United States
             Environmental Protection
Office Of The
April 1993
vvEPA      Pollution Prevention Media
             Grant Guidance
                                           Primed on paper that contains
                                           at least 50% recycled fiber

   Pollution Prevention Media Grant Guidance
"(PJrograms can be designed to allow for significant flexibility at the state
or local level.  The federal government can define the mission and the
outcomes it wants, but free lower governments to achieve these outcomes
as they see fit What we really need is a new model of grant program built
around the principles of entrepreneurial government"
                     Reinventing Government
                  David Osbome and Ted Gaehler


        The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 charts a bold new course for environmen-
       tal protection. This innovative law requires the Environmental Protection Agency to
       emphasize reducing or eliminating waste at the source, rather than trying to manage
waste after its creation.
Source reduction offers a unique combination of benefits: pollution prevention protects die
environment and saves money by improving manufacturing efficiency and  conserving raw
materials. The Pollution Prevention Act directs the EPA to pursue the environmental and
economic advantages of source reduction by promoting pollution prevention throughout the
Agency's programs.
One way EPA has responded to the challenge of the Pollution Prevention Act  is through a
creative new policy that encourages states to invest federal environmental grant funds in
innovative pollution prevention projects. This document is meant to answer basic questions
about the new policy, which is expressed in an Agency-wide guidance issued in November of
1992. A sampling of pilot projects is also included to illustrate some of the many state pollution
prevention initiatives already supported under EPA's traditional grant proposals.
  For easy reference, the following documents are included at the end of this pamphlet:
     •  The text of EPA's new media grant guidance, which takes effect in FY94;
     •  An example of how one program (the Office of Air and Radiation) is applying the
       guidance principles to its grant-making process;
     •  EPA's definition of pollution prevention, which should be used in applying the
       grant guidance.
  ** A list of key contacts is provided on page 10
            "The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) views
            pollution prevention as a cornerstone of environmental
            protection, and we are attempting to integrate pollution
            prevention into the entire fabric of environmental regula-
            tion at the MPCA. We applaud efforts of the EPA to foster
            this integration at the federal level."
                               Charles W. Williams
                         Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

 Why is the Pollution Prevention Grant Guidance


 Each year,  EPA  disburses about $500 million in state grants for permitting, inspections,
 enforcement activities, and carrying out other federal mandates under laws such as the Resource
 Conservation Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. These payments help
 offset the financial burden for states  that have assumed the responsibility for implementing
 federal  law.  In practice, EPA cannot hope to encourage pollution prevention in permitting,
 inspection, and other areas delegated  to states without allowing the grants that support these
 activities to be used for source reduction.
 Some states are boldly leading the transition from pollution control to pollution prevention
 through inventive approaches  that challenge the traditional administrative requirements for
 federal  grants. To the extent permitted  by law, EPA wants to recognize  and  encourage this
 experimentation through a flexible grant guidance that reflects a more equal partnership between
 EPA and the states.
 What are the Objectives of the Pollution Prevention Media Grant Guidance?
     a    To support state pollution prevention  activities by ensuring flexibility in
          grant requirements: The grant guidance gives EPA programs and regions the
          flexibility to exercise administrative discretion to reward states that have forged
          ahead with creative new investments in pollution prevention.
     o    To promote pollution prevention in federally-funded state programs:  EPA
          staff and  state grant personnel are expected to promote pollution prevention in
          federally-supported state programs as a matter of policy and regulation. The
          guidance  includes a set of principles to  help define appropriate  objectives for
          states receiving grant funds.

     a    To share information on successful programs, and identify statutory or other
          barriers to pollution prevention: EPA programs will collect information about
          pollution  prevention activities funded under the more  flexible grant guidelines,
          and share this information with states.  All activities funded with federal grants
          must, of  course,  meet any legal restrictions that  govern expenditure  of such

     a    To build  self-sustaining pollution prevention programs: Finally, grants may
          be used to support ongoing administrative functions of state pollution prevention
          offices when those functions are consistent with statutory requirements for use of
          federal grant dollars.

The guidance does not change requirements under existing laws or regulations. It does, however,
authorize EPA programs to encourage pollution prevention by modifying schedules or develop-
ment of grant work plans that lie within EPA's discretion.  It also requires EPA programs to
document any statutory or regulatory barriers that inhibit using federal grants to finance state
pollution prevention projects. Ongoing negotiations between EPA and states will help resolve
the question of which types of proposals can be supported with federal funds under existing law.


  The EPA defines pollution prevention as source reduction and other practices that reduce the
  amount of pollutants entering a waste stream  prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment,
  energy recovery, or disposal. Prevention includes improvements in manufacturing, such as
  the substitution of non-toxic hazardous materials, redesign of products to reduce environ-
  mental impacts, in-process recycling, modification of equipment, and housekeeping mea-
  sures such as unproved maintenance. It also encompasses increased efficiency in die use of
  energy and water, and other practices that protect natural resources through conservation.

The new pollution prevention guidance has already been incorporated into the annual Agency
operating guidance, which establishes general guidelines for funding. The guidance will be
further implemented in the following ways:
     o    Program-specific guidances, to be finalized by each EPA program office in the
          summer of 1993, will tailor EPA's pollution prevention commitment to each
          grant program. (See appendix for demonstrations on how the Office of Air and
          Radiation is applying the pollution prevention guidance principles to its own
          grant program.)
     a    Once each program office has completed its own guidance, EPA's regions and
          states will negotiate work plans that outline specific objectives each state must
          meet in exchange for receiving federal grant dollars. This is the critical stage at
          which state proposals for pollution prevention must be examined against existing
          grant requirements.  The pollution prevention  grant guidance includes three
          provisions to provide incentives for pollution prevention in the work plans:
          •   Flexibility Options, within the parameters of statutory requirements,  will
              help states integrate single media projects into multimedia state prevention
              programs. Work plans should be adjusted to accommodate needs and ease
              EPA/state interaction.

          •   National Principles are included in the guidance (see appendix) to help
              guide the development of EPA/state work plans.
          •   Annual Accomplishment Reports will help determine the success of the
              guidance and how state pollution prevention efforts can be expanded. These
              Regional Office reports will help assess the Agency's progress in support-
              ing pollution prevention work plans and initiatives. The reports will docu-
              ment successes, identify barriers, and recommend changes  in the grant-
              making process to improve flexibility and ensure more effective use of grant

 State Pollution Prevention Initiatives

 The following is a sample of some of the many innovative state pollution prevention
 programs that are already receiving some federal grant support under RCRA, the Clean Air
 Act, or the Clean Water Act. EPA recognizes that these projects do not reflect the full range
 of current activities hut merely represent a small glimpse of future possibilities. EPA plans
 to share future state grant project information when it becomes  available. To provide EPA
 with information about state pollution  prevention projects funded  through media grants,
 please contact Lena Hahn at 260-2237.
 POLLUTION PREVENTION GOAL: Integrated Enforcement Program
 STATE:  California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)
 PROJECT:  Integrated Enforcement Programs: Federal, State, and Local Coordina-
 CONTACT:  William W. Carter, Cal/EPA- 916-445-3846
           Jesse Baskir, EPA Region IX-415-744-2190
 The California EPA is designing and implementing creative enforcement policies to pro-
 mote the simultaneous identification and correction of all environmental problems resulting
 from any given violation at a location or facility. Coordinated enforcement activities are key
 to preventing pollution because they discourage cross-violations.
 This unique approach is being applied statewide toward two purposes. First, it ensures that
 significant environmental violations and impacts are not overlooked by regulators at prob-
 lem facilities and that such problems are satisfactorily resolved. Second, this coordinated
approach should relieve businesses from the burden of having a constant stream of regula-
tors from several different state agencies conducting independent, sometimes conflicting,
enforcement actions. EPA media grants fund inspections and enforcement activities which
facilitate the prevention activities outlined in this integrated enforcement program.

POLLUTION PREVENTION GOAL:  Source Reduction to Achieve Compliance           |
STATE: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
PROJECT: Multi-media, Prevention-based, Facility-wide Enforcement Inspections

CONTACT: Lee Dillard, Massachusetts DEP -617-556-1075
          Mark Mahoney, EPA Region I -617-565-1155
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection first piloted a multimedia
prevention-based inspection and enforcement program in 1986 known as the Blackstnne
Based in part on the outstanding results of the Blackstone Project, Massachusetts  has a
prevention based approach to compliance and enforcement for all industrial sources called
the Waste Prevention F.I.R.S.T. (Facility-wide Inspections to Reduce Sources of Toxics)
In FY93, Waste Prevention FIRST'S initial year, EPA Region I granted the Massachusetts
DEP flexibility to identify alternate inspection goals. Consequently, Massachusetts's DEP
was able to reduce the number of EPA-specified inspections in exchange for an increase in
Massachusetts-specified inspections; these state specified inspections were completed at
facilities where unpermitted waste streams were likely to exist or where there was a high
risk of non-compliance. Waste Prevention FIRST encompasses compliance and enforce-
ment on all industrial sources, including those supported by EPA media grants. The effect
of this flexibility to encourage prevention was to allow a refocusing of the Massachusetts
program while still achieving statutory goals.
STATE: Alaska-Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
PROJECT: Redirection of federal grant and state matching dollars to support pollu-
          tion prevention activities.
CONTACT: David Wigglesworth, ADEC -907-563-6529
          Steven Torok EPA Region X-907-586-7619
In FY93, the Department of Environmental Conservation and the US EPA initiated a long-
term process of securing the resource base necessary to  sustain pollution prevention
activity in the state of Alaska. The ADEC and the EPA agreed to direct 3% of eligible
federal grant and state match dollars to support prevention activities coordinated by the
Department's Pollution Prevention Office.  The "pollution prevention set-aside" is in-
tended to gradually increase to 5% by FY95.
The initiative seeks to advance pollution prevention as both a core part of the missions of
the various media programs and to foster a stream-lined Pollution Prevention Office to 1)
coordinate pollution prevention activity and 2) provide technical support to Department
employees, businesses, and the general public.  EPA funding for this project is provided
from RCRA, Water, Pesticides, and Air grant programs.


 Beginning witJi the FY94 EPA grants cycle, the guidance will apply to all of the Agency's
 media-specific state grant programs, including the following:
      j   The Clean Air Act §105 — Air Pollution Planning and Control;
      j   The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act §3011 — Hazardous Waste;
      j   The Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act §23(a)(l)—Pesti-
      j   The Toxic Substances Control Act §28 — Enforcement Activities under § 313
          of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act;
      3   The Clean Water Act — §106 — Surface Water, §I04(b)(3) — Wetlands and
          Water Quality Management, and §319(h) — Non-point Source Management.
 The law does not apply to Superfund grants, which are specifically targeted to remedial action
 rather than prevention.
                                                   Pesticides & Toxics
  Total = $561.6 million
  Excludes CWA title VI and Superfund
  * Based on President's FY94 request
     Figures as of Aprils, 1993
                               PREVENTION IN
                               STATE GRANTS
EPA also administers a small grant program to help support state pollution prevention programs.
The Pollution Prevention Incentives for States (PPIS), which  requires a 50% match from
applicants, provided approximately $4.5 million to states in FY93. For further information about
how to apply for funding under this program, please call Lena Hann at 202-260-2237.


Federal grant programs typically identify certain tasks that states must complete in exchange for
receiving federal funds. The pollution prevention grant guidance clearly authorizes the .substitu-
tion of new pollution prevention measures in exchange for administrative procedures not
required by statute or regulatioa These changes may be negotiated in the work plan approval
process. EPA will work with states to evaluate statutory and regulatory barriers identified in the
Annual Accomplishment reports produced at the end of the FY94 grant cycle.
          "I believe that building pollution-prevention flexibility into
          media grant programs is the most important single policy
          action that EPA can take to provide incentives for states to
          integrate pollution prevention into existing programs... EPA
          has taken a bold step in the right direction through its
          guidance on pollution prevention flexibility in media grant
                              John R. Weingart
                           Assistant Commissioner
           New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy

The pollution prevention grant guidance is only the first step in achieving new successes in
innovative state pollution prevention programs: ultimate success depends on the EPA Regions
and states finding practical ways to take advantage of the new flexibility.  The work plans
negotiated by each state with EPA Regions can help test application of the guidance, and provide
models for other states to follow.
EPA is committed to sharing information and identifying common state concerns to strengthen
the guidance as it is implemented. Tom Looby, Director, Office of Environment (Colorado
Department of Health) has agreed to help coordinate state input in his capacity as Chairperson of
the Strategic Planning Subcommittee. EPA will also sponsor workshops to share information as
the guidance develops, with the first to be held at the semi-annual meeting of the Pollution
Prevention Roundtable on April 28,1993 in San Diego, California
          "Indiana is extremely supportive of your efforts to inject
          sufficient flexibility into program grants for the purpose of
          encouraging and facilitating pollution prevention activi-
          ties. The draft "FY94 States Grants Guidance: Integration
          of Pollution Prevention" is a case in point; we fully support
          the conceptual approaches framed by this grants  guid-
                                Kathy Prosser
                 Indiana Department of Environmental Management

    Q    For general information about the media grant guidance process, call Tom
         McCully at 202-260-8617. Tom will also help put you in touch with the
         appropriate EPA regional staff if you have questions about the work plan
         for your specific state.
    Q    For information about providing state input into the implementation of the
         guidance, contact Parry Burnap or Kate Kramer at 303-692-3003.
    Q   To apply for a Pollution Prevention Incentives for States (PPIS) grant, or
        receive more information, contact Lena Hahn at 202-260-2237.
    Q   To provide or obtain additional information about projects currently funded
        through EPA media grants, contact Lena Hahn at 202-260-2237.


State Grant Guidance: Integration of Pollution Prevention

Promoting the Prevention of Pollution in State and Local
Assistance Programs

Encouragement of Pollution Prevention Through the State Air
Grants Program

A Selected List of Source Reduction Strategies Being Pursued
Under the CAA and Related Statutes

EPA Definition of "Pollution Prevention"


                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                Nov 12,1992

                                                                OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM                                           THE ADMINISTRATOR

SUBJECT:     State Grants Guidance: Integration of Pollution Prevention
FROM:        F. Henry Habicht D
TO:           Assistant Administrators
              Regional Administrators

This memorandum announces the Agency-wide pollution prevention Guidance, beginning with
the FY94 State grants cycle. It has four goals:
     •    Promoting pollution prevention in State programs supported through  Federal
         grants by establishing National Principles to guide workplans negotiated between
         Regional Offices and States;
         Ensuring that grant requirements as interpreted by EPA/State workplans are
         flexible enough to support innovative State pollution prevention activities;
     •    Establishing a simple accounting process to share information on successful State
         projects, and identify statutory or other barriers to funding State proposals; and
     •    Building sustained State capacity in pollution prevention to the extent consistent
         with statutory grant requirements.
All of these objectives are subject to any statutory and regulatory limitations that apply in specific
The Guidance should help integrate pollution prevention into the Agency's activities as required
by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. By emphasizing flexibility, the Guidance complements
other Agency efforts to build a productive environmental management system in partnership
with the States, and improve coordination with existing State pollution prevention programs.
In general, this Guidance applies to all of the Agency's media-specific State grant programs, but
particularly to the following: Clean Air Act § 105—Air Pollution Planning and Control; Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act §3011—Hazardous Waste; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act §23(aXl)—Pesticides; Toxic Substances Control Act §28—-Enforcement and
Enforcement Activities under §313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act; and Clean Water Act §106—Surface Water, § 104
  The  National  Principles stated below should  help guide development of EPA/State
  workpians. There should be reflected in program-specific Guidance, weighed in workplan
  discussions and used to qualitative!)' assess program progress in integrating pollution
  prevention. In applying these Principles, Regional Offices should use or expand upon the
  rnenu of flexibility options below to respond to State needs to the extent possible. Annual
  accomplishment reports, discussed below, will help assess EPA's progress in supporting
  pollution prevention-oriented State workpians and initiatives.
                                  National Principles

 Guidance for each grain program covered by this document should make clear that pollution
 prevention—as defined in the Agency-wide memorandum  of May 28. 1992 (attached)—is
 EPA s preferred approach to environmental management where technically and economically
 feasible. Consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act. the Guidance should further the integra-
 tion of pollution prevention into Stale activities—e.g. inspections and permits—that me sup-
 ported h> EPA grants. While pollution prevention is not mandated, the Principles are intended to
 ensure that it is considered fairly in EPA/Stale workpians.

 Specific proposals from States that are consistent with these Principles should be considered
 good candidates for funding through the grant programs. In addition. Regional Offices should
 lake the initiative to suggest pollution prevention approaches, drawing, upon program-specific
 Guidance and implementation workshops. Regional Offices and States are expected to use their
 discretion in applying these Principles; they are not obligatory elements of every negotiated
 workplan, but rather factors for serious consideration in the negotiation process.
 The Principles are:
 1)   The workplan applies the EPA definition of pollution prevention (see memorandum of
     May 28, 1992) consistent win the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the 1991 EPA
     Pollution Prevention Strategy.

 2)   The workplan reflects an explicit preference for pollution prevention and identifies pollu-
     tion prevention activities, products, or approaches.

 3)   The workplan incorporates pollution prevention as a priority in environmental manage-
     ment decisions made by the grantee us part of the grant-assisted activities.

4)   The workplan encourages opportunities to raodtfy existing or to develop new equipment,
     technology, processes, procedures, products, or educational or training materials to pro-
     mote pollution prevention.

5)   The workplan encourages institutional cocjrdination—including coordination with existing
     State pollution prevention programs—and multi-media opportunities for pollution preven-

6)   The workplan complements or builds upon existing EPA pollution prevention projects
     (e.g. the work of multi-media industry clusters such as the Source Reduction Review
     Project, and the use of pollution prevention in enforcement settlements).

7)   The woitylan identifies aadappues measures
     don progress as pad of the graat-assisted activities (e.g. provides opportunities for measur-
     able pollution prevention).

8)   The workplan includes activities or approaches that may  serve nationally as innovative
     models for other Stale or local programs. Workpians also should encourage innovative

     approaches already developed by otter State or local programs, and improve coordination
     to build on existing successes.
9)   The workplan structures grant output infonnation so that EPA can make pollution preven-
     tion data and experience available to other States and the Pollution Prevention Information
Clearly, toft partners must comply with any applicable statutory or regulatory requirements and
take into account other factors that may be important. Regional Offices and States may identify
additional Principles to guide workplan requirements.
Many Regional Offices already have made adjustments to accommodate flexibility needs. The
propose of this Guidance is to encourage such flexibility. Whenever possible, workplam should
accommodate State flexibility needs associated with incorporating pollution prevention ap-
proaches into their grant-assisted activities. That means working within the parameters of
statutory and tegttatory requirements to arrive at an agreement that is practical and meets the
parties' needs. Options for flexibility include (but are not limited to):
     a)   Adjustments in numbers or types of required outputs including, for example, ( I )
          trade-offs or disinvestment from traditional requirements (non-statutory and non-
          regBtJBory) and (2) multiple credit for a single "multi-media" inspection thai
          empJMfiiiies {pollution prevention.
               An example of (1) is  RCRA's  RIP-Flex  Guidance, which  allows
               disinvestment from national priority activities and re-investment in Re-
               gional or State priorities: up to 25% of enforcement resources in FY92 and
               An example of (2) is being tested in Region One  with Massachusetts'
               Blackfitone project The key issue is tow to "bean-count" a single multi-
               media inspection claiming to satisfy enforcement requirements under mul-
               tiple statutes and promote pollution prevention technical assistance .
     b)   Adjostmests in timing of non-statutory and nonregulatory EPA deadlines .
     C)   Mi^*ifirartifm nf H fKtivatt^gK nf fiinris far prtUarimn prevention within each medi a
          program, coordinated by a pollution prevention office.
               For example, Region lOhasagreedto Alaska's request to allow the State to
               identify 3% (5% overthe next two years) of grant program monies — 
              . activities, products, approaches, etc,)» a& reflected in granffl-assistBdwoifc. The
 report may take any tonu and may draw upon reports developed to satisfy often requirements.
 While pjugrau>specitic Guidance may elaborate lurther.eudi nepwit should identify: a) success
 stories, including innovative State projects tunded under this Guidanue;  and b) any bamerc
 (suaaury or, )lherwise) thul led a piugnun to reject State proposals or to decide against including
 pulluiiua prevention appruuches. In addition, recommendations on regulatory, administrative, or
 other changes to improve flexibility would be helptul. Your contribution of this information is
 key to making pollution prevention a reality in EPA's on-going bread and butter work.
IncurpuiuLuig pollution prevention into EPA's policies and programs is a collaborative effort
requiring EPA to work in concert with our State partners. The National Principles and Annual
Report* described above will help us to measure our progress and build on our successes.

                          WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
                                                            OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM                                         THE ADMINISTRATOR

SUBJECT:  Encouragement of PoUutton Prevention through the State
           Air Grants Program

PROM:     Michael H. Shapiro
           Acting Assistant Admauanier

TO:        Maigo Oge, Director
           Office of Radiation and indoor Air

           John Seitz, Director
           Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

           Paul Stolpman, Acting Director
           Office of Atmospheric Programs

           Richard Wilson, Director
           Office of Mobile Sources
Tins memo describes how OAR will Mpksaent the Deputy AdmiRittfalor s guidfiBue un {he
         of pollution prevention otto media state giant programs. I intend to use OAR s
pjogram-specific guidance (PSG) to tadpenoumage stales to routinely inunponite prevention of
pollution in their programs. 1 also intend to use the quaneriy accomptishmeHto reporting under
our Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) process to compiie the infoimation necessary for an
annual «mununy of progress in the use of poUnbon prevention.
                     The DefhntMn nfFnllrtinn Prevention
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) directed J3PA to aategcate me pieventiun of
poDotion into its ongoing programs. The PPA essentially defined potation prevention as the
i^irfinn nfpolhltiim at its amiry; IhmMgh mnritfirnrinn nf etpnomCOt. technology, ptUCCSSes. or
procedures; refonnulationorredes^nof products; substuution of rawmaierial; and changes to
hauaokeepnig, mamtenance, mining, or Hiventory "programs.
Coirespondingly. aprimary goal of the Oean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA^ aaaddition
tome control of airpolhitiim,istuencoaiage oroiaefwiseDJOjnoiereasonabieKfkxal.state^and
local government actions for the prevention ofpcUntioaThe CAA tefcrenees air polhuion
              reduction or gimmMiiinn, Hvo«gh any measure, of the janoont of fMdhitaRts
praduoed or created at me source.
Based upon these compiementary defioitions, poiiutianiprevBntion canjand should be a .key
strategy for achieving ourprognun objectives. Tfee CAA offers a diveseaEray of envnxmmental
management approaches to attain and prefect dean, iheatthy air — from cxmoul sttategies
intended to unreel air pollution problems; lo programs designed to eocourage energy uonservu-
tion and efficiency; to programs proouotn^ alternative mantrtacmriog piraenses. feiels, .and
tecbaologies (see Attachment A).

           The Prevention of Pollution and OAR's Program-Specific Guidance

  Guidance Development. The process for the development of OAR's  FY  1994 PSG and
  regional-headquarters MOAs, and the subsequent negotiation of state and local air grants,
  provides us with the opportunity (a) to more formally articulate the prevention aspects of our
  current programs, and (b) to seek additional, more far reaching applications with state, local, and
  tribal agencies than those already being carried out
  On December 3, 1992,1 sent you  a memo initiating the development of the FY 1994 PSG. I
  asked that each program office submit the overview portion of its guidance by January 29,1993.
  OPMO will consolidate the program office drafts into a single document in early February for
  wider review by headquarters offices, regional offices, and states.3
  Upon your receipt of the draft consolidated PSG, please identify specific areas that are pollution
  prevention in nature and designate them as such in your mark-up for the final PSG Also, develop
  any additional provisions that you believe are needed to implement the Deputy Administrator's
  guidance OPMO and the Pollution Prevention staff are available to assist you in this effort
  Attachment B includes a brief OAR summary and explanation of the Deputy Administrator's
  November 12,1992 guidance on the integration of pollution prevention in media-specific grant
 programs for FY 1994 and beyond. This explanation will be incorporated in the final PSG to
 assist regional offices and states in interpreting and effectively applying the guidance

 Accomplishments reporting. I want to be able to assess the overall progress of OAR, the
 regions, and the state in controlling and preventing pollution and be able to report this progress
 to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator through an annual accomplishments report and,
 as appropriate, our quarterly management memos. In negotiating FY 1994 MOAs and commit-
 ments, please work with the regional offices to provide for accomplishments reporting that will
 allow us to describe the  scope and success of pollution prevention efforts. You  may need to
 identify additional ways to measure progress that are more indicative of the degree of pollution
 prevented. Again, OPMO and the Pollution Prevention staff are available  to assist you in mis

 Should you have any  questions or comments regarding this or the Deputy Administrator's
 guidance please  contact either Bill  Houck at FTS 202-260-1754 or Alex  Wolfe at  FTS
1. Public Law 101-508, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (November 5, 1990), defines
source reduction as any practice which reduces the amount of hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including
fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and reduces the hazards to public
health and  the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or
2. Referenced in Public Law 101-549, Title I, §108(k), 104 Stat 2468.
3. Unless otherwise indicated, the term state is meant to include state, appropriate multi-state,
local, and Indian tribal agencies.

                                 Attachment A
                          and RELATED STATUTES*
Q    Implementation, acceleration or expansion of alternative fuels for motor vehicles
o    Development and use of low emission, high technology  vehicles for general public,
     commercial and government fleet operations
Q    Development and utilization of alternatively fueled off-road  mobile sources
a    Assurance of compliance with fuel economy standards
Q    Inspection and maintenance of motor vehicle emissions systems
a    Emissions systems anti-tampering programs
Q    Reduction of volatility in fuels
Q    Transportation control measures including use of mass transit, ride sharing, employer
     incentive programs, pricing incentives and disincentives, etc.
a    Vehicle pre-production certification
Q    Incorporation of source reduction alternatives and advancements in control technique
     guidance, national emission standards, rule development  and operation permits (i.e.,
     solvents, coatings, degreasing, metal cleaning, combustion, etc.)
Q    Incorporation of innovative technology resulting in increased energy conservation and
     efficiency in the utility and manufacturing industries
a    Market-based strategies including trading and allowance systems for acid deposition and
     volatile organic compounds, emission caps and excess emissions fees
Q    Voluntary reduction in air toxics by industry prior to national regulation
Q    Materials substitution and emissions cap for CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances
Q    Public education and outreach (e.g., indoor air quality)
Q    Innovative enforcement settlements
Q    Provision of source reduction technical assistance to small businesses through CAA small
     business technical assistance centers
  NOTE:  Source reduction may not only be achieved through implementation of these mea-
          sures but also in how and where they are applied (i.e., more expeditious, extensive or
          stringent application than would normally be required relative to an area's attainment


                                                                    Attachment B
                    Promoting the Prevention of Pollution in
                      State and Local Assistance Programs
                       [For Inclusion in the FY 1994 PSG]
On November 12, 1992, The Deputy Administrator provided guidance to assist EPA media
programs in further integrating pollution prevention considerations within their state and local
assistance programs. The guidance, prepared by the Pollution Prevention stall after consultation
with a media programs workgroup, includes three elements: (a) expectations of EPA and the
states in the formulation, negotiation, and implementation of agreements; (b) a brief list of unique
pollution prevention projects or proposals; and (c) a discussion of ways to evaluate and report
progress in preventing pollution.
                        Development of Grant Work Plans
The guidance urges that, subject to statutory and regulatory constraints, the prevention of
pollution be a primary thrust of state grant work plans. Within workplans, stales should clearly
identify prevention activities, including activities or projects that could serve as national models.
Where possible, stales should expand or complement existing efforts. Accomplishments should
be measurable and reported annually. Successful experiences should be disseminated to the
wider State and local community.
There was a great deal a of discussion within the media programs workgroup about the degree u >
which the various media programs can reasonably use prevention as a primary approach to
environmental management. This is less of an issues for the air program because pollution
prevention is an inherent part of the new CAA.
In grant guidance and negotiations with states, however, regional offices still need to highlight
and activdy encourage those aspects of our program that are prevention in nature. In addition, we
need to be receptive to alternative state proposals that go even beyond the preventive aspects of
our statute and that can potentially deliver measurable environmental results through prevention
rather than through sole reliance on traditional "end-of-the-pipe" controls. Regional offices
should actively solicit such proposals and work with states in fostering them.
                          Pollution Prevention Activities
As noted previously, stales are already involved in a variety of prevention-related activity under
current CAA air aad radiation requirements (e.g.. emission caps, emissions trading, economic
incentives and dismcentives to encourage source reduction, use of alternative fuels and vehicles,
use of nuemaking to  encourage substitution of materials and energy conservation, flexible
compliance strategies  and agreements, public outreach and education, etc.) Regional offices
should encourage continuation and expansion of these types of activities and projects.
The Deputy Administrator's guidance suggests a handful of other approaches  to consider
including multi-media compliance efforts and set-aside grants. Please note that there must be a
realization of environmental gain within the air and radiation program area commensurate with
the level of resources that we contribute to any such multi-media effort.

in response to questions regarding the use of set-aside funds for competitive awards under
separately administered innovative state pollution prevention programs, the General Counsel has
previously indicated that this practice is inappropriate for basic grant authorities such as section

 105 of the CAA. Funds may be reprogrammed for such purposes, however, under the Agency's
 research and demonstration grant authorities.
                         Evaluating and Reporting Progress

The Deputy Administrator has requested that each program articulate its progress in preventing
pollution through its state grants programs via an annual accomplishments report. To enable this,
regions should include appropriate reporting requirements and measures of progress in negoti-
ated state grant agreements.
Indicators should cover prevention related programmatic and project specific activity and be able
to measure environmental results, wherever possible. Information can be provided to OAR via
the Memorandum of Agreement Reporting System

1. See "Review of State Grant Authority"; R.B. Ludwiszewski, acting General Counsel to
Deputy Administrator H. Habicht; March 13, 1992.

                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                MAY 28,1992

                                                                OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM                                           THE ADMINISTRATOR

SUBJECT:  EPA Definition of "Pollution Prevention"

FROM:     F. Henry Habicht D
           Deputy Administrator

TO:        All EPA Personnel
EPA is seeking to integrate pollution prevention as an ethic throughout its activities, in accor-
dance with the national policy expressed in the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Your
individual efforts to push development of new opportunities, approaches, and processes to
prevent pollution are impressive and exciting.
While the concept of pollution prevention is broadly applicable—a tool to accomplish many
environmental tasks—this memo attempts to guide more consistent use of the term in our
activities and written materials. Pollution prevention requires a cultural change—one which
encourages more anticipation and internalizing of real environmental costs by those who may
generate pollution, and which requires EPA to build a new relationship with all of our constitu-
ents to find the most cost-effective means to achieve those goals.
Hie following EPA "Statement of Definition" is a formal embodiment of what has been the
Agency's working definition of pollution prevention,  and is consistent with the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 and the Agency's 1991 Pollution Prevention Strategy. It makes clear that
prevention is our first priority within an environmental management hierarchy that includes: 1)
prevention, 2) recycling, 3) treatment, and 4) disposal or release.
While it is subject to further refinement, this definition should provide a common reference point
for all of us. As you review and apply the definition in your work, please keep the following
points in mind:
     •      As always, whether the pollution prevention option is selected in any given
          situation will depend on the  requirements of applicable law, the level of risk
          reduction that can be achieved, and the cost-effectiveness of that option.
     •     Accordingly, the hierarchy should be viewed as establishing a set of preferences,
          rather than an absolute judgement that  prevention is always the most desirable
          option. The hierarchy is applied to many different kinds of circumstances that will
          require judgement calls.
     •     Drawing an absolute line  between prevention and recycling can be difficult.
          "Prevention" includes what is commonly called "in-process recycling," but not
          "out-of-process recycling." Recycling conducted in an environmentally sound
          manner shares many of the advantages of prevention, e.g. energy and resource
          conservation, and reducing the need for end-of-pipe  treatment or waste

  As EPA looks at the "big picture" in setting strategic directions for the decade ahead, it is clear
  that prevention is key to solving the problems that all our media programs race, including the
  increasing cost of treatment and cleanup. In the common-sense wools of Benjamin Franklin, "an
  ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
  Please use the Statement of Definition of Pollution Prevention in all of your EPA activities.
                   (pursuant to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
                        and the Pollution Prevention Strategy)
 Under Section 66U2(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress established a national
 policy that
           pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible;
           pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe
           manner whenever feasible:
           pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environ-
           mentally safe manner whenever feasible; and
           disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last
           resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.
 Pollution prevention means "source reduction," as defined under the Pollution Prevention Act,
 and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants through:
           increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or other resources,
           protection of natural resources by conservation.
 The Pollution Prevention Act defines "source reduction" to mean any practice which:
           reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant enter-
          ing  any waste stream or otherwise released  into the environment (including
          fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and
          reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated  with the
          release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
The term includes: equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications,
reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in
liousekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control.
Under the Pollution Prevention Act, recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal are not
included within the definition of pollution prevention. Some practices commonly described as
"in-process recycling" may qualify as pollution prevention. Recycling  that is conducted in an
environmentally sound manner shares many of the advantages of prevention—it can reduce the
need tor treatment or disposal, and conserve energy and resources.
Pollution prevention  approaches can be applied to all pollution-generating activity, including
those found in the energy, agriculture. Federal, consumer, as well as  industrial sectors. The
impairment of wetlands, ground water sources, and other critical resources constitutes pollution,
and prevention practices may be essential for preserving these resources. These practices may
include conservation techniques and changes  in management  practices to prevent harm to
sensitive ecosystems. Pollution prevention does not include practices that create new risks of

In the agricultural sector, pollution prevention approaches include:
          reducing the use of water and chemical inputs;
          adoption of less environmentally harmful pesticides or cultivation of crop strains
          with natural resistance to pests; and
          protection of sensitive areas.
In die energy sector, pollution prevention can reduce environmental damages from extraction,
processing, transport, and combustion of fuels. Pollution prevention approaches include:
          increasing efficiency in energy use;
          substituting environmentally benign fuel sources; and
          design changes that reduce the demand for energy.

For more information contact:
- the Pollution Prevention Policy Staff (202-260-8621), or
- the Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Tones