vxEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
Washington, DC 20460
Spring 1993
EPA 742-N-93-001
Pollution
Prevention
News
G
0
PRMNHON
Inside:
2 EPA News
o New Initiatives:
° WAVE; PMN Review
* Design for the
Environment
r Interview with
0 DaveKling
6 In the States
7 Laving Green
8 Resources
9 Congressional Notes
Landmark
10
Great Lakes Proposal
11 Case Study
12
Calendar;
EPA Progress Reports
President's Earth Day Speech Promotes Economic
Growth Through Environmental Innovation
On April 22, Earth Day '93, President
Clinton announced several major new
environmental initiatives, including six new
Executive Orders, focusing on pollution
prevention, energy efficiency, and promo-
tion of "green" design efforts. The
President's speech sounded three main
themes: linking a healthy environment with
a healthy economy; recognizing global
environmental interconnections; and
making the federal government a partner
and a leader in environmental protection.
The most detailed section of the Earth
Day speech concerned activities to be
undertaken by federal agencies, in setting
an example that businesses, communities
and individuals can follow. Embodied in six
new Executive Orders, these activities
include: reporting emissions at federal
facilities, as other facilities must do under
Right-to-Know laws; setting a goal of 50%
reduction in toxic releases at federal
facilities; and changing federal procurement
policies to purchase fewer ozone-destroying
chemicals, more alternate fuel vehicles,
more recycled products, and new energy-
efficient computers.
That most symbolic of homes, the White
House, will undergo a top to bottom energy
(Continued on page 9)
Browner Calls Prevention "Central Ethic' at EPA
In an Earth Day statement, EPA's new
Administrator Carol Browner declared
that henceforth "pollution prevention will
be the central ethic in everything we do at
EPA." She announced the creation of a
new Task Force charged with integrating
pollution prevention initiatives into every
EPA activity, program, and operation.
The new approach will have five key
parts: (1) incorporating prevention as the
principle of first choice in all EPA regula-
tory activities; (2) building a national
network of prevention programs among
state, local, and tribal governments; (3)
expanding EPA budget allocations for
"green" programs; (4) stepping up dis-
semination of information to promote
prevention and track progress; and (5)
developing partnerships for technological
innovation including a new, interagency
Environmental
Technology
Initiative.
Explaining
the importance
of the renewed
commitment
to prevention,
Browner stated:
"We believe that
by moving our
focus upstream,
by emphasizing innovation and source
reduction measures over end-of-the-pipe
regulation, we can blaze a new trail of
lower environmental costs, improved
environmental protection and public
health, and increased national economic
competitiveness." For a copy of the state-
ment call 202-260-4361.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Pollution Prevention News - 2
Spring 1993
EPA News
Clearinghouse Update:
New Phone Number!
T he Pollution Prevention Informa-
tion Clearinghouse (PPIC) has a
new hotline number and a new
location! PPIC is a clearinghouse of
technical, policy, program, legislative,
and financial information relating to
pollution prevention. The PPIC reposi-
tory is being moved to the EPA Head-
quarters Library, at 401 M Street SW,
Room M2904, in Washington, DC. The
collection is open to the public from
lOam to 4pm. By late 1993 PPIC docu-
ments will also be available through
interlibrary loans. The new PPIC
Hotline number is 202-260-1023 (Fax:
202-260-0178.)
PPIC’s most recent publication is the
1993 Reference Guide to Pollution Preven-
tion Resources, now available through
the clearinghouse. However, some older
documents are no longer available
through PPIC, including: Pollution
Prevention 1991, Progress on Reducing
Industrial Pollutants; Promoting Source
Reduction and Recyclability in the Market-
place; and the Waste Minimization
Assessment Manual. These can be
ordered from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), Tel: 703-
487-4650, at a cost of $27 each.
EPA to Recognize Corporate
Environmental Leaders
A new proposal to create a national
Environmental Leadership
Program was announced in the Federal
Register on January 15. The proposal
attempts to characterize “environmental
leadership,” and presents a variety of
possible criteria for recognizing a
company or facility as a leader.
EPA’s program would encourage
companies to adopt a Corporate State-
ment of Principles and participate in a
Model Facility Program, offering special
recognition to companies that demon-
strate a CEO-level commitment to
pollution prevention that goes beyond
mere compliance with regulations. EPA
recognizes that other organizations have
crafted similar programs, for example,
the CMA’s Responsible Care Program
and the CERES Principles, formerly
known as the Valdez Principles. How-
ever, a national, government award is
considered to be of value in promoting
good corporate citizenship.
The Federal Register notice explicitly
identified difficult issues and included a
list of questions for the public. The
extended public comment period ended
on May 17. Copies of the proposal can
be obtained from the Public Document
Office, 202-260-7099. For further infor-
mation contact Linda Glass-Rimer, 202-
260-8616.
State Grants
Emphasize Prevention
PPIS $ Available Through Regions
Q n March 30, 1993, EPA announced
the availability of approximately
$4.5 million under the Pollution Preven-
tion Incentives for States (PPIS) grant
program. PPIS grants support pro-
grams that promote the reduction or
elimination of pollution through
information exchange, technical assis-
tance, or dissemination of information
to businesses. Eligible applicants
include state agencies and universities,
all U.S. territories, and Indian Tribes.
In FY93, EPA Regional Offices will
take the lead in soliciting and screening
proposals, and in the actual selection of
awards. A 1993 National Guidance
document is available to help PPIS
grantseekers, and Regional Offices may
choose to provide additional instruc-
tions. For further information appli-
cants should contact their EPA Regional
Pollution Prevention Coordinators.
Prevention in Media Grants: New
Guidance Available
I n addition to the PPIS program,
EPA has developed a new policy to
encourage pollution prevention projects
through its traditional media-specific
state grant programs. A reccntl ’
released document, Pollution Prez’cntion
Media Grant Guidance, explains in
greater detail how $500 million in
existing EPA state grant funds vill now
be tailored to encourage prevention.
Examples of pilot projects are included,
as well as the text of the new policy to
take effect in FY94. Copies of the
document are available through the
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse, Tel: 202-260-1023.
OPPT Awards $330,000
for Innovative Research
T he Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics has awarded $55,500 to
each of six universities in support of
cutting edge pollution prevention
research projects. All of the projects
explore new ways of producing chemi-
cal substances while reducing or
eliminating the use of toxic substances
as feedstocks, catalysts, and solvents,
and minimizing the production of toxic
byproducts.
The six grant recipients, chosen from
about 200 applicants, are: Brandeis
University for development of less-
toxic, reusable alternatives to tin-based
catalysts; UCLA for exploring a new
synthesis of styrene that doesn’t use
benzene as a feedstock; University of
Connecticut at Storrs for experimenting
with visible light as a substitute for
heavy metals in chemical reactions,
including several reactions common lv
used in the dye industry; Iowa State
University for using visible light to
create a photochemical reaction as a
possible substitute for the Freidel-Crafts
reaction and its highly toxic reagents;
Purdue University for replacing toxic
feedstocks and catalysts with simple
sugars in the synthesis of large-volume
chemicals; and Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University for
developing methods for using liquid
carbon dioxide as a solvent.
To be added to our mailing
list, please write:
Pollution Prevention News
U.S. EPA
4 )l M Street SW (MC 7409)
Washington, DC 20460
Editorial Staff:
Priscilla Flattery, Editor
Gilah Langner
Morgan Gopnik
-------
Spring 1993
3 — Pollution Prevention News
Hotels and Motels Do the WAVE
New Initiatives
by Kevin Rosseel, OWEC
E PA’s Office of Wastewater Enforce-
ment and Compliance (OWEC) has
kicked off a new voluntary initiative for
water conservation. The Water Alliance
for Voluntary Efficiency (WAVE),
managed by OWEC’s Municipal Support
Division, is an innovative program aimed
at focusing national attention on the value
of water and the need for its efficient use.
Through voluntary partnerships with
the Agency, WAVE encourages hotels
and motels to employ water-saving
techniques and equipment. Because
WAVE is a voluntary program, hotels
and motels may elect to sign a Memo-
randum of Understanding agreeing to
upgrade their facilities where it is
profitable and practical to do so. In
addition to recognizing WAVE partners
for their environmental concern, EPA
will offer participants technical work-
shops and computer software to help
them implement equipment retrofit
programs.
According to John Flowers, Program
Manager, several benefits will result
from implementation of the WAVE
program. Not only will water consump-
tion and energy demands be reduced,
but hotels and motels can also become
more efficient and profitable. Lodging
industry guests and employees can also
be informed about the benefits of water
use efficiency through public informa-
tion campaigns in participating hotels
and motels.
Among the charter participants in
WAVE are the Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton,
Westin, ITT/Sheraton, and Saunders
Group corporations. The American
Hotel and Motel Association has also
expressed interest in supporting this
new EPA initiative, and will inform all
of its members about the opportunity to
join WAVE.
After WAVE takes hold in the lodging
industry, OWEC plans to expand the
program into other businesses, institu-
tional buildings, and perhaps multi-
family housing. For more information
about WAVE, please contact OWEC’s
John Flowers at 202-260-7288.
E PA’s New Chemicals Program
has found that the review of
premanufacture notices (PMNs)
provides an excellent opportunity to
identify pollution prevention options.
Under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) anyone who plans
to manufacture a new chemical sub-
stance must submit a PMN to EPA at
least 90 days prior to beginning the
activity. The New Chemicals Program
then reviews the PMN to identify new
substances that require regulatory
action. Since 1991 EPA has asked
companies to include voluntary
pollution prevention information in
their PMNs (see box). Now two pilot
projects are underway that will help
institutionalize prevention-oriented
PMN review.
Under current practice, if the New
Chemicals Program determines that a
substance may pose unreasonable
health or environmental risks, EPA can
enter into a consent order permitting
the manufacturer to proceed only
under certain restrictions. These orders
also generally require additional
production volume is reached. If EPA
determines that the risks cannot be
adequately reduced, even with restric-
tions, the PMN submitter can suspend
the review process, delay manufacture,
and search for ways to reduce the risks.
The new Pollution Prevention Plan
Pilot Program identifies PMN chemi-
cals for which development of a
pollution prevention plan may be
beneficial based on three factors: (1)
whether the new chemical may pose
unreasonable health or environmental
risks; (2) the levels of human exposure
and environmental releases expected;
and (3) the potential for prevention
during manufacture or processing.
Pollution prevention planning max’
then be required under two circum-
stances: (1) in a consent order when a
certain production volume is reached;
or (2) before production begins, in
order to identify a safer way to manu-
facture or process the substance. The
plans are intended to encourage
companies to explore new ways of
reducing toxic releases.
The second new project will attempt
in order to assist certain PMN
submitters in reducing pollution. For
certain high risk substances, an evalua-
tion of the entire chemical process,
including feedstocks, solvents,
byproducts, impurities, and waste
streams, will be conducted to identify
points where the use and generation of
toxic chemicals can be reduced or
eliminated. When alternate synthetic
pathways or other possible solutions
are identified, this information will be
forwarded to the PMN submitter for
consideration.
New PMN Guidelines
New guidelines have been
issued to explain the types of
pollution prevention information
that the New Chemicals Program
considers in evaluating PMNs.
Titled, EPA Guidance for Providing
Optional Pollution Prevention Infor-
mation in TSCA Section 5 Pre-
,ianufacture Wotices, the new
document provides a checklist of
pollution prevention items. Devel-
oped with input from the Chemical
Manufacturers Association and
others, this document can be
‘obtained through the TSCA hotline,
2-554-14O4.
New Chemicals to be Reviewed for
Pollution Prevention Opportunities
toxicity data to be submitted if a certain
to identify alternate synthetic pathways
-------
Pollution Prevention News - 4
Spring 1993
Design for the Environment
E PA’s Design for the Environment program (DfE) works closely with private sector
partners to promote the incorporation of environmental considerations at the front end
of design processes. DJE has act it’c projects working with the printing industry, the dry
cleaning industry, and the financial professions, including accounting and insurance. New
opportunities are being explored with the electronics industry, the banking sector, and the
planning professions.
Prevention Pay-Offs in Financial Services
F inancial criteria affect every busi-
ness decision. In turn, virtually
every business decision, whether it
involves the choice of raw materials,
production processes, or products,
affects the environment. The challenge
comes in developing the link between
businesses’ economic self-interest and
protection of the environment. A
straightforward way to accomplish this
is to better integrate environmental
considerations into traditional financial
functions such as accounting, capital
budgeting, insurance, risk management,
and lending and finance.
DfE’s Accounting and Insurance
Projects are working with a broad
range of organizations and individuals
including the U.S. Chamber of Com-
merce, Institute of Management
Accountants, American Institute of
CPAs, American Society of Cost
Engineers International, American
Institute of Chartered Property and
Casualty Underwriters, universities,
and others in order to encourage
voluntary changes in business
decisionmaking that facilitate invest-
ment in, and expanded use of, pollu-
tion prevention technologies.
Full Cost Pricing
Business managers regularly make
cost and pricing decisions as well as
capital budgeting decisions (decisions
about how to invest capital in new
equipment and products). At present,
most management accounting systems
do not provide managers with enough
information about environmental
implications to make truly informed
decisions. Costs for waste treatment and
disposal are often lumped into “over-
head,” and risks of future liability are
usually not accounted for at all. This
leads managers to underestimate the
costs associated with certain products or
processes. For similar reasons, managers
often cannot see the advantages of
investments that prevent pollution.
DfE’s Capital Budgeting and Envi-
ronmental Accounting Project is
working with various stakeholders to
improve these practices. The goal is to
ensure that full private environmental
costs and benefits are incorporated into
decisionmaking. DfE is fostering a
growing network of management
experts working on developing innova-
tive, environmentally aware accounting
and capital budgeting practices. Last
year EPA funded and published a
report on Total Cost Assessment, a model
for investment analysis. The project will
promote further research into these
ideas, encourage pilot testing among
industry partners, and convene a
meeting of experts in Fall 1993.
Environmental Insurance
DfE’s Insurance project attacks vet
another business cost that has often
failed to incorporate accurate environ-
mental risk/cost information. DfE will
be working with insurance underwriters
and corporate risk managers to develop
improved practices based on pollution
prevention principles.
A n important goal of both projects is
to develop educational materials
targeted at today’s rpanagers, and
university students. The National
Pollution Prevention Center, based at
the University of Michigan, is a collabo-
rative effort of EPA, business, industry,
and academia. The Center has recently
begun developing pollution prevention
modules for use in undergraduate and
graduate business and accounting
courses. DfE hopes to provide the tools
needed to ensure that the next genera-
tion of decisionmakers can succeed in a
competitive global economy while
protecting the environment.
For copies of the printing industry
case study, or more information on
DfE, contact EPA’s Pollution Preven-
tion Information Clearinghouse at
202-260-1023.
Pnnth b dusb
Case Study #1
Now Available
DfE’s Printing Project has just
published the first in a series of
detailed pollution prevention case
studies. The four-page report
documents the experience of the
John Roberts Company, a commer-
cial printer using sheet-fed and web
offset printing processes. By
conducting a self-audit, and then
assessing problem areas, this
company found ways to use safer
solvents, reduce waste, improve
workplace safety, and save money.
One thing the company did not
have access to was information
about a full range of alternative
chemicals and processes, and
reliable assessments of their
comparative risk and performance.
Fortunately, the Printing Project
will be making such information
available to others later this year in
the form of a “Substitutes Assess-
ment.” At a Printing Industry
Workgroup meeting on March 11,
members agreed to collect informa-
tion on alternative chemicals,
document “typical” work practices,
and develop a test protocol in order
to make standardized comparisons.
-------
Spring 1993
5 - Pollution Prevention News
PPN: How well is pollution prevention faring
under the new Clinton Administration?
Dave Kling: Very well indeed. EPA’s
new Administrator, Carol Browner,
challenged the Agency in her Earth Day
message to make prevention EPA’s
“central ethic” — the guiding principle of
all our environmental efforts. It is a
recurring theme now in budget discus-
sions and decision briefings.
PPN: But hasn’t prevention been an EPA
priority for some time?
DK: That’s just it. Prevention has been
just one of many Agency priorities, and
it didn’t always compete well against
some of the others. Despite some good
progress in advancing prevention, our
approach too often has been to pursue
prevention through individual projects
or discrete activities, often special and
outside our core environmental pro-
grams. The Administrator wants to
“mainstream” pollution prevention into
all Agency work, which, for many, will
be very different from the past.
PPN: In what ways is the Agency’s
prevention program changing?
DK: Prevention seems to be finding its
way more frequently into key activities
like rulemaking, permitting, and
enforcement, which will truly change
EPA’s way of doing business and its
culture. The spotlight is falling on our
major media program managers and
staff. They deserve great credit as they
struggle to advance prevention in areas
where control and clean-up approaches
have dominated. Pollution prevention
becomes more deeply ingrained at EPA
each time they succeed in bringing
prevention to their work.
In fact, pollution prevention appears
to be an impetus for many positive
forces, including more multi-media
thinking and action, a greater emphasis
on risk reduction and environmental
benefits in inspection, more cooperative
ventures with industry as a supplement
to, rather than a substitute for, our
traditional command-and-control
rulemakings, and the idea of environ-
mental compliance, rather than enforce-
ment action, as a desired endpoint.
PPN: In her Earth Day message, the
Administrator spoke of fizt’ themes. Can you
describe them briefly?
DK: Yes, we think the five themes help
characterize and summarize our key
pollution prevention objectives. The first
deals with facilitating the culture change
we’ve just discussed — “walking the
talk” of prevention by making it the
principle of first environmental choice
throughout EPA and the rest of the
federal government.
The second is to facilitate the work of
our environmental partners at the state
and local levels through grant and
technical assistance, since they are
increasingly the “face of government” on
environmental issues, especially source
and toxic use reduction. Third, we will
continue to identify and pioneer new
environmental approaches with industry
which emphasize cross media preven-
tion; reinforce, as mutual goals, economic
and environmental well-being; and offer
imaginative new models for govern-
ment/industry interaction.
As examples, we find a variety of new
EPA projects like the voluntary 33/50
program to reduce emissions of 17 key
industrial toxics, “Green Lights” to
promote energy efficient lighting
technologies, and its broader “Energy
Star” building initiative. In our own
Office, we’ve launched Design for the
Environment, a cooperative venture with
small businesses to design cleaner pro-
ducts and processes. Our Office of Water
has been working with hotel and motel
chains to reduce water consumption, and
our Office of Research and Development
with architects to design buildings with
environmental impacts in mind.
Fourth, we need to identify, generate,
and disseminate environmental infor-
mation that advances preventive
approaches by empowering the public
to help us “keep book” on pollution
prevention progress, and by document-
ing achievements to build credibility.
Programs like the Toxic Release Inven-
tory are important prevention tools.
Finally, we must look beyond our
own limited resources to cooperative
efforts with other agencies and organi-
zations, such as the Department of
Energy laboratories, to develop partner-
ships which will advance the technical
frontiers of source reduction.
PPN: Any particular areas to watch?
DK: First, watch for substantial action as
we put our own federal house in order.
The President, for example, has directed
that federal facilities which manufacture,
process, or use toxic chemicals must
report their wastes and releases under
federal right-to-know legislation. It is
time, he said, that “the United States
government begins to live under the laws
it makes for other people.” The federal
government will have a voluntary goal of
50 percent reduction of its toxic releases
by 1999. The government will also take
the lead in purchasing recycled products
and the most energy efficient vehicles
and computers.
At the state level, prevention seems to
be spreading rapidly from its traditional
roots in voluntary technical assistance
programs to major state regulatory,
permitting and enforcement activities.
PPN: Pollution prevention seems to be at
the crossroads of environ mental protection,
energy efficiency and industrial competitive-
ness — three policy streams which the new
Administration is trying to tie together.
DK: I think that’s very true. This
convergence should not only encourage
federal agencies, such as EPA, DOE and
(Continued on page 8)
Interview wth Dave Kling:
Future Directions in EPA’s Pollution Prevention Program
[ ) ollution Prevention News (PPN)
I recently asked Dave Kling, Acting
Director of the Pollution Prevention Divi-
sion in EPA’s Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics, to discuss new directions
in the Agency’s prevention program. Here
are some of his thoughts.
“We must look beyond our own
limited resources to cooperatiue
efforts with other agencies and
organizations.
-------
Pollution Prevention News - 6
Spring 1993
IntheStates
Spotlight on State and Local Prevention Programs
T he National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technol-
ogy (NACEPT), an advisory committee
to the EPA Administrator, recently
conducted a study analyzing state and
programs,
___________________ and making
specific
recommen-
dations for
federal action
to bolster
these efforts.
NACEPT, a
group
composed of
leaders from
government,
business, environmental groups, and
academia, spent a year examining this
issue. Along the way it sponsored many
face-to-face meetings and one national
workshop.
The final report, Building State and
Local Pollution Prevention Programs, looks
closely at the programs in place and
zeros in on remaining barriers to
success. The analysis highlights the
strengths and limitations of both
voluntary and regulatory programs.
Voluntary Programs
Widespread
Voluntary programs, such as incen-
tives, business assistance programs, and
voluntary toxics reduction programs,
have the advantage of being less
adversarial and giving businesses
greater flexibility in implementation.
The study found that most states have
implemented some form of voluntary
pollution prevention program. How-
ever, companies accustomed to re-
sponding to legal requirements max’ be
wary of taking steps on their own. Some
have expressed reluctance to make
voluntary reduction commitments for
tear of seeing them transformed into
requirements. Others express concerns
that future percentage reduction goals
will actually be harder to meet at
facilities that cut emissions now.
To date, very few states have incor-
porated pollution prevention into their
regulatory programs, including media
specific requirements, enforcement
activities, and permitting. Nearly a third
of states do require facilities to draft
prevention plans, but most plans are not
enforceable. “One of the major chal-
lenges ahead is working out the rela-
tionship between voluntary and regula-
tory activity that will [ promote] preven-
tion,” according to NACEPT.
As a result of this study, NACEPT
recommends that EPA take action in
several areas:
(1) integrating pollution prevention
more thoroughly into existing
environmental programs and
regulatory mechanisms;
(2) clarifying roles and responsibilities
of federal, state, and local govern-
ments;
(3) modifying management mechanisms
and funding systems to promote
prevention efforts;
(4) improving technical expertise and
information exchange;
(5) promoting pollution prevention to
meet wastewater pretreatment
program goals; and
(6) exercising leadership to build broad
support for pollution prevention.
Copies of the report can be obtained
by writing to Donna Fletcher, State and
Local Environment Committee,
NACEPT, Office of Cooperative Envi-
ronmental Management, A1O1-F6, U.S.
EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
Ohio Seeking
Nominations for
Pollution Prevention
Awards
The Ohio Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is soliciting nomina-
tions for the seventh annual
Governor’s Awards for Outstand-
ing Achievement in Pollution
Prevention. The intent of these
awards is to recognize projects in
Ohio that reduce pollution at the
source or recycle waste in an
“Pollution prevention is a prior-
ity for this Administration. A
strong pollution prevention
program minimizes waste and
maximizes profits. ft’s good for
business and for the environ-
ment —a real win-win.”
George Voinovich
Governor of Ohio
environmentally sound manner.
Virtually any individual or organi-
zation is eligible and may nominate
itself or another party based on
documented pollution prevention
achievements. Pollution control,
treatment and disposal activities
will not be considered. The deadline
for entries is June 30, 1993.
In addition to running the awards
program, Ohio EPA’s Pollution
Prevention Section has compiled a
variety of waste minimization fact
sheets, and reports. Topics range
from general overview materials, to
industry and chemical specific
assessments, with a particular
emphasis on pollution prevention
efforts in and around the Lake Erie
Basin. For a list of available pollution
prevention materials, or for detailed
instructions on submitting an award
nomination, contact the Pollution
Prevention Section, Ohio EPA, P.O.
Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio, 43266-
0149. Tel: 614-644-3469.
local pollution prevention
“One of the major
challenges ahead is
working out the
relationship between
voluntary and
regulatory activity
that will [ promote]
prevention.”
Send Us Your News!
If your state has a pollution
prevention program or story to tell,
please let us know. We will try to
help publicize successful programs,
interesting case studies, or new
publications of national interest.
Send material to: Pollution Proven—
turn .\ ‘ws, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, U.S. EPA
(MC74($)), Washington, DC 20460.
-------
Spring 1993
7 — Pollution Prevention News
Li ing Green
Environmental Homes of the Future
T he construction and manufacture of
new housing consumes 50 percent of
all lumber and plywood used in the U.S.
Historically these wood products have
been supplied by mature, large-diameter
trees. In addition, residences account for
almost 21 percent of national energy
consumption, at a cost of $100 billion
per year. A few architects and builders
are determined to reduce this drain on
the environment by designing and
building model resource-conserving and
energy-efficient homes.
Last year in Missoula, Montana, the
Center for Resourceful Building Technol-
ogy (CRBT) unveiled ReCRAFT 90, a
model home built from recycled, re-used,
and other resource conserving materials.
ReCRAFT 90 incorporates unconven-
tional products such as insulation,
wallboard, and ceiling tile made from
recycled newspaper, re-used wood
flooring, floor tiles made from recycled
glass, and roofing and carpeting made
from recycled plastics. Lumber is
replaced with a variety of manufactured
wood products made of wood strands
and formaldehyde-free adhesives.
The 2,400 square-foot house is also
designed to reduce energy and water
consumption by employing energy-
efficient lighting, water conserving
plumbing fixtures, native landscaping,
and a passive solar desigrr to reduce
heating needs during long, cold, Rocky
Mountain winters. CRBT hopes to
invisible, but structurally critical,
framing and joists. The frame of the
NAHB house is made of recycled steel,
and the covering from a variety of other
recycled materials.
Another new sponsor for environ-
mentally friendly housing is the National
Park Service, an agency with an obvious
interest in conservation, and an ability to
educate millions of park visitors. In
conjunction with the Exemplary Building
program at the Department of Energy’s
National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
the Park Service set out to build two
showcase energy-efficient employee
housing units, to be completed in 1993.
The target is to cut energy consumption
by 75 percent over conventional housing,
while controlling costs and keeping
required maintenance to a minimum.
The two sites, one in the Grand
Canyon in Arizona, and the other in
Yosemite Park in California, offer very
different design challenges. The Grand
Canyon unit emphasizes heating: a
super-insulated envelope is combined
with passive solar features, including
windows that provide high solar
transmission and minimal heat loss. The
Yosemite location presents the problem
of scorching summer days, combined
(Continued on page 10)
ReCRAFT 90 National Demonstration Home.
demonstrate that home builders can
reduce the demand on natural re-
sources while developing markets for
recycled products.
The National Association of Home
Builders Research Center (NAHB) in
Bowie, Maryland, recently undertook a
similar project. The prototype home,
built in a Washington, DC, suburban
community, uses alternative materials
for the foundation, framing, siding, and
roofing — traditionally the areas of
greatest resource use. A typical new
home is made of 11,000 feet of virgin
wood, 70 percent of which is used for
Indoor Air Concerns
The designers of the model homes described on this page are aware that indoor
air quality concerns can arise in very well-insulated structures built from a
variety of manufactured materials. For example, the search for manufactured
wood substitutes for the ReCRAFT 90 home excluded any products containing
formaldehyde. Still, CRBT recognized that all adhesives used in reconstituted
lumber have potential outgassing problems, so particular attention was paid to
selecting finishing materials and providing adequate ventilation. The Park
Service will use a system of continuous forced ventilation to maintain air
quality for its employees.
U.S. EPA’s Indoor Air Pollution Prevention Program is currently screening a
variety of home building products to characterize their chemical emissions,
assess their toxicities, and explore alternatives. This information will be critical to
builders experimenting with new materials. For more information, contact EPA’s
Indoor Air Quality Information Clearinghouse, IAQ INFO, at 800-438-4318.
-------
Pollution Prevention News - 8
Resources
Spring 1993
Energy Directories
Public Citizen has released two new
energy directories: the National Directory
of U.S. Energy Periodicals lists over 700
publications on renewable energy,
energy efficiency, nuclear power, and
other energy topics. The National
Directory of Safe Energy Organizations
(6th edition, revised) contains listings
for over a thousand non-profit groups
involved in energy issues. The directo-
ries may be purchased in hard copy,
diskette, or as zip-coded mailing labels,
from Public Citizen, 215 Pennsylvania
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20003.
•:••:•
Waste Product Profiles
The National Solid Waste Management
Association has prepared a series of
Waste Product Profiles for newspaper,
glass containers, aluminum packaging,
HDPE containers, and PET packages.
The fact sheets contain information
about the recycling and recycled content
rates of these materials, weight and
volume characteristics, recycling
markets, and limitations on recycling.
Additional fact sheets are being pre-
pared. To order, contact NSWMA at
202-659-4613.
•:••:•
Pulp & Paper Proceedings
Proceedings from the EPA-sponsored
International Symposium on Pollution
Prevention in the Manufacture of Pulp
and Paper are available through the
National Technical Information Service,
703-487-4650. The three-day symposium
held last summer covered topics such as
pulping and bleaching practices,
including the use of chlorine, the use
and performance of emerging technolo-
gies, and consumer acceptance of
nonchiorine-bleached products.
INFORM Documents
Environmental Dividends
Companies reap both environmental and
economic dividends by cutting wastes at
the source, according to a report released
by INFORM, a national, nonprofit
environmental research organization. For
this report, researchers revisited 29
plants that the group had studied in
1985. The revisit showed that the same 29
plants achieved cost savings, rapid
payback on investments, increased
product yields and quality, safer work-
place conditions, fewer waste manage-
ment needs, and conservation of natural
resources through 181 individual source
reduction activities. For nearly two-
thirds of the initiatives with payback
period data, companies recouped their
initial investments in six months or less.
Environmental Dividends: Cutting More
Chemical Wastes may be ordered from
INFORM, 381 Park Avenue South, New
York, N.Y., 10016-8806. Tel: 212-689-4040.
+ +
EPA Reviews Industrial
Pollution Prevention Literature
New approaches and ideas for imple-
menting industrial pollution prevention
strategies are proliferating, according to
a critical review of literature conducted
by EPA’s Pollution Prevention Research
Branch. In Industrial Pollution Prevention:
A Critical Review, EPA researchers
present the current state of knowledge
on private and public approaches to
encouraging pollution prevention
strategies, selected clean technologies
and clean products, and various techni-
cal and economic issues related to
pollution prevention.
The report found that in industrially
developed countries, pollution preven-
tion usually results in bottom-line
savings, especially if long-term liabili-
ties for possible cleanup actions are
taken into consideration. “However, in
Dave Kling
(Continued from page 5)
the Department of Commerce for
instance, to work more closely together
on joint prevention initiatives, it should
also reinforce the interrelatedness of
these three issue areas in the public eye
and within the private sector. As a
result, I expect our environmental,
the short term, many of the potential
savings are dependent upon a stringent
regulatory program being in place to
discourage cheaper, but not as environ-
mentally friendly treatment and dis-
posal options, from being pursued.” The
report is available from EPA’s Pollution
Prevention Research Branch, 26 West
Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati,
OH, 45268. Tel: 513-569-7215.
•:• •:•
Green Advertising Scrutinized
At a time when many people are
wondering what it means for a laundry
soap to be “environmentally friendly,”
EPA’s Pollution Prevention Division has
published a new study, Evaluation of
Environmental Marketing Terms in the
United States.
This 200-page report provides a
comprehensive overview of trends in
the use of environmental marketing
terms such as “earth friendly,” “dolphin
safe,” “photodegradable,” and “recy-
clable.” It also discusses recent market
research into consumer understanding
of these terms, and consumers’ willing-
ness to base their purchases on such
claims, particularly if they are associ-
ated with higher cost.
Enforcement activities involving false
or misleading environmental advertis-
ing claims are also summarized in the
report. This publication will provide a
baseline against which to measure the
effect of new FTC voluntary guidelines
for advertisers making environmental
claims.
A limited number of copies of this
report are available through the Pollu-
tion Prevention Information Clearing-
house, Tel: 202-260-1023.
energy and industrial policies and
practices to be more integrated.
Finally, I wouldn’t be surprised if
new environmental legislation from the
Congress emphasizes prevention.
Congress made pollution prevention a
national policy in 1990, and I expect it
will be given considerable attention as
reauthorization bills for water, solid
waste and Superfund are drafted.
-------
Spriiic. 1993
9 — Pollution Prcz’entjoiz News
On Pvlarcii 1 b, 1993, 54 Mt’nibt’rs
oft/u’ U.S. Seiiatt’ cent a letter
to President Clinton llr ’ , ,, ’iiis , ,’
federal action on pollution
preveiltion. Excerpts froni
f/it’ letter, and a list of f/ic
szc uatoru’s. are reprinted
at ric ht. Ti,c’Mlowi,z’
day, 42 Me,nliers ott/ic
House of Representatives
sent a similar letter.
__ _____ Congressional Notes
_____ - 0 eap Mr. Preside
to
m 10 Preve feder 8 j YOU COn sider
anEx
Overfl e to take to e 0
Prevent ftler spe , .
espec Cu g Ste at the s
Ut1 fl the ” act 0
Source.
T e!;?c i ra1 govep boflR ’ term ci ri -lost effectiv e rato r than t h
le
ion,
pur 5 1)P1Ying 0 Ppoi- Lnlsh 011 e endofth
not OriJy decisions . revefltiUhuity and
inciUst Y Wor ,j. b S POl its clay.
Y arid the st ’ aTnple we .. If We _ S t tO be c 0
i-lie the
There
p 0 ji re ‘flany actj 0 must do o ‘ S
ers, We i-
arno Preventio ‘is that at We are USt lea j
also °XJC Waste 5 Per e federaj
identify am Strccte enepa tb0ns. asking 01
d to pp p d at fecje 0 ’ itica1 ‘it take to
feciera
be use 0VePnnen achievab) fac ,jItt Step IS to r lI]corporte
goaj 3 10 penslve fed the
itjes
Executive or : build rria PU 0 ses Of envy reduc g wS 5teatth ’itbon Plans
tO e 00
Penvj i- . ”°flh1]en a j So that
The
Pol1utionptatesin . encies to bUl)de ’ i hi3 benign Pr o du 0 t rv CeSsh
S to dev 0
p riova er ,jg allY, an
Promote Pams
and environmental audit in order to
identi fv opportuni ties for greater
ethciencv, co ’ t savings and pollution
prevention.
President Clinton reiterated elements
of his budget proposals and job creation
programs that promote increased
investments in alternate energy, water
treatment, and environmental restora-
tion. 1- Ic then announced a joint effort to
be undertaken by EPA and the Depart-
ments of Energy and Commerce to
encourage the development of new
transform these ideas into job-creating
products and services.
As an example, the President high-
lighted energy-efficient lighting, a
relatively new prod uct with projected
sales of 510 billion by the year 2000.
American companies pioneered many of
the technologies involved and the
Administration hopes to ensure that
Americans reap the benefits.
“We share our atmosphere, our
planet, our destiny with all the peoples
of this world,” the President pro-
claimed. As a result, we need “policies
[ that] will protect all ot us because that
is the only waY we can protect any o
us.” To exemplit this global commit-
ment President Clinton announced that
the United States now intends to sign
the Biodiversitv Treaty which came out
of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro. Other global actions include a
commitment to capping emissions of
greenhouse gases at 1990 levels b the
year 2000, and 53? ’ million in Russian
aid targeted for pollution cleanup and
energy efficiency.
dge our Cooperation
Sincerely tW ,J) goaj 8 of With any
econom. Such eff 0
groW and W’sh
envjroi- . Y0Ueve , su u -i
Da ne 1
Icoh)
President Clinton s Earth Day Speech
(Co,,li,,tiedtor,,i pa,s,’t’ 1) environmental technologies, and to help
-------
Pollution Prevention News - 10
Spring 1993
Great Lakes to Serve as
Model of Ecosystem Management
Q n April 16, 1993, EPA’s Office of
Water published a landmark
proposal for protecting water quality in
and around the Great Lakes. The Water
Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes
System would regulate pollutants by
establishing water quality criteria across
the entire ecosystem, in contrast to the
traditional state-by-state approach. The
guidance also discusses waste minimi-
zation as a goal and requires pollution
prevention planning under some
circumstances.
The massive 245-page proposal was
four years in the making. As part of the
process, EPA solicited input from
industry, environmental groups, state
and local government, and others, and
held over 100 public meetings. During
the 5-month comment period, which
will end in mid-September, discussion is
expected to center on three main issues:
(1) how basinwide water quality
standards should be set, particularly for
the most worrisome bioaccumulating
substances; (2) how stringent the anti-
degradation policy should be, and when
exceptions to it can be made; and (3)
how these policies should be translated
into actual discharge permits and
monitoring requirements at each
individual facility.
Setting Standards
The guidance proposes setting
basinwide water quality criteria for a
variety of pollutants, based on their
effects on human health, aquatic life, and
wildlife. Particular attention is paid to
toxic chemicals that tend to accumulate
in living organisms, the “bioaccumu-
lative chemicals of concern” (BCCs).
Twenty-eight chemicals are listed as
BCCs, and ten more are listed as
“potential” BCCs.
Anti-degradation Policy
As is the case under current rules,
dischargers who want to increase their
output beyond existing permit levels will
need to justify this increase if it will have
a significant impact on high quality
waters. No increases will be allowed if
the water body is designated an “Out-
standing National Resource Water.”
However, under other circumstances,
increases may be approved. The pro-
posed guidelines spell this out in greater
detail than previously, requiring dis-
chargers to consider whether the increase
could be avoided through pollution
prevention, even at a slightly higher cost,
and whether it will support important
social or economic development goals.
(For BCCs, even increases within current
permit levels would be subject to anti-
degradation restrictions.)
From Policy to Permits
Ultimately, basinwide standards
must be translated into permits at
individual facilities. The guidance is
intended to make this process more
consistent between the many states and
tribes issuing permits. In a significant
departure from past pr ctice, EPA is
proposing that the concept of a “mixing
zone” eventually be elifuinated for
BCCs whose overall burden in the water
(Continued from page 7)
with cold winters. A simple design
incorporates massive, well-insulated
walls, optimized natural ventilation,
and passive solar heating. The energy
needed for cooling will be reduced by
an estimated 98 percent over conven-
tional construction; for heating, the
reduction will be around 67 percent.
For convenience, low maintenance,
and cost savings, energy is supplied at
both housing units via an integrated
mechanical system that combines space
heating and cooling, water heating, and
ventilation in a single compact unit.
Electrical use will also be reduced by
using efficient appliances and compact
fluorescent lighting.
Both the NAHB and the CRBT hope to
influence other builders by demonstrat-
ing the feasibility and marketability of
environmentally conscious homes.
Building costs are expected to run
slightly higher than for conventional
may be as significant as the concentra-
tion at a given point. For BCCs that have
water quality based limits below current
detection capability, dischargers will be
required to establish pollutant minimi-
zation plans and may have to monitor
fish for accumulation.
Economic Effects
EPA estimates that this proposal will
affect approximately 3800 dischargers,
at a total annual cost of anywhere from
$80 to $550 million (EPA’s best estimate
is $230 million), and will bring measur-
able benefits for the long term health of
this unique ecosystem. EPA officials,
and many outsiders who participated
in the process of crafting this proposal,
hope that it will serve as a model
ecosystem approach for other states
and watersheds across the country.
For more information, contact
Kenneth Fenner, WQS-16J, U.S. EPA
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604. Tel. 312-353-2079.
construction (10 to 15 percent for these
prototypes) due to limited availability of
the unusual materials. But Walter
Spurling, CRBT’s program director,
believes that educated, “green” consum-
ers will accept this premium, particularly
since it can be recovered in future energy
savings. Additional resource-conserving
demonstration homes are being planned
for Portland and Seattle, and sponsors
hope that in time the techniques being
refined in these models will be adopted
throughout the construction industry.
Environmental Homes of the Future
The Center for Resourceful Building
Technology has compiled an 88-
page directory of resource efficient
building materials and manufactur-
ers. The Guide to Resource Efficient
Building Elements can be obtained by
sending a check for $23 payable to
CRBT, P.O. Box 3866, Missoula, MT
59806; Tel. 406-549-7678.
-------
Spring 1993
11 — Pollution Prevention News
Moving Towards Zero
Case Study
Q ur approach to solving pollution
problems in this country is
showing a gradual shift from end-of-
pipe controls to front-end reduction
strategies. The next logical step? Closing
the loop entirely. As innovations at the
Robbins Awards Co. of Attleboro,
Massachusetts show, getting rid of
pollution is not some environmental
pipe dream; the company’s closed-loop
production system proves that reduced
use and zero discharge of toxics are
technically feasible objectives that can
translate into significant savings.
Robbins is a medium-sized company
that designs and manufactures custom
jewellery and awards. Production of
these goods involves a metal plating
process famous for high levels of
pollution; the process is chemical
intensive, requires high volumes of
water, and produces huge quantities of
vastewa ter full of residuals.
Robbins’ zero discharge system,
installed in 1988, involves two sub-
systems: wastewater purification and
metal recovery. These two units have
reduced the company’s water usage by
4 percent, chemical usage by 82
percent, and production of metal
hydroxide sludge by 99.8 percent, from
4,000 gallons per year in 1986 to seven
gallons in 1988. Installation of the
system cost the company $120,000, plus
$100,000 for a new wing to house the
units. Overall savings average $71,000
per year; the investment was repaid in
full after three years.
A combination of factors spurred
Robbins to explore the zero discharge
option. A 1985 study of the Ten Mile
River identified Robbins as one of the
river’s major polluters. As a result, the
State’s Office of Technical Assistance
(OTA) held a series of pollution reduc-
tion workshops. OTA’s message con-
v inced Robbins’ environmental manager,
Paul Clark, to substantially reduce the
company’s water usage, from 12 to 15,000
gallons per day to only 2,500 gpd.
Then in January 1987, EPA and state
officials announced strict new pollution
restrictions based on the 1985 report. In
addition, MassPIRG filed a lawsuit
stating that Robbins had violated its
wastewater discharge permit limits
repeatedly from 1981 to 1987, translat-
ing into 2,500 violations, with potential
fines of up to 530 million. (MassPIRG
put the suit on hold while Robbins
made the transition to closed-loop
production, and dropped the case after
the corn panv demonstrated that it had
achieved zero discharge in 1988.)
As Clark explored the feasibility of a
closed loop system, pollution control
suppliers told him, “it can’t be done.”
The state’s OTA agreed to visit the
company, and came up with specific
ideas on how a closed-loop system might
work. Now it was up to Clark to con-
vince top management that the closed-
loop system was the most cost-effective
way to bring the company into compli-
ance with the strict new discharge
requirements. The numbers were clear,
but the system had never before been
tried. Senior managers agreed to Clark’s
proposal with some hesitation — and
have since become forceful advocates of
toxics use reduction. “Companies have to
become effective in dealing with environ-
mental issues,” says Robbins’ Executive
Vice-President John Bradley. “The ones
that don’t are going to be paying huge
fines and penalties — they won’t be in
business by the year 2000.”
Other companies are showing
growing interest in Robbins’ approach.
Crucial ingredients to Robbins’ success
include technical support from the state,
a citizens’ group threatening legal
sanctions, strict federal requirements,
and an innovative, persistent advocate
for change within the company. Accord-
ing to Bradley, the major hurdle to
overcome is fear of risk. “Upper man-
agement has to be flexible,” he says.
“They can’t shut anything out just
because it hasn’t been done before.”
For more information, contact John
Camara, Facilities Manager, Robbins
Co., 400 O’\eil Blvd., Attleboro, MA
02703; Tel: 508-222-2900.
Recirculation section of Robbins Co. closed loop system.
This article is reprinted from The
What Works Bulletin, a bi—monthlv
publication highlighting outstand-
ing environmental action. What
Works is published by The Environ-
mental Exchange, a national
nonprofit organization working to
accelerate environmental action by
sharing information about what’s
working to protect the environment.
To exchange information about
successful environmental initiatives,
contact The Environmental Ex-
change, 1930 18th Street N.W., #24,
Washington, DC 20009; Tel: 202-
387-2182.
-------
Pollution Prevention News - 12
Spring l993
Calendar
Title
Federal Facilities Compliance!
Pollution Prevention Conference
New York State’s 6th Annual
Pollution Prevention Conference
New England Resource Recovery
Conference & Exposition
Microscale Laboratory Workshops
for High School Teachers
Environmental Release
Reporting Course
4th Annual Midwest Renewable
Energy Fair
Joint National Conference on
Environmental Engineering
1993 Nat’l Solid Waste Forum on
Integrated Municipal Waste Mgmt.
Sponsor
U.S. EPA Region 5
NY DEC. Business Council
of New York State
New Hampshire Resource
Recovery Association
Nat’l. Microscale Chemistry
Center, EPA, NSF, TURI
Government Institutes
Date/Location
June 7-9
Chicago, IL
June 7-9
Albany, NY
June 8-10
Nashua, NH
June 11-13
North Andover, MA
June 18
Arlington, VA
June 18-20
Amherst, WI
July 19-21
Lake Buena Vista, FL
Contact
Lee Regner
312-353-6478
Linda Beagle
518-457-2480
603-224-6996
Dept. of Chemistry
508-837-5000, x 4381
Tern Green
301-921-2345
715-824-5166
514-398-6672
Kerry Callahan
202-624-5828
EPA Progress Reports
GREEN PROGRAMS — A new bro-
chure, The Climate is Right for Action,
explains EPA’s voluntary programs to
prevent air pollution and control green-
house gas emissions. Programs include
Green Lights, the Consortium for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Star Computers,
“Golden Carrot ” Refrigerators and
other efforts. To order, write to EPA’s
Public Information Center (PM-21 1B),
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 20460.
PREVENTION & RULEMAKING —
The Spring 1993 Status Report on the
Source Reduction Review Project
(SRRP) describes ongoing EPA efforts to
incorporate source reduction concepts
into pending regulations. SRRP will
ensure that prevention is considered in
24 forthcoming air, water, and hazard-
ous waste standards affecting 17
industrial categories. For a copy, contact
the Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse, Tel: 202-260-1023.
PREVENTION & ENFORCEMENT —
A recently released report, Innovations
in Compliance and Enforcement: Supple-
mental Environmental Projects in EPA’s
Toxics and Pesticides Program , provides a
detailed picture of how pollution
prevention has been incorporated into
settlement negotiations under environ-
mental statutes enforced by the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances. To obtain the report, call
Beth Crowley, 202-260-8464.
Moving? Please enclose mailing label!
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (MC7409)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Midwest Renewable Energy Assn.
ASTSWMO
Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, July 12-14
American Society of Civil Engineers Montreal, Canada
Address Correction Requested
------- |