&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
Washington, DC 20460
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
EPA 742-N-95-001
Pollution
Prevention
News
Resources
PPN makes its debut on the
Internet! Plus a bundle of
publications from the Office of
Solid Waste and elsewhere.
Technology
What do pollution prevention
and high tech initiatives have
in common? Plenty, according
toMEP.
A Tale of Four Cities
Local communities are
experimenting with pollution
prevention ideas. We include
a sampling and invite you to
send in tales of your own town.
11
Case Study
Pollution prevention in the
least likely places: a case
study from the Federal
Correctional Institution at
Petersburg, VA.
TRI CHEMICAL EXPANSION
EPA recently expanded the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) list of
chemicals and streamlined the
reporting process. On November 28, 1994,
EPA issued a regulation adding 286
chemicals and chemical categories to the
list of reportable substances. At the same
time, EPA made it easier for businesses to
provide communities with the informa-
tion they need about low volumes of
chemical releases through the use of a
shorter, less time-consuming reporting
form. "By working with industry and the
communities who use this data, we've
come up with a common sense way to
make it easier for industries that release
lower amounts of these chemicals to
provide the information that citizens need
and want to know," noted EPA Adminis-
trator Carol M. Browner.
Expanding the List of TRI Chemicals
In 1992, slightly over 300 chemicals were
included on the TRI. In November 1993,
another 32 chemicals, including chemicals
regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and certain
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), were
added to the list. The most recent expansion
adds 286 chemicals and chemical catego-
ries, bringing the total up to 654. Expansion
of the chemicals covered under TRI is
intended to offer the public a more complete
picture of toxic chemicals in their communi-
ties, and spur industry action toward further
pollution prevention and source reduction
opportunities.
The 286 additions include certain toxic
chemicals identified in the Clean Air Act,
Clean Water Act (Priority Pollutants), and
HONDA ANNOUNCES LOW EMISSIONS ENGINE
Surprising the public and the rest of
the car industry, Honda announced
in January the development of a
gasoline engine that reduces emissions by
about 90 percent from current standards.
The engine has been tested and verified by
the California Air Resources Board as
meeting California's Ultra Low Emission
Vehicle (ULEV) exhaust levels, which will
begin to apply to auto manufacturers'
fleets in 2000.
The 2.2 liter, 4 cylinder Honda ULEV
engine is based on the engine in the car
company's top-selling Accord EX. The
company notes several features of the
ULEV engine:
(1) use of the Honda's VTEC engine
technology which permits a lean air-
fuel ratio from ignition throughout the
cold-start period, while maintaining
smooth combustion;
(21 improvements to the catalytic con-
verter to allow fast activation; and
(3) ultra-precise computerized control of
the air-fuel ratio regardless of chang-
ing engine conditions, by monitoring
each cylinder, comparing the actual
air-fuel ratio to the target value, and
computing the proper control param-
eters in real-time.
Honda expects to begin selling cars
equipped with the ULEV engine in Califor-
nia in late 1997 for the 1998 model year.
-------
2 Rllution Prevention News
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
GRANT PROPOSALS
Grant proposals for environ-
mental justice/pollution
prevention projects are
being sought. Deadline:
March 31, 1995. For infor-
mation, see the January 4,
1995 Federal Register notice
(80 FR 452) or contact PPIC
at 202-260-1023.
PPN JOINS THE ‘NET’!
Check out Pollution
Prevention News in
electronic format. As of the
last issue (OctlNov 1994),
PPN is on the Internet. If
you have access to an
Internet system with gopher
capability, type:
“gopher.epa.gov.” if you
want your name removed
from the mailing list
because you are accessing
PPN on the Internet, please
let us know!
POLLUTION PREVENTION NETWORK
The National Environmental Law Center
(NELC) is coordinating Pollution Preven-
tion Network for pollution prevention
activists focusing on industrial sources of
pollution. Bringing together environmen-
tal, environmental justice, labor, con-
sumer, and occupational health activists,
the Network publishes a quarterly news-
letter, At the Source, and has compiled
packets of information on model policies
and strategies. For more information,
contact NELC at 617-422-0880.
EDUCATIONAL P2 COMPENDIA
The National Pollution Prevention Center
for Higher Education, located at the
University of Michigan, has developed
educational compendia integrating the
teaching of pollution prevention into
course work in accounting, business law,
chemical engineering, corporate strategy,
environmental engineering, industrial
ecology, operations management, etc.
Compendia include introductory materi-
als, annotated bibliographies, case studies
(on McDonald’s, Ford Motor Co., Amoco,
and others), problem sets, and collections
of syllabi. Contact: NPPC, 430 East
University, Ann Arbor, MI 48 109-1115, Tel:
313-754-1212, Fax: 313-936-2195, E-mail:
nppc@umich.edu.
P2 TEXTBOOK
McGraw Hill has recently published a
book, Industrial Pollution Prevention
Handbook, that may be useful as a text for
pollution prevention training activities.
Harry Freeman, chief of EPA’s Pollution
Prevention Research Branch in Cincin-
nati, was the editor (Tel: 513-569-7529).
EPA/OSW REPORTS
We’ve been catching up on recent (and not
so recent) publications of EPA’s Office of
Solid Waste. They include the following:
Joining Forces on Solid Waste
Management (EPA/530-K-93-0O1,
October 1994, brochure) shows how
reg onalization is working in rural and
o’
small communities to tackle solid waste
challenges using pooled resources.
The Biennial RCRA Hazardous
Waste Report (EPA/530-SS-94-039,
September 1994). As required under
RCRA, EPA collects information on the
generation, management, and final
disposition of hazardous wastes. Based on
the latest data collected in 1991, the report
includes summary and detailed analyses
for each state, a national analysis, and a
list of every large quantity generator and
hazardous waste facility. Excluding new
wastes covered by RCRA since the last
Biennial Report in 1989, the amount of
hazardous waste generated in 1991 was
29-54 million tons less than the 198
million tons reported in 1989.
‘ Strategy Update is a new, free quar-
terly newsletter on EPA’s Hazardous
Waste Minimization and Combustion
Activities. (EPAI53O-N-94-005, first issue:
September 1994). WasteWi$e is the
newsletter of the voluntary industry
program to reduce solid waste. (EPA 530-
N-94-006, first issue: December 1994). For
information, call 1-800-EPA-WISE.
Review of Waste Exchanges (EPA!
530-K-94-003, September 1994) provides a
list of over 50 operating waste exchanges
in North America plus a detailed analysis
of their operations and recommendations
for encouraging greater levels of reuse and
recycling. Most waste exchanges are small
but their number is growing rapidly,
particularly with the creation of the EPA-
funded National Materials Exchange
Network which provides a centralized
computer system that reduces the admin-
istrative burdens on local exchanges.
Waste Prevention Pays Off (EPA!
530-K-92-005, November 1993, brochure)
shows how companies cut waste in the
workplace, saving money and increasing
productivity. Plenty of examples and
prevention tips included.
To order any of the above, contact:
RCRA Hotline: 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-
553-7672 for the hearing impaired. In
Washington, DC and outside the U.S.,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.
-------
3 l’bllution Pre ntion News
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
TECHNOLOGY
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION
PARTNERSHIP GIVES A
BOOST TO SMALL FIRMS
O ver 98 percent of all manufacturers
in the United States have fewer
than 500 employees. These smaller
companies employ about 40 percent of the
total manufacturing workforce, account for
nearly half of all U.S. industrial output,
and, over the past two decades, have
provided about 75 percent of employment
growth in manufacturing. Yet these
companies are often hard pressed to keep
up with environmental regulations and to
implement new technologies that can
enhance their competitiveness.
The Manufacturing Extension Partner-
ship (MEP), a program of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) of the Department of Commerce, is
designed to increase the global competitive-
ness of smaller manufacturers. In the long
run, MEP believes, this mission can only be
achieved if smaller manufacturers are
empowered to become environmentally
sound while improving their competitive-
ness. MEP is a nationwide system with
three corn ponents: manufacturing exten -
sion centers; a State Technology Extension
Program (STEP) to help states identify the
needs of their small manufacturers and
plan how to serve those needs; and national
services and information to support these
efforts. The partnership is designed to
bridge a technological gap between sources
of manufacturing technology and the smaller
companies that need new technologies.
The partnership works with state
governments, industry, and educational
institutions nationwide to establish
nonprofit manufacturing extension
centers that serve as the focal point for
delivering services to smaller manufac-
turers. The centers are non-federal
organizations which have cooperative
agreements with NIST, and are selected
on a competitive basis. From tht initial
seven Manufacturing Technology Centers
set up in 1989, there are now currently 44
centers in operation, with plans to expand
up to 100 centers by 1997. The MEP
budget for FY 1995 is $90.6 million.
Each center is somewhat different, but
most offer technology assessments, access
to workforce training, workplace organiza-
tion, and financing and marketing. MEP
centers encourage manufacturers to focus
on continuous improvement, rather than
just solving the company’s immediate
production problems.
Pollution Pr.vention Pro eds
The Mid-America Manufacturing
Technology Center (MAMTC) in Overland
Park, Kansas, for example, has been
involved with environmentally
conscious manufacturing for
the last two years. Their efforts
began with a series of half-day
client workshops held in
several locations in Missouri
and Kansas. The workshops
focused on alternative paints and painting
techniques, metal finishing, and solvents,
as well as solid waste pollution prevention
and regulatory and legal issues.
MAMTC field engineers conduct environ-
mental projects for a range of clients,
including: helping a galvanizer obtain
financing for a sulfuric acid recovery system.
conducting environmental audits with
recommendations for improvement; locating
alternatives for methylene chloride in a
process to dissolve styrene chips; designing
an effective plant ventilation system; and
locating and installing a metal finishing
system to replace a paint dip system.
MEP Solidtation
MEP is now soliciting proposals for
$3.1 million in pollution prevention-
oriented projects with a focus on metal
fabrication and finishing. Three types of
projects will be supported: 1) integrating
environmental assistance services into
the broader services provided by manu-
facturing extension centers; (2) the
development of environmental technical
assistance tools and techniques; and (3 a
pilot National Pollution Prevention and
Environmental Compliance Information
Center. For more information, contact
301-975-5020.
For generai tnjormauon.
contact MEP at 301-97.5-
5020. For information on
MAMTC, contact Marianne
Hudson at 913.649-4333.
MEP centers
encourage
manufacturers to
focus on continuous
improvement
-------
4 L llution Prevention News
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
WE WANT TO
HEAR FROM YOU!
Pollution Prevention News
is interested in hearing
about new programs and
ideas in other communities.
Write to: Ruth Heikkinen,
Editor, Pollution Preven-
tion News, U.S. EPA (MC
7409), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460.
NEED POLLUTION
PREVENTION IDEAS?
TRY LOCAL PROGRAMS
L ocal planners and activists who worry
about running out of ideas for new
programs need look only as far as
other localities. Here’s a sampling from
the press:
STREET OF DREAMS
The Pomegranate Center for Community
Innovation plans to educate the public
about affordable, environmentally-sound
housing options by supporting the develop-
ment of up to 10 experimental neighbor-
hoods in Washington state. The homes,
which will be sold to the public, will
educate the public, developers, govern-
ment officials, and the construction trades
about affordable, community-enhancing
development.
The projects will be designed to encour-
age multigenerational residency and
neighborliness. Some of the features being
considered are narrower streets, smaller
lots with collective parks, higher density
in exchange for community assets, and the
latest energy technologies.
So far, eight developments have indi-
cated an interest in participating in the
program. These sites include municipal,
county and private developer projects.
For more information, contact Milenko
Matanovic at 206-557-6412. (From March!
April 1994 Pollution Prevention Northwest)
SAN JOSE LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT
CREATES P2 CENTER
A Pollution Prevention Center in San
Jose, California has been created by an
innovative settlement of a lawsuit filed by
a coalition of environmental organiza-
tions against the San Jose-Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant alleging
violations of the Clean Water Act. Under
the settlement, the city of San Jose will
fund the center for three years. In addi-
tion, San Jose will establish a $2 million
revolving loan fund to help small busi-
nesses develop source reduction measures
to reduce discharges into the San Fran-
cisco Bay. (From Spring 1994 Silicon
Valley Toxics ACTION)
The Center’s Convening Board includes
three representatives of local government,
three representatives of local businesses,
and three representatives from local
environmental groups.
CINCINNATI AIMS
FOR A MODEL PROGRAM
The City of Cincinnati, working coopera-
tively with the University of Cincinnati
and the Institute of Advanced Manufactur-
ing Sciences, Inc. (the Institute), is devel-
oping a model “Urban Area Pollution
Prevention Strategy.” Funded in part by a
Pollution Prevention in States (PPIS)
grant from EPA, the objectives of the
strategy are to promote pollution preven-
tion in city operations, local business and
industry, and the local community.
The City’s Highway Maintenance
Division has switched to water-based,
lead-free paint for road painting. The new
paint is safer for employees and emits
significantly lower volatile organic com-
pounds than the old solvent-based paint
which contained lead.
The City plans to conduct waste reduc-
tion and pollution prevention assessments
at all city facilities, and to make each city
department responsible for its own waste
disposal costs.
“The intent is for Cincinnati to become
a pollution prevention model for other
cities,” said J. Bruce Suits, Cincinnati’s
Pollution Prevention Program Manager.
For more information, contact J. Bruce
Suits at 513-352-6270.
-------
5 Pbllution Prevention News
Dec 1994-Jan/Feb 1995
LOCAL COMMUNITIES, CONTINUED
PHOENIX TAKES ITS
SHOW ON THE ROAD
The City of Phoenix is taking its pollution
prevention program on the road with a
low-budget, easy-to-implement outreach
program that is attracting a lot of interest.
Staff in the Pollution Prevention Program
of the city’s Water Services Department
bring a set of easy-to-transport games to
community and corporate forums, where
visitors to the citv’s booth can test their
pollution prevention knowledge. Two
games are used, one for community events,
called “Be a Pollution Solution,” and one
for industrial trade shows and confer-
ences, called “Pollution Prevention Pays.”
The questions and answers in the mini-
quiz on the right are examples of knowl-
edge tested at industrial trade shows.
The city saved costs by sharing the
materials for the two games and by keeping
the development work—from research to
carpentry—in-house. (A graphic artist,
though, helped out on design.) The games
are aimed at disseminating basic pollution
prevention knowledge and also focusing on
the city’s key pollutants of concern—
mercury, arsenic, lead, and copper.
Since the games were created a year ago,
they have been shown 11 times. According
to Jenée Gavette, director of the Pollution
Prevention Program, “people just line up”
to play these games, at events as diverse as
hazardous waste conferences and scouting
fairs. Maybe it’s for the prizes—squeeze
bottles, frisbees, coffee mugs and more, all
emblazoned with pollution prevention
slogans. Interested in knowing more?
Contact Jenée Gavette at 602-262-6997.
®] ®
® & L J J J
Can you answer these questions?
1. Name two aqueous effluent wastestreams
generated by photo processors.
2. What contaminant is found in all photo
processing aqueous effluent?
3. Name three of the six methods of silver
recovery currently used in the photo
processing industry.
4. What can be used on developer solution tanks
to prevent loss of potency through oxidation or
evaporation?
5. What is the advantage of changing to a
“plumbingless” mini-lab?
6. How can chemical carryover from one process
bath to another in all manual and some
automated processing systems be eliminated?
7. What type of bleach can replace disposable
bleach in the C-41 process?
8. How can an air gap in a closed chemical
storage container be eliminated?
wuq 8L 4 saipoai p.nb 1 at i un ca;qiow c o 6 6uippo
I .poo q aAuoJ ue6 L
ca 6aenbs Sfl 9
i°’ iwi “ii ç
s) oq JO Sp!I 6U!4DO 1 p
UO1IOJOdOAG a6uot a
UO! SISOWSO asiaAaJ uo!lo Id 9 Jd D!4XloJ 1 a sa6plJ4JoD uawaDo)d J !11048w c
JaA is
Sa SOM
)(lJ .Lpo Jq puo ‘ i poa q ca coM i do)aA p JO)OD sa4soM i oc ssaDoJd J IOM SU!J iuad t
:sJaA suv
ZKZZZZZXZXI XZZ ZZIZKXI ZXZIIZZTZWITIZ
-------
6 Fbllution Prewntion News
Dec 1994 - JaniFeb 1995
ENERGY
MORE GOOD P2 NEWS
FOR OHIO INDUSTRY
Three companies in Ohio —
Brush Weilman Inc.,
Pegasus Technologies Corp.,
and Techmetals, Inc. —
received 1994 NICE 3 grants
from the Department of
Energy. NICE 3 grants are
awarded for projects which
design, test, demonstrate,
and assess the feasibility of
new processes or equipment
with the potential to in-
crease energy efficiency,
reduce pollution, and
improve process economics.
CAMPAIGN TARGETS OHIO
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
E nergy efficiency is the lifeblood of the
Ohio economy and the economy needs
a transfusion of energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies. That’s the
conclusion of a report entitled “Energy
Efficiency as an Investment in
Ohio’s Economic Future”. The
report was released November 15
by the Campaign for an Energy
Efficient Ohio, as part of its
effort to simultaneously improve
Ohio’s energy supply, environ-
ment and economy.
Officially begun on September 21, 1994,
the Campaign is a grassroots organizing
effort to raise awareness regarding energy
consumption. Through education, advo-
cacy and organizing, the Campaign plans
to make consumers, as well as owners of
commercial buildings and facilities, aware
of the issues surrounding energy use and
the options for reduction. The Campaign
also plans to become involved in regula-
tory proceedings, such as rate filings, in
order to bring energy efficiency issues to
the front of the public policy debate.
“The inefficient use of energy acts as a
brake on the economic process” and
contributes to air pollution and higher
economic costs, according to John “Skip”
Laitner, the author of the report. The
Report examines the energy consumption
patterns in the Ohio economy and makes
projections of the potential benefits of
accelerated investment in energy efficient
technologies. Ohio currently spends 9.2
percent of its Gross State Product (GSP)
on energy, while the United States as a
whole spends only 8.2 percent of GNP.
According to the report, a $28 billion
investment in energy efficiency technology
between 1995 and 2010 would yield a
cumulative savings of $51 billion over the
same period, measured in 1990 dollars.
Such investment would benefit Ohio’s
employment base, boosting the economy by
450,000 jobs over 16 years. The environ-
mental benefits of the plan include the
reduction of carbon emissions by about
22.5 million metric tons in 2010.
The Campaign also is distributing case
studies of the successful use of energy
efficiency technology by Ohio companies.
For example:
The Big Bear company needed new
heating and air conditioning units in its
Columbus, Ohio grocery store. The
company decided to install energy
efficient units with computer controls.
The controls run the lighting and
refrigeration units, as well as heating
and air conditioning. The total cost was
approximately $150,000, and has
resulted in savings of approximately
$52,000, for a payback period of less
than three years, with savings continu-
ing for the life of the equipment.
The National City Bank of Cleveland
(NCB) implemented an energy manage-
ment program which included retrofit-
ting electronic light ballasts and
changing t12 lamps to t8 lamps. NCB
spent $100,000 to retrofit its main
facility and expects to save $59,000
annually as a result.
In April 1994, Ohio State University
(OSU) began retrofitting lighting in all
university buildings, a total of about 20
million square feet. Five university
employees work full-time installing
electronic ballasts and t8 bulbs as part
of the multi-year project. “We are seeing
a roughly 30 percent reduction in
electric loads with no loss of lighting,”
said Tom Sale, of the OSU Utilities
Department. When the program is
complete, the university expects to
reduce energy costs by 25 percent
annually.
For more information on the Campaign
for an Energy Efficient Ohio. contact Ken
Walker at 614-224-4900.
“The inefficient use
of energy acts as
a brake on the
economic process.”
Skip Laitner
-------
7 Pollution Prevention News
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
ENERGY, CONTINUED
ELECTRIC BUS
GOES TO SCHOOL
T he first full-sized school bus designed
specifically to run on electricity has
been transporting children in
Lancaster, California since July. Operated
by the Antelope Valley Schools Transporta-
tion Agency. the bus carries 72 passengers
and has a range of approximately 80 miles
with an eight hour charging period. The
bus features a regenerative braking
system which uses the electric motor as a
generator to slow the bus, recharging the
batteries and saving wear and tear on the
brakes. Under a grant from California’s
South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Blue Bird Body Co. designed the
body and chassis and built the bus, and
Westinghouse Electric Corp. developed the
propulsion system.
The electric bus “has been superb as far
as durability,” said Ken McCoy, CEO of the
transportation agency. According to
McCoy, the electric bus costs 8 to 9 cents
per mile to run, compared with 11 to 26
cents for other fuels. The motor is expected
to run 10 years or 100,000 miles before it
needs to be serviced. In addition, McCoy
said the electric motor creates no noise,
making the bus safer because the drivers
are better able to hear what is going on
both inside and outside the vehicle. Other
safety features include the largest possible
emergency exits and a governed top speed
of 55 miles per hour.
Antelope Valley also is using methanol,
compressed natural gas, and advanced
diesel buses, under a grant from the
California Energy Commission.
McCoy looks forward to testing a new
generation of batteries which are expected
to double or triple the bus’s operating
range. With an expanded range use of the
electric buses could spread. “I don’t think
there’s any question that this is the
future,” said McCoy.
For more information, contact Ken
McCoy at 805-945-3621 or Roland Gray of
Blue Bird at 912-757-7100.
NORTHEAST STATES GET
GO-AHEAD TO MOVE
TOWARD CLEANER CARS
E PA has approved a plan allowing
Northeast states to require
automakers to produce a new class of
low-polluting cars by 1999. The new cars
would pollute 70 percent less than cars
currently on the road. The 12 states (CT,
DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI,
VA, VT and Washington, DC would try to
meet Clean Air Act standards b requiring
all cars to meet minimum pollution
standards as well. The decision follows a
sharp debate by states, automakers,
environmentalists, and consumer rights
advocates, and was based on EPA’s deter-
mination that pollution reduction from
factories and other stationary air pollution
sources would not reduce pollution in the
Northeast sufficiently to meet federal air
quality standards.
L...st.r’s •iw 1(trk b. ..
-------
$ Fbllution Prevention News
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
CORPORATE NOTES
MAKING CHEMICAL
SUPPLIERS PART OF THE
TEAM REDUCES COSTS FOR GM
G eneral Motors (GM) is reducing the
quantity and cost of the chemicals it
uses through an innovative new
system that provides financial incentives
for GM suppliers. Part of the company’s
“WE CARE” (Waste Elimination and Cost
Awareness Reward Everyone) pollution
prevention initiative, the new chemical
management system uses expertise from
outside sources and reshapes the relation-
ship between the supplier and the cus-
tomer in order to reduce chemical use
and disposal.
Like other big car-makers, GM is a
large user of chemicals that aid in the
manufacturing process. These
are called “indirect chemicals”
because they are not directly
incorporated into the final
product. Formerly, a single GM
facility might work with more
than a dozen chemical suppliers, including
several suppliers of the same or similar
products. This resulted in more chemicals
than necessary in use at a facility and
excessive GM staff time to deal with
purchasing the chemicals. The large
inventory of chemicals tied up capital and
cost money to store and manage. Because
suppliers made more money when the
customer spent more, there was a disin-
centive for the supplier to reduce the use
of chemicals.
The goal of GM’s new system is to
engage one supplier for all indirect chemi-
cals at a facility. That supplier must obtain
from other suppliers any chemicals it
doesn’t carry that the facility needs. The
supplier also provides management,
analysis. inventory control, and informa-
tion management for chemicals used at
the facility. Thus the facility no longer
purchases chemicals; it purchases a
chemicals service.
The supplier is treated as a member of
the production team and is paid a fixed
amount based on production, rather than
on amount of chemicals used. In addition,
the supplier has more expertise than the
facility, and may be able to substitute less
toxic alternatives and reduce the cost of
compliance with environmental regula-
tions. Under this program, the supplier,
not the facility, owns the inventory. The
supplier therefore has an additional
incentive to consolidate the number of
products used and the amount of total
usage, reducing its costs of inventory,
storage, and regulatory compliance. Finally,
because a particular supplier is supplying
more or all of a facility’s needs, the supplier
can afford to have an on-site chemicals
manager, making chemicals and chemicals
information easier and more effective.
The facility no
longer purchases
chemicals; it
purchases a
chemicals service.
“WE CARE” IN ACTION
As part of GM’s WE CARE
program, its Lansing,
Michigan Plant 3, which
builds hoods, trunk lids and doors for
several models of GM vehicles, uses
an adhesive to attach the metal skin
to interior reinforcements. The
adhesive GM had been using re-
sulted in toluene emissions. GM
worked with a supplier to identify a
non-solvent adhesive that would
meet its specifications. After testing,
GM began using the new adhesive on
assembly lines for three body sties.
The result has been the elimination
of 300 tons per year of toluene to the
atmosphere. In addition, residues of
the new adhesive are non-hazardous
and non-flammable, and so may be
disposed at a lower cost. Using the
new adhesive has reduced Plant 3’s
hazardous waste from 3,000 to 400
gallons per year.
-------
9 Pollution Prewntion Ne
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
WATER
CHESAPEAKE BAY
PROGRAM ADOPTS TOXICS
REDUCTION STRATEGY
C alling for a Chesapeake Bay “free of
toxics,” the governors of Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania and the
Mayor of the District of Columbia in
October 1994 adopted a Basinwide Toxics
Reduction and Prevention Strategy for the
Bay and outlined initiatives for riparian
f rest buffers, habitat restoration, and
agricultural certification programs. In the
certification initiative, individuals will be
trained and certified to write nutrient
management plans for farms — i.e., site-
specific plans to manage the application of
fertilizer, manure, and sludge in order to
keep nutrients on farmland and out of
surface and groundwater.
The top priority for the Chesapeake
Bay, according to the Chesapeake Execu-
tive Council, is speedy implementation of
nutrient reduction in the Bay’s tributaries.
The program has set a goal of reducing
nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the
Ba by 40 by 2000. Outgoing Maryland
Governor William Schaefer called on his
partners in Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and the
District of Columbia to
“push harder to meet
our 40 goal by the
year 2000. I’m not
saying it’s going to be easy with the
pressure 15 million people put on our
resources, but it can be done.”
Specific objectives in the 1994 Strategy
include:
By 2000, federal facilities within the
Chesapeake Bay basin will achieve a
75 ? voluntary reduction in releases and
off-site transfers for treatment and
disposal of the 14 Cl i sapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern as well as chemicals
required to be reported under TRI.
By 2000, establish voluntary integrated
pest management practices on 75 of
all agricultural, recreational, and public
“Our goal is a
Chesapeake
Bay free of
toxics.”
o’
lands within the Bay basin.
By late 1995, develop Regional Action
Plans for three areas: Elizabeth River
in Virginia, Baltimore Harbor, and the
Anacostia River.
By January 1996, develop and begin
conducting a basin-wide communication
and education program directed to-
wards reducing consumers’
use of products containing
harmful chemicals.
Evolving Understanding
The 1994 strategy signals a
shift in emphasis from a
narrow focus in the past on
point source discharges into
the Bay, to a broader target-
ing of sources identified as
significant contributors to the
Bay’s problems: stormwater
runoff and atmospheric deposition.
The strategy is based on a two-year
evaluation of the original toxics reduction
strategy adopted in 1989 by the Chesa-
peake Bay Program.
The evaluation yielded a mixture of
good and bad news. The most severe
chemical contamination problems in the
Bay appear to be limited to areas located
near urban centers close to the Bay - the
Patapsco, Anacostia, and Elizabeth rivers.
Still, there is no shortage of other Regions
of Concern (areas with known chemical
contaminant-related impacts) and Areas of
Emphasis (areas with potential impacts
which are a focus of the strategy as well.
Meanwhile, existing programs do seem
to be reducing inputs of chemical contami-
nants to the Bay. Success stories include
record numbers of striped bass in the Bay. a
dramatic increase in the size and density c i
underwater Bay grass beds, and a 52
percent reduction in reported toxic releases
from industry over the last five years.
For more information, contact the
Chesapeake Bay Program, 410 Severn
Ave., Suite 109, Annapolis, MD 21403, Tel:
410-267-5700, Fax: 410-267-5777.
Th. Js.s IIv. .uspti.s
Into bs Ch.s.p..k. my.
-------
10 }k)llution Prevention News
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
WATER, CONTINUED
SRRP IN ACTION
The first effluent guideline
rule designed for study
under the Source Reduction
Review Project SRRP) was
the Pesticide Formulating,
Packaging and Re-Packag-
ing Effluent Guidelines,
proposed on April 14, 1994
(59 FR 17850). Finding that
the industry generates
relatively small volumes of
wastewater and has numer-
ous opportunities for
pollution prevention, EPA’s
proposal was for zero
discharge of process waste-
water pollutants.
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
FOR METAL PRODUCTS
INCORPORATE
PREVENTION PRACTICES
A nother proposed effluent guideline
rule in the works incorporates
pollution prevention information
and approaches. Phase I of the metal
products and machinery (MP&M) effluent
guideline is expected to be proposed in
Spring 1995. The rule will cover approxi-
mately 10,000 facilities engaged in
manufacturing, maintaining, or rebuild-
ing finished metal parts, products or
machines in the aerospace, aircraft,
electronic equipment, hardware, and
other related industry sectors.
The MP&M rule was developed at EPA
with the assistance of the Source Reduc-
TRI CHEMICAL EXPANSION
C..ti...d Ir. . p.,. 1
Safe Drinking Water Act. Approximately
half the chemicals added are active
ingredients in pesticides. For a complete
list of the chemicals, contact the EPCRA
Hotline at 1-800-535-0202 or 703-412-
9877. EPA plans to develop additional
guidance to assist the regulated commu-
nity in reporting on these new chemicals.
Facilities affected are those in the manu-
facturing sector in SIC Codes 20-39.
Str.amlined R.porting Option
EPA was petitioned by the Small Business
Administration and the American Feed
Industry Association to reduce the burden
of TRI reporting for certain types of
businesses. A public meeting on the
petitions was held in February 1994, and a
proposed rule was published in July 1994.
Upon review of the comments and
additional analysis, EPA agreed to estab-
lish a streamlined reporting option for
facilities with low annual reportable
amounts of a listed toxic chemical. Facili-
o’
tion Review Project, a cross-Agency effort
to integrate prevention into regulatory
development. In-process pollution preven-
tion and water conservation technologies
were included as a basis for the rule,
including flow reduction methods; cen-
trifugation and 100 percent recycling of
painting water curtains; centrifugation
and pasteurization to extend the life of
water-soluble machining coolants (reduc-
ing discharge volume by 80 ), and in-
process metals recovery.
In the course of developing the rule,
EPA staff found a large number of site-
specific pollution prevention practices that
could be useful to other MP&M sites. The
MP&M Development Document contains a
pollution prevention bibliography of these
practices. For more information, contact
Bill Cleary at 202-260-9817.
ties that have an annual reportable
amount of 500 pounds or less of a TRI
chemical, and that manufacture, process
or use 1 million pounds or less of a TRI
chemical no longer need to complete the
current long form of Form R. Instead, such
facilities (which otherwise meet the
reporting requirements of EPCRA Section
313) can submit a shorter, annual certifi-
cation statement. Such facilities must also
maintain records substantiating the
calculations that support their eligibility
for the short form.
EPA believes that this rule strikes a
positive balance between maintaining the
community’s right-to-know about toxic
chemical releases, and the economic costs
(both to EPA and industry) of collecting
the information. Like the chemical expan-
sion rule, this reporting modification is
effective for reporting activities beginning
January 1, 1995 with reports due on or
before July 1, 1996. For copies of the
certification statement and eligibility
requirements. contact the EPCRA Hotline
at 1-800-535-0202.
-------
11 Ik,llution Prevention News
Dec 1994 - Jan/Feb 1995
CASE STUDY
SOURCE REDUCTION
COMES TO PRISONS
by Janice Johnson,
EPA Office of Solid Waste
P ollution prevention is spreading —
even to the unlikeliest of places!
One example is the Federal Correc-
tional Institution (FCI Petersburg),
located in Petersburg, Virginia, which has
developed supplier partnerships and other
practices that have benefitted the environ-
ment and saved the prison and its suppli-
ers money. A 1992 EPA on-site assessment
of the facility’s solid waste spurred these
and other pollution prevention efforts at
the institution, which includes a medium
security compound and a minimum
security “camp.”
At the prison site, Unicor—an indepen-
dent corporation with 88 operations
nationwide—operates three factories for
printing, cable manufacturing, and
furniture refinishing. Unicor produces a
variety of products and services for federal
agencies, primarily the Department of
Defense (DoD and the General Services
Administration.
The prison’s recent negotiations with
DoD demonstrate the mutual benefits in
changing military specifications to mini-
mize packaging waste. According to Bill
Stuby, associate warden, one of his cable
plant managers immediately spotted a
problem when the Defense General Supply
Service (DGSSI asked them to pack
“10,000 adapters in individual boxes, with
12 boxes to a carton, four cartons to a case,
and 12 cases on a skid.”
While acknowledging that packaging
items in Individual Unit Packs makes
tracking easier, Stuby believes that in this
case DGSS “carried redundancy” too far.
The institution’s cable factory manager,
packaging foreman, and quality assurance
inspector calculated the costs of the
packaging materials and the labor in-
volved in meeting the military specifica-
tion for packaging. The team then set up a
meeting with DoD contracting officials to
present these findings.
When staff showed DGSS their cost
calculations and a sample of the finished
product with its required packaging,
DGSS officials “quickly realized what they
had done and the problems that this
excess packaging would create at their
warehouse,” says Stuby. These negotia-
tions resulted in DGSS dropping the
individual unit pack re-
quirement and less waste
going into the environment.
DGSS saved itself and its
customers money on raw
material and labor.
Other benefits of the
assessment include FCI
Petersburg’s efforts to buy
high post-consumer recycled
content materials, and to
encourage toxic use reduc-
tion among its suppliers and
customers. For example, to
achieve the ambitious goals of a recent
Executive Order, Stuby says that his
printing operation, which last year real-
ized $3.3 million in sales, has convinced
several customers to use between 35 and
50 percent post-consumer content paper
for such nonwriting uses as book covers.
Executive Order 12873 requires that,
beginning December 31, 1994, all federal
agencies purchase printing and writing
paper made with 20 percent post-con-
sumer materials or 50 percent specified
recovered materials.
Finally, the facility’s toxic use reduction
efforts have also yielded savings and
benefitted the environment. Following
EPA’s recommendation, the facility
eliminated the use of the solvent 1,1,1,-
tnchloroethane to clean its cables. Al-
though the alternative cleaner, an organic
terpene derivative, requires more time and
effort to use, Stuby believes the extra
effort is worth the $12,000/year he saves
on avoided disposal costs. The printing
operation has achieved similar results by
switching to soybean ink and a water
soluble process to wash equipment.
For more information, contact Janice
Johnson at 703-30 -7280.
FCI, P.P.rib.r,.
Editorial Staff.
Ruth Heikkinen, Editor
Gilah Langner
Joshua Katz
Free Hand Press. Layout
To be added to our mailing
list, please write:
Polution Prevention Nws
U.S. EPA M( ‘7409
4(11 M Street NW
Washington. DC 2(1461 )
or fax to:
Ruth Heikkinen.
202-26 )1-2219
Printed on roveled paper.
-------
12 Mlution Prevention News
Dec 1994 -Jan 1995
CALENDAR
TITLE DATE
Low- and No-VOC Coating Technologies March 13-15
International Conference
AIChE Spring National Meeting/ March 19-23
Petrochemical & Refining Expo
1995 SO2 Control Symposium March 28-31
March 29-April 1
April 2-5
EPA 21st Annual RREL Research Symposium April 4-6
Gulf of Mexico Symposium 1995:
Steering a Course for the Future
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable,
Spring Conference
DfE Conference on the Environment April 6-7
for Screen Printers
Environment Virginia '95 April 6-7
Innovative Concepts Technology April 20-21
& Business Opportunities Fair
The Safety Professional's Role April 20-21
in Environmental Management
DOE Pollution Prevention Conference XI May 16-18
LOCATION
Durham, NC
Houston, TX
Miami Beach, FL
Corpus Christi, TX
Austin, TX
Cincinnati, OH
Chicago, IL
Lexington, VA
Denver, CO
Chicago, IL
Knoxville, TN
CONTACT
EPAAERL,
919-541-5816
Jeff Lenard, AIChE,
212-705-7660
EPA, DOE, EPRI,
415-855-2010
Gulf of Mexico Program,
800-699-GULF
Natalie Roy,
202-543-7272
Emmalou George, EPA/RREL,
513-569-7578
Stephanie Bergman, EPA DfE,
202-260-1821
Ronald Erchul,
Virginia Military Institute,
703-464-7331
Jerry Holloway,
Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
509-375-2007
National Safety Council,
800-621-7619
Linda Josie McDonald,
DOE Oak Ridge,
615-435-3415
Moving? Please enclose mailing label!
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (MC7409)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Penalty for Private Use $300
Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed
Address Correction Requested
------- |