&EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office Of The Administrator (1102) December 1992 Senior Policy Council Pollution Prevention 1992 Annual Report ------- SENIOR POLICY COUNCIL 1992 POLLUTION PREVENTION ANNUAL REPORT "EPA should emphasize pollution prevention as the preferred option for reducing risk. By encouraging actions that prevent pollution from being generated in the first place, EPA will help reduce the costs, intermedia transfers of pollution, and residual risks so often associated with end-of-pipe controls..." "Preventing pollution at the source — through the redesign of pro- duction processes, the substitution of less toxic production materials, the screening of new chemicals and technologies before they are introduced into commerce, energy and water conservation, the development of less polluting transportation systems and farming practices, etc. — is usually afar cheaper, more effective way to reduce environmental risk, espe- cially over the long term," "Reducing Risk" Science Advisory Board, 1990 ------- 12 ------- I 1 ! SENIOR POLICY COUNCIL 1992 POLLUTION PREVENTION ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ... . .... 5 SeniorPolicyCouncil 6 Definition of Pollution Prevention 7 Incorporating Prevention Into Regulatory Environmental Programs 1. Rule Developmentt 8 2.Pennits 10 3.Enforcement’Compliance 11 State Partnerships/Prevention Through Media Grant Programs 13 FundingforPrevention 15 Acronyms . 18 Appendix 19 The Definition of Pollution Prevention Source Reduction Review Project Fact Sheet EPA State Grant Guidance ------- Pollution Prevention...what people are saying... “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 progra,ns.” John R. Wemgart Assistant Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy “The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) views pollution prevention as a cornerstone of environmental protec- tion, and we are attempting to integrate pollution prevention into the entire fabric of environmental regulation at the MPCA. We applaud efforts of the EPA to foster this integration at the federal level.” Charles W. Williams Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency “Indiana is extremely supportive of your efforts to inject sufficient flexibility into program grants for the purpose of encouraging and facilitating pollution-prevention activities. The draft “FY94 State Grants Guidance: Integration of Pollu- tion Prevention” is a case in point; we fully support the concep- tual approaches framed by this grants guidance...” Kathy Prosser Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management “EPA ‘s Source Reduction Review Project goes to the heart of the pollution prevention matter like no other effort in the country. SRRP creates,for the first time, the possibility of treating each business like a group of people performing a productive activity. . for whom pollution is incidental, and to a large extent, preventable.” Dr. Nikki Roy Environmental Defense Fund I i ------- FOREWORD Pollution prevention is based upon the old principle of”a stitch-in-time saves nine.” Rather than cleaning up waste after is has been created, pollution prevention relies on the concept that it is best not to produce waste in the first place. In 1990, with the backing of states, environmental groups, and industry, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). This legislation established an innovative national goal for environmental protection: to reduce or eliminate waste at its source, rather than trying to control it after it has been produced. Since the PPA became law, much progress has been made at implementing strategies to encourage industry to solve its environmental contamination problems before they begin. l’his document is an annual report of the Senior Policy Council (SPC) on some of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to advance a national pollution-prevention policy. New regulatory guidelines are outlined as ways to set objectives, evaluate progress, and identify steps to be taken in the future. The Pollution Prevention Annual Report was prepared for the SPC by the Pollution Prevention Policy Staff in the Office of the Administrator. The SPC is comprised of EPA ‘stop managers and meets on a quarterly basis to review and approve new pollution-prevention initiatives, and to evaluate their implementation. While this report focuses primarily on Agency-wide efforts to build prevention into traditional programs, EPA’s commitment to source reduction incorporates many other activities not covered in this document, including: j Collaborative efforts, such as the Design for the Environment and the Green Lights programs; L Research and technical assistance, which includes cooperative efforts with other federal agencies; r Development of public data to measure success in reducing waste at the source, including new Pollution Prevention Act reporting requirements; and i Building state capacity through such programs as the Pollution Prevention Incen- tive Grants. If you have questions aboutthis report, please contactEric Schaeffer, Directorof the Pollution Prevention Policy Staff, at 202-260-8636. For general information about other important activities not covered in this document, call Dave Kling, Acting Director of the Pollution Prevention Division, at 202-260-3557. For information on specific successful EPA pollution-prevention programs, please feel free to contact the following individuals: Design for the Environment: Libby Parker 202-260-0686 Life-Cycle Analysis: Tim seam 919-541-0491 Green Lights: Bob Kwartin 202-260-9313 33/50: Dave Sarokin 202-260-6396 Pollution-Prevention Reporting Requirements: Susan Hazen 202-260-1761 Research Programs: Paul Shapiro 202-260-5747 RCRA Waste Minimization: Donna Pe a 703-308-8438 Prevention and Water Programs: Jim Lund 202-260-7811 5 ------- “Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environ- ment must be perceived as a single interrelated system. Present assign- ments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelated- ness. Many agency missions,for example, are designed primarily along media lines — air, water, and land. Yet the sources of air, water and land pollution are interrelated and interchangeable.” President Richard Nixon, 1970 SENIOR POLICY COUNCIL 1992 POLLUTION-PREVENTION H IGH LIGHTS In 1991, the SeniorPolicy Council (SPC) was established to set Agency policy forEPA’s pollution- prevention initiatives. One purpose of the SPC is to ensure that source reduction is promoted as the first step m environmental management throughout all EPA activities. The primaiy accomplishments of the SPC are given here as an introduction to the main course of EPA pollution-prevention actions listed throughout this document. Rules: Launched Source Reduction Review Project (SRRP) in March to promote pollution prevention through multimedia coordination of new rules for 17 key industhes. Definition: Developed and distributed Agency-wide defmition of pollution prevention in May for use by all EPA programs. Permits: Entered into Memorandum of Understanding with New Jersey in May to test new, multimedia approaches to permitting. Established “Printing Cluster” to evaluate pennitting and reporting issues for small print shops. Enforcement: Recommended new policy in July to incorporate pollution prevention into enforcement settlements. Labeling: Cooperated with Federal Trade Commission (July) in developing guidelines for use of specific environmental tenns in advertising. Budget: Published criteria for “2%” programs in July leading to identification of $12 million in FY93 program investments in pollution prevention projects. Grants: Announced guidance in November providing flexibility (within statutory limits) in federal environmental grant programs for state pollution-prevention invest- ments. Voluntary: Published Environmental Leadership proposal in December seeking comment on new initiative to recognize and reward companies making comprehensive, long-term commitments to pollution prevention and sustainable development. 6 F ------- DEFINITION OF POLLUTION PREVENTION* [ OBJECTIVE lit r To establish a clear and consistent definition of pollution prevention to guide EPA programs (as required by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990). ACTIONS TAKEN EPA published a proposed definition of pollution prevention in January of 1989, asking for public comment regarding whether “environmentally sound” recycling should he included in definition along with source reduction. L Science Advisory Board released “Reducing Risk” report in September of 1990. That report defines prevention as: “changes in raw materials, products or technolo- gies of production which reduce the use of hazardous materials, energy, water or other resources without creating new risks of concern.” Discussion in report emphasizes toxic use reduction and energy conservation. Pollution Prevention Act signed into law in November of 1990. The Act defines source reduction in the industrial context and also establishes source reduction as the first priority in ahierarchy of choices that also includes recycling, treatment, and disposal. EPA’s Pollution Prevention Strategy in January of 1991 defines prevention as including source reduction and in-process recycling, as well as conservation of natural resources in industrial, agricultural, energy, and transportation sectors. The strategy was reviewed and approved by 0MB and published in the Federal Register. c Deputy Administrator issued memorandum to all staff in May of 1992 reiterating that pollution prevention encompasses source reduction and in-process recycling, and efficient use of natural resources in both industrial and nor -industrial sectors. ACTIONS NEEDED Programs should be encouraged to look for further opportunities to illustrate defmition in specific applications. Coordination with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to ensure consis- tent use of definition by all federal agencies. * See appendix for additional information. PPPS CONTACT: Kate Perry 202-260-5430 OPPT CONTACT: John Cross 202-260-3559 I ------- “Turning environmental concern into competitive advantage de- mands that we establish the right kind of regulations. They must stress pollution prevention, rather than merely abatement or cleanup. They must not constrain the technology used to achieve them.” Michael Porter Harvard Business School INCORPORATING PREVENTION INTO REGULATORY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 1. RULE DEVELOPMENT Agency Project: Source Reduction Review Project* To meet Pollution Prevention Act requirement to consider how proposed rules will affect opportunities for source reduction. To create models, based on key industries, for regulatory development which can be applied to other rules. To develop a systematic, cost-effective approach to controlling risks from use of hazardous solvents through: 1) identifying and publicizing infonnation about safe substitutes; and 2) eliminating regulatory biases against use of safe substitutes for compliance. ACTIONS TAKEN u Established the Source Reduction Review Project (SRRP) and identified 17 industrial categories for which multimedia source reduction opportunities will be intensely evaluated during rule development. Categories include pulp and paper, printing, metal products and machinery, and phannaceuticals. Identified principles for analyzing, developing, and implementing rules that emphasize industry source reduction and multimedia management. Established an Agency work group to evaluate the potential cross-media and human-health impacts of aqueous and semi-aqueous substitutes for hazardous solvents. Group will develop a consistent life cycle methodology to determine the “acceptability” of substitutes for regulated substances. Received an FY93 Agency commitment of over $1 million to support SRRP. u Established an agreement with the Department of Defense (DOD) to share information on the development of new technologies relevant to SRRP industries. * See appendix for additional information. ------- Statement of objectives from each of the work group chairs of the ‘93 and ‘94 SRRP industry clusters regarding goals for promoting source reduction as a means of compliance with forthcoming rules. MULTI-PROGRAM! MULTI-MEDIA RELATIONSHIPS 9 i INDUSTRIAL/PROCESS CATEGORY Date of Proposed Regulation AIR’ WATER 2 AZARDOUS WASTE 3 CTG MACT Pulp and Paper Production 19925 1993 1993 1994?(A) 4 Pesticide Formulating 19925 1993 1993(C) Pharmaceuticals Production 19925 1996 1994 Printing/Publishing (Coating) 19926 1993 1994(B) Degreasing Operations 1992 1993 1994(B) Metal Products and Machinery 1994 1994(B) Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Prod. 1993 1994(B) Polystyrene Production 1993 1994(B) Wood Furniture 19928 1996 1996(D) Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives MIg. 1996 1996(D) Paint Stripper Users 1996 1994(B) Rubber Chemicals Production 1996 1994(B) Paper and Other Webs (Coating) 1996 1994(B) Acrylic/Modacrylic Fibers Production 1996 1994(B) Reinforced Plastic Composite Production 1996 Integrated Iron and Steel MIg. 1996 Plywood/Parucleboard Mfg. 1999 PPPS CONTACT: Lynn Vendineflo 202-260-8612 OPPT CONTACT: Julie Shannon 202-260-2736 1. Air rules refer to MACT standards under the Clean Air Act. Dates proposed in the Federal Register (February 1992). 2. Water rules refer to effluent limitations guidelines. 3. Hazardous Waste refers to RCRA listings of specific wastes. A) t)ioxin B) Solvents Ill/H; C’) (‘arbamates: I)) Paint Waste. The solvent listing determination may indirectly affect many uses of the solvents. 4. May or may not occur, depending on outcome of Office of Water regulations. 5. Industrial wastewater Control Technique Guideline (CTG). 6. Offset lithography pronting operations only. 7. Cleaning solvents CFG. 8. Both (TO and MACT in negotiated rulemaking for integrated standard. ------- 2. PERMITS OBJECTIVES L To evaluate the feasibility of promoting pollution prevention through integrated, multimedia permitting and reporting. f To develop and implement an Agency pollution-prevention permitting strategy that uses both regulatory and non-regulatory tools to promote cost-effective risk- reduction actions. U To reduce transaction costs of permitting and reporting systems, especially for small businesses. Established a Printing Industry Cluster (OPPT as lead) to coordinate projects affecting small printers. Cluster projects include: 1) promoting industry use of safe chemicals and pollution-prevention practices; 2) coordinating development of new rules to promote pollution prevention and reduce production cost; and 3) develop- ing pilot projects to test use of pollution-prevention methodologies to reduce cost of reporting requirements. U Coordination of state pilot projects by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) to explore multimedia permitting. U In June 1992, EPA announced a Memorandum of Understanding with New Jersey to demonstrate multimedia permitting with three industrial facilities. U Completed Amoco/Yorktown project documenting value of comprehensive emis- sions inventory. ACTIONS NEEDED F U OPPT needs to clarify responsibilities of various programs under Printing Industry Cluster, and to get clear definition of, and budget commitment for, expected work products. U Agency must deyelop coherent strategy for permitting issues and complete memo- randa of understanding with two to three additional states for demonstrations of the multimedia permitting concept. Should also evaluate existing state/EPA multime- dia permitting demonstrations to transfer experience to other states nationwide. PPPS CONTACT: Kate Perry 202-260-5430 OPPT CONTACT: Kathy Ramus 202-260-1707 OPPE CONTACT: Pam Herman 202-260-4336 10 ------- 3. ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE Agency Projects: Blackstone Multimedia Inspections Supplemental Environmental Projects OBJECTIVES To integrate pollution prevention into enforcement settlements where appropriate under the law. To examine the feasibility of multi-media inspections and the proper role for pollution prevention in these inspections. . .. I° The SPC appointed a work group to develop recommendations on how to imple- ment SEP in enforcement settlements. Remainder of the recommendations to be completed under the Office of Enforcement (OE) Innovative Settlements Work Group. EPA evaluating Blackstone project to determine how multimedia inspection can lead violators to use source reduction as a principle means of compliance. j ACTIONS NEEDED OE Innovative Settlements Work Group needs to complete implementation of the recommendations for incentives for additional pollution prevention settle- ments. J OE must collect, synthesize and distribute year-end data from Regions on pollution- prevention SEPS. OE should ensure that data on SEP settlements are included in the annual report on enforcement cases. PPPS/OE must work with Region I to complete a formal evaluation of the objectives of the Blackstone Project in promoting pollution prevention and meeting statutory objectives. PPPS Contact: Contact: Linda G’ass (202) 260-8616 OE Contact: Peter Rosenberg (202) 260-8869 Iii I ------- 19% POLLUTION PREVENTION SEPS BY ACTIVITY (REPRESENTED IN PERCENT) Close-Loop Recycle 25% New Equipment 21% Process Change Total # = 69 in FY92 (Preliminary Findings) Chem Substitution 35% Hi ------- “fP]ro grams 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 Osborne and Ted Gaebler STATE PARTNERSHIPS/PREVENTION THROUGH MEDIA GRANT PROGRAMS Agency Projects: Guidance for EPA Media Grants* Multimedia Models (e.g. Blackstone) I OBJECTIVES ti i To encourage states to use EPA media grants (Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act) to support state prevention initiatives and build core pollution-prevention programs. To establish clear national prevention guidelines to guide investment of federal grants to states. ACTIONS TAKEN Developed FY93 guidance as a preliminary step encouraging the use of media grant programs for innovative state prevention projects. Issued Agency-wide guidance effective FY94 promoting pollution prevention and flexibility in grant work plans developed by EPA and states. The guidance outlines national principles to encourage innovation and build-up of state pollution prevention capacity. Orchestrated Regional office workshops on implementation of guidance sched- uled for January/February of 1993. ACTIONS NEEDED II Programs should develop materials to incorporate Agency-wide guidance into FY94 media grants. State Grant Work Group should collect and distribute examples of innovative state prevention projects supported through federal grant dollars, and to help provide models for implementing guidance. * See appendix for additional information. j13 1 : ------- c i Deputy Administrator and Regional Offices need to assess effectiveness of guidance, share information on successes, and identify barriers based on annual reports provided by EPA Regional Offices. PPPS CONTACT: Kate Perry 202-260-5430 OPPT CONTACT: Deborah Hanbn 202-260-2726 REGIONAL OFFICE CONTACT: Mike Gearheard (Region 10) 206-553-2782 FY93 EPA OPERATIONS GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING* Water 39.0% Total = $526.4 million Exdudes CWA tftle VI and Superfund * Based on President’s FY93 request PREVENTION IN STATE GRANTS L i i RCRA 19.0% Pesticides & Toxics 7.0% 35.0% Figures as of November 15, 1992 ------- FUNDING FOR PREVENTION FY93 2% PROJECTS FY94 BUDGET REQUEST ....... ........—...... ........... ii ( To allocate resources for innovative pollution-prevention projects in EPA base programs. L] To design and establish effective tracking procedures to ensure that project objectives are meL L i To ensure that FY94 budget requests clearly and consistently identify resources dedicated to prevention as defined by the Deputy Administrator memorandum. ACTIONS TAKEN fi. 2% PROJECT RESOURCES (DOLLAR FUNDING BY AGENCY PROGRAM) Guidance and allocations for FY93 projects distributed to programs. i Approval for regional guidance on pollution prevention 2% set-aside projects. Identification of over 100 Agency-wide 2% projects dedicated to pollution preven- tion (project list available upon request). Review, by the Office of the Administrator, of all 2% projects for FY93. i Submission of 2% project list to the Senior Policy Council for approval. Approval by Senior Policy Council of 2% project list (FY93) pending EPA budget finalization. OFFICE FY93 RESOURCES OA $196.5 OIA $259.2 OARM $51.8 :1 ORD $5,051.0 $1,187.4 OPPTS OAR $2,029.9 OW $1,602.5 OGC $3.1 OPPE $362.6 OSWER $795.1 OE $193.1 I $11,732.3 15 ------- Agency-wide: Publication of FY93 2% Pollution-Prevention Projects. C Semi-annual review of project progress (April ‘93-September ‘93). Final review of FY94 budget request to ensure that prevention resources are clearly identified. PPPS Cont t: Tom McCuIIy 202-260-8617 OPPT Cont t: John Cross 202-260-3559 rid ------- Hi ------- ACRONYMS Council on Environmental Quality Li Department of Defense Li Federal Trade Commission Li Office of Air and Radiation Li Office of Enforcement Li Office of Management and Budget Li Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Li Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics Li Office of Research and Development Li Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Li Pollution Prevention Policy Staff Li Resource Conservation Recovery Act Li Senior Policy Council Li Source Reduction Review Project CEQ DOD FTC OAR OE 0MB OPPE Oplyr ORD OSWER PPPs RCRA sPC SRRP 18j ------- APPENDIX The Definiáon of Pollution Prevention Source Reduction Review Project Fact Sheet EPA State Grant Guidance 19 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 MAY 281992 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: EPA Definition of “Pollution Prevention” FROM: F. Henry Habicht II Deputy Administrat TO: All EPA Personnel EPA is seeking to integrate pollution prevention as an ethic throughout its activities, in accordance with the national policy expressed in the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Your individual efforts to push development of new opportunities, approaches, and 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 constituents to find the most cost- effective means to achieve those goals. The following EPA “Statement of Definition” is a formal embodiment of what has been the Agency’s working definition of pollution prevention, and is consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the Agency’s 1991 Pollution Prevention Strategy. It makes clear that prevention is our first priority within an environmental management hierarchy that includes: 1) prevention, 2) recycling, 3) treatment, and 4) disposal or release. While it is subject to further refinement, this definition should provide a common reference point for all of us. As you review and apply the definition in your work, please keep the following points in mind: • As always, whether the pollution prevention option is selected in any given situation will depend on the Printed on Recycled Paper ------- 2 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 containment. As EPA looks at the “big picture” in setting strategic directions for the decade ahead, it is clear that prevention is key to solving the problems that all our media programs face, including the increasing cost of treatment and cleanup. In the common—sense words of Benjamin Franklin, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Please use the Statement of Definition of Pollution Prevention in all of your EPA activities. POLLUTION PREVENTION: EPA STATEMENT OF DEFINITION (pursuant to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the Pollution Prevention Strategy) Under Section 6602(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress established a national policy that: • pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; • pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; • pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and • disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally 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: ------- 3 ——increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, or other resources, or ——protection of natural resources by conservation. The Pollution Prevention Act defines “source reduction” to mean any practice which: ——reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and ——reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the 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 housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. Under the Pollution Prevention Act, recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal are not included within the definition of pollution prevention. Some practices commonly described as “in—process recycling” may qualify as pollution prevention. Recycling that is conducted in an environmentally sound manner shares many of the advantages of prevention——it can reduce the need for treatment or disposal, and conserve energy and resources. Pollution prevention approaches can be applied to all pollution-generating activity, including those found in the energy, agriculture, Federal, consumer, as well as industrial sectors. The impairment of wetlands, ground water sources, and other critical resources constitutes 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 concern. In the agricultural sector, pollution prevention approaches include: ——reducing the use of water and chemical inputs; ——adoption of less environmentally harmful pesticides or cultivation of crop strains with natural resistance to pests; and ——protection of sensitive areas. In the energy sector, pollution prevention can reduce environmental damages from extraction, processing, transport, and ------- 4 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: th. Pollution Prevention Policy Staff (260-8621), or —-the Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (260-3557) ------- EPA Source Reduction Review Project Who benefits from SRRP? How did EPA choose the industrial! process categories? What are the key industrial categories? By having the flexibility to invest in source reduction measures as a means of compliance, industry can make cost-effective environmental decisions that will help improve efficiency and competitiveness. If source reduction measures are chosen as the primary means to achieving compliance, then the environ- ment will benefit in at least two significant ways: 1) the transfer of pollutants from one medium to another will be prevented; and 2) energy and raw materials use as well as other waste streams may be reduced. EPA based its list on those industrial categories facing new air, water, and hazardous waste standards over the next decade. Sixteen industrial/process categories were chosen based on one or more of the following: • Environmental releases to more than one media • Potential for pollution reduction • Known opportunity for source reduction • Forthcoming regulatory requirements under multiple statutes. Paper and Other Webs Coating Acrylic Fibers/Modacrylic Fibers Degreasing Operations Polystyrene Production Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Metal Products and Machinery Wood Furniture Manufacturing Where can I get more information? Lynn Vendindllo U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator Pollution Prevention Policy Staff (1102) 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 260-8612 Pesticide Formulating Pulp and Paper Production Pharmaceuticals Production Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives Printing/Publishing Integrated Iron r Plywc 1 Manufacturing Manufacturing I I cturing ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 NOV I 2 1992 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: State Grants Guidance: Integration of Pollution Prevention FROM: F. Henry Habicht I Deputy Administrator TO: Assistant Administrators Regional Administrators This memorandum announces the Agency—wide pollution prevention Guidance, beginning with the FY’94 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 circumstances. 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. Printed on Recycled Paper ------- 2 In general, this Guidance applies to all of the Agency’s media-specific State grant programs, but particularly to the following: Clean Air Act S1O5 Air Pollution Planning and Control; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act S3011——Hazardous Waste; Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act §23(a)(l)——Pesticides; Toxic Substances Control Act S28-— Enforcement and Enforcement Activities under S3l3 of the Emergency Planning and CommunitY Right-to-KnOW Act; and Clean Water Act S106--Surface Water, S104(b) (3)--Wetlands and Water Quality Management, and 5319(h)—-Non-Point Source Management. Building on the Agency’s many successful pollution prevention efforts, beginning in FY’94 EPA’s grant programs-- working with States—-should explicitly promote pollution prevention in State workplans (also called agreements). This memorandum will be incorporated into the annual Agency Operating Guidance as well as program—specific Guidance developed this winter with the advice of the State/EPA Operations Committee. Program Guidance, intended to tailor the Agency-wide commitment to each grant program, will be applied by Regional Offices and States in the development of grant-assisted work. The National Principles stated below should help guide development of EPA/State workplans. These should be reflected in program—specific Guidance, weighed in workplan discussions, and used to qualitatively assess program progress in integrating pollution prevention. In applying these principles, Regional Offices should use or expand upon the menu of flexibility options below to respond to State needs to the extent possible. Annual accomplishment reports, discussed below, will help assess EPA’S progress in supporting pollution prevention-oriented State workplans and initiatives. National Principles Guidance for each grant program covered by this document should make clear that pollution prevention--as defined in the Agency-wide memorandum of May 28, 1992 (attached)--is EPA’S preferred approach to environmental management where technically and economically feasible. Consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act, the Guidance should further the integration of pollution prevention into State activities--e.g. inspections and permits--that are supported by EPA grants. While pollution prevention is not mandated, the Principles are intended to ensure that it is considered fairly in EPA/State workplans. Specific proposals from States that are consistent with these principles should be considered good candidates for funding through the grant programs. In addition, Regional Offices should take the initiative to suggest pollution prevention approaches, drawing upon program-specific Guidance and implementation workshops. Regional Offices and States are expected to use their ------- 3 discretion in applying these Principles; they are not obligatory elements of every negotiated workplan, but rather factors for serious consideration in the negotiation process. The Principles are: 1) The workplan applies the EPA definition of pollution prevention (see memorandum of May 28, 1992) consistent with the Pollution prevention Act of 1990 and the 1991 EPA Pollution Prevention Strategy. 2) The workplan reflects an explicit preference for pollution prevention and identifies pollution prevention activities, products, or approaches. 3) The workplan incorporates pollution prevention as a priority in environmental management decisions made by the grantee as part of the grant—assisted activities. 4) The workplan encourages opportunities to modify existing or to develop new equipment, technology, processes, procedures, products, or educational or training materials to promote pollution prevention. 5) The workplari encourages institutional coordination——including coordination with existing State pollution prevention programs-- and multi-media opportunities for pollution prevention. 6) The workplan complements or builds upon existing EPA pollution prevention projects (e.g. the work of multi-media industry clusters such as the Source Reduction Review Project, and the use of pollution prevention in enforcement settlements). 7) The workplan identifies and applies measures and ways of documenting pollution prevention progress as part of the grant- assisted activities (e.g. provides opportunities for measurable pollution prevention). 8) The workplari includes activities or approaches that may serve nationally as innovative models for other State or local programs. Workplans also should encourage innovative approaches already developed by other State or local programs, and improve coordination to build on existing successes. 9) The workplan structures grant output information so that EPA can make pollution prevention data and experience available to other States and the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse. Clearly, both partners must comply with any applicable statutory or regulatory requirements and take into account other factors that may be important. Regional Offices and States may identify ------- 4 additional Principles to guide workplan requirements. Flexibility Many Regional Offices already have made adjustments to accommodate flexibility needs. The purpose of this Guidance is to encourage such flexibility. Whenever possible, workp].ans should accommodate State flexibility needs associated with incorporating pollution prevention approaches into their grant— assisted activities. That means working within the parameters of statutory and regulatory requirements to arrive at an agreement that is practical and meets the parties’ needs. Options for flexibility include (but are not limited to): a) Adjustments in numbers or types of required outputs including, for example, (1) tradeoffs or disinvestment from traditional requirements (non—statutory and non—regulatory) and (2) multiple credit for a single “multi-media” inspection that emphasizes pollution prevention. —-An example of (1) is RCRA’s RIP-Flex Guidance, which allows disinvestment from national priority activities and re—investment in Regional or State priorities: up to 25% of enforcement resources in FY’92 and ‘93. --An example of (2) is being tested in Region One with Massachusetts’ BlackStOfle project. The key issue is how to “bean—count” a single multi-media inspection claiming to satisfy enforcement requirements under multiple statutes and promote pollution prevention technical assistance. b) Adjustments in timing of non-statutory and non- regulatory EPA deadlines. c) Identification of a percentage of funds for pollution prevention within each media program, coordinated by a pollution prevention office. ——For example, Region 10 has agreed to Alaska’s request to allow the State to identify 3% (5% over the next two years) of grant program monies—-RCRA, air, and water--for pollution prevention, to be coordinated by the pollution prevention office. The monies will be reflected in specific activities reasonably related to each program’s contribution and statutory objectives. The annual EPA/State Agreement will explicitly identify pollution prevention activities and specific disinvestments in each program. d) Adjustments in traditional or administrative procedures or schedules to ease EPA/State interaction. Annual Accomplishment Report To allow EPA to evaluate progress in integrating pollution prevention into State grant programs, each Regional Office should ------- 5 provide an annual report summarizing pollution prevention accomplishments (e.g. activities, products, approaches, etc.), as reflected. in grants—assisted work. The report may take any form and may draw upon reports developed to satisfy other requirements. While program-specific Guidance may elaborate further, each report should identify: a) success stories, including innovative State projects funded under this Guidance; and b) any barriers (statutory or otherwise) that led a program to reject State proposals or to decide against including pollution prevention approaches. In addition, recommendations on regulatory, administrative, or other changes to improve flexibility would be helpful. Your contribution of this information is key to making pollution prevention a reality in EPA ’s on-going bread and butter work. Conclusion Incorporating pollution prevention into EPA’S policies and programs is a collaborative effort requiring EPA to work in concert with our State partners. The National Principles and Annual Reports described above will help us to measure our progress and build on our successes. ------- |