wastes through leaks in the
facility's industrial sewer

Louisiana Firm Sued
for Multiple

The U.S. government has
charged Borden Chemicals
and Plastics Operating
Limited Partnership and two
related Borden entities in
Geismar, Louisiana, with
repeated violations of federal
hazardous waste and clean air
laws.  The Geismar facility
manufactures chemicals,
including vinyl chloride,
ammonia, and polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), which are
used in the production of
plastic products.
  Borden is charged with
operating a hazardous waste
incinerator and other hazard-
ous waste units without
permits at its Louisiana
facility and violating state
standards for air emissions.
Borden is also charged with
failing to notify authorities
following a 1990-91 release of
thousands of pounds of
chemicals, including vinyl
chloride and ammonia. In
addition, the lawsuit claims
that the firm illegally shipped
more than 300,000 pounds of
hazardous waste to a Thor
Chemicals plant in South
  In addition to fines for the
illegal shipments, the civil
action seeks to compel Borden
to clean up contaminants at
the Geismar site, including
known carcinogens like vinyl
chloride and probable
carcinogens like ethylene
dichloride. Q
FALL 1994

Environmental  Technologies
for  a Sustainable  Future
                           by Vice President Al Gore
Our environment and our economy are  mutually dependent
[PA photo
              Vice President Al Gore, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and Energy Star™
              computers. EPA's Energy Star program, launched in 1993, is a public-private
              partnership to maximize energy savings at a profit.
     From local crises of air and water
     pollution to global phenomena such
     as the destruction of the rainforests,
global warming, and the diminished
diversity of plant and animal species, our
relationship with nature is undergoing
profound change, and not for the better.
A burgeoning worldwide population and
our natural environment are on a collision
course, with potentially catastrophic
consequences. At the same time, the
nation is passing through a time of
tumultuous change and great economic
uncertainty. Across the country, people
are anxious about the future and their
opportunity to achieve greater prosperity.
  There are those who would prey upon
this uncertainty and use it as an excuse to
justify rolling back health and environ-
mental protection. They say that we
cannot have both a strong economy and
a safe environment. They are wrong. In
fact, our environment and our economy
are mutually dependent; only with
responsible environmental policies can
we provide lasting economic opportu-
nity. A clean environment means a
higher quality of life, and technological
advancement means economic growth
and better jobs for American workers.
  Today, we stand at a crossroads. The
decisions we make now will determine
whether we leave to future generations a
healthy, livable world or an ever-
escalating series of problems. To choose
the first path, we must invest and
develop sustainable technologies-those
that increase economic growth and
protect the environment.
  Since taking office, President Clinton
has made promoting environmental
technologies a priority, launching
interagency environmental technology
initiatives, issuing executive orders to
help spur the application of these
technologies, and taking concrete steps
to expand their export around the world.
In addition, this past July, I released an
Administration report outlining a broad,
government-wide strategic framework
for advancing environmental technolo-
gies. Technology for a Sustainable Future
outlines a series of current Administra-
tion initiatives and sets forth strategic
policy directions and potential next steps
in this area. Throughout the process, we
are consulting with members of Congress,

                     EPA JOURNAL

 elected officials at the state and local
 levels, representatives from industry and
 non-governmental organizations, and
 interested citizens.
   In our effort to design and implement
 a long-term environmental technology
 strategy, EPA plays a pivotal role in at
 least three ways: developing strong and
 sensible environmental policies, promot-
 ing investment and innovation in
 environmental technologies, and increas-
 ing the export of U.S. technologies.

 Strong Environmental Policies

 Each of us deserves to know that the
 water we drink, the air we breathe, and
 the food we eat are safe from harmful
 pollution. To that end, this Administra-
 tion is pursuing environmental policies
 and building important partnerships to
 accomplish these goals. We are commit-
 ted to "reinventing" environmental
 protection to ensure maximum protec-
 tion of public health and the environ-
 ment, while minimizing costs. This
 Administration is seeking new ways to
 prevent pollution before it happens and
 manage whole ecosystems, rather than
 small disparate pieces of natural habitat.
   One example of this new approach is
 EPA's Common Sense Initiative, a
 program that fundamentally redesigns
 environmental policy to focus  on
 environmental results rather than one-
 size-fits-all pollution-control approaches.
 The Common Sense Initiative is different
 because it does not seek to adopt envi-
 ronmental standards in a vacuum.
 Rather, EPA is involving from the very
 beginning the affected stakeholders-
 representatives of industry, labor, state
 governments, and the environmental
 community.  Only by bringing people
 together from all sides of these issues can
 we identify common ground, bridge old
 differences, and find new solutions.
   The Common Sense Initiative also
 replaces the pollutant-by-pollutant
 regulatory regime favored in earlier
 policies with an approach that looks at
 facilities and industries in a more holistic
 way. With the old approach, pollution
 was regulated piecemeal.  Regulations
 affecting water were written in isolation
 of pollution guidelines for air and solid
 waste. Too often, this approach merely
 shuffled and  shifted pollutants. With the
 new common sense approach,  EPA will
 address the full range of environmental
 and health impacts of a given industry-
 steel or electronics for example-to get
better results that cost less.
FALL 1994
Innovation in
Environmental Technologies

Another example of this
Administration's commitment to a long-
term environmental technology strategy
is the Environmental Technology
Initiative. Spearheaded by EPA, this
program is designed to spur the develop-
ment and marketing of innovative
technologies throughout the economy.
By encouraging businesses to produce
and use pollution-prevention technolo-
gies, we can increase U.S. competitive-
ness and work to capture this fast-
growing market.
   The Administration also is working
toward a responsive and coordinated
environmental technology research and
development program. For example,
EPA is developing a technology-verifica-
tion program that will help to test and
confirm the cost and environmental
performance of new technologies.
Armed with EPA-verified testing
information, it will be easier for busi-
nesses to sell their new technologies and
consumers to get information about
innovative solutions to tough environ-
mental problems.
   EPA already has  had great success in
promoting innovative environmental
technologies.  Working together with the
electric utilities and environmental
groups, EPA pooled $30 million in utility
rebates and sponsored a contest to see
which manufacturer could make the
most energy-efficient refrigerator. The
winning model, the "Golden Carrot"
Super-Efficient Refrigerator, which has
been installed at the White House, uses
50-percent less energy than most models
and doesn't use CFCs-harmful chemicals
that damage the ozone layer. It's now
available on the market for about the
same price as a less efficient model.

Promoting Exports

In addition to developing strong and
sensible environmental policies and
promoting investment and innovation in
environmental technologies, EPA is
working to increase U.S. exports. The
world market for environmental tech-
nologies is nearly $300 billion today, and
there are predictions that it could grow
to nearly $600 billion by  the year 2000.
It's critical that U.S. businesses are
prepared to compete in this global
market. By creating more business for
American products, we also create more
jobs for American workers-high-wage,
high-skill jobs that  accompany the
development of environmental technologies.
   That is why, in his first environmental
address, President Clinton directed his
Administration to prepare a comprehen-
sive strategy to take advantage of this
economic  opportunity by promoting
environmental technology exports.  EPA
Administrator Carol Browner, Com-
merce Secretary Ron Brown, and Energy
Secretary Hazel O'Leary are leading this
effort.  They are providing technical
advice to environmental companies,
expanding export financing for environ-
mental projects and, in some cases,
coupling export promotion with environ-
mental technical assistance to emerging
countries.  The goal is to promote the use
of environmentally safe technologies in
                                                                       Kcpntittd with special permission of NORTH AMERICA SYNDICATE. Copynyhl ]

developing nations and throughout the

The Goal of
Sustainable Development

Attaining sustainable development is
one of the greatest challenges facing our
country and the global community-a
challenge that can only be met by
developing and deploying technologies
that will protect the environment while
sustaining economic growth. It starts
with strong and sensible environmental
policies and includes promoting invest-
ment and innovation in new technolo-
gies. Finally, there must be a continued
commitment to encourage their applica-
tion both here at home and throughout
the world.
  We can build a world transformed by
human ingenuity and creativity, a world
in which economic activity and the
natural environment support and sustain
one another. Economic growth and
environmental protection.  The choice is
clear not just for this generation, but also
for all those to come.  And EPA is
helping to get us there. Q
          What is  Environmental Technology?
          For many readers, the term
          environmental technology brings to
          mind the products and services
          offered by environmental busi-
          nesses. There are now, for ex-
          ample, about 1,600 commercial
          laboratories in the United States
          that provide analytical environ-
          mental testing services for their
          clients. The global market for all
      environmental businesses put
      together, including the United
      States' domestic market, has been
      estimated at $300 billion annually,
      and going up.
        Although common, this use of
      the term leaves out the vast
      majority of incremental changes
      made by manufacturers to mini-
      mize waste or reduce toxic releases.
  What is ETI?

  In concept, the Environmental
  Technology Initiative (ETI) began
  with President Clinton's State of the
  Union Address of February 17,1993.
  In that address, titled "Vision of
  Change for America," President
  Clinton  described the plan as

     EPA/Environmental technologies.
     . ..  EPA currently allocates about
     $120 million annually to these
     activities.  The focus of this
     initiative will be long-term
     research and pollution prevention
     by EPA, other federal agencies,
     and the private sector. The goal is
     to develop more advanced
     environmental systems  and
     treatment  techniques that can
     yield environmental benefits and
     increase exports of "green"
     technologies. This investment
     will aid in the transition away
     from a defense-oriented economy,
     by stimulating the increased use
     of private  sector R&D resources
  for environmental quality-related

  Work being done under ETI
involves many federal agencies and
is being coordinated through the
White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. Federal agencies
working with EPA on ETI projects

• Department of Commerce

• Department of Energy

• Department of Defense

• Export-Import Bank

• Overseas Private Investment

• Agency for International Development

• The Trade and Development Agency

• Small Business Administration

• U.S. Trade Representative

• Department of Labor.
 These pollution-prevention or
 avoidance technologies will play an
 important role in the next century.
   In this issue of EPA Journal,
 environmental technologies,
 sometimes called "dark green"
 technologies (as distinguished from
 "light green'1 technologies, de-
 scribed below), include four kinds
 of activity:

 • Avoidance. Usually substitutes
 products or redesigns processes to
 reduce waste or prevent the release
 of hazardous substances.

 • Control. Renders hazardous
 substances harmless before they
 enter the environment.

 • Remediation. Renders hazardous
 substances harmless after they enter
 the environment.

 • Monitoring/Assessment. Estab-
 lishes, monitors, and assesses the
 condition of the environment,
 including pollutant releases and
 exposure levels.

  EPA's Technology Innovation
 Strategy also embraces "light
 green" technologies-those devel-
 oped primarily for non-environ-
 mental reasons which have an
 unintended beneficial effect on
 environmental quality. For ex-
 ample, the design of a local com-
 puter network to enhance commu-
 nication might also result in the use
 of less paper.
                                                                                                       EPA JOURNAL

                                EPA's  Technology
                              Innovation  Strategy
                               We need technologies that  work
                                        better and cost  less
                                           by Carol M. Browner
        Twenty-five years ago, wide-
        spread U.S. public concern gave
        rise to the most advanced
        system of environmental
 regulation in the world, including the
 creation of EPA, state agencies, federal
 laws and regulations, and state laws and
   In what is really a very short history,
 we have made tremendous progress.
 We have succeeded in solving the most
 obvious problems. We no longer have
 rivers catching on fire. Our skies are
 cleaner. Our surface waters are less
 contaminated by untreated sewage and
 industrial wastewater. At the same time,
 U.S. environmental expertise and
 technology have come into demand
 throughout the world.
   But after 25 years we find ourselves
 with difficult problems-a complex and
 unwieldy system of laws and regula-
 tions, and increasing conflict and
 gridlock. It will take a new generation of
 environmental protection to meet the
 challenges of the next 25 years.
   Perhaps nothing is more essential to
 achieving our nation's environmental
 goals than developing and deploying
 new technologies for environmental
 protection. The technologies we have
 today are not adequate to solve many of
 today's environmental problems, let
 alone the challenges that lie ahead. To
 protect public health and our environ-
 ment both in the United States and
 abroad, we need new technologies that
 work better and cost less.
  Because new technology is so impor-
 tant, EPA has embarked on an ambitious
 program to launch a new era of techno-
 logical progress in environmental
protection.  This  program is laid out in
Steve Delaney photo EPA

the Agency's draft Technology Innova-
tion Strategy (TIS), which was circulated
for public comment in January 1994.
(The final strategy is scheduled for
release this winter.) The draft outlines a
broad range of EPA activities both to
expand our environmental technology
industry here at home and to increase
our exports of environmental technology.
It covers EPA's $100 million base pro-
gram in environmental technology; the
EPA-led Environmental Technology
Initiative, which President Clinton
announced in February 1993; and the
interagency export strategy for environ-
mental technologies, released in
November 1993.
  Global demand  for environmental
technologies is currently estimated at
roughly $300 billion a year and projected
(Broumer is Administrator of EPA.)
to rise steeply over the coming decade.
To help this country maintain a strong
and competitive environmental industry,
the Clinton Administration aims to
nurture environmental innovation. Our
principal trade competitors, Germany
and Japan, have already positioned
themselves to capture a leading share of
the global market by supporting innova-
tion in environmental technology.  To
avoid being left behind, I believe the
United States must strengthen our own
presence in the market in four ways.

Change EPA
to Promote Innovation

The U.S. market for environmental goods
and services is largely determined by our
environmental laws and regulations.
American businesses spend over $130
billion a year to comply with federal
environmental mandates. Yet, our laws
and regulations often end up hindering
innovation by making it difficult for
polluters to try out new techniques.
  These barriers to innovation take
many forms. For example, most environ-
mental standards serve to "lock in" the
use  of existing technologies. Companies
receive neither rewards for trying
something new nor protection against
failure. Even where companies are
legally permitted to use alternative
methods to meet a standard, they are
usually unwilling to  risk noncompliance
by implementing a relatively unknown
or unproven technology. Traditionally,
enforcement personnel have been
reluctant to grant exceptions for busi-
nesses that make bona fide attempts to
comply using an innovative approach
but  need extra time or fall short of the
FALL 1994

                    Global demand for environmental technologies  is
                    .  .  .  projected to rise steeply over the coming decade.
regulatory mark. As a result, the same
old technologies are used over and over,
year after year, freezing out newer and
more effective options.
  Another problem is the unpredictable
nature of the regulatory development
process. Often, the promulgation of a
new environmental standard takes many
years. Only at the end of that long
process do companies find out what will
be required of them. At that point, they
may be required to meet the new
standards within a relatively short
period of time. Yet the development
cycle for new technologies can be 10
years or longer.  Even when technology
developers begin their efforts well before
a new standard is promulgated, the lack
of predictability in the rulemaking
process makes it hard for them to obtain
financing.  They run the risk of produc-
ing an innovation that either over- or
under-complies with the final requirement.
  Many barriers that inhibit innovation
are rooted in environmental laws. The
Clinton Administration has proposed
changes in several key laws that main-
tain a firm commitment to environmen-
tal goals while incorporating new
opportunities for innovation. In addi-
tion, EPA is striving to make our regula-
tory programs more friendly towards
innovative technologies. In so doing, we
hope to lead  other federal, state, and
local agencies to reduce barriers to
  Among the measures we are consider-
ing are these:

• Increasing the predictability of our
regulatory process through negotiated
rulemaking and other regulatory
development processes that broaden the
participation of affected parties
        Auto manufacture is one of six
        pilot industries analyzed in the
        Common Sense Initiative.

• Widening the range of technologies
accepted for compliance

• Using economic incentives (including
emissions trading and other market-
based instruments) to reward businesses
that use technology not just to meet the
minimum standards but to exceed those
standards (see box on marketing acid
rain control)

• Streamlining our permit processes and
our enforcement practices to promote
innovative technologies.

  EPA's new Common Sense Initiative,
launched in July 1994, will help us carry
out these objectives. The Common Sense
Initiative is a fundamentally different
system of environmental protection that
replaces the pollutant-by-pollutant
approach of the past with an industry-
by-industry approach for the future.
  Through the Initiative, we will analyze
thoroughly the overall environmental
impact of six pilot industries.  For each
industry, we will  do a comprehensive
analysis of the successes, the failures, the
problems, the achievements, and the
unintended consequences of environ-
mental regulation.
  The six pilot industries that will be the
focus of the first phase of the Common
Sense Initiative are the auto industry, the
iron and steel industry, the electronics
and computer industry, the metal plating
and finishing  industry, the printing
industry, and  the  oil refining industry.
                                                                                                      EPA JOURNAL

 Help Developers and Users

 Inventors of new environmental tech-
 nologies often lack the information,
 skills, tools, and facilities required to
 move their technology from the garage
 to the global marketplace.  At the same
 time, firms that could use these new
 technologies may not know enough  to be
 able to evaluate them. Small businesses,
 in particular, are at a disadvantage on
 both counts. Nor are financial institu-
 tions, regulators, or the public consis-
  Acid  Rain Control

  The Clean Air Act of 1990 established
  a stringent market-based program to
  further reduce acid-rain-causing
  emissions of sulfur dioxide by 50
  percent.  Under this program, coal-
  fired powerplants can choose from a
  wide variety of control options in
  meeting their emission-reduction
  requirements, including demand-side
  management programs, switching to
  lower-sulfur fuel, buying emissions
  credits, and installing scrubbers.
  Although still in its infancy, the acid
  rain program, by rewarding superior
  performance with tradeable credits,
  has already led to a variety of
  innovations in pollution control,
  including major advancements in
  scrubber technology. For example,
  U.S. vendors are now guaranteeing
  retrofit scrubbers at 98-percent
  control efficiency, whereas the ability
  to achieve even 90-percent control  at
  existing units was in doubt just a few
  years ago.
                                                                                Outfalls like this one are no longer
                                                                                so likely to degrade our rivers and
                                                                                streams, but new problems are more
                                                                    m National Archive;
tently able to make informed decisions
about innovative technologies.
  EPA is well positioned to help address
these problems. We can provide infor-
mation, skills, tools, testing protocols,
and facilities to make the environmental
technology market function more
smoothly and efficiently.

Fund  Invention

EPA's unique vantage point allows us to
identify emerging technologies which
can fill a present or anticipated environ-
mental need. In such cases, strategically
targeted EPA funding for promising new
technologies can boost the chances for
success.  (See box on co-funding

Help Distribution

By working to strengthen institutions
that compile and disseminate informa-
tion on innovative technologies, EPA can
broaden the choices available to potential
customers and help create a more
informed domestic and international
market in which American developers
can sell their high-quality products.
  EPA can work with public and private
organizations to spread information on
what companies need and what kinds of
technologies are available, at what cost.
EPA can catalyze demand by promoting
federal purchases of innovative technolo-
gies. And we can provide technical
assistance and training to strengthen
environmental infrastructures abroad,
thereby expanding the global demand
for innovative environmental technolo-
gies.  (See box on the U.S. Environmental
Training Institute.)
  In  all that we do, we need to work
with businesses, regulators, environmen-
tal groups, and the public-to ensure that
our policies work for communities across
this country.
  We also need to be sure to promote
technologies that prevent pollution To
date, most environmental technologies
have been designed to control pollution
once it has already occurred-i.e., at the
"end of the pipe."  Increasingly, the best
environmental solutions are found to
involve changes in the production
process, feedstocks, and product design,

  A major obstacle to achieving the
  Clean Air Act's goals has been the
  high costs to coal-fired electric
  utilities of scrubbing stack gases by
  the wet lime process. In the mid-
  1980s, EPA's Air and Energy Research
  Laboratory entered into a cooperative
  research partnership with the
  University of Texas to develop a more
  cost-effective method of cleaning flue
  gases.  Out of this collaboration came
  a technique  known as ADVACATE,
  which uses an advanced silicate that
  is more absorbent than lime.  This
  process removes 90 to 95 percent of
  the sulfur dioxide and other acidic
  gases from stacks of any coal-fired
  boiler.  The Electric Power Research
  Institute estimates the new process to
  cost $85 per kilowatt-versus  $215 per
  kilowatt for conventional flue gas
  scrubbing. If the process proves as
  successful as projected, it could save
  billions of dollars in compliance costs
  for electric utilities and go a long way
  towards achieving the acid-ram-
  reduction goals of the Clean Air Act
  Amendments of 1990.
FALL 1994

so as to eliminate pollution before it is
generated. (See box on Design for the
  EPA is serious about fostering environ-
mental innovation in every way possible.
Over the next few years, we aim to
improve the regulatory climate for
           technology innovation, increase the
           capacity of innovators to provide new
           and better environmental solutions, forge
           new partnerships between government
           and the private sector, and help new
           American technologies compete in
           markets throughout the world. Q
  Design for  the  Environment
  Decisions made in design
  affect not only a product's
  cost but also the risks to
  human health and the
  environment that arise from
  its manufacture and use.
  EPA's Design for the Environ-
  ment (DfE) program helps
  businesses incorporate
  pollution-prevention consid-
  erations in the design and
  redesign of products and
  services. The Agency lends
  its expertise through volun-
  tary partnerships with
  industries, professional
  organizations, state and local
  governments, other federal
  agencies, and the public.
  Here is a sampling of current
  DfE projects:

  Accounting and
  Capital Budgeting

  EPA is working with the
  private sector to develop
  accounting tools that will
  incorporate environmental
  costs and benefits into
  managerial accounting and
  capital budgeting practices,
  thus allowing businesses to
  more fully understand their
  environmental costs.

  Chemical Design

  Many of the traditional ways
  of synthesizing new high-
  volume industrial chemicals
  use toxic feedstocks or
  catalysts, or they create
  hazardous byproducts. In
  cooperation with the National
  Science Foundation, EPA is
  encouraging  university
  research into alternative
  methods for producing
  chemicals that minimize or
  eliminate hazardous sub-
  stances. (See related article
  on page 22.)
Curriculum Development

EPA has established a Na-
tional Pollution Prevention
Center at the University of
Michigan. The center is
developing curricula in
multiple disciplines (e.g.,
business, engineering,
accounting, marketing) which
incorporate principles of
pollution prevention, lifecycle
analysis, and Design for the
Environment, rather than
traditional end-of-pipe
pollution-control techniques.

Risk Management/Insurance

EPA has entered into a
cooperative effort with the
American Institute of Char-
tered Property Casualty
Underwriters, an indepen-
dent, nonprofit organization
offering educational pro-
grams and professional
certification for the property
and liability insurance
industry. EPA is helping to
incorporate pollution preven-
tion into the curriculum for
the institute's certification
program for Associates in
Risk Management.

Dry Cleaning Project

Through the DfE program,
EPA is working in partner-
ship with the dry cleaning
industry and environmental
organizations to reduce
exposure to perchloroethylene
("perc"). Perc is a chemical
solvent, used by most dry
cleaners, that poses potential
health and environmental
concerns. EPA will examine
alternative technologies,
solvents, and control methods
as part of a Cleaner Technol-
ogy Substitutes Assessment.
An important part of the
project will be finding ways
to provide small dry cleaners
with both technical assistance
and incentives to implement
pollution-prevention measures.

Printing Project

The DfE Printing Project is a
cooperative EPA-industry
project aimed at developing
pollution-prevention informa-
tion specific to small and
medium-sized printers. Six
different methods of printing
are in use today, and each
employs a different set of
chemical and technological
alternatives. Industry
representatives identified
several priority environmen-
tal concerns for lithographic,
screen printing, and flexo-
graphic printing methods.

Cleaning Products

EPA and the General Services
Administration are collaborat-
ing on a long-term project to
promote the use of environ-
mentally preferred cleaning
products in government-
owned buildings. This effort
will mean developing
standards for cleaning
products, performing inte-
grated risk assessments, and
evaluating product perfor-
         U.S.  Environmental Training Institute

         The U.S. Environmental Training Institute (USETI) is a public-private partnership
         launched by EPA and the U.S. business community in 1991 to build environmental
         institutions and in-country capacity in industrializing countries. USETI serves as a
         training forum to link U.S. businesses with foreign professionals in need of
         environmental solutions. By providing these professionals with comprehensive,
         short-term training courses,  USETI seeks to forge long-term, productive relation-
         ships between the private sector, governments, international agencies, and
         nongovernmental organizations in the United States and industrializing countries.
           Through human resource  development and continuous opportunities for
         information and technology exchange, professionals can work together to generate
         positive global environmental change. USETI has scheduled over 25 courses in
         1994, including nine overseas.  Organized to meet the specific needs of partici-
         pants, these courses range from a general overview of environmental risk manage-
         ment, pollution prevention, and other environmental management techniques to
         more specific courses on water-quality testing, bioremediation, and air- and water-
         pollution control techniques.
                                                                                                        EPA JOURNAL

 Environmental  Business  Segments
 Pollution prevention will  reshape the market         by Grant Ferrier
      The U.S. environmental industry is
      a $134-billion business that
      employs more than one million
 individuals. Not bad for an industry
 that generated roughly $10 billion in
 revenues 25 years ago, when it con-
 sisted mostly of the public services of
 waste hauling, water delivery, and
 sewage treatment.
   What is the industry today? Technol-
 ogy has always played a key role in
 integrating environmental solutions
 into industrial society.  But the moniker
 "environmental technology industry"
 has never been appropriate for this
 commercial sector. Environmental
 Business journal defines the industry not
 by technology but by business segments
 (see top bar graph), which integrate
 new technologies into engineered
 solutions to the vast array of environ-
 mental problems. Some of these
 segments are completely technology or
 equipment based, but the vast majority
 of their revenues are in services.
   Analysis from our annual industry
 overview indicates that 74 percent of
 the revenues in the industry are from
 services.  Revenues in instrument
 manufacturing, air-pollution-control
 equipment, water infrastructure, and
 waste-management equipment are
 almost completely equipment, but only
 a small portion of these can be charac-
 terized as "high technology." In fact,
 only 6 percent of revenues in the
 industry result from the sale of high-
 tech equipment; the remaining 20
 percent are low-tech.
   How is the industry  doing? The
 recession sent chills through revenue
 growth and profitability in 1991 and
 1992. In spite of the fact that growth
 was projected to be above that of the
 economy at large, trends indicated that
 the industry could not sustain itself in
 its nascent form. In other words, the
 vast majority of business was related to
 cleaning up "sins of the past" or
 controlling emissions from now
 outdated facilities, and each of these
 had a finite life span. The emerging
 "paradigm shift'  in the pollution- and
 waste-generating community from
 pollution control and cleanup to
 pollution prevention and waste minimi-
 zation mandated a similar shift in the
(Ferrier is President of Environmental
Business International, Inc., and Editor-in-
Chief of Environmental Business Journal.)
 environmental industry.
   When 1993 brought a third consecu-
 tive year of stagnant growth, environ-
 mental companies wondered when their
 luck would turn.  The worst should be
 over, however, and many factors now
 indicate positive trends for the industry.
 Firms will have to be more selective in
 their opportunities, more aggressive in
 pursuing them, more patient in anticipat-
 ing results, more innovative in their
 technical applications, and, above all,
 more business-oriented when looking at
 customers' problems.
   How is the industry developing
 around the world? With the passage  of
 time, environmental problems have
 become increasingly international, as has
 the scope of environmental programs.
 Issues were once confined mostly to local
 concerns, such as solid waste and sewage
              treatment. Air quality and water supply
              soon emerged as state and regional
              issues, evolving eventually into national
              issues. The addition of hazardous
              materials laws further solidified the
              importance of national environmental
              policy. The effects of cross-border
              pollution brought environmental issues
              onto the international stage, and, finally,
              with the specter of ozone depletion and
              global warming, many environmental
              issues have become truly global. A more
              recent and even greater incentive for
              international environmental regulation
              and standards is the proliferation of
              trade agreements. International competi-
              tiveness in many industries will increas-
              ingly hinge on environmental and
              worker-safety issues. (See lower bar
              graph for growth of the industry
              internationally.)  J
U.S. Environmental Industry Segments
                                  REVENUE 1993 (SBILLIONSI
                        0     5      10     15    20     25
                                         %GROWTH 1992-93
                                  •'I    05     10   15
  Analytical Services
  Solid Waste Management     i~
  Hazardous Waste Management  Pits
  Remediation/Industrial Services  8gja
  Consulting & Engineering     [
  Water Equipment and Chemicals E51
  Instrument Manufacturing     [~~]
  Air Pollution Control Equipment  JJH
  Waste Management Equipment  [~*
  Process & Prevention Technology]
  Water Utilities
  Resource Recovery          [___
  Environmental Energy Sources  fg

  Total 1993 revenue $133.5 billion
                                                   Source: Environmental Business International, Inc.
Global Environmental Industry Projections
                    REVENUE 1993 (SBILLIONSI     ia;Mliaiil3iBI;mWli;aia!l       CURRENT % GROWTH
                 0          50          100         150        29            10    15
  United States
  Latin America
  Western Europe
  East Europe/Russia   •
  Rest of Asia
  Australia/New Zealand 9
  Middle East        i I
  Rest of the World    I
  Total 1993 revenue: $288 billion
Total projected for 1998: $391 billion
                                                                 Source: Environmental Business International; average annual growth over 5 years
  FALL 1994

Questions  the  Reader Might  Ask
                              An Interview with  David  Gardiner
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation has a key role to play in the
development and implementation of EPA's
Technology Innovation Strategy-an  external
discussion draft of which was published last
January. To get answers to questions readers
might have about the proposed strategy and
the real-world problems it is intended to
address, EPA Journal interviewed David
Gardiner, the Agency's Assistant Adminis-
trator for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
Gardiner is also EPA's National Program
Manager for the Environmental Technology

    . EPA is one of several federal
     agencies involved in carrying out
the President's Environmental Technol-
ogy Initiative.  Is EPA's Technology
Innovation Strategy part of a master

  ',  Yes, it is.  In fact, one of the most
 ,.  ''• exciting developments we've had
in the year and a half since President
Clinton announced the Initiative is the
opportunity to work in close cooperation
with other federal agencies that have
expertise in the environmental technol-
ogy field.
  Under Administrator Carol Browner's
leadership, we have aggressively sought
policies that foster a vigorous economy
while benefiting the environment. A
successful environmental technology
policy can create good jobs in this
country while simultaneously improving
the environment at home and abroad. So
the Technology Innovation Strategy is
definitely part of a master plan, as you
put it, and every part of government has
an important role to play in that plan.
The Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy, for example, have
extensive research programs. The
expertise of the Department of Com-
merce is critical to our expanding the
export of environmental technologies.
And this work has all been coordinated
through the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy. So I
think we've got a very exciting, well-
coordinated strategy across the govern-
 .•"•""" s Can you give us an example of
      how you work together?

  - *  Well, I think a very good example
 .'"•':  is the strategy we developed with
the Department of Commerce, starting in
1993, to look at how we might expand
exports of environmental technology.
We were aware that, despite U.S. leader-
ship in many areas of environmental
technology, the myriad governmental
programs available to help improve our
world environment and domestic
economy were not being coordinated.
So we set out to create an export strategy.
We wanted to bring together the re-
sources of the federal government-in
terms of expertise in environmental
issues, capacity building, and export
promotion-and form a partnership with
technology developers and vendors who
have state-of-the-art technologies but
inadequate international sales. We
thought we could work together to boost
exports and American jobs, while
helping foreign countries to reduce or
prevent pollution, and I think we were
right. We brought in other agencies, like
the Department of Energy, which is also
interested in the export market. We
targeted five countries or regional
markets:  Mexico; Chile and Argentina;
Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan as a
market together; Poland and the Czech
Republic; and South Korea. The idea is
to coordinate government activities with
activities in the private sector to expand
U.S. opportunities in the marketplace.
EPA contributes its environmental
expertise, the private company contrib-
utes the technology itself, and  these are
matched up with an agency like the
Department of Commerce, which has a
great deal of expertise in the export field.
I think it's a good marriage of govern-
ment agencies which, to my knowledge,
we've never had before.

   •', What would you say is the single
      biggest barrier to innovation in
environmental technology?

   . That's a hard question because
   V  each technology manufacturer may
face a different kind of barrier. But the
                        Stew Delaney photo [PA

major problem a lot of developers face is
that the environmental technology
market is so conservative. Whether
you're a permit writer asked to approve
a new technology or a company that
might buy one, you're basically risk-
averse. You're not interested in taking
risks because you might be slapped with
a lawsuit or an enforcement action. So
what we hear from technology manufac-
turers is that their most difficult chal-
lenge is to establish credibility for their
technology in the marketplace. They are
looking to EPA to establish that credibil-
ity for them, to say their technology
meets EPA standards and will work.

      Some industry people say that
      EPA's own institutional barriers
discourage innovative technologies.
What is being done on that front?

  A  We've heard from both users and
-/"&. developers that EPA's policies can
inhibit the introduction of new and
innovative technologies into the market-
place. For that reason, our fiscal 1995
ETI Solicitation Package put special
emphasis on proposals addressing
policy-framework and innovation-
capacity issues. The policy-framework
area addresses barriers to innovation
erected by our own policies, practices,
and institutional culture. The innova-
tion-capacity area addresses ideas for
facilitating EPA's verification of technolo-
gies and the barriers to innovation
inherent in other, non-EPA activities, like
building codes.
  Under the Environmental Technology
Initiative, we're looking at our funda-
mental statutes, at the rules we write, the
permits we issue, even at our enforce-
ment programs to find ways we can
structure them that will work better for
environmental technology. And I think
we've already found some places in

                         EPA JOURNAL

        which we can make a difference. For
        example, under the legislative proposal
        the administration made on Superfund,
        the government would assume some of
        the risk for testing new technologies at
        Superfund sites.  The administration's
        proposal  on the Clean Water Act includes
        provisions to allow demonstrations of
        new and  innovative technologies that go
        beyond the existing legislation.  We're
        looking carefully at the National Pollut-
        ant Discharge Elimination System to see
        if it inhibits the introduction of innova-
        tive technology and, if so, what can be
        done to remove the obstacles  In the
        upcoming fiscal year, we expect our
        regional offices, in particular, to propose
        innovative efforts in the permitting and
                                                 Air-pollution controls being
                                                 installed at Detroit trash-to-
                                                 energy incinerator. Establishing
                                                 credibility for a new technology is
                                                 the biggest challenge.
enforcement area on a case-by-case basis.
These are the kinds of things that we
think EPA can do to help structure policy
in a way that encourages the introduc-
tion of innovative environmental

  ('~"l. In the past, government regula-
  ^J tions have been the major force
driving the development of environ-
mental technologies. These same
regulations, however, can lock in
existing technologies to inhibit innova-
tion. Take us through a case in which
the strategy will unlock the status quo,
allowing innovation to take place.

  ,^  Probably the most  frequent
./ 'I'  criticism that we hear about EPA's
policies is that they do tend to "lock in"
particular technologies.  I believe that the
problem is more complex than the critics
say it is; however, we do have to look at
whether our policies-be  they statutory,
regulatory, or even permitting or enforce-
ment policies-inhibit the introduction of
innovative environmental technologies.
It's also clear that even if EPA's policies
encouraged innovation there are other
factors that prevent people from intro-
ducing it. A good example, I think, is
that many of the most innovative ideas
that might be applied in  a particular
facility have to work their way through a
permitting process. And many times the
permit writers themselves, or indeed the
people who might buy those technolo-
gies, aren't sure they work.
  In the projects we fund in fiscal 1995,
we hope to have several  "Innovation
Ombudsmen"-type functions created in
the states and regions. An Ombudsman
would be given responsibility, with
commensurate resources, for
shepherding through the permitting
process innovative technologies that
would otherwise be neglected, mainly
due to  the conservatism  inherent in the
process I spoke of earlier. In addition,
we are thinking about how we can
improve the credibility of innovative
environmental technologies through
programs that-as the terminology calls
for-i'fri/v that thev work. In some cases,
I think EPA should actually certify
technologies that are really good, so that
we can overcome the conservative nature
of the environmental technology market-
   EPA is already engaged in a number
of activities aimed at improving the
credibility of technologies. We have
several situations in which we're work-
ing jointly with developers and users to
demonstrate innovative technologies at
facilities owned by the federal govern-
ment. A good example is the collabora-
tive work going on at McClellan Air
Force Base. EPA's Region 9 has joined
together with the California EPA and
several Fortune 500 companies to test
two innovative technologies at
McClellan Air Force Base. The
McClellan Partnership, as it is called,
selected the technologies and the test
methods and  will jointly disseminate the
results. Thus, the chances for success at
each juncture are being maximized.

     When you talk about certification,
     are you  talking about a written
endorsement from EPA that a  company
can show and say, "Here, EPA stands
behind us"?

     That's one way in which  EPA could
   '.   play a role in this. There are
others. For example, there are  certain
kinds of monitoring for which  EPA
actually pre-approves technologies for
use in satisfying environmental regula-
tions. In the RCRA program the devel-
oper must apply to EPA for approval of a
monitoring technology, before  industry
can use it for certain specified applica-
tions. After extensive evaluation, EPA
puts its seal of approval on the method
and publishes it in  a compendium. In
other cases, EPA may evaluate technolo-
gies, not because our pre-approval  is
required and  not necessarily to say that
we are sure they will work, but just to
verify that the technologies are capable
of achieving a certain level of pollution
reduction or environmental cleanup
Under the Superfund Innovative Tech-
nology Evaluation or SITE program
we've now tested a substantial number
        FALL 1994

of innovative technologies. This is a very
helpful thing to developers: to have an
opportunity to test their technology at a
particular site or at a particular facility
and show that it can actually work. A lot
of what we're trying to do in this whole
area of certification and verification is
not necessarily to put an EPA stamp of
approval on something, but rather to
provide opportunities for developers to
test their  technologies. We then verify
and share the results of the tests.
  In the Superfund program, use of
innovative technologies has more than
doubled, thanks in part to our SITE
program. (See article on page 24.)
Savings at a sample of sites using
innovative technologies averaged $21
million per site.

      How do you respond to critics
      who claim that EPA's ETI program
fences out America's premier innova-
tors, the anonymous small entrepreneurs?

     We've heard from people in the
     private sector that our program is
too focused on government agencies,
and it is true that one of our top priori-
ties is to construct partnerships with
other agencies at the federal level as well
as at the state, local, and  tribal levels.
But we have also set up a special pro-
gram for  fiscal year 1995 in which
academic and other nonprofit institu-
tions can compete, as well as a special
program  aimed at small businesses-the
Small Business Innovative  Research
grants. And so a fairly substantial
portion of our money in fiscal year 1995
will be aimed at nongovernmental
institutions that have expertise in the
environmental technology  area, and
we're hopeful of bringing them into the
program. I should also say that a lot of
the efforts we are currently funding
involve partnerships with the  private
sector.  We see this as critical, because the
private sector is where the  ideas for
technology are coming from and where
the customers are. Clearly, government
plays a unique role because it drives the
marketplace, but ultimately the private
sector is going to spend more money and
system at a
3M plant in
helped 3M
reduce air
emissions at
its U.S. and
plants by  70
percent from
1989 through
develop more environmental technology
than government can ever hope to do.
  We should also remember that inven-
tors in their garages, and the entrepre-
neurs they team up with, will be the
prime beneficiaries of our efforts to
reduce barriers to innovation.  In fact, I
think that a good gauge of success for
our environmental technology policy
will be, when all  is said and done, does
the world really beat a path to your door
if you invent a better environmental
technology? That doesn't happen now,
unfortunately, but I'm confident that we
can make it happen.

      EPA is a regulatory agency and
      traditionally has kept the indus-
tries it regulates at arm's length.
Speaking of critics, how do you re-
spond to those who claim that "a plan
to directly and indirectly support
private sector innovation" is bound to
create conflicts of interest? Are safe-
guards built into the strategy?

     Well, it's a situation  that has to be
     watched, but my impression is that
it's also one  that provides opportunities.
Because it is a regulatory agency,  EPA is
in exactly the right place to be the focus
for environmental technology activities.
We're familiar with what the environ-
mental problems are, and  we can make
educated predictions about what the
next 10 or 20 years of environmental
protection might bring. To understand
the environmental technology market-
place, it is critical to understand the
regulatory framework in which both the
users and the developers of technology
work and exist. Without EPA's expertise
in environmental science and technology,
and its experience with environmental
rules and regulations, I think it would be
extremely difficult to launch a major new
initiative in the environmental technol-
ogy marketplace. There will be opportu-
nities to make mistakes; however, we've
built safeguards into our program to
avoid them.  In proposing the Environ-
mental Technology Initiative, the
President recognized that  EPA does not
have all the answers. We have a lot of
expertise, but so do other parts of the
federal government, and so do people in
the private sector. That's why the focus
of the program is partnership: partner-
ship with other agencies of the govern-
ment at the federal, state, local, or tribal
levels; and partnership with the private
sector. I think that's a critical safeguard
against people saying, "Yes, as a regula-
tory agency you are expert in under-
standing this particular kind of a prob-
lem, but from your perspective you may
not see this other issue over here." And
I think that is one kind of safeguard that
we have.
                                                                  EPA JOURNAL

 (•/'  ^ In the federal Register notice
 W£ announcing EPA's Technology
 Innovation Strategy and Program Plan,
 you asked for comments on the strategy
 and indicated you would hold public
 hearings. What kind of reception did
 you receive?

      We had  a fantastic response in our
      public meetings, with good
 turnout and lots of excellent ideas put on
 the table. As I indicated earlier, we heard
 two overwhelming messages in the
 public comments on the strategy, and
 we've heard them elsewhere as well.
 The first is that the most important thing
 EPA can address is structuring its
 policies to encourage the development
 and use of innovative environmental
 technologies.  That includes the whole
 subject of how we verify or certify
 technologies to give them credibility in
 the marketplace.  The second message
 which we heard loud and clear was the
 importance of the international market-
 place and the  need for not just EPA, but
 government in general, to assist technol-
 ogy developers in breaking into it.
 That's a difficult thing to do for many of
 them, because they are small businesses
 and they don't have experience working
 in the international marketplace.  They
 need everything, from the basics about
 "how do I get started" to the kinds of
 contacts-in some cases, financing-that
 government agencies can be helpful
 with. So, those messages are giving us
 very strong indications about what we
 should focus on.

 [f™\] In EPA's strategy, much is made of
 \j/' finding partners, including
 private sector partners, that will
 contribute their expertise and resources
 to a project. Could you take us through
 the Dry Cleaning Project, in which EPA
 is working both with industry and with
 environmental organizations, to show
 us how that works?

  /.,  The focus of the project is to reduce
 1 i^-. the use of solvents in the dry-
cleaning industry through pollution
prevention.  The idea is to work in
partnership, not just with the industry
itself, but with the environmental
community and others to identify
innovative technologies and find out
whether they work. Ultimately, we
would try to diffuse those technologies
that do work throughout the dry-
cleaning industry.
  EPA has been working with a long list
of partners, including the Fabric Care
Institute, the Neighborhood Cleaners
Association, Greenpeace, the Amalgam-
ated Clothing and Textile Workers'
Union, the Center for Neighborhood
Technology, Dow Chemical Company,
and the Toxics Use Reduction Institute.
  Three separate demonstration projects
are being set up. EPA is funding one in
which technologies aimed at reducing
the use of solvents are being used at an
actual dry cleaning establishment in
Chicago. Environmental  organizations
are monitoring the results. Our thought
is that, if these technologies are sup-
ported by not only EPA, but also envi-
ronmental and other nonprofit  organiza-
tions, then they will be enhanced in the
rest of the dry cleaning marketplace.
  The other two demonstration projects
are being funded by the dry cleaning
industry itself; EPA is funding the staff to
monitor and evaluate progress.
  I think this project is a good example
of the sort of partnership we hope to
have,  in which several different stake-
holders seek opportunities for pollution-
prevention technologies.  At the table we
have environmental and other nonprofit
organizations, who not only help
identify good technologies, but verify
that they really work and, therefore,
establish their credibility in the market-
place. Then, because we have the
participation of the industry through its
trade association and others, we can
diffuse these technologies rapidly
through the marketplace.

    y Will the President's Environ-
  - 'mental Technology Initiative affect
the national economy in a significant
way, do you think?

  <\   There's no doubt that it already
.i""ii. does. There are more than a
million people already employed in the
business of environmental protection in
this country, whether in technology or
some other aspect. We anticipate that
our own environmental technology
market is going to grow, and we cer-
tainly see a growing market on a world-
wide basis. It's currently estimated that
the worldwide market is in the neighbor-
hood of $300 billion dollars, and this
market is projected to  grow to $400 or
even $600 billion by the end of the
century. The major effort across the
government has been in the export field
so that we can capture a share of that
very large and rapidly expanding global
market. For each additional billion
dollars we can generate in  environmental
technology exports, we think we can
generate in the neighborhood of 17,000
additional jobs. So, it clearly does have
benefits for the U.S. economy.

[-'  V\We understand that differing
 -^.J versions of a "green" technology
bill have passed the Senate and the
House in the last session of Congress.
Would you comment on the bill?  If the
current proposals become law, what
will this mean for ETI?

 A  Two pieces of legislation passed: the
-/  -^-Senate bill, authored by Senator
Baucus (see article on page 37) and other
leaders of the Senate Environment
Committee; and the House bill, authored
by Congressman George Brown, Chair-
man of the Science and Technology
Committee. Unfortunately, these two
bills did not get out of conference before
the end of the session. We  expect similar
legislation to move next session. Basi-
cally, the legislation authorizes the
Environmental Technology Initiative. It
calls for a government-wide strategy to
be coordinated by the  White House, and
it gives EPA a prominent role in a
program of verifying environmental
technologies. Although there are details
of the legislation that need to be worked
out in conference, there has been a great
deal  of support for the Agency's environ-
mental technology activities in Congress. ^
FALL 1994

         Breakthrough  in  Plastics  Recovery
         VinylCycle® units are operating on three continents
          by Brian Moore
                Using technology to address environmental
                problems is the main direction of National
                Recovery Technologies, Inc. (NRT). The Nash-
         ville, Tennessee, company has developed equipment and
         integrated systems to process solid wastes, recover
         recyclables, and aid in reducing air pollution. NRT's
         most successful commercial application of technology
         has been its VinylCycle® machines, which automatically
         detect and separate whole PVC containers from PET and
         HOPE bottles.
            VinylCycle® technology originated in a project
         designed to address an air-pollution problem. NRT's
         founders had designed and were operating a prototype
         150 ton-per-day automated recycling facility that pro-
         cessed mixed solid waste to produce fuel for a local
         energy recovery facility. The presence of PVC plastics in
         the waste stream created high chlorine emissions after
         incineration.  To reduce the emissions, NRT proposed
         using x-rays to identify the PVC, then mechanically
         remove it from the waste stream prior to burning.
            In 1988, EPA awarded NRT a Small Business Innova-
         tive Research (SBIR) grant to develop the technology.
         Additional funding was contributed by the Vinyl
         Institute and European Vinyls Corporation. The result-
         ing technology was the VinylCycle® line of plastics
                                       separators, for which NRT received EPA's 1991 "Out-
                                       standing Small Business Enterprise Award."
                                          The patented NRT VinylCycle® system accepts
                                       whole or crushed plastic bottles as they are fed by a
                                       vibrating conveyor. Once inside the machine, the bottles
                                       pass over a detector array that can sense the presence of
                                       the chlorine atoms in PVC bottles. Air jets are triggered
                                       to separate and kick the PVC bottles away from the
                                       remaining PET and HOPE containers. As many as 10
                                       bottles per second can be processed.
                                          While developing the VinylCycle® technology was
                                       an admirable accomplishment, adapting the process to
                                       commercial applications was the ultimate goal.  The
                                       plastics recycling industry was an ideal candidate
                                       because the VinylCycle®'s automated technology
                                       reduces manpower needs and boosts product purity.
                                       Purity is critical to users of recycled PET plastics because
                                       PVC and PET plastics have incompatible chemistries,
                                       and it takes only one PVC bottle among 20,000 PET
                                       bottles to contaminate an entire batch.
                                          Public announcement of the VinylCycle® line by
                                       NRT in 1991 was soon followed by numerous orders for
                                       the equipment from recycled plastic processors. To meet
                                       their differing requirements, NRT developed three
                                       machines with varying capacities. Over 30 VinylCycle®
                    FILM PLASTIC

             EIPac™ALUMINUM PulSort™ EDDY
             GLASS (CLEAR,
            GfiEEN, BROWN)
                       FERROUS  COMPOST-    GLASS
                       METALS   ABLES   AGGREGATE

                        EPA JOURNAL

   units have been sold and are now working in the United
   States, Europe, Australia, and Japan.
       The success of the NRT vinyl separation technology
   has fostered the development of a color/polymer sorter
   for plastics.  Separate funding from an EPA SBIR grant
   has resulted in successful development and placement of
   five AutoSort® machines. Two are co-located with three
   VinylCycle® units at the Replastic demonstration facility
   outside Milan, Italy.  Three AutoSort® machines and a
   VinylCycle® unit are operational in the Sunnyvale,
   California, "SMaRT Station," a mixed solid waste
   processing center.
       Recycled PET that has been processed by NRT
   VinylCycle® units can now be found in everything from
   carpets to clothing. Besides being ecologically correct, it
   has become quite fashionable for clothing to be manu-
   factured  from recycled PET containers. The clothing
   company Patagonia was the first to use Fortrel Eco-Spun
   fibers, and the company has now been joined by Wickers
   and Eastern Mountain Sports in the "clothing from
   bottles" initiative. Even more products are expected
   from the likes of Nike, Reebok  International, Jansport,
   Timberland Company, and even L. L. Bean, a
   (Moore is marketing coordinator at National Recovery
   Technologies, inc., in Nashville, Tennessee.)
                                                                                                    New products can be
                                                                                                    made from recycled
                                                                                                    plastic containers.
                                                                                                    These jackets were
                                                                                                    made from recycled
                                                                                                    soda bottles.
                                                                                                    We/lman. Inc. photos Copyrighted
                                                                   Plastic Primer
                                                                   PVC    polyvinyl chloride

                                                                   PET    polyethylene terephthalate  soda bottles
                                                                   HOPE  high density polyethylene   milk jugs
                                                                                                 cooking oil and
                                                                                                 mineralwater bottles
 HOPE,     HOPE,     PVC
     FALL 1994
 PET     PET'

Analytical   Technology to  Go
Environmental testing  goes  into the field
 by Sandra Wester
       \merican industry spends more
       /than $1.5 billion a year analyzing
       soil and water samples to
comply with EPA wastewater-discharge
and soil-cleanup requirements. This
represents more than 10 million samples
per year.
  Analytical testing must be performed
during every phase of hazardous-waste
site cleanup. During the site assessment
phase, a small number of samples are
collected and analyzed to identify
hazardous compounds. Sites character-
ized as hazardous ultimately require
mapping, remediation, and ongoing
closure monitoring.
   Customarily, this analytical testing is
performed in the laboratory. Highly
sophisticated instruments are required
because the contaminants can be hazard-
ous at very low concentrations. The
primary instruments used for detection
are laboratory-based gas chromatogra-
phy, gas chromatography/mass spec-
trometry, and high performance liquid
chromatography. Because of the com-
plexity and  sequential nature of labora-
tory testing, test results often take weeks
to obtain and cost hundreds of dollars
per sample.
  In 1991, North Carolina-based EnSys
Environmental Products, Inc., introduced
immunoassay-based analytical test
systems as an alternative to traditional
laboratory testing.  The decision came
after EnSys had conducted extensive
research with EPA, environmental
engineers, and focus groups and found
that the environmental testing market
was in desperate need of a rapid,
accurate, and cost-effective method of
detecting hazardous contaminants.
  Immunoassay technology, which has
long been approved by the Food and
Drug Administration as a standard
method for disease detection and drug
monitoring, dramatically reduces the
time and cost of site assessment and
remediation. The technique relies on a
molecule-referred to as an antibodv-that
(IVt-sftT is Public Relations Manager
at EnSvs, Inc.)
is developed to have a high degree of
affinity for the target analyte. In this
case, the target is a contaminant. The
high specificity and high affinity of the
antibody is coupled with a sensitive
colorimetric reaction that illustrates the
result. The same features that motivated
widespread adoption of immunoassay
technology by the medical community
apply to the environmental arena.  For
instance, immunoassay-based tests are
extremely specific; the tests are accurate,
precise, and easy to use; the immunoas-
say reaction is rapid, less than 30 min-
utes; the immunoassay reaction is not
significantly affected by the composition
of the sample, soil, or water.
  EnSys, however, had to overcome
several obstacles before opening its
doors to the environmental testing

• The immunoassay-based technology
worked for the home pregnancy test, but
would it perform on soil, sludge, and
Because immunoassay had never been
used to detect analytes in soil and water,
EnSys had very little background
information from the literature to
develop its test systems. Most EPA
methods were extracted with organic
solvents, which were not compatible
with antibodies. In addition, soil
samples varied greatly in their composi-
tion, and there was no way of knowing
what interferences would be present.

• Sample processing had to be quick and
Existing laboratory methods used high
temperatures and long extraction times
to get efficient recoveries of analytes
from the matrix. In the EnSys system,
samples are tested in tubes coated with
antibodies; the result is a color change
that is proportional to the concentration
   The great advantage of immunoassay testing is that it can be performed in the field.

                                                              EPA JOURNAL

 Technician collects soil samples for itnmunoassay testing.
 of the compound in the sample. EnSys
 decided to keep its entire sample-
 processing procedure under five minutes.

 • Even though immunoassay technology
 had been used in the medical industry for
 over three decades, it had low acceptance in
 the environmental testing market.
 EnSys overcame this obstacle by exten-
 sive training of its users. EnSys' techni-
 cal expertise allowed the company to
 educate the public and demonstrate first
 hand the cost and time savings associ-
 ated  with the new technology.

 • EnSys systems also had to gain regula-
 tory acceptance.
If a project is under legal and regulatory
scrutiny, as almost all remediation work
is, testing must be done by a method
acceptable to state and federal authori-
ties. In most cases, these authorities refer
to methods approved by EPA under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Prior to being approved, a new
method must go through extensive
validation, including field trials. EnSys
currently has eight tests with draft EPA
approval.  Its pentachlorophenol test
received final approval in early 1994.
Because the reagents used are propri-
etary to EnSys, and it was the first to
seek EPA approval of the technology,
EPA draft approvals specify that tests
under the generic methods must be
EnSys tests or their equivalents.  D
in Action

Three U.S. government-owned
facilities in a remote part of Alaska,
under investigation since 1989, were
suspected to be contaminated with
metals, chlorinated solvents, and
polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs)
from electrical equipment and spills.
Screening results from initial borings
measured PCBs at an alarming level
of 70,000 parts per million.  Due to
adverse Alaskan weather and
declining crew morale, the  consult-
ing company called in by the govern-
ment to study remedial alternatives
wanted to complete the project
  The company had two choices for
testing the samples, the laboratory or
an immunoassay-based test system.
The usual laboratory-based gas
chromatography method for PCB soil
analysis required a two- to  four-week
turnaround or more, because it was
necessary to send samples out of
state for analysis. The company
chose the immunoassay-based EnSys
  The project took only 40 days,
cutting 50 days off the estimated
schedule. At a cost of $6,044 per day
for  field equipment and labor,
expediting the project saved the
government $302,200. Sending
samples to the lab instead of using
the  EnSys test would have cost an
additional $150,000. One hundred
and twenty-six samples were
randomly selected and confirmed in
the  laboratory at a cost of $20,160.
Additional disposal costs totalling
$69,000 were incurred.
  The project director for the
company commented: "My goal was
to get the job done quickly and
accurately. Saving the government
money was bonus.  The material on-
site was immediately hazardous and
needed to be isolated without delay.
Also, the conditions were affecting
the  crew's morale.  Without the
EnSys test kits, people would have
been sitting on their hands  waiting
for  lab results while equipment lay
idle. I had a 50-day head start on the
next phase of the project."
FALL 1994

Green  Chemistry  al Work
Products  can be made  from glucose  instead  of benzene
by John Frost
       Although many people may never
       have heard of benzene, everyone
       has come in contact with the
materials, flavors, or medicinal agents
that come from manufacturing processes
using benzene as a starting material.
Vanillin, a dominant flavor component of
vanilla ice cream, is derived from
benzene, as is hydroquinone, a chemical
essential to image formation in photogra-
phy.  Nylon 66, a synthetic fiber widely
used in fabrics, is made from benzene.
Benzene is the starting material for
synthesis of drugs such as L-DOPA, used
to treat Parkinson's disease. Phenol,
catechol, and pyrogallol are examples of
"building block" molecules derived from
benzene that are employed in chemical
  The 1.7 billion pounds of benzene
produced each year  in the United States
provide one measure of its utility.  At the
same time, there are a number of envi-
ronmental reasons for avoiding the use
of benzene in chemical manufacture.
Perhaps most compelling: Benzene is a
potent carcinogen.
  Scrutiny of many of the aforemen-
tioned chemicals derived from benzene
                  reveals that each molecule contains at
                  least one oxygen atom while benzene
                  completely lacks oxygen atoms. Intro-
                  duction of oxygen to make up for this
                  lack can require processes that are
                  environmentally problematic. One of
                  the steps used to introduce oxygen
                  atoms during manufacture of adipic
                  acid, a component of Nylon 66, is
                  responsible for 10 percent of the annual
                  global increase in atmospheric nitrous
                  oxide. This byproduct is a causative
                  agent of atmospheric ozone depletion
                  and has been implicated in global
                  warming.  Conversion of benzene into
                  catechol, a chemical essential to vanillin
                  manufacture, requires use of concen-
                  trated hydrogen peroxide. This oxidant
                  is a highly energetic, corrosive material
                  requiring special care during handling
                  and storage.
                    Also, benzene is primarily  obtained
                  from petroleum. All of the environmen-
                  tal costs, such as from oil spills, associ-
                  ated with use of this nonrenewable
                  resource must be factored into the true
                  environmental  cost of using benzene as
                  a starting material. With support from
                  EPA and the National Science Founda-
                                     tion, alternative manufacturing processes
                                     are being explored. By these new
                                     methods, chemicals usually created from
                                     benzene are made instead from nontoxic
                                     glucose, a component of table sugar.
                                       Nontoxic glucose has six oxygen
                                     atoms attached to six carbon atoms. Use
                                     of this highly oxygenated starting
                                     material eliminates the step during
                                     manufacture of adipic acid that generates
                                     nitrous oxide. The route developed for
                                     conversion of glucose into catechol
                                     eliminates use of corrosive hydrogen
                                     peroxide. Processes using glucose as the
                                     starting material typically employ water
                                     and temperatures no higher than body
                                     temperature. This procedure contrasts
                                     with the elevated temperatures and
                                     organic solvents often used in chemical
                                     manufacture where benzene is the
                                     starting material. Waste streams for use
                                     of glucose as starting material are
                                     typically no different than what is
                                     normally handled by municipal sewage
                                     treatment facilities. This is not necessar-
                                     ily the case with traditional chemical
                                     manufacture. Unlike benzene, glucose is
                                     obtained from such renewable resources
                                     as plant starch and cellulose.
     HO        OH"
               near-ambient temperatures
Environmentally '
H3N   \          OH
      L-DOPA   vanillin
  Organic solvents
elevated temperatures
                                         Phenol      Pyrogallol   Hydroquinone
                                                                                EPA JOURNAL

                                                                     In "green" manufacturing,
                                                                     nontoxic glucose substitutes for
                                                                     benzene in making substances like
                                                                     vanillin flavoring and
                                                                     photographic film.
   The key to employing glucose in
 chemical manufacture is the use of
 biocataJysis.  Enzymes found in laundry
 detergents are one type  of biocatalyst;
 the intact microbes used to make beer
 represent another. The processes
 developed to convert glucose into
 chemicals such as adipic acid, catechol,
 and hydroquinone employ intact
 microbes. Normally, glucose is con-
 sumed by microbes and then "burned,"
 producing carbon dioxide and providing
 the energy needed for growth and
 reproduction. This process is very
 similar to the production of energy (i.e.,
 heat) when wood is burned.
   By altering a microbe's metabolism,
 glucose that would normally be burned
 can instead be channeled into biosyn-
 thetic pathways used  by the microbe to
 make chemicals. A biosynthetic pathway
 consists of a series of enzymes that are
 located inside the microbe. By isolating
 DNA fragments from one type of
 microbe and then introducing these
 DNA fragments into another microbe,
biosynthetic pathways can be created
that do not normally exist in nature.
This is the process used  to create the
microbial biocatalysts that can convert a
solution of sugar (glucose) water into a
solution of adipic acid, catechol, or
   "Green" manufacturing routes ideally
should lead to chemicals that are eco-
nomically competitive with chemicals
produced by traditional methods. For
two chemicals of roughly comparable
cost, the consumer or producer can then
be realistically expected to choose in
favor of the chemical produced by a
"green" process. Projections indicate
that catechol and hydroquinone can be
biocatalytically  produced from glucose at
a cost competitive with current market
prices. Although the estimated manufac-
turing cost for adipic acid exceeds the
market price, the costs of eliminating
emissions of benzene and nitrous oxide
will put upward pressure on the cost of
current manufactures of adipic acid from
  Deriving chemicals from glucose
presents numerous scale-up and process-
ing problems. The best crops for manu-
facture of chemicals may not be those
that currently dominate American
agriculture-such as corn.  More appeal-
ing are plants like switchgrass, that can
be harvested multiple times during a
growing season and that require minimal
fertilizing and pesticide inputs.  Addi-
tional challenges confront the grain
processing companies that control the
renewable resources and glucose supply.
These commercial entities typically have
little experience in traditional chemical
markets. At the same time, chemical
companies lack a significant presence in
renewable resources and typically lack
experience in biocatalysis.
  These barriers to change in the
manufacture of chemicals are imposing,
although powerful incentives for
surmounting such barriers are generated
by the need for compliance with increas-
ingly strict governmental regulations
and the need to fulfill public environ-
mental expectations.  Synthesis of
chemicals from glucose using
biocatalysis offers the promise of achiev-
ing fundamental environmental im-
provement while increasing the demand
for agricultural products. In the final
analysis, what is good for the environ-
ment can also be good for American
agriculture.  3
(Frosf i.s Pro/cssor o/'C/ie'niMry at
Michigan State University.)
FALL 1994

EPA's  SITE  Program:
Sharing  Innovation  Risks  with  Industry
Some  program graduates are now considered conventional
by Alfred Lindsey and  Meg Kelly
 ""; ;  n 1980, when the Superfund
     program began, the technologies
  : I  available to clean up hazardous
 ^ii:,, waste sites involved either reburial
 or containment of the waste on-site or
 shipment of the waste off-site to an
 incinerator or landfill. The authors of the
 original Superfund law must have
 believed these technologies were ad-
 equate to do the job because they rejected
 proposals to include research and
 development provisions in the legisla-
 tion. Consequently, there was little
 attempt to develop better solutions.
   This was very shortsighted, as early
 experience showed. For the first six
 years, the Superfund program struggled
 to apply limited and often inadequate
 technologies to some very complex and
 difficult clean-up problems. The early
 Superfund experience with technology
 applications is briefly summarized

 A Wicked Brew
 of Chemical Soup

 Superfund sites contain complex chemi-
 cal mixtures of hazardous substances in
 many different physical forms. Such
 wastes include, for example, lagoons or
 ponds filled with sludge and oils, large
 areas of soil that have been contaminated
 with heavy metals and solvents, con-
 taminated ground water where wastes
 have leaked below the water table, and
 assorted  debris such as old barrels and
 tanks that contain remnants of hazardous
 substances. The physical and chemical
 properties of these wastes vary consider-
 ably. Some bind tightly to soil particles.
 Others dissolve in ground water. Some
 volatilize into the air. Others sink to the
 bottom of underground aquifers.
(Lmdsey is Director of the Office of Environ-
mental Engineering and Technology Demon-
stration at EPA. Kelly is Deputy Director of the
Technology Innovation Office, also at EPA.)
  Wastes at Superfund sites include both
organic and inorganic toxic contami-
nants. Organic substances are carbon-
based molecules, often in combination
with hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine
linked together in long chains or ring
structures.  The resulting chemicals have
intimidating names such as polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs) and
tetrachlorinated dibenzo dioxin (or more
simply, dioxin).  Inorganic substances
include toxic heavy metals such as lead,
mercury, and cadmium.

The Early Years:
"Hold 'em or Run 'em"

In the early 1980s, a widely used clean-
up method involved trying to hold
hazardous wastes on site through the  use
of various containment devices. Slit
trenches were dug around the contami-
nated areas and filled with cement-like
material to form slurry walls or grout
curtains to block contaminant spread.
Ground water was redirected by install-
ing wells which would be pumped to
affect the flow direction. Wastes were
excavated and reburied on liners com-
posed of compacted soil or plastic
membranes. Caps or covers were placed
over wastes to prevent rainwater
  These containment devices were often
very difficult to install properly in the
field. They were hard to control, and
they sometimes impeded contaminant
flow only temporarily. Over time they
could break down, or the contaminants
could simply find an alternate route
around or under them. While some of
these devices are still in use today, they
require long-term monitoring and
maintenance to ensure proper operation.
  A second site clean-up method used in
the early years involved shipping
hazardous wastes off-site to other
facilities. However, these facilities were
sometimes  poorly located, designed, and
operated. This practice of running
wastes off-site was labeled the "toxic
shell game" by the press and often met
hostile opposition from citizens in the
receiving communities.

Enter SARA and SITE

By the mid 1980s, it became clear that
innovative technologies for cleaning up
Superfund sites were not coming forth.
This was puzzling, given the potential
market size and fanfare surrounding
Superfund. It was also troubling because
the established technologies either did
not inspire confidence  as  permanent
solutions or cost too much. Discussions
with vendors, many of which were small
businesses, indicated a lack of credibility.
EPA, state, and private Superfund clean-
up decision makers were unwilling to
select  untried technologies for cleanups
under their jurisdiction.
  With new authority granted by the
Superfund Amendments  and Reauthori-
zation Act (SARA) of 1986, EPA estab-
lished the Superfund Innovative Tech-
nology Evaluation (SITE) program to
accelerate the development, demonstra-
tion, and use  of new treatment technolo-
gies. Under SITE, innovative technolo-
gies are demonstrated  and evaluated at
full scale at actual Superfund sites.
Credible cost and performance informa-
tion is developed.
  SITE is a public-private partnership
where the costs and monetary risks are
shared by EPA and the technology
developer. The developer pays for the
design and construction of the technol-
ogy and must bring it to the Superfund
site, install it, and operate it during the
demonstration period. EPA pays for the
evaluation of the technology, including
the collection and analysis of chemical
samples. EPA also prepares the final
evaluation report, which  describes how
well the  technology worked and presents
all of the data collected. This informa-
                                                            EPA JOURNAL

                                                                                               Superfund sites
                                                                                               contain mixtures
                                                                                               of hazardous
                                                                                               wastes in many
                                                                                               different forms.
                                                                                               Here a team
                                                                                               collects samples.
 tion is sent to EPA regional staff and
 many others, who use it when selecting
 technologies at other sites.  The SITE
 program also supports the evaluation of
 emerging technologies that are not yet
 ready for full-scale demonstration by
 supporting tests at the bench-scale and
 pilot-plant level.  Innovative methods for
 monitoring and taking measurements at
 Superfund sites are also evaluated. The
 program includes extensive technology-
 transfer activities to disseminate cost and
 performance information to environmen-
 tal managers in governmental agencies,
 the engineering community, industry,
 and the public.

 with an Impact

 The results have been gratifying.  Inno-
 vative treatment technologies have
 become increasingly accepted since the
 advent of the SITE program. During the
 early 1980s, innovative treatment
 technologies were rarely used. Between
 1986 and 1987, they comprised approxi-
 mately one-quarter of the total number
 of technologies selected for Superfund
 projects.  In the period from 1987 to 1991,
 this figure rose dramatically. While SITE
 was only one contributing factor in
 increasing innovative  technology
 selection, the program played a signifi-
cant role. The number continued to rise
in 1992, indicating increased credibility
for a variety of innovative treatment

FALL 1994
  A wide range of technologies demon-
strated under SITE are now being
selected as Superfund remedies. Often it
is necessary to use these technologies in
combination with each other in what are
called "treatment trains" to deal with the
mixtures of chemical substances present.
For example, a waste mixture containing
heavy metals and organic materials
might be treated by first removing,
concentrating, and recovering the metals
and then degrading or destroying the
organic matter. Sometimes the waste
components need to be separated from
each other before they can be properly
treated. Therefore, it is very important to
develop a full set of technologies and put
together marriages that will deal with
the different possibilities.
  Many of these innovative technologies
provide a significant cost saving over
standard treatments. In a four-region
sample of 17 Superfund sites, the use of
technologies tested under the SITE
program  saved $21 million per site, or 62
  The program also provides a real
advantage to technology vendors in that
many of the barriers associated with
commercialization of innovative treat-
ment technologies are removed through
participation. SITE vendors who have
completed demonstrations report 533
contract awards comprised of 395 non-
Superfund and 138 Superfund jobs. (See
figure on page 26.)

As of June 30, 1994, the SITE program
had 102 participants and 64 completed
projects. An additional six are ongoing
in the held. One-fifth of the completed
SITE demonstrations have been con-
ducted at federal facilities and additional
projects at federal sites are planned.
  The SITE program has been instru-
mental in enhancing the arsenal of
available technologies for Superfund
cleanups.  Some SITE graduates have
become so widely used that they are no
longer considered innovative-they've
graduated to conventional status. Chief
among these are SVE (soil vapor extrac-
tion), which removes volatile com-
pounds from soils in situ, and the various
forms of thermal desorption, used to
destroy or remove toxic organic com-
pounds in wastes. Bioremediation, a
very promising technology originally
developed under a Cooperative Research
and Development Agreement, has also
progressed rapidly. Additional work is
necessary, however, to achieve off-the-
shelf status, particularly for on-site
applications. (See box on page 26.)

What's Next

The SITE program encourages commer-
cialization of new environmental
technologies by working cooperatively
with private companies, universities,
nonprofit organizations, and other
federal agencies to provide reliable cost

and performance data.  SITE is one
model for verification programs called
for in the proposed National Environ-
mental Technology Act. (See article on
page 37.)
  The environmental community
continues to search for technologies that
perform faster, safer, and more effec-
tively than those typically used. For
example, one of the critical needs in
remediation technology is a method to
accelerate the cleanup of aquifers.
Finding and removing or remediating
DNAPLs (Dense Non-Aqueous Phase
Liquids) is a particular ground-water
problem. Quicker screening methods are
badly needed for characterizing contami-
nation at sites.  And any effective
technology that doesn't require excavat-
ing soil or pumping ground water is
likely to receive a ready reception. These
are just a few of the technology needs for
which the SITE program hopes to spur
innovative solutions.  Q
Market Activities
Reported by SITE Vendors
Based on 1994 vendor survey
Total number of jobs (contract awards) = 533

Waste-degrading microbes or
microorganisms exist virtually
everywhere in the natural
environment. In fact, microor-
ganisms are Mother Nature's
own clean-up crew.  When living
beings such as trees, plants, or
people die, naturally occurring
microorganisms degrade the
organic matter into carbon
dioxide and water. If it were not
for microorganisms, the world
would be cluttered with organic
matter from the past.
Bioremediation attempts to
harness the waste-degrading
capability of microorganisms
and use it to destroy toxic
organic substances found in
hazardous waste.
   Often, waste-degrading
microorganisms exist right at a
Superfund site.  Their natural
capabilities can be enhanced by
adding oxygen, nutrients such as
nitrogen or phosphorous, or
other  microorganisms cultured
in a laboratory. If the waste is
first excavated, it may be
biodegraded in a reactor vessel.
Alternatively, bioremediation
may take place in situ to biode-
grade contaminated soils and
ground water in place. In situ
bioremediation is often used in
conjunction with a ground-water
pumping and reinjection system
to circulate nutrients and oxygen
through a contaminated aquifer
and associated soils.
  In 1989, bioremediation was
used successfully in Prince
William Sound, Alaska, to clean
up over 100 miles of shoreline
contaminated by the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. To determine
whether it would work on sandy
beaches-the Alaska beaches were
covered with stoneslast summer
EPA scientists applied 540 gallons
of light crude oil to 15 specially
prepared plots at Fowlers Beach,
Delaware. These included plots
to which nutrients (fertilizers) had
been added to stimulate the
activity of indigenous microor-
ganisms, plots to which addi-
tional native microorganisms
were applied as well as nutrients,
plots to which only oil was added,
and an unchanged  plot to be used
as a control. Initial results are
expected in the fall of 1994, and a
final report is scheduled to be
issued in early 1995.
  From the study, the scientists
hope to compute the rate of
bioremediation and to establish
engineering guidelines for using
the technique. EPA conducted the
research in cooperation with the
states of Delaware and Texas,
other federal agencies, Sun Oil
Company, the Marine Spills
Response Corporation, Environ-
ment Canada, and several
                                                      INTERNATIONAL JOBS

                                                          EPA JOURNAL

                                     Lasagna  in the Making
          In January 1994, EPA signed an
          agreement with three private
          companies-Monsanto, DuPont,
          and General Electric (GE)-to
     develop a new remediation technol-
     ogy. Dubbed the "lasagna" process
     because of its layers, this technology
     cleans up liquid-borne organic and
     inorganic contaminants in dense, clay-
     like soils. Initial work is focused on
     removing chlorinated solvents.
       Because clay is not very permeable,
     it holds ground water and other
     liquids well. Traditional remediation
     for this type of site requires that the
     liquid in the soil (usually ground
     water) be pumped out. The water
     brings many of the contaminants with
     it, then is chemically treated and
     replaced-a time-consuming and
     expensive solution.
       The lasagna process, on the other
     hand, allows the soil to be remediated
     in situ by using low-voltage electric
     current to move contaminated ground
     water through treatment zones in the
     soil. Depending on the characteristics
     of the individual site, the process can
     be done in either a horizontal or
     vertical configuration. (See figure
       The first step in the lasagna process
     is to "fracture" the soil, creating a
     series of zones.  In a horizontal
     configuration, a vertical borehole is
                                               -Catharina Japikse
                            drilled and a nozzle inserted; a highly
                            pressurized mixture of water and sand
                            (or another water/solid mix) is injected
                            into the ground at various depths. The
                            result: a stack of pancake-shaped,
                            permeable zones in the denser, con-
                            taminated soil. The top and bottom
                            zones are filled with carbon or graphite
                            so they can conduct electricity. The
                            zones between them are filled with
                            treatment chemicals or microorganisms
                            that will remediate the contaminants.
                              When electricity is applied to the
                            carbon and graphite zones, they act as
                            electrodes, creating an electric field.
                            Within the field, the materials in the
                            soil migrate toward either the positive
                            or negative electrode. Along with the
                            migrating materials, pollutants are
                            carried into the treatment zones, where
                            they are neutralized or destroyed.
                              The vertical configuration works in
                            much the same way, differing only in
                            installation.  Because the electrodes
                            and treatment zones extend down from
                            the surface, this configuration does not
                            require the sophisticated hydraulic
                            fracturing techniques that are used in
                            the horizontal configuration.
                              Lasagna partnership members are
                            pursuing a range of options for
                            developing the process for commercial
                            use. Monsanto conducts research on
                            the use of electric currents to move
                            contaminants through soil. DuPont
contributes expertise on the installa-
tion of vertical treatment zones and
electrodes. GE performs computer-
driven modeling of how contaminants
move through soil. GE, DuPont, and
EPA jointly pursue bioremediation
techniques for use in treatment zones.
Monsanto and GE cooperate on basic
research into metal-catalyzed dechlo-
rination.  EPA investigates and
develops the hydraulic fracturing
techniques that could be used to
install the process in the horizontal
configuration. The Department of
Energy (DOE) also lends its support;
DOE brings its knowledge of electro-
kinetics and bioremediation to the
partnership and provides analytical
and field support work. EPA and the
nonprofit group Clean Sites provide
facilitation services.  Clean Sites also
manages the private partners' project
  In order to get the process out of the
laboratory and closer to the market-
place, DOE awarded Monsanto, on
behalf of the partners, a contract to
demonstrate that contaminants can be
moved in the field using the vertical
configuration. A series of field tests
began in  the spring of 1994 at and
around DOE's Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. The tests
are expected to continue through
                                  Schematic Diagram of the Lasagna Process
Vertical Configuration
                                                               Horizontal Configuration
             <_*    ~*"—
             ~ ("^Treatment Zone
             n. ^*-  '  !    i.i—
                   Liquid flow
             T 1
                               NOTE: Liquid flow is reversed upon switching electrical polarity.
FALL 1994

EPA's  CRADA  Agreements:
Sharing  Expertise  with  Industry
Government  and industry collaborate to commercialize technologies
by Peter W. Preuss
    n the past, legal and institutional
    barriers have hindered goverment/
    industry partnerships from devel-
    oping and marketing technologies
for preventing, controlling, or cleaning
up pollution.  Many companies, strug-
gling to translate their ideas into innova-
tive technologies, have been held back by
lack of access to  scientific experts in a
particular field or to highly specialized
equipment. In 1986, Congress passed the
Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA),
which removed many of the barriers to
the public-private partnerships needed
to develop and commercialize innovative
environmental technologies.
  The Act makes possible Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements
(CRADAs) between federal laboratories,
industry, and academic institutions.
CRADAs set forth the terms of govern-
ment-industry collaboration and allow
the free flow of ideas, expertise, and
material essential to the development of
commercially competitive technologies.
These agreements will, according to the
Act, foster the technological and indus-
trial innovation that is "central to the
economic, environmental, and social
well-being of citizens of the United
States." On the same theme, President
Clinton, in his State of the Union address
on February 17,1993, advanced the
proposition that  economic development
and environmental protection go hand
in hand. In that address, the President
announced his Environmental Technol-
ogy Initiative, designed to promote the
development of innovative environmen-
tal technologies and to help the United
States compete in the global market
place. (See box on page 8.)
  Since 1989, EPA has entered into 59
CRADAs and has negotiated 13 patent
licensing agreements with the private
sector to work together to commercialize
environmental technologies.  Recent
CRADAs have harnessed the expertise
of industry and EPA to address several
leading environmental issues.

• "Lasagna" Anyone?

One of our most creative CRADAs helps
to illustrate how the Act can yield
important benefits to both industry and
the environment. Three leading U.S.
technology companies recently signed
the "Lasagna" CRADA which will
develop and field-test a new technology
to treat dense (clay-like) contaminated
soil. This will eliminate the need for the
slow, expensive "pump and treat"
method, in which contaminated liquids
in the soil are pumped out, treated, and
replaced. The CRADA uses the technical
expertise and environmental research
capabilities of EPA, Monsanto, DuPont,
and General  Electric.  (See box on
previous page.)

• Air Pollution Control:

EPA signed a CRADA with the U.S.
Coalition for Automotive Research
(Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors)
and the State of California to develop
and commercialize new technologies to
measure evaporative emissions and
hard-to-detect exhaust emissions from
cars and trucks.  The goal is to help
industry and government agencies
properly test vehicles in accordance with
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
and recent California standards.

• Pesticide Exposure:

EPA teamed up with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture and an industry
consortium of 32 agricultural pesticide
manufacturers called the "Spray Drift
Task Force" to develop a validated
model to evaluate the potential risk to
human health and the effects on crops,
livestock, and other agricultural re-
sources.  This CRADA was signed at the
1994 National Agriculture Day ceremo-

• Pollution Prevention:

Our CRADA with the optical industry
(the makers of eyeglasses) and the U.S.
Navy will help to eliminate lead and
other hazardous materials from the
optical manufacturing process. This
partnership provides an excellent
opportunity to help the industry develop
environmentally acceptable products.
  Many of EPA's CRADAs are with
small and mid-sized companies. Since
the time of Eli Whitney, small entrepre-
neurs have revolutionized U.S. business,
but it is increasingly costly for such
businesses to transfer their technologies
into the marketplace. For Southern Bio
Products, Inc., a relatively new company,
the CRADA provided a way to develop
a product quickly. Under the agreement,
the company and EPA investigated the
use of microorganisms to metabolize or
                                                          EPA JOURNAL

                                                                                  degrade polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
                                                                                  bons. Some of these hydrocarbons are
                                                                                  carcinogens and thus represent a risk to
                                                                                  human health and the environment.
                                                                                  Under this CRADA, EPA submitted
                                                                                  three patents for this new technology,
                                                                                  field-tested it, and granted a license to
                                                                                  Southern Bio to commercialix.e the
                                                                                  patented technology. The company is
                                                                                  currently marketing this technology in
                                                                                  the United States and Europe.
                                                                                    The Federal Technology and Transfer
                                                                                  Act program will continue to provide
                                                                                  EPA with an effective means to work in
                                                                                  partnership with industry and
                                                                                  academia.  We at EPA are eager to
                                                                                  discuss possibilities for collaboration
                                                                                  with any potential partner. Interested
                                                                                  parties may get more information by
                                                                                  calling the  program coordinator, Mr.
                                                                                  Larry Fradkin, at 513 569-7960. Q

                                                                                  (Dr. Preuss is Director of the Office of Science,
                                                                                  Planning, and Regulatory Evaluation at EPA.)
                                                                                  CRADAs enable
                                                                                  industry and
                                                                                  government to
                                                                                  work together.
                                                                                  The "Spray Drift
                                                                                  Task Force"
                                                                                  teamed EPA,
                                                                                  USDA, and
FALL 1994

 Colorado's  Pollution-Prevention  Partnership
 Public and private organizations work together to  cut use of toxic chemicals
 by Paul Ferraro
      he Colorado Pollution Prevention
      Partnership is a nonprofit,
      voluntary alliance of government,
 business, and public interest groups
 organized in 1990 to develop and
 promote pollution prevention and waste
 minimization in Colorado industries.
 The partnership started with discussions
 between two individuals concerning a
 difficulty in a public-private working
 relationship. The discussions soon
 expanded to several individuals meeting
 on a regular basis, then to informal
 breakfast meetings with representatives
 from industry, EPA, and the Colorado
 Department of Health (CDH).  Eventu-
 ally, organizations representing the
 public interest joined the discussions.
 The partnership now includes senior
 management representatives from EPA
 and CDH; industry representatives from
 Martin Marietta, Coors, Hewlett
 Packard, Public Service Company of
 Colorado (PSCO), AT&T, and Kodak;
 public interest representation from the
 Colorado League of Women Voters and
 Colorado Public Interest Research
 Group; and Geraghty & Miller, environ-
 mental consultants.
   The goals of the partnership are clear:

 • Strengthen the working relationship
 between the private and public  sectors.

 • Improve capabilities for anticipating
 and avoiding environmental problems.

 • Pool resources and focus attention on
 the mutual goal of pollution prevention.

 • Exchange information and expertise,
 and help transfer these to medium and
 small companies and the general public.
{Ferraro is Secretary of the Colorado
Pollution Prevention Partnership and Vice
President of Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,
Environmental Sennces in Denver,
  Partnership activities are funded
through corporate donations. Member
companies agree to commit to the goals
of the partnership, to maintain account-
ability in reaching those goals, and to
share expenses in an equitable manner.
Currently, the partnership has a budget
of approximately $65,000 of in-kind
donations from member companies and
approximately $30,000 in actual expendi-
tures. Companies typically donate
$3,000 to $5,000 annually to pay for
project costs.
  Under SolvNet I, the first major project
initiated by the partnership, member
companies committed to  significantly
reducing use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(TCA). TCA is widely used in industry
as a solvent to clean products and metal
surfaces before further processing. It is
also a major ozone-depleting chemical.
Companies in the SolvNet I group
wanted to cut their combined TCA use
70 percent by December 1991. They used
1988 as their base year. The pollution-
prevention measures used were: process
modification-eliminating the need for
TCA; chemical substitution-finding safe
alternatives; and revised operating
practices-reducing use at the source
through education and management
  Colorado Public Interest Research
Group (CoPIRG) analyzed TCA use and
emissions for the base year, 1988, and for
1991. The partnership companies
provided data from Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) reports. As part of their
responsibilities to the partnership,
CoPIRG provided SolvNet results during
the fall of 1992. The four companies
reduced annual use of TCA by a com-
bined total of 1,128,100 pounds, repre-
senting a 90-percent reduction from 1988.
  Building on the successes of SolvNet I,
the partnership planned additional
reductions of hazardous waste through
voluntary prevention in SolvNet II.
Since each member company uses
different hazardous materials, reduction
goals needed to be customized.  In
SolvNet n, each company made its own
choice as to the chemicals to be reduced
over the next three to five years. They
have submitted reduction plans to the
partnership advisory committee and
have begun implementing their plans.
They will reduce emissions or use by
one-quarter to two-thirds through
pollution-prevention measures.
  Business helping business is a very
effective way to facilitate technology
transfer of pollution prevention strate-
gies. SolvNet II companies would like to
"mentor" smaller companies with
processes similar to theirs through short,
process-specific discussion meetings.
The project included a study of smaller
companies to gather information con-
cerning their pollution-prevention needs
and resources.
  The study was conducted by the
Center for Research on Writing and
Communication Technology at Colorado
State University. It consisted of a
random phone survey of 300 small and
medium-sized businesses across Colo-
rado. Small and medium-sized busi-
nesses were defined as those having
fewer than 500 employees.
  The sample consisted of businesses
from 14 industries:

Furniture manufacturing
Printing and publishing
Rubber and plastic manufacturing
Fabricated metal manufacturing
Electrical machinery manufacturing
Instrument manufacturing
Dry cleaning
Pulp and paper manufacturing
Chemical manufacturing
Primary metal manufacturing
Machinery manufacturing
Transportation equipment manufacturing
Photo finishing
Auto maintenance and repair.
                                                                                                   EPA JOURNAL

                         Store Oelanef photo [PA
   The results of the study provided
 some interesting answers to the
 partnership's research questions.

 • How well do Colorado's small and
 medium-sized businesses understand
 pollution prevention?

 Businesses generally comprehend what
 pollution prevention means. Most of the
 respondents knew the term and could
 choose a definition that fit well with the
 EPA definition.  Further, many respon-
 dents provided  detailed and accurate
 definitions of pollution prevention.
 However, it should be noted that a
 substantial minority of businesses were
 confused about  pollution prevention.

 • What pollution-reducing behaviors are
 Colorado's businesses currently practicing?

 It is clear that the businesses surveyed
 have  actively implemented pollution-
 reducing practices in the past year. They
 have  engaged in a number of activities,
 ranging from chemical substitutions to
 construction of new production facilities.
 The most common action appears  to be
 the use of alternative solvents.
 • Where do Colorado's small and medium-
 sized businesses go for the information they

 Suppliers, other businesses, and printed
 materials are the most frequent sources
 of information. When respondents were
 asked to compare workshops, newslet-
 ters, magazines, and site visits, they
 rated them all as being equally useful.
 They did not like information clearing-

 • What barriers prevent smaller businesses
from engaging in pollution prevention?

 First was the perceived cost of pollution
 prevention. Although most of the
 businesses sampled felt that prevention
 was cheaper than waste storage or
 treatment, many noted that prevention
 would only save them in the long term.
 A second and more serious barrier was
 the antagonistic relationship that the
 companies perceived to exist  between
 small business and the government.
 Survey takers noted very strong, nega-
 tive attitudes toward the government in
 response to this survey question.

 • What incentives would motivate smaller
 businesses to increase their pollution-
prevention efforts?
                                         Industries made up of small to
                                         medium-sized businesses, like dry
                                         cleaners, were surveyed for their
                                         pollution-prevention needs.
The most frequently mentioned pollu-
tion-prevention incentives were "intrin-
sic motivations."  Essentially, these are
motivations that have nothing to do with
tangible rewards or outcomes. They are
largely moral or ethical motives. The
second most frequently mentioned
incentive was government support.
Respondents were very interested in
having the government subsidize their
prevention efforts. Business contacts
mentioned grants, loans, and tax credits
as ways the government could help
reduce the cost burden. The third most
frequently mentioned incentive was
maintaining profitability. The respond-
ing businesses indicated a desire for the
government to help them bear the costs
of initiating  prevention measures.
Surveyed businesses also wanted to be
sure that pollution prevention would pay
for itself, have a demonstrable effect on
the environment, or improve employee
health. _1
FALL 1994

Diffusing Technologies Abroad
EPA puts overseas problems together with U.S. vendors
by Jamison Koehler and Stephen Lingle
      echnology transfer programs in
      the United States have tradition-
      ally concentrated on the supply
 side of the market for environmental
 technologies.  Using a procedure often
 referred to as  "technology push," these
 programs first identify a promising
 technology, then attempt to place it with
 a user who needs it. Conversely, U.S.
 development  assistance programs
 abroad have tended to  focus on the
 user's environmental problems and the
 consequent demand for environmental
 technologies and expertise-in other
 words, "market pull."  They have not, as
 a matter of course, tried to match an
 identified environmental problem
 overseas with the vendor of a technology
 or service in the United States.
   Designed to enlist the private sector on
 behalf of the global environment, U.S.
 Technology for International Environ-
 mental Solutions (U.S. TIES) brings
 together the supply and demand sides of
 environmental technology in a way EPA
 has never done before.  Launched in
 1994, with funding  of more than $11
 million in its first year,  this EPA-led
 technology diffusion program serves as
 the primary international component of
 the President's Environmental Tech-
 nology Initiative.
   U.S. TIES projects help strengthen
 environmental legislation and institu-
 tions worldwide. By focusing on the
 development  of environmental assess-
 ment, monitoring, and  human-resource
 capabilities, the  programs help countries
(Koehler is Acting Director of the International
Issues Division of EPA's Office of International
Activities. Lingle is Deputy Director of the
Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology, which is part of the Agency's
Office of Research and Development.)
to deal with their environmental prob-
lems while creating the demand for U.S.
environmental technologies and expertise.
  U.S. TIES projects assist developing
countries in identifying and mitigating
specific environmental problems, with a
particular emphasis on the assessment of
various technology, supplier, and
financing options. Funding in 1994
includes a grant to the U.S. Environmen-
tal Training Institute (see box on page 12)
for training private and public sector
officials in developing countries concern-
ing U.S. environmental technologies and
management techniques. Another
project will develop environmental
reference materials for U.S. commercial
personnel in the field.
  U.S. suppliers need information on
international environmental markets,
regulations, and needs. Foreign officials
can benefit from credible information on
the performance and cost of U.S. tech-
nologies to meet these needs.  The 1994
program plan includes projects in both
areas.  One project, for example, will
combine international workshops with
the publication of technology mono-
graphs and handbooks to highlight U.S.
technologies and services worldwide.
  U.S. TIES demonstrates the specific
performance capabilities  of selected U.S.
technologies under real-time, country-
specific settings. Coupled with technical
assistance, training, and other U.S. TIES
programs, these demonstrations encour-
age the acceptance and use of U.S.
technologies on a broader basis. Fiscal
year 1994 projects include the demon-
stration of drinking water technologies
in Mexico (see box) and Nepal, wastewa-
ter collection and treatment systems in
the Middle East, and air-pollution
control technologies in Russia and the
Ukraine. EPA will work with other
countries and with nonprofit groups in
identifying opportunities for demonstra-
tion and with other agencies, such as the
Agency for International Development
and the U.S. Trade and Development
Agency, in conducting the demonstra-
  Consistent with the Administrator's
desire to redefine EPA's relationship with
the business community, U.S. TIES is
studying the feasibility of an environ-
mental technology cooperation center to
facilitate the interaction between govern-
ment and the private sector. EPA clearly
recognizes the important role the U.S.
private sector can play in solving
environmental problems overseas. U.S.
business and industry possess un-
equalled environmental resources and
expertise, and many of the technologies
most relevant to the needs of developing
countries can only be obtained through
commercial channels.  Environmental
protection can benefit from business-to-
business cooperation and the efficient
functioning of international markets for
environmental technologies and expertise.
  At the same time, EPA's ability to
fulfill its mission requires the Agency to
preserve its credibility and reputation for
objectivity. The  delegation of broad
powers to EPA is predicated on Congres-
sional and public trust in EPA's integrity
and its ability to make honest, credible,
and independent technical judgements.
This objectivity and independence of
judgement imply certain boundaries on
EPA's working relationships with the
private sector.
  A primary purpose of an  environmen-
tal technology cooperation center would
be to serve as an intermediary between
EPA and the  private sector in conducting
technical assistance, technology demon-
strations, and other U.S. TIES activities.
                                                                                                    EPA JOURNAL

                                                                                            International Boundary and Water Commission photo
 Mexico's Nuevo Laredo Wastervater
 Treatment Plant under construction.
 The plant is located across the Rio
 Grande Riverfront Laredo, Texas.
 Based in the United States and tying into
 the existing network of domestic and
 international programs, the center would
 act as EPA's partner in mobilizing private
 sector expertise and resources on behalf
 of the global environment in a manner
 consistent with EPA's environmental
   The center would, for example, serve
 as an impartial third party in selecting
 private-sector participants for a particu-
 lar project. Depending on the results of
 the feasibility study, the center could also
 serve as a resource for technology
 developers and entrepreneurs; as a point
 of contact for international users and
 businesses; as a financial broker or
 advisor; and as team-builder of private
 sector firms, trade associations, universi-
 ties, and other governmental and
 nongovernmental groups.
  Scheduled for completion in April
 1995, the feasibility study will include a
 comprehensive needs assessment, a set
 of strategic options, and, based on the
 option eventually chosen by EPA, an
 implementation plan for piloting the
center in 1995. Q
U.S. TIES in Action:

Solving Drinking Water
Problems in Mexico

The World Health Organization
estimates that more than 35 percent of
all deaths in developing countries are
directly related to contaminated
drinking water. The opportunities for
U.S. technology vendors in providing
solutions to drinking-water problems
are enormous.
  The passage of NAFTA has stimu-
lated interest in demonstrating
environmental technologies in Mexico.
Of special interest is the control of
diarrhea, cholera, typhoid, and other
microorganism-related diseases
caused by contaminated drinking
  U.S. vendors of package plants for
testing drinking water have records of
success with proven technologies that
can be applied in Mexico. With three
U.S. TIES demonstration sites pro-
posed, the intent is to use a mix of
proven and advanced treatment
technologies. The knowledge gained
from these demonstrations will
provide a competitive advantage for
the U.S. environmental industry.
  Emphasis will be on low-cost,
reliable, and low-maintenance pack-
age plants manufactured by U.S.
companies. The U.S. companies  will
team with host-country companies to
install, operate, and maintain the
treatment systems.
  Potential technologies to be evalu-
ated in Mexico include:

• A mixed oxidant for disinfection to
control microorganisms.

• Advanced oxidation process to
control organic contaminants such as
trichloroethylene and also to provide
some disinfection of microorganisms.
An example of an advanced oxidation
process is the use of ozone/ultraviolet
light whereby the ultraviolet light will
initiate ozone decomposition and
accelerate the oxidation of refractory

• Reverse osmosis to control inorganic
compounds, bacteria, viruses, and to
some degree organic compounds.
Contaminant removal in a reverse
osmosis process is obtained by passing
contaminated water through a semi-
permeable membrane; this membrane
allows the passage of water molecules
while blocking most dissolved and
suspended molecules.

• Conventional treatment for control
of turbidity and microorganisms. The
process begins with the addition of a
coagulant, and includes flocculation,
sedimentation, clarification, and
FALL 1994

The  International  Market lor
Environmental  Goods  and   Services
The United States, Germany, and Japan  export the most
 by Wendell Fletcher and Rodney Sobin
        ' arkets for environmental
        products and services are
        , growing in most regions of the
world.  Some believe this growth will
present major new opportunities for
exports and export-related job growth,
while also improving the environment.
Others fear that commercial objectives
will overshadow environmental goals;
the danger is that inappropriate tech-
nologies will be transferred, especially to
developing countries with limited
experience in environmental manage-
ment. These tensions are apparent as the
United States, Germany, Japan, and other
industrialized countries shape policies
for development assistance and export
promotion. The challenge will be to
assure that the commercial aspects of
these policies contribute to development
that is environmentally sound.

Market Characteristics

Dollar estimates vary concerning global
demand for pollution control, waste
disposal, and remedial clean-up goods
and services, ranging from $200 billion to
$300 billion; some projections indicate
the market may reach over $400 billion
by the year 2000. Market projections
would be much larger if production
technologies and green products that
prevent pollution and waste rather than
treat them after the fact were included;
however, there are no good estimates of
the size of this market.  (See  sidebar on
page 36.)
  Government regulations have been the
most important contributor to environ-
mental market growth.  However, other
factors should not be overlooked. A
healthy economy is needed.  Consumers
and investors, including public and
multilateral institutions, increasingly
consider environmental criteria in
making decisions; this can influence
producers even in countries  without
strong standards. Then, some multina-
tional companies require their facilities in
less developed countries to meet the
standards of their home country.
  The advanced industrial economies-
United States, Canada, Western Europe,
Japan, Australia, and New Zealand-
make up 80 percent or more of global
demand and will account for most of the
market for the next 10 to 15 years.  These
countries require technologies and
services ranging from basic trash
collection to state-of-the-art sensors and
  Several newly industrialized countries,
some developing countries, and parts of
the former Eastern Bloc, however, are
beginning to make substantial environ-
mental investments and may become the
fastest growing environmental markets,
albeit starting from a low base. Much of
the emphasis in these countries is on
basic environmental infrastructure-water
and sewer service, solid-waste  disposal,
and some air-pollution controls. The
demand is mostly for established
technologies, although there is room for
new technologies that offer cost advan-
tages. Stopping additional environmen-
tal damage tends to have priority over
cleaning up old contaminated sites.
  The East Asian area, already a signifi-
cant market for some environmental
technologies, could emerge as a major
new market for a full range of technolo-
gies. China, South Korea, Taiwan, and
Thailand are among the rapidly expand-
ing Asian economies that plan major
environmental investments. Singapore
already meets stringent standards and
seeks to be a regional environmental
technology center.
  Environmental spending is expanding
rapidly in Latin America. Mexico and
Brazil, the largest regional markets, plan
multibillion dollar water-quality projects
and hope to tackle other urban and
industrial environmental problems.
Argentina and  other countries also plan
major environmental investments.
  The nations of Central and Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union are
trying to repair severe environmental
damage while redeveloping their
economies. These huge potential
markets are likely to be constrained by
the rate at which they can successfully
move to a market basis.
  Bilateral and multilateral aid com-
prises a significant source of environ-
mental investment in some areas. The
poorest nations, many located in Africa,
have major environmental problems but
few resources with which to respond.
They compete for aid with the better-off

Trade and Competitiveness

The size of the world market should not
be confused with the potential for
international trade. Although many
environmental projects are managed by
international engineering and construc-
tion firms and involve some equipment
trade, most environmental spending is
for facilities construction and day-to-day
operations that use local labor. Lower-
value materials, like cement and sheet
metal, often are produced locally. Also,
environmental firms are springing up in
many developing countries to compete
for local and regional business (although
the emergence of local environmental
expertise may create demand for more
sophisticated imported technologies). In
some cases, local content regulations and
tariffs limit imports. While the data are
poor, it would be surprising if interna-
tional trade filled more than 15 percent
of global demand.
  Even so, sizeable environmental trade
does occur. Germany, the United States,
and Japan are the largest exporters of
environmental technologies and services
with, according to one estimate,  $11
billion, $7 billion, and $5 billion, respec-
                                                                                                EPA JOURNAL

tively, of environmental product exports
in 1992.  (The estimate did not encom-
pass imports or services.)  Britain,
France, the Netherlands, and Sweden
may also be net exporters. Firms from
other industrial and newly industrialized
countries have significant international
presence. International trade, technol-
ogy licensing, joint ventures, and
acquisitions are increasing, and competi-
tion is growing.
   Some U.S. environmental  firms are
established international players and
appear well-positioned  to profit from
growing international markets. Yet most
focus only on  the United States, which is,
by far, the world's largest market.
Indeed, the U.S. market is a  magnet for
foreign environmental exports and
investment. Licensing of foreign tech-
nologies-for example, air-quality and
incineration technologies-has increased
in recent years, as has foreign direct
investment, including acquisitions of
various water and air-pollution-control
companies.  Many American firms are
small or medium-sized, have modest
resources, and lack the wherewithal or
interest to explore export markets.
   Successful exporting  often requires
significant investment of time and
resources to cultivate contacts, under-
stand foreign markets and business
practices, and learn the  nuances of
international transactions. Furthermore,
a commitment to exporting  may require
adaptation of  technology to  local circum-
stances and attention to service, training,
and supply of spare parts-areas in which
some U.S. firms have fallen  short.
   There  are no reliable estimates of U.S.
jobs attributable to environmental
exports. An export-led jobs bonanza is
unlikely, however, because most environ-
mental spending is for locally provided
goods and services. Export-related jobs
that do come about are likely to be
professional engineering and manage-
ment positions in the service sector or
relatively high-paying manufacturing
  Beyond the market  for end-of-pipe
environmental controls and cleanup lies
an even greater export potential in the
fast-growing global demand for facilities
to produce electric power, fuels, chemi-
cals, foods, paper, vehicles, electronics,
and myriad  other goods. The increased
production has the potential to be
environmentally troublesome, but
recycling and cleaner production,
including improved energy efficiency,
offer hope of ameliorating conflicts
between environment and development.
They are often more efficient than older
production approaches and less costly
than conventional pollution control and
waste treatment.
  A gradual shift toward cleaner
production is likely as manufacturers
build new facilities and upgrade existing
plants over the next 25 or 30 years.
Countries with firms competitive in
supplying cleaner, more efficient equip-
ment and related engineering and
management services  will benefit from
jobs and export income. Moreover,
domestic industries that adopt cleaner
production may benefit from efficiency
gains and cost savings relative to
conventional approaches.
  A key question is the extent to which
cleaner technologies will play a role in
the economic strategies of developing
Industry encroaches on a residential Moscow neighborhood.
countries. Such technologies could be
important tools for promoting environ-
mentally sustainable development. Up-
front costs and insufficient technical
know-how may discourage their use,
although some pollution-prevention
options are relatively inexpensive and

Policy Issues
Developing and newly industrialized
countries, as well as the former centrally
planned economies, need to build their
indigenous environmental management
capacity if they are to progress toward
environmentally sound development.
These countries' ability to assess their
environmental conditions, to create
environmental policies and institutions,
and to enforce regulations is prerequisite
to growing environmental markets
which could lead to business for U.S. and
other environmental exporters.
  Bilateral and multilateral aid to help
these countries' capacity building could
be mutually beneficial. Expansion of the
capability of the United Nations Envi-
ronment Program or other international
agencies to provide objective information
and technical advice on cleaner produc-
tion and environmental technology is
one promising avenue.
  Some steps taken primarily for
domestic purposes might both enhance
U.S. exports and foster other countries'
environmental progress. For example, as
proposed in environmental technology
research and development legislation,
the U.S. government could support
independent evaluations and perfor-
mance verifications of U.S. environmen-
                                                        Cafolyn Nuniey photo  Inlotm Copyrighted
FALL 1994

tal technologies.  Information could be
made available globally to potential
customers. Current U.S.-supported
evaluations have focused on remediation
approaches, not the prevention, control,
and recycling technologies of greater
interest to most manufacturers, utilities,
and municipalities.
  Compared to Japan and several
European countries, the U.S. government
provides relatively little export support,
except for agricultural products. Recent
congressional actions authorize a
stronger federal role.  Both the Bush and
Clinton Administrations initiated
policies to promote exports with envi-
ronmental technologies as an area of
emphasis. Many policy options for
improving the American environment
industry's performance in the global
market are being considered and, in
some cases, implemented.
  Accessibility to the export bureaucracy
has been a problem. Establishment of
the Department of Commerce's Trade
Information Center and 1-800-USA-
TRADE telephone link during the last
administration was a step forward.  The
Clinton Administration is using environ-
mental exports as a case for  demonstrat-
ing "one-stop shopping" to make federal
programs more user friendly. Congress
is considering a more far-reaching
approach that would create a network of
environmental business centers in the
United States and abroad.
  An environmental export initiative for
Latin America is under consideration. A
precedent for a regional focus is the
public/private U.S.-Asia Environmental
Partnership created during the last
administration to give U.S. firms a more
visible role in the fast-growing Asia-
Pacific region, where Japanese commer-
cial presence is already strong. However,
resources are small.
  Expanding the U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service and recruiting more
industry experts would strengthen our
weakly staffed commercial posts abroad
to the benefit of American companies
seeking trade leads, contacts, and market
  Government funding for project-
feasibility studies in developing coun-
tries-many are for environmental
infrastructure or projects with environ-
mental components-can help U.S.
companies win contracts. The Trade and
Development Agency, which funds such
studies, estimates 25-to-l returns on
taxpayer expenditures.  U.S. funding for
such studies-about $40 million-is much
less than the $200 million by Japan.
  Lack of trained operators and mainte-
nance personnel in developing countries
sometimes wastes environmental
investments and can be an obstacle to
purchase of relatively sophisticated U.S.
technologies. Although training is
primarily an issue between vendor and
purchaser, government could help
identify training resources and, on
occasion, support training.
  Technologies can also be demonstrated
abroad for their suitability and adapted
to meet the financial and technical
limitations of developing countries.
Japan's adaptation of flue-gas desulfur-
ization for Chinese power plants is an
example of this approach.  There is an
especially critical need to expand
pollution-prevention and cleaner-
technology demonstrations-either
through bilateral or multilateral efforts.
  Favorable financing, rather than
technical specifications, often makes or
breaks deals. Small firms often are
unable to export without loans or other
temporary financing to cover expenses
during the sometimes protracted period
between shipment and payment.  Com-
pared to rivals in some other countries,
U.S. firms seem to have more difficulty
in obtaining export financing from
private or public sources. Also, some
U.S. firms contend that they are often at
a disadvantage in competing for large
development projects, many of which
have an environmental component,
because their rivals get more benefit
from subsidies offered by their govern-
  While more attention is now being
focused on these and other issues,
meshing export promotion and environ-
mental assistance into an effective
strategy that serves the aim of sustain-
able development will be a continuing
challenge in the coming years. Q
(Fletcher is a Senior Associate and Sobin is an
Analyst at the Congressional Office of Technol-
ogy Assessment. This paper is based largely on
the OTA report entitled Industry, Technology,
and the Environment:  Competitive
Challenges and Business Opportunities
(January 1994). The views expressed here are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of
Control and
Some Examples

• Sewage treatment
• Industrial wastewater treatment
• Refuse collection
• Incineration
• Off-site recovery and recycling of
• Landfilling
• Catalytic conversion and oxidation
• Particulate controls
• Flue-gas desulfurization
• Nitrogen oxides control technology
• Volatile organic compound control
and destruction
• Contaminated site remediation

• Improved process control to use
energy and materials more efficiently
• Improved catalysis or reactor design
to reduce byproducts, increase yield,
and save energy in chemical processes
• Alternative processes (e.g., low or
no chlorine pulping)
• In-process material recovery (e.g.,
vapor recovery, water reuse, and
heavy metals recovery)
• Alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons
and other organic solvents
• High-efficiency paint and coating
• Substitutes for heavy metals and
other toxic substances
• Cleaner or alternative fuels and
renewable energy
• Energy-efficient motors, lighting,
heat exchangers, etc.
• Water conservation
• Improved "housekeeping" and
maintenance in industry
                                                                  EPA JOURNAL

The  Case  for an
Technology  Act
We can't have
economic growth

by Senator Max Baucus
(Senator Baucus (D-Montana) is chairman
of the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.)
F~f[™1 he National Environmental
     Technology Act, which came close
     to enactment during the last
session of Congress, is designed to
protect the environment and create jobs.
It does not favor the environment at the
expense of the economy, or vice versa.
Instead, the bill embodies the concept
that environmental progress and eco-
nomic progress will be mutually rein-
forcing goals.
  We haven't always thought this way.
I've heard more than my share of
complaints that protecting the environ-
ment destroys jobs and inhibits economic
growth. This does not have to be the
case. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum
game. Economic progress and environ-
mental progress don't have to be at odds.
In fact, we can't have one without the
  The National Commission on the
Environment, chaired by Russell Train,
put it this way:
  Economic and environmental well-
  being are mutually reinforcing
  goals that must be pursued simul-
  taneously if either is to be
  achieved.  Economic growth cannot
  be sustained if it continues to un-
  dermine the healthy functioning of
  the Earth's natural systems or to ex-
  haust natural resources. By the
  same token, only healthy economies
  can generate the resources necess-
  ary for investments in environ-
  mental protection.
  A recent study examining states'
environmental and economic progress
found that "the states that do the most to
protect their natural resources also wind
up with the strongest economies and  best
jobs for their citizens," according to Bob
Hall of the nonprofit Institute for
Southern Studies, which made the study.
A long-term strategy of sustainable
development doesn't mean living in
tents in the forest. It means pursuing
economic progress in a way that protects
the environment. It means broadly
improving the overall prospects of future
  The linchpin is technology. By the
year 2050, both population and per-
capita output are expected to more than
double. As a result, the level of world-
wide economic activity will be five times
greater than it is today. That level is
sustainable only if we make major
improvements in the way that we
produce goods and services, however.
  In his book Preparing for the 21st
Century, Professor Paul Kennedy com-
pares our situation today to that of 18th
century Europe. Malthus had predicted
that escalating population growth would
lead to perpetual famine. The prediction
was wrong, Kennedy writes, because it
did not account for "humankind's
capacity to develop new resources
through technology." Similarly, our own
ability to avoid an environmental
catastrophe will be largely determined
by our ability to develop environmental
technology, according to Kennedy.
  Bruce Smart, a senior Commerce
Department official in the Reagan
Administration, takes this idea one step
further. He estimates that we eventually
must reduce the environmental impact of
each unit of industrial production by
more than 80 percent if we are to achieve
a sustainable level of development.
  This is where environmental techno-
logy comes in.  Environmental technol-
ogy doesn't just mean a new black box at
the end of a pipe. Environmental
technology means the broad application
of science to the entire production
process. It means new ways to make
products that waste less, new products
that run cleaner. It means pollution
prevention. It means life-cycle planning.
It means, in short, a new way of thinking
  Environmental technology makes
good economic sense. After all, pollution
is waste, and evidence is mounting  that
"thinking green" helps to keep a com-
pany in the black. There is another
dimension to it, an international dimen-
FALL 1994

TTje Thertnatrix system, which destroys hazardous air pollutants, was developed
by the Department of Energy and commercialized by a private U.S. firm.
sion. The global trend toward stricter
environmental protection promises that
companies that develop environmental
technologies will have an edge. A
market that already approximates $300
billion, and is growing by 10 percent a
year, is a strong incentive for companies
to get ahead of the curve.
  At the 1992 Earth Summit, alongside
the meetings of ministers and heads of
state, there was an environmental
technology exposition. It filled a huge
arena with displays of pollution-control
and monitoring equipment from around
the world. I looked for the American
companies and was disappointed to find
only about 20.  Japanese and German
companies were everywhere, but
Americans were almost invisible.
  This doesn't make any sense.
America's market is the world's largest.
We produce and use more environmental
technology than any other country. We
cannot afford to give away another
important manufacturing sector. We
must develop policies that help Ameri-
can companies become the unchallenged
leader^ m environmental technology.
  The National Environmental Techno-
logy Act is designed to take  a major step
in this direction  The bill, which I
introduced with Senators Lieberman,
Mikulski, and others, has five key

• First, the bill requires the federal
government  to get its own act together.
The federal government spends about $4
billion a year for research and develop-
ment on environmental technology, but
there is no coherent strategy for spend-
ing the money. Nobody looks at the big
picture. Nobody considers whether we
are investing the money wisely and in a
coordinated  way that will pay real
dividends to our environment and our
economy.  Before we consider spending
more on environmental technology, we
need to make sure that we are getting the
most for our money.
  The National Environmental Technol-
ogy Act requires the federal government
to do that-by developing a coordinated
strategy for environmental  technology
research and development, and by
reviewing agencies' budgets in light of
the strategy  to avoid unnecessary
duplication and to maximize our

• Second, the bill stimulates research
and development. Little of the billions
spent cleaning up contaminated federal
facilities is invested in developing new
clean-up technologies. The bill changes
that. A small portion of the money the
government now spends on Superfund
cleanups will be earmarked for innova-
tive new technologies that have the
potential to make clean-up efforts faster
and cheaper.
• Third, the bill establishes an office at
the EPA to help develop cutting-edge
technology that otherwise may not get
off the ground.  This office will work
with other technology programs in the
Defense, Energy, and Commerce Depart-
ments to form partnerships with private
companies developing the most promis-
ing innovations in environmental
• Fourth, the bill reduces market
barriers. As it now stands, small compa-
nies that develop innovative environ-
mental technologies may have a hard
time penetrating the market.  The
environmental managers of large
companies tend to be conservative. They
are often reluctant to try a new techno-
logy that may not meet the applicable
environmental standards.  So they stick
with the same old black box.
  To address this problem, the bill sets
up a voluntary verification program. A
company that develops an innovative
new technology can ask EPA to verify its
cost and performance characteristics.
This will give environmental managers
more confidence in innovative technolo-
gies and help small companies break into
new markets.
• Fifth, the bill establishes a new
outreach program to help small busi-
nesses find environmental technology
that suits their needs.
  Although similar bills passed in both
houses of Congress, no environmental
technology bill was enacted into law this
year.  However, a strong majority
supports the goals of the National
Environmental Technology Act, and EPA
is developing a similar program.
  Our environment and our economy
are inseparable, and this will increas-
ingly guide EPA's work as it begins its
third decade of environmental protec-
tion. A push by EPA to bring  the
environmental technology initiative on-
line quickly, and prompt action by
Congress to endorse this effort, will
improve our environment, help make
our businesses more competitive, and
brighten our future. Q
                                                                                                         EPA JOURNAL

The  Economy,  the  Environment,
and  Public  Opinion
Most Americans feel we can have both jobs and the environment
by David B. Rockland and Gwyn L. Fletcher
      You don't have to sacrifice environ
      mental protection to get economic
      growth. The choice between jobs
and environment is a false one: We can
have both." So wrote President Clinton
in an environmental voters' guide to the
1992 elections carried in all the Times
Mirror magazines and newspapers. It
turns out that his words were right in
keeping with how most Americans view
the environment/economy relationship.
  For the past three years, Times Mirror
Magazines, Inc., America's leading
publisher of outdoor, leisure-oriented
magazines, has conducted its National
                                    Environmental Forum Survey with
                                    Roper Starch Worldwide. The survey
                                    gauges America's opinions on natural
                                    resource issues and on those solutions to
                                    environmental problems that have the
                                    greatest public support.
                                      For three years running, the survey
                                    has found that most Americans (66
                                    percent in 1994) believe that environmen-
                                    tal protection and economic develop-
                                    ment go hand in hand.  Almost every
                                    American (89 percent in 1994) feels that
                                    we can find a balance that allows us to
                                    enjoy economic progress while making
                                    sure our rivers, lakes, mountains, and
                                               wildlife are protected.
                                                  One reason for the
                                               public's positive outlook on
                                               the environment/economy
                                               interplay is a growing
                                               environmental industry.
                                               The worldwide market for
                                               environmental goods and
                                               services is currently
                                               estimated at about $300
                                               billion. This market is
                                               expected to reach $400
                                               billion or more by the year
                                               2000, making it one of the
                                               world's fastest growing
                                                  Also, outdoor recre-
                                               ation, in which most
                                               Americans participate, is
                                               a good example of the
                                               healthy environment/
                                               healthy economy rela-
                                               tionship. Each year more
                                               than 100 million Ameri-
                                               cans enjoy pastimes like
                                               hunting, fishing, skiing,
                                               golfing, and boating.
                                               These recreationists
                                               spend more than $300
                                               billion annually on their
                                               outdoor diversions. For
                                               those who enjoy the
                                               outdoors as well as those
Three out of four Americans say water pollution is
the greatest problem facing the environment.
FALL 1994
who profit from it, the link between a
healthy environment and economic
growth is undisputable.
  Americans believe that the environ-
ment and the economy go hand in hand,
but what happens when they're faced
with a choice between these two goals?
The environment wins, hands down:  Six
out of 10 Americans say that environ-
mental protection is more important than
economic development. Only 22 percent
feel the economy is more important.
This preference for environmental
protection has been a consistent finding
in each of the past three years.
  However, just because environmental
protection is viewed as a preferential
societal goal does not mean that Ameri-
cans are not sensitive to the costs of
protection.  In fact, the American people
are not idealogues, but instead seek
pragmatic solutions to vexing environ-
mental problems. For example, when
asked whether the cost of protection
should be considered when deciding
whether to save an endangered species,
63 percent of the Americans surveyed
said yes. This is an eight-point increase
over 1993 and a 13-percent change over

Lock it Up? No Way

Stereotypical thinking says if you're an
environmentalist, you favor putting
natural resources off limits. This is
usually not true. While the 1994 survey
finds 79 percent of Americans care about
protecting the environment, the poll also
reveals that Americans are interested  in
enjoying their environment. American
attitudes about how the environment
should be used fall mainly in two
categories: Conservationists believe that
through sound management, we can
both protect and enjoy the use of natural
resources; presenwtionists believe that the
only way to protect the environment is to
put it off limits to the public Our poll

results show 72 percent of respondents
taking a conservationist stance; only
about one in five Americans (20 percent)
agrees with the preservationist position.
  The conservationist approach is
evident in the way Americans view
ou'.door recreation and its effects on the
environment. More than eight in 10 feel
that the use of land and water for hiking
(88 percent), downhill skiing (81 per-
cent), and fishing (80 percent) poses no
harm to the environment. Slightly fewer
(75 percent) feel this way about camping
and golf; 68 percent believe hunting
poses no harm to the environment.

Water is the Top Concern

There is a single aspect of the environ-
ment upon which our entire economic
system and life as we know it is based-
water. Everything and everyone is
dependent upon clean, ample water.
When asked what the greatest problem
facing the environment is, three out of
four Americans say, "water pollution."
Water pollution and water conservation
are by far the most important issues to
the American public.  Of those surveyed,
almost nine in 10 people who said they
would be likely to contribute to environ-
mental groups pick pollution of lakes,
rivers, streams, and coastal waters as
well as shortages of safe drinking water
(both 88 percent) as top priorities.

Opening Up the Wallet

Americans are ready to open up their
wallets for the environment. More than
100 million individuals (42 percent) say
they have contributed to environmental
organizations, and 54 percent say they
are likely to do so. A plurality (48
percent) say they are willing to pay an
extra 25 cents a gallon for gasoline if the
money is used to help the environment.
  According to the survey, Americans
believe that the federal government
should be putting more money toward
environmental programs. Despite the
economic uncertainty of recent years,
Americans support stricter environmen-
tal regulations and an increase in federal
funding of environmental efforts. They
do not believe that environmental
protection is an optional indulgence that
can be cut back with the rise and fall of
economic cycles.
  Americans also want to see more
money spent on maintaining this
country's public lands. Each and every
American is part owner of more than 700
million acres in national parks, forests,
and wildlife refuges, as well as Bureau of
Land Management holdings. Congress
has shown a propensity for buying new
properties rather than spending money
to care for existing public lands. The
public says it would like to see $3.00
spent on maintaining public lands for
every $2.00 spent on buying new lands.
In addition, 86 percent say money
generated from entrance fees on public
lands facilities should remain with local
parks and public lands rather than being
turned over to the general coffers of the
government, as is currently the case.

Satisfaction with Clinton

One in five Americans vote the environ-
ment when they go to the polls-enough
to carry most elections. Hence, an
administration's  environmental record
can be key to its re-election. Satisfaction
with the Clinton administration's
"positions and policies with respect to
the environment" is up seven points
from 1993 to 55 percent in 1994. Those
dissatisfied constitute 32 percent of the
public. Of the majority who view the
administration favorably, 7 percent are
very satisfied and 48 percent are some-
what satisfied.
  This satisfaction may explain a
decreasing public anxiety about the
environment. At the end of the 1980s,
about one-quarter of Americans identi-
fied the environment as one of their top
two or three personal concerns. Concern
today has settled to about one-sixth of
the public.  This change reflects a shift in
focus to other issues-crime, health care,
etc.-but it also suggests that this previ-
ous anxiety has been reduced somewhat
by actions the public perceives to be
currently underway.


Statistics  can be mind-numbing. What
the National Environmental Forum
Survey has found each year is that
Americans are seeking sound, pragmatic
solutions to environmental problems that
balance environmental and economic
concerns. In this new, positive way of
living, environmental protection is no
longer seen as a hindrance to economic
development but rather as a forerunner
of the next industrial revolution. Q
     The Environment and the Economy, Hand in Hand
We can find a
balance that will
allow economic
progress and
protection of the

      A Sense of Optimism
will find a way
of solving

by Joh
  which i
  the em
  stages i
(David Rockland and Gwyn Fletcher are the Executive Director and Government Relations Specialist of the Times
Mirror Magazines Conservation Council. The Council is part of Times Mirror Magazines, publishers of Field &
Stream, Golf Magazine, Home Mechanix, Ski Magazine, Popular Science, The Sporting News, Outdoor
Life, Salt Water Sportsman, Skiing Magazine, Skiing Trade News, Yachting, and Sporting Goods Dealer.)
                                                                                                         EPA JOURNAL
                                                                                           As our tt

                                                                                           FALL 1994

The  "Living  Industry"
and the  Environment
There is an extraordinary capacity for self destruction
by John Kenneth Galbraith
 In November 1987, John
 Kenneth Galbraith gave a
 lecture at EPA headquarters in
 which he discussed the increas-
 ingly functional importance of
 the environment to the later
 stages of economic develop-
 ment.  EPA]oumalfindshis
 observations continue to be
 relevant and has excerpted the
 following remarks from a
 recorded transcript of Profes-
 sor Galbraith's lecture.
     The benefits of a well-protected
     environment are worthy in
     themselves, something worth
having quite apart from any functional
justification. They have their own
enjoyments, including that of good
health. But I'm also going to argue that
there are concerns having to do with
countryside and urban life that are also
increasingly functional. We inevitably
find ourselves defending environmental
concerns more and more for their
positive, affirmative support to economic
life in the later stages of economic
As our tangible needs are met, we move to enjoyments
associated with our surroundings.

FALL 1994
  Let me say a word first about what I
mean by economic development. This is
of the utmost importance. We must
always think of economic life as a
process-a continuing, ongoing process of
change. There has always been, and is
now, a view of economics that seeks to
find its ultimate, enduring, stable,
unchanging truths. This search for
enduring principles is an empty, invalid
effort, one to which I take stringent
  There is no great mystery to the central
feature of economic development. It is a
process that moves economic life from
producing things that are concrete to
producing the less tangible objects of
public consumption. In the elementary
society (such as that in the United States
until relatively recent times), the eco-
nomic requirements of the standard of
living were hard artifacts of one sort or
another. These artifacts, these objects,
were food, clothing, shelter, furniture,
accoutrements, the components of the
household establishment, and the means
for travel and transportation.
  Overwhelmingly, these constituted
what we call the standard of living. And,
indeed, they are central to the standard
of living in poorer countries to this day.
But with economic change, with the
movement that is intrinsic in economic
life, the importance of artifacts-the hard
objects of production-gives way increas-
ingly to the importance of less tangible
things. In the simplest terms, we move
to intangible enjoyments-from food,
clothing, shelter, and travel equipment to
education, television programs, the arts,
music, libraries, and other public
services. We also move to the enjoy-
ments associated with the surroundings
in which we live.
  This is the process, and I emphasize it
because it runs counter to the very deep
commitment we all have to hard con-
sumer goods. It perhaps seems unnatu-
ral that we move to the less tangible

                                      In this stage of development we also see the rise of
                                         an industry devoted to the needs of living ....
forms of production and away from
what have been regarded since ancient
times as the very substance of economic
  But this change is related to another
one-one that is extraordinarily important
today. That is the differential capacity in
the provision of these two broad catego-
ries of economic products between the
older countries and the newer. With
economic development there is a ten-
dency for the production of hard goods
to move to the newer countries-not
everything, but a great range of things
such as textiles, clothing, chemicals, steel,
machinery, and the like. Production of
all these moves away from the advanced,
developed countries to countries newer
on the economic scene.
  This comes about partly because of
lower wage costs-wage costs that cover a
lower standard of living-but also partly
because of the particular qualities
possessed by people who are new to
industrial life, new to a life away from
the more strenuous toil on the farm.
They are, on the whole, more effective
producers.  Industrial life, we must
always remind ourselves, is a wonderful
thing for people who are just escaping
the self-exploitation of peasant agricul-
  And there is another change of which
we should be aware, a tendency in the
older industries to become sclerotic.
There is a certain hardening of the
arteries among them that further accen-
tuates the movement of the production
of the goods they produce to their newer
  The movement of the modern
economy to the less tangible production
that now characterizes the older coun-
tries strongly invites, in turn, a general
invasion of the countryside because the
latter offers particular advantages to the
next stage of development. There is need
for recreation-for skiing, hunting, biking,
hiking-all activities for which the
countryside is important and necessary.
In this stage of development, there is also
the obvious rise of travel, of the tourist
industry-people who simply go to enjoy
rural surroundings, to see the mountains,
to rejoice in scenery that is not available
in Manhattan.
   And in this stage of development we
also see the rise of an industry devoted
to the needs of living, what we may
perhaps call the "living" industry. It is
one that is very important for all modern
environmental concerns. Given this
stage of development and the associated
changes in consumption, a very large
part of the population can now live away
from a  fixed place of work: people who
live on social security or other pension
entitlements, people who have accumu-
lated savings or enough wealth to
exempt them from a daily job. And there
are also an incredibly large number of
modern occupations, especially in the
arts, where one can live and work with
no fixed identification with a workplace.
The living industry is now particularly
important in some parts of the United
States: in New  England, New York, and
on the Eastern  Shore of Maryland. It is
not uniformly distributed over the
country, but it has become significant in
large parts of it.
   This living industry is associated also
with other things, such as a second
residence and the desire of people at a
certain level of affluence to have a
seasonal escape from neighbors or the
tedium of local obligations, from all the
things that encourage one to say, "Well,
I'm off to Maine for the weekend."
  However, this new industry also
creates problems that we must address in
the days to come; that we must, indeed,
begin addressing now.  These are the
problems that come from tourism and
recreation, from part-time residence,
from the activities that are not a fixed
part of work.
  What encourages and supports the
industries arising from the intangibles of
life? What makes the living industries-
the recreation industry, the tourist
industry, and the like-important? And
what do these portend for the country-
side? What do they involve for its
environmental protection?
  There are many things that are
important for the living industries. One
is good government services. Many of
the amenities of life in the countryside
are associated with the services of
government; accordingly, the latter must
be easily and amply available.
  It is important also that full attention
be paid to the range of cultural amenities
that support and give depth to the
interest of life.  I have in mind schools,
colleges, libraries, museums, and other
sources of educational and cultural
  The next thing that is important in this
stage of development, and to which I
come at last, is the assurance of environ-
mental protection or, more precisely, of
environmental wisdom.
  We are dealing here with industries
and with a style of life that have, among
                                                                EPA JOURNAL

 other things, a self-destructive capacity.
 One obvious example of this is tourism.
 The tourist industry, as it reaches out for
 customers, as it advertises, as it litters the
 roadsides, has an extraordinary capacity
 for destroying the very attractions that
 created the industry in the first place.
 What is advantageous for the individual
 enterprise in seeking a share of the
 business culminates in disaster for all
   Here, and in the companion problem
 area of designing and controlling the real
 estate development that serves the living
 industry, there is an extraordinary
 tension. The unspoiled landscape, the
 unspoiled environment, initially sustains
 and encourages the development. But
 that development, particularly if it is
 unwise, then repels the people who were
 initially attracted.
   One of our greatest problems lies in
 this field of economic  design. We want
 the living industry, and we want it to
 satisfy and serve us. But we need to
 realize that this industry, by its very
 development, must have a design and be
 controlled to avoid its own self-destruc-
 tive character.
   In consequence, we must accept that
 there will be tension, and  that the tension
 will be between what is good, appealing,
 and profitable in the present and what is
 functionally necessary in the future.  We
 must not have opposing groups, one side
 against the other. We must be wise
 enough to see that there is a common,
 long-run advantage in good develop-
 mental design: in zoning, building
 restrictions, architectural control, and
 other key matters. Q
Land development in Florida. The "living" industry must
be controlled to avoid its self-destructive character.
(Galbraith is Paul M. Warburg Professor
Emeritus at Harvard University ami the author
of numerous books, including The Affluent
Society, The New Industrial State, Econom-
ics in Perspective, arid A Journey through
Economic Time.)
FALL 1994

 by Catharina  Japikse
         ore than a million Irish people-
         about one of every nine-died
         in the Great Potato Famine of
the 1840s. To the Irish, famine of this
magnitude was unprecedented and
unimaginable.  Today, it may seem less
surprising, though no less tragic, as
television delivers up images of starva-
tion more vivid and more frequent than
ever before.
  Besides the horror, what unites the
famines today with one over a century
ago are the reasons behind them.
Ireland's famine and those of the 20th
century have similar, complex causes:
economic and political factors, environ-
mental conditions, and questionable
agricultural practices.
  When the famine hit in 1845, the Irish
had grown potatoes for over 200 years-
since the South American plant had first
arrived  in Ireland.  During this time, the
lower classes had become increasingly
dependent on them. Potatoes provided
good nutrition, so diseases like scurvy
and pellagra were uncommon. They
were easy to grow, requiring a minimum
of labor, training, and technology-a
spade was the only tool needed. Storage
was simple; the tubers were kept in pits
in the ground and dug up as needed.
Also, potatoes produce more calories per
acre than any other crop that would
grow in northern Europe.  This was
important to the Irish poor, who owned
little, if any, of their own land. Often, a
whole family could live for a year on just
one acre's worth.
   To increase their harvest, farmers came
to rely heavily on one variety, the
lumper. While the lumper was among
the worst-tasting types, it was remark-
ably fertile, with a higher per-acre yield
than other varieties. Economist Cormac

 Iv^e i.- Assistant Editor of EPA Journal)
6 Grada estimates that on the eve of the
famine, the lumper and one other
variety, the cup, accounted for most of
the potato crop. For about 3 million
people, potatoes were the only signifi-
cant source of food, rarely supplemented
by anything else.
  It was this reliance on one crop-and
especially one variety of one crop-that
made the Irish vulnerable to famine. As
we now know, genetic variation helps
protect against the  decimation of an
entire crop by pests, disease, or climate
conditions. Nothing shows this more
poignantly than Ireland's agricultural
  At the beginning of the 19th century, a
Dublin Society survey recorded at least a
dozen varieties of potato cultivated in
the county of Kilkenny alone. Then,
adults could still remember when most
of the poor raised oats, barley, or rye,
along with beans and other green
vegetables. But according to 6 Grada,
this diversity had largely disappeared by
the 1840s.  He notes that while  some
people warned that Ireland's reliance on
potatoes might prove disastrous, no one
likely conceived of a famine as complete
as what occurred.  The poor certainly
could  not; it is doubtful they could have
avoided it anyway, given
the social and political
conditions of their lives.
   In 1845, the fungus              - --
Phytophthora infestans
arrived accidentally from
North America. A slight
climate variation brought
the warm, wet weather in
which the blight thrived.
Much of the potato crop
rotted in the fields.
 Because potatoes could
 not be stored longer than
 12 months, there was no
 surplus to fall back on.
 All those who relied on
 potatoes had to find
 something else to  eat.
   The blight did not
 destroy all of the crop;
 one way or another, most
 people made it through
 winter. The next spring,
 farmers planted those
 tubers that remained.  The
 potatoes seemed sound,
 but some harbored
 dormant strains of the
 fungus. When it rained,
the blight began again.  Within weeks the
entire crop failed.
  Although the potatoes were ruined
completely, plenty of food grew in
Ireland that year.  Most of it, however,
was intended for export to England.
There, it would be sold-at a price higher
than most impoverished Irish could pay.
  In fact, the Irish starved not for lack of
food, but for lack of food  they could
afford. To buy food, many sold or
pawned everything they owned.  Often,
this included the tools by which they
made their living. Other  people ate the
food intended for rent, and the landlords
quickly evicted them. By the next
planting season, many farmers had no
land to plant on, nor tools to plant with.
Those who did often had nothing to
plant. There were few potatoes, and no
money with which to buy seed.
  The Irish planted over two million
acres of potatoes in 1845, according to 6
Grada, but by 1847 potatoes accounted
for only 300,000 acres.  Many farmers
who could turned to other crops. The
potato slowly recovered, but the Irish,
wary of dependence on one plant, never
again planted it as heavily.  The Irish had
learned a hard lesson-one worth
remembering.  Q
Famine victims, an 1847 engraving.
 i \
                                                                                                           EPA JOURNAL

                                                      I  I
by Wolfgang Luckmann

The cries from the farm workers
scatter from point to point
and break                                      ,
against the inhuman choir of wings           *
that strums the blackening blue                 ^
that breaks the white light                      *
that beats in creeping flight
across an open landscape

they have started their fires
while others wait with skin bags and cooking pots
to wade into the struggling crawling mass
of bloated insects
whose skeletal song
lifts every face towards
a darkening sun

apart and yet together
the locusts disperse
as boundaries merge
in the wake of leafless, lifeless space

The sun no longer shines
on a hemmed-in line of humanity
clinging to a wall of fire
a body
strung in a crescent
despairing of rest and respite
heavy arms tending the fire
and scooping the creatures from the sky
to replace the corn lost
to survive the coming winter
if they live that long
       And still the locusts come
       an intelligent malignity
       scurrying and leaping
       like clouds of sparks
       A constant crackle
       of mandibles and wings
       eroding the land into obscurity
                            Copyright W Luckmann 1994
JY. Luckmann, a Namibian poet and teacher, is an occasional contributor to EPA Journal.
His poem "Children yearn for rain " appeared in the April-June 1993 issue. Of "The
Plague" he writes, "recently tliere has been an outbreak of locust plagues in the north of my
country which lias caused concern in the capital. As such plagues are only too familiar in
the rest of Africa, I thought it might be a topic that would interest readers."
                                                                          * .
                                                                                                     ^ -"»
                                                                                                     ».»  -  •
                                                                                             iX- '.  r,
                                                                                            ;c. ;;•<:•>•;-•.
FALL 1994

 Fred Hansen has been con-
 firmed as EPA's new Deputy
   Mr. Hansen comes to the
 Agency after serving 10 years
 as director of Oregon's Depart-
 ment of Environmental Quality,
 where he was an influential
 leader. As noted in a White
 House press release, during his
 tenure Oregon was continu-
 ously ranked in the top five
 most environmentally progres-
 sive states.
   From 1970 to 1978, Hansen
 worked in Washington, DC, on
 Capitol Hill and in the Execu-
 tive Branch. His positions
 included Executive Assistant to
 the Director in the Peace Corps
 and Deputy Director for
 President Carter's special
 project on federal cash manage-
   While directing Oregon's
 Department of Environmental
 Quality, he administered the
 state's environmental protec-
 tion laws and  filled many
 special assignments, serving on
 the EPA Science  Advisory
 Board's Relative Risk Reduc-
 tion Committee and Futures
 Committee, the Keystone
 National Superfund Commis-
 sion, the Urban Institutes'
 Ground-Water Advisory
 Committee, the EPA/National
 Governors' Association Air
 Implementation Task Force,
 and many others.
   He graduated Phi Beta
 Kappa from the University of
 Oregon in 1968 and received his
 master's degree  in 1969 from
 McMaster University in
 Ontario. He completed a year
 of doctoral work at The Johns
 Hopkins University.
   Hansen replaces Robert
 Sussman, who will pursue
 other opportunities in the
Robert J. Huggett is the new
Assistant Administrator of the
Office of Research and Devel-
  An authority on environ-
mental chemistry and marine
science, he comes to EPA from
the College of William and
Mary. There, as a professor of
marine science, he chaired the
college's Department of
Environmental Sciences of the
Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, School of Marine
Science. Other positions he
held at William and Mary
include Director of the Division
of Chemistry and Toxicology
(1986-1991), Chairman of the
Department of Chemical
Oceanography (1982-1986), and
Chairman of the Department of
Ecology and Pollution (1972-1982).
  His research interests have
centered on the fates and effects
of toxic chemicals in aqueous
systems.  He has published
extensively in his field since
1968 and lectured to, and been
consulted by, numerous
organizations, including the
U.S. Congress. He received the
Izaak Walton League and
DuPont Company's Chesapeake
Bay Conservation Award for
Fisheries and Wildlife in 1989
and the Shelton G. Horsley
Award for Meritorious Fundamen-
tal Research from the Virginia
Academy of Sciences in 1980.
  He followed his undergradu-
ate work at William and Mary
with a master's degree in marine
chemistry from the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in
1968 and a doctorate degree in
marine science from William
and Mary in 1977.
  Before assuming this position,
Huggett was a member of
EPA's Science Advisory Board's
Environmental Processes and
Effects Committee and Execu-
tive Committee.  He was also a
member of the National
Research Council's Water
Science and Technology Board.
William Albert Nitze, an
internationally renowned
expert on environmental issues,
is EPA's Assistant Administra-
tor for International Activities.
He has held key positions in
government, nongovernmental
organizations, and the private
sector in the United States and
  From September 1990 until
his appointment at EPA, Nitze
was President of the Alliance to
Save Energy in Washington,
DC, a nonprofit coalition of
environmental, government,
industry, and  consumer leaders
dedicated to promoting
investment in energy efficiency.
Prior to joining the alliance, he
spent seven months as Visiting
Scholar at the Environmental
Law Institute, also in Washing-
ton, where he was at the
forefront in developing
international policy on climate
change and other environmen-
tal issues.
  As Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Environ-
ment, Health, and Natural
Resources from 1987 to 1990,
Nitze played a lead role in
international negotiations on
global issues such as climate
change, ozone layer protection,
transboundary shipments of
hazardous substances, biotech-
nology, and conservation of
tropical forests.  Nitze received
the Superior Honor Award of
the Department of State in 1988.
  He is an alumnus of Harvard
College (1964), Wadham
College, Oxford (1966), and
Harvard Law School (1969). He
is a member of the State of New
York and U.S. Supreme Court
Susan H. Wayland brings over
20 years' experience in environ-
mental regulation to her new
post as Deputy Assistant
Administrator for EPA's Office
of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances (OPPTS). The
office is responsible for
regulating pesticides and other
chemicals used in U.S. com-
merce; it also establishes
pollution-prevention strategies
as a forefront defense against
environmental problems.
   From 1985 to 1994, Wayland
served as Deputy Director of
the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) within OPPTS. There
she advised on amendments to
the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act. She
was also a principal architect in
designing implementation
plans to reregister all pesticides
used in the United States and to
dispose of millions of pounds
of banned pesticides. She
guided development and
implemention of national
strategies to protect ground
water and endangered species
from pesticides.
   Wayland became Acting
Deputy Assistant Administra-
tor of OPPTS in 1993 and was
Chief of Policy in OPP for four
years. Before joining EPA, she
served in the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food and
Nutrition Service (1968-1971).
   Wayland holds a bachelor's
degree in liberal arts from the
College of William and Mary
(1968). She was awarded  EPA's
Gold Medal for Exceptional
Service in 1978 and a Presiden-
tial Rank Award as a Meritori-
ous Executive in 1989.
                                                                               EPA JOURNAL


 Gary S. Guzy is EPA's new
 Deputy General Counsel. Since
 January, he has supervised
 EPA's litigation and legal policy
 issues in legislative reauthori-
 zations, and served as the
 Office of General Counsel's
 Liaison to the Department of
 Justice (DOJ).
   Guzy came to EPA from DOJ,
 where he served as Senior
 Attorney in the Environment
 and Natural Resources Division
 since 1987. There he repre-
 sented the federal government
 in environmental litigation in
 federal district and appellate
 courts.  On behalf of DOJ, he
 handled a number of significant
 environmental and natural
 resource cases, including the
 Arkansas v. Oklahoma water-
 quality standards dispute and
 defense of EPA's veto of the
 Two Forks Dam.  He also
 served on the Everglades
 litigation team.
   As an associate at the law
 firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman,
 Hayes and Handler (1983 to
 1987), he represented clients in
 civil litigation over major
 environmental issues, Congres-
 sional policy, and constitutional
 and libel law.  As a judicial
 clerk (1982 to 1983) to the
 honorable Elbert  P.  Tuttle of the
 U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh
 Circuit, he worked on a variety
 of civil and criminal matters.
 He also has provided pro bono
 representation to death row
   Guzy received  his bachelor's
 degree'(197Q) and law degree
 (1982) from Cornell University.

Peter D. Robertson has been
named Deputy Assistant
Administrator of the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency
  Before coming to EPA, he
specialized in environmental
and legislative law for seven
years as an associate attorney at
the law firm of Patton,  Boggs,
and Blow.  His responsibilities
in the environmental area
included litigation, administra-
tive law, and  client counseling.
Previously he served a year as
a law clerk at the firm of Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and
Garrison, where he performed
legal  research.  He also moni-
tored major trade legislation in
Congress. As a staff member
for the Committee on the
Budget at the U.S. House of
Representatives (1981 to 1986),
Robertson reviewed and
analyzed the  President's
budget, bnefed committee
members and others on budget
matters, and  developed
supporting documentation for
the committee's recommended
budget to the House of Repre-
sentatives.  He covered national
security matters as well as
transportation, administration
of justice, and general govern-
ment issues for the committee.
  Robertson  received a
bachelor's degree in English
from University of Oklahoma
(1978) and a law degree from
Georgetown University Law
Center (1987).

The White House has named
Fran McPoland as the Federal
Environmental Executive, a
newly created position at EPA.
She will oversee implementa-
tion of President Clinton's
October 1993 executive order,
requiring the purchase and use
of recycled and environmen-
tally preferable products in all
federal procurements.
  In this post, she will coordi-
nate federal agencies' waste-
reduction and internal recycling
programs, generate an annual
report to the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, and consult
with the director of the White
House Office on Environmental
Policy. Environmental execu-
tives appointed from each of
the 22 federal agencies will
assist her.
  Since 1988, McPoland was
Senior Legislative Assistant to
Rep. Esteban E. Torres (D-
Califomia).  Her responsibilities
included policy development
and drafting legislation for the
House Appropriations Com-
mittee for the Environment,
Energy, and  Natural Resources.
She also developed four
comprehensive market-
incentive recycling bills for
inclusion in the reauthorization
of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act and a major
Superfund policy  initiative for
local ground-water pollution.
In addition, she organized
subcommittee hearings on
ground-water problems in
California, pollution prevention
and waste minimization, and
scrap-tire utilization.
  McPoland holds an
associate's degree in horticul-
ture from Diablo Valley College
(1977), a bachelor's degree in
conservation of natural
resources from the University
of California (1979), and a
master's degree in public policy
from George Washington
FALL 1994

Terry Williams, a member of
EPA's Tribal Operations
Committee, has been named
director of the Agency's new
American Indian Environmen-
tal Office, which was estab-
lished in October. He is at EPA
on an Intergovernmental
Personnel Act assignment from
the Tulalip Tribes Fisheries and
Natural Resources Department
near Marysville, Washington.
The new office is located within
EPA's Office of Water, which
has worked on American
Indian affairs in the past.
  In the new post, Williams
will work closely with the
Administrator and the heads of
all EPA program and regional
offices. He will evaluate
program activities in all media
to assure strong EPA tribal
operations and progress across
the board.
  From 1985 to 1994, Williams
served on the Northwest  Indian
Fisheries Commission; since
1990, he also chaired  the
Commission's Environmental
Policy Committee. He has
represented Native American
tribes on the Pacific Salmon
Commission and worked  on
implementation of the
President's Forest Plan.
  His experience on  the boards
of many environmental and
research organizations includes
the Center for Streamside
Studies and Adopt-a-Stream
Foundation.  He was Director
of Fisheries for the Tulalip
Tnbes from 1982 to 1993  In
1993 he became Executive
Director of Fisheries and Natural
Resources, which includes
fisheries, forestry, and environ-
mental departments
  Two governors of Washing-
ton State have appointed
Williams to the Board of the
Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority since H8?
  Williams received  a
bachelor's degree in  law  and
justice in UC1' from Central
Washington l'mversit\


Daniel M. Barolo is the new
Director of the Office of
Pesticide Programs within the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances. Prior to
this promotion, he served, since
1991, as Director of the Special
Review and Reregistration
Division in the Office of
Pesticide Programs.
   Previously, from 1981 to
1991, he was Director of the
Division of Water at the New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Other positions he held in the
department include Associate
Director of the Air Pollution
Control Program, Division of
Air Resources (1977 to 1981);
Regional Director of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering,
Syracuse Office (1973 to 1977);
and Assistant Sanitary Engineer
and Chief, Program Review
and Grants Section (1967 to
   Barolo received  a bachelor's
degree in civil engineering in
1966 and a master's degree in
sanitary engineering in 1967
from Vanderbilt University.

Under a program that began in
fall 1989, the University of
Maryland, George Washington
University, and Johns Hopkins
University teach graduate
courses at EPA Headquarters in
Waterside Mall.  The courses,
taught during work hours, may
be taken for credit and can lead
to a degree in Public Policy (U.
of Md.) or Public Administra-
tion (GWU). The students
work full time while attending
one or two classes a week.
  The first graduates received
masters' degrees last year.  This
year six EPA employees who
recently completed the master's
  Program in Environmental
  ublic Policy from the Univer-
sity of Maryland had the
distinction of having Adminis-
trator Browner give their
commencement speech. Q

Administrator Browner
(center) with the new
graduates: (from left to right)
Daniel Gogal (OARM),
Christopher Dege (OSWER),
Ann McDonough (OSWER),
Denise Wright (OSWER),
Thomas Miller (ORD), and
Fielding Lamason (OAR).
                                                                        LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Senator Max Baucus
United States Senate
Hart Building, Room 511
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202 224-2651
Fax: 202 224-2322

Carol M. Browner (1101)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 2604700
Fax: 202 260-0279

Paul Ferraro
Vice President
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
1099 18th Street, Suite 2100
Denver, CO 80202
Fax: 303 294-1239

Grant Ferrier
Environmental Business Journal
4452 Park Boulevard, Suite 306
San Diego, CA 92116
Phone: 619 295-7685
Fax: 619 295-5743

Gwyn Fletcher
Government Relations Specialist
Times  Mirror Magazines
1705 DeSales Street, NW, Suite 501
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202 4674949
Fax: 202 4674858

Wendell Fletcher
Senior Associate
Office of Technology Assessment
U.S. Congress
Washington, DC  20510-8025
Phone: 202 228-6352
Fax: 202 228-6344

John Frost
Department of Chemistry
Michigan State University
320 Chemistry Building
East Lansing,  MI 48824-1322
Phone: 517 355-9715, ext. 115
Fax: 517 353-1793

John Kenneth Galbraith
Paul M. Warburg Professor
206 Littauer Center
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA  02138
Fax: 617 496-1200

David Gardiner (2111)
Assistant Administrator
Office of Policy, Planning, and
Environmental Protection Agency
Phone: 202 2604332
Fax: 202 260-0275

Vice President Al Gore
Contact:  Office of the Vice President
Communications Office
Old Executive Office Building #272
Washington, DC 20501
Phone: 202 456-7035
Fax: 202 456-2685
Meg Kelly (5102W)
Deputy Director
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste
   and Emergency Response
Environmental Protection Agency
Phone: 703 308-8748
Fax: 703 308-8528

Jamison Koehler (2631)
Acting Director
International Issues Division
Office of International Activities
Environmental Protection Agency
Phone: 202 2604894
Fax: 202 2604470

Alfred Lindsey (8301)
Office of Environmental Engineering
   and Technology Demonstration
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Phone: 202 260-2600
Fax: 202 260-3861

Stephen Lingle (8301)
Deputy Director
Office of Environmental Engineering
   and Technology Demonstration
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Phone: 202 2604073
Fax: 202 260-3861

Wolfgang Luckmann
741 University Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33134

Brian Moore
Marketing Coordinator
National Recovery Technologies, Inc.
566 Mainstream Drive
Nashville, TN 37228-1223
Phone: 615 734-6400

Peter W. Preuss (8105)
Office of Science, Planning,
  and Regulatory Evaluation
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Phone: 202 260-7669
Fax: 202 260-0036

David Rockland
Executive Director
Times Mirror Magazines
1705 DeSales Street, NW., 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202 4674949
Fax: 202 4674858

Rodney Sobin
Office of Technology Assessment
Industry Telecommunications and
   Commerce Program
U.S. Congress
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202 228-6369
Fax: 202 228-6344

Sandra Wester
Public Relations Manager
EnSys Environmental Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 14063
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: 919 941-5509, ext 108
Fax: 919 941-5519
                                                 EPA JOURNAL

Be nice to yourself, or to someone else special

The $7.50 Gift that
keeps right on giving!
                 AND PROGRAMS —from local to global
 If you are currently a subscriber, you
 know how the special people on your
list, friends, college students, or family
members, will appreciate your
thoughtfulness in sending them a gift
subscription to EPA JOURNAL.
If you're  not a subscriber, it's about time
you were nice to yourself.
                                    What else can you give or receive that
                                    conies four times a year, is dedicated to
                                    making ours a better world, and is
                                    ONLY $7.50? EPA JOURNAL makes for
                                    an imaginative, educational, year-round
                                    gift and is a real bargain, too!

                                    Simply check the boxes on the other side
                                    and fill in the name and address  of the
                                    person you want to receive a subscription.
MORE THAN ONE? You can copy and fill out the reverse side of this card for as
many subscriptions as you wish to give.
WINNER! EPA JOURNAL took FIRST PLACE in the 1991 "Blue Pencil
Competition," a prestigious Award that makes a subscription even more valuable.

                       ORDER FORM
                                                                 Order Processing Code
O YES, enter	subscriptions to EPA JOURNAL for $7.50 per year ($9.40 foreign).
„,   . .  i     .  c       j   •   
Innovative "constructed wetlands"
provide homes with secondary treatment
ofwastewater in areas where poor soils
preclude use of conventional drain fields.
              Tennessee Valley Authority photo.