&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
Washington. DC 20460
March - April 1995
EPA 742-N-95-002
Pollution
Prevention
News
EARTH DAY CELEBRATES 25 YEARS
News and Notts
New Jersey issues its first
multimedia permit to
Schering-Plough; Environ-
mental regulations reinvented
TRI Data Announced
The latest figures from the
Toxics Release Inventory show
a continuation of past trends.
The Environment
and Competitiveness
A new study makes a strong
case that the environment
spurs dynamic change in
the economy.
I Voluntary Programs
Updates on EPA's Green
Lights, WAVE, WasteWi$e,
and 33/50 programs.
10 Case Study
What do pollution prevention
and pizza sauce have in
common? Find out inside!
In a celebration both prospective and
retrospective, environmental activities
for the 25th anniversary of Earth Day
are in full swing across the country. The
National Mall in Washington, D.C. was
the site of Earth Fair '95, featuring a
special Earth Day for Kids and hosting the
dedication of Earth Day 1995 commemora-
tive stamps by the U.S. Postal Service,
based on designs submitted by school
children. Gatherings, festivals, cleanups.
and other events are underway around the
country during the month of April.
The first Earth Day celebration on April
22, 1970 caught the imagination of the
public with as many as 20 million people
participating worldwide. That Earth Day
launched the modern environmental
movement and is credited with energizing
a generation of environmental action.
Students at several thousand colleges and
universities held environmental "teach-
ins;" cars were banned from mid-town
Manhattan; rallies were held in major
cities; and several states passed environ-
mental improvement legislation in honor
of the occasion.
This year's celebrations included a
dazzling array of fairs, concerts, tree
plantings, parades, bike-ins, runs and
marches, from the "5th Annual Great L.A.
Clean Up" to the "Give an Hour to the
Earth" activities in Knoxville, TN. In
Dallas, a festival called "Our Planet
Dallas" set as a goal one million hours of
volunteer service by Earth Day. In
California, a statewide promotional
campaign to "Buy Recycled" coincided with
this month; in Seattle, over 20,000 volun-
teers were expected to pick up trash, build
trails, and plant trees. And in New York
City, host to the largest Earth Day celebra-
tions 25 years ago, huge nature scenes
called "Giant Earth Projections" were
projected onto downtown skyscrapers.
For the 25th anniversary of Earth Day,
many communities are focusing their
activities on children and environmental
education, looking
toward the 21st century.
And in another indica-
tion of how far we have
come, a new Internet
system called G-NET
was launched, to
advance environmental
technology sharing into
the global market place.
Happy Earth Day!
At the first Earth Day
celebration on April 22,
1970, a solid mass ol
people jammed Fifth Avenue
in New York City from
14" Street up to 59* Street.
-------
2 Iblluti Prewntion News
March-April 1995
NEWS & NOTES
NJ ISSUES SINGLE
MULTIMEDIA PERMIT
R eplacing some 60 to 70 separate
environmental permits for its
Kenilworth, NJ facility, pharma-
ceutical manufacturer Schering-Plough
celebrated the receipt of one comprehen-
sive environmental permit from the State
of New Jersey covering all aspects of its
operations, including air emissions,
wastewater discharges, and solid waste
management. Schering-Plough volun-
teered for a pilot project of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection to develop a facility-wide
permit, and spent over $1.5 million in
capital and labor costs during the three-
year process.
Robert Luciano, Chairman and CEO of
Schering-Plough, noted that this was “the
first time that pollution prevention has
been incorporated into a single permit
covering all of a facility’s environmental
requirements.” Specific pollution preven-
tion measures include development of an
in-process recycling
program that recovers
Freon used in the
aerosol manufacturing
process; the facility
also eliminated the
use of 1-1-1 Trichioro-
ethane (TCA) as a sol-
vent, replacing it with
a water-based system.
The company expects
to save $300,000 an-
nually in reduced
waste disposal and
raw materials costs, in addition to signifi-
cant administrative savings.
REINVENTING
ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION
The Clinton Administration announced in
March a strategy to reinvent environmen-
tal protection, unveiling 25 high priority
o’
actions targeted at fixing problems with
regulatory programs and developing
innovative alternatives. The strategy
stresses performance standards and
economic incentives rather than technol-
ogy-based standards, building trust among
traditional adversaries of environmental
regulation, and shifting more authority
from the federal government to states,
tribes, and local communities.
Among the high priority actions an-
nounced are an open-market air emissions
trading rule for smog-creating pollutants;
effluent trading in watersheds; refocusing
RCRA on high-risk wastes and redefining
solid waste to simplify industry compli-
ance with RCRA regulations; refocusing
drinking water treatment requirements on
highest health risks. Other measures
include one-stop emission reporting;
consolidated federal air rules; and a 25%
reduction in paperwork. To spur innova-
tive approaches to environmental protec-
tion, EPA will coordinate a series of
demonstration projects that will offer
facilities, industrial sectors, communities,
and federal agencies the opportunity to
employ technological innovation to achieve
environmental goals beyond what the law
requires.
DATABASE OPEN
FOR BUSINESS
The Pollution Prevention Research
Projects Database, accessible through the
Internet, contains information on more
than 200 pollution prevention research
projects. Operated by the Pacific North-
west Pollution Prevention Research
Center, the database also offers a Request
for Proposal Clearinghouse, which will
track projects from RFP through comple-
tion. To access the gopher:
1. IJRL:gopher://gopher.pnl.gov:2070/1/.pprc
2. server (or host): gopher.pnl.gov port:
2070 selector: 1/.pprc
For more information, contact David
Leviten, 206-223-1151 or d_leviten@ccmail.
pnl.gov.
Stut.-.f-t .-.rt wutsr I sIiøt prssss s
uP Sth.rI. -PI..gk’s k..iIw.sIh, NJ,
phur... u Pk& rssw d .uvf.dwlug
fudmy rsovs o.tuuduwuts fi wat. .
Jus,., ,lffiu. kh.rfu
.u.. ., Sf
•isviro.*uuPuI .ffuirs,
sutvuits tb. ..w
bluá.r, f.dlity.Sfd. psrlI
with th. sid ii. druw.rs sf
p.rIt-r.fut.d pup.mvk.
-------
3 Fbllution Prewntion News
March-April 1995
TRI
1993 TRI DATA SHOW PAST TRENDS CONTINUING
Rel.ases show substantial drop, but total wastis g.nsrat.d continu. to lncr.as.
E PA unveiled the latest figures from
the 1993 Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) which show a substantial drop
of 12.6 percent in reported industrial
releases of toxic chemicals into the nation’s
environment since the previous year.
Reported releases have declined by nearly
43 percent since 1988, the baseline year
for TRI reporting.
Nevertheless, despite the drop in toxic
chemical releases and an increase in
recycling activity, the total amount of
waste generated by industry continued its
upward trend, increasing slightly to
about 33.5 billion pounds. EPA Deputy
Administrator Fred Hansen noted, “We
must begin to see a more significant
reduction in the amount of waste gener-
ated by American business.”
A total of 2.8 billion pounds of toxic
chemicals was released to the nation’s air,
land, water, and underground environ-
ment in 1993. In 1988, releases reported
to the TRI totalled nearly 4.9 billion
pounds. The greatest reported reductions
have been in underground injection 57%
since 1988), followed by land disposal
(44% drop since 1988), air emissions (39%
since 1988), and surface
water discharges (13%
since 1988).
Chemical manufac-
turing accounted for
47 percent of all toxic
chemical releases
reported in 1993, or 1.3
billion pounds. This is
followed by primary metals (329 million
pounds), paper (216 million pounds),
transportation equipment (136 million
pounds), and plastics (127 million
pounds). The five states with the largest
direct environmental releases in 1993
were: Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio,
and Alabama.
ACCESSING TRI IS EASY!
EPA offers TRI data to the
public in a variety of
computer and hard
copy formats. Over
4,000 libraries have
TRI in their
collection.
FOR ONLINE
ACCESS TO TRI,
contact: National Library of Medicine
TOXNET System, Specialized Information
Services, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda,
Maryland 20894, Tel: 301-496-6531; or
RTKNet, Unison Institute, 1731 Connecti-
cut Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20009-1146,
Tel: 202-797-7200, Fax: 202-234-8584. (There
is no charge to access RTKNet; you can
register on-line by modem at 202-234-8570.)
FOR HELP WITH SEARCHES AND
ACCESS TO DATA: TRI User Support
provides general TRI information, TRI
publications, help with searches, training
for National Library of Medicine TOXNET
online searches, CD-ROM training, referral
to EPA regional or state TRI contacts, and
documentation support for all public
access TRI products. Contact: TRI-User
Support, U.S. EPA(7407, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, Tel: 202-260-0568,
Fax: 202-260-4659.
TO PURCHASE TRI on CD-ROM, micro-
fiche diskette, magnetic tape, reports, and
directories, contact: Government Printing
Office, 710 North Capitol Street NW,
Washington, DC 20401, Tel: 202-783-3238,
Fax: 202-512-1530, or: NTIS. 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161,
Tel: 703-487-4650 or 800-553-NTIS.
“We must begin to
see a mote significant
reduction in the amount
of waste generated by
American business.”
EPA Deputy
Admiaistrator
Fred Hansen
-------
4 Fbllution Prevention News
March-April 1995
ECONOMICS
For a copy of the study,
Competitive Implications of
Environmental Regulations:
A Study of Six Industries,
contact: Management
Institute for Environment
and Business, 1101 17th St.
NW Suite 502, Washington,
DC 20036, Tel: 202-833-6.556.
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRY
STUDY FINDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES
CAN SPUR COMPETITIVENESS
A study of the role of environmental
regulations in determining competi -
tive advantage found that in six
industries studied, environmental invest-
ments created some change in the com-
petitive structure of the industry. The
project, conducted in 1993 and 1994, was a
collaborative effort of the Management
Institute for Environment and Business,
St. Gallen University in Switzerland, and
three EPA offices.
In each case, the study, found, environ-
mental pressures created opportunities for
companies to gain competitive advantage in
domestic and international markets.
Industries generally initiated innovations
— including material substitutions, process
changes, and changes in product formula-
tions — in response to environmental
pressures from regulations, or from con-
sumers and professional advocacy cam-
paigns. The innovations resulted in cost
reductions, yield improvements, market
share increases, andlor export expansion.
The six industries — whose aggregate
worldwide sales reach $160 billion per
year — were:
paint and coatings
pulp and paper
computers and electronic components
refrigerators
batteries
printing inks.
FOUR DETERMINANTS
Based on the case studies, the research-
ers identified four factors that determine
whether environmental regulations (and
environmental pressures more broadly
will hurt or help competitiveness:
1. When corn pan Its are free to choose
their method of compliance, they
usually arrive at the best solution for
their situation. Companies that develop
a superior method can recoup their
investment by selling it to competitors.
2. Regulations that tackle substances
which have a clear purpose in produc-
tion (e.g., solvents for cleaning) or
which are present in the final product
give manufacturers and suppliers a
clear incentive to replace the substance.
Regulations that deal with by-products,
leakages, etc. result in less immediate
incentives for change and more frequent
use of expensive pollution control
technology rather than preventive
alternatives.
3. Large companies in industries with a
high rate of change (e.g., computer and
chip manufacturers) have the most
resources for innovation. Regulations
directed at such industries will usually
elicit innovation; regulations directed at
industries with small firms are less
likely to.
4. Regulations that allow for flexible
compliance timetables may encourage
firms to make innovative changes when
their capital assets are fully depreci-
ated. Rigid timetables, on the other
hand, may force firms to install end-of-
pipe treatment in order to avoid write-
offs of undepreciated equipment.
CATALYSTS OF CREATIVITY
Researchers found positive examples of
innovation in each industry, in some cases
by U.S. firms, in other cases by foreign
companies. In each instance, the innovat-
ing company gained global market share
by adopting a pollution prevention ap-
proach, either substituting less toxic
products or using cleaner processes and
technologies. For example:
In dry cell batteries, Varta, the leading
German battery maker, gained “first
mover” advantage by developing a
mercury-free “green” battery in the
UK, ahead of regulatory action by the
European Union. Other competitors
-------
5 Pollution Prevention News
March-April 1995
ECONOMICS, CONTINUED
rapidly jumped onto the green band-
wagon.
In printing inks, FFC International of
Lancaster, PA developed a lithographic
printing solution with zero VOC content
to replace isopropyl alcohol. Although
the new solution cost 5-1O more than
the old, it offered cost savings of up to
50’? overall because so much less of the
product was required.
‘ In the automotive industry, companies
have been required to reduce the
emissions of VOCs when painting
vehicles. In the race to develop coatings
which meet environmental standards
without compromising performance at
the least possible cost, BASF from
Germany and IC! from the UK have
gained market share at the expense of
US coatings manufacturers by market-
ing water-borne automotive coatings to
the U.S. auto industry.
On the other hand, some industries
cannot meet the challenge, particularly if
they are made up of small companies that
are required to make large fixed invest-
ments. A case in point is the U.S. printed
wiring board industry, where companies
were required to build wastewater treat-
ment systems, which called for environ-
mental capital spending of close to 10
percent of total capital (in large compa-
nies, about 6? of capital is devoted to the
environment). U.S. regulations were not
significantly more stringent than those in
Japan or Southeast Asia, but in the U.S.,
small firms were an important part of the
industry. In this case, environmental
regulations helped cause a consolidation in
the U.S. printed wiring board industry,
from 2000 to 900 firms.
In sum, in a competitive industry,
environmental regulations and consumer
pressure — if appropriately applied — can
induce innovations that benefit both the
innovating company, the larger industry,
the economy, and the environment.
ot -
RETHINKING THE ENVIRONMENT/
COMPETITIVENESS PARADIGM
A prominent economist and business thinker, Michael Porter, has
taken up the issue of environmental regulation and its effects
on industrial competitiveness. Porter, a professor of business
administration at Harvard Business School and author of The Com-
petitive Advantage of Nations, teamed up with Claas van der Linde of
St. Gallen University in Switzerland to reexamine the environment-
competitiveness relationship.
Porter and van der Linde argue that the paradigm of business
behavior long used by economists and regulators is one of static
competition. In this paradigm, technology is static, information is
perfect, and the comparative advantage redounds to the business or
country with the lowest cost inputs, whether for labor, energy, raw
materials, or other. With this model, the environment and the
economy must remain locked in a perpetual power struggle, with
industry spending an enormous amount of resources just trying to
avoid the costs associated with environmental improvements.
Global competition and the power of technology, however, have
made this time-honored paradigm less relevant, argue Porter and van
der Linde. The more realistic model is one of dynamic competition,
where market share can be captured by companies that continually
innovate, and particularly by the ‘early birds” that anticipate local
and international needs ahead of their competitors. Environmental
regulations that are designed properly can inspire such innovation,
which may be directed at minimizing the costs of compliance, or, going
further, to address the environmental concerns while improving the
product itself. Porter and van der Linde note that contrary to the
usual view that environmental regulation in one country disadvan-
tages its own firms relative to unregulated countries, the potential for
innovation means that strictly regulated companies can derive
benefits from the regulation.
The new paradigm calls for a rethinking on the part of all players
in the environment/economy debate. Companies, for example, must
begin to recognize the environment as a creative opportunity, say
Porter and van der Linde, rather than as a costly threat. Government,
for its part, needs to ensure that its resources are devoted to stimulat-
ing innovation rather than retarding it.
Porter and van der Linde’s paper, “Towards a New Conception of the
Environment-Competitiveness Relationship” is forthcoming in 1995 in
the Harvard Business ReLicu’ and the Journa1 of Economic Perspectives.
-------
6 Lkllution Pre tion News
March-April 1995
TECHNOLOGY
STRATEGIC RESEARCH
PROJECT KEEPS
ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGY AS A FOCUS
H arnessing the resources of the
defense establishment to confront
environmental problems is the
mission of SERDP — the Strategic Envi-
ronmental Research and Development
Program. SERDP brings together the
Department of Defense (DOD), the Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE), and EPA
in a coordinating body to support
and spur R&D in environmental
technologies. Funded through
DOD, the 132 projects supported
in FY 1994 are aimed at identify-
ing, developing, demonstrating, and
applying technologies, and sharing the
results with the private sector and other
governmental organizations.
Given DOD’s status as the single
largest energy user in the world, energy
conservation is an obvious choice for one of
SERDP’s six “technology thrust areas.”
DOD’s annual energy consumption is over
190 million barrels of oil equivalent, with
a price-tag of over $6.9 billion. SERDP
aims to help DOD reduce its facility
energy consumption by 30 percent to 2005,
in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 12902, for an annual
saving of $975 million.
The other five technology areas that
SERDP is concentrating on are cleanup,
compliance, conservation, pollution preven-
tion, and global environmental change.
In the pollution prevention area, the
program’s R&D objectives focus on alter-
native materials and processes to replace
hazardous heavy metals, toxic cleaning
and degreasing chemicals, VOCs, and
ozone-depleting substances (particularly
“second generation” substitutes for refrig-
eration and fire-fighting agents). Other
efforts will develop or evaluate on-line
sensors and monitoring systems to prolong
the usefulness of toxic chemicals in certain
operations, as well as techniques to recycle
and reuse toxic chemicals within opera-
tional processes. SERDP is also involved
in predictive models to aid in the develop-
ment of environmentally sound weapon
systems and platforms during their
design, testing, maintenance, and decom-
missioning. Two examples of SERDP
projects follow.
WASTE WOOD TO ENERGY
A demonstration project jointly run by
the Marine Corps’ Camp Lejeune in North
Carolina, EPA, and Research Triangle
Institute will set up and run a power plant
using the 20,000 tons of waste wood
products generated by the Marine Corps
base each year. “Energy conversion of
wood results in essentially no net increase
in carbon dioxide or other greenhouse
gases,” notes RTI’s program manager John
Cleland. Design innovations will be built
into the plant to make it attractive for
small industrial applications.
DEIONIZING WATER
Another example of a pollution preven-
tion project is the development of a new
technology called Capacitive Deionization
(CDI) by Dr. Joseph Farmer of Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. Conven-
tional processes for removing salts from
water, through evaporation, reverse
osmosis, electrodialysis, or ion exchange,
all have inherent problems, including high
energy requirements, heavy reliance on
acids and bases, high volumes of corrosive
secondary wastes, etc.
Dr. Farmer’s CDI system deionizes
aqueous wastes — essentially, removing
salts from water — while requiring no
chemicals, membranes, acids or bases, or
salt solutions; creates far less secondary
waste; and is vastly more energy efficient.
Successfully demonstrated on a research
scale, CDI could ultimately find numerous
applications, including treating aqueous
wastes containing radioisotopes and heavy
metals; treating corrosive boiler water in
nuclear and fossil power plants; producing
high-purity water for semiconductor
processing; removing salt from water for
agricultural irrigation; and desalinating
sea water. A pilot-scale system is currently
under development.
DOD is the
single largest
energy user in
the world.
Many SERDP projects were
highlighted at the first
annual SERDP Symposium,
held in Washington, D.C. on
April 12-14, 1995. For
information on SERDP’s
program development
process, to receive a monthly
newsletter, or for contacts in
the participating federal
agencies, contact the SERDP
Support Office at 703-525-
5300, ext. 546, or by fax:
703-525-7975. For informa-
tion on the CDI technology,
contact Dr. Joseph Farmer
at 510-423-6574.
-------
7 Pbllution Prewation News
March-April 1995
VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS
“USE LESS, SAVE MORE:
LET WAVE SHOW YOU HOW”
A s the new motto of the Water
Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency
(WAVE) indicates, using less (water)
can save more — both water and money.
A voluntary partnership program to
promote water efficiency, EPA’s WAVE
program is helping hotels find practical,
profitable solutions to the business of
managing water. Staff have recently
completed development of an interactive,
PC-based software tool to assist the lodging
industry in analyzing water usage and
identifying opportunities to economically
implement water efficiency measures.
The software, known as WAVE-Saver,
is tailored for the needs of the hotel
industry and is part of the larger package
of technical assistance that EPA is
offering participating hotels. In the
future, the WAVE Program plans to
develop versions of WAVE-Saver that will
be modified to meet the needs of other
commercial sectors, including office
buildings, multi-family housing, universi-
ties, and hospitals. Every WAVE Partner
and Supporter receives a complimentary
copy of WAVE-Saver.
WAVE-Saver is easy to use and requires
only limited computer skills. WAVE-Saver
enables the user to:
Calculate the true incremental cost of
water;
Create budget projections based on
historical rate and occupancy patterns;
Evaluate hundreds of efficiency options
using “intelligent” look-up tables and
databases;
‘ Select, customize, and print property-
specific forms to guide the collection of
data; and
‘ Analyze high-efficiency equipment
upgrades using on-line help files which
incorporate color graphics and full-
motion video.
WAVE-Saver is available in both CD-
ROM and disk format. WAVE-Saver
installs in minutes and runs with any off-
the-shelf, IBM-compatible PC with Win-
dows 3.X installed. No proprietary hard-
ware is needed, however, multimedia
capability is required. Technical support is
provided free to WAVE members. WAVE-
Saver was developed by Pequod Associ-
ates, Inc. of Boston in conjunction with
leading water-use experts and sponsored
by EPA and the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. Call 202-
260-7288 for information.
GREEN LIGHTS
Celebrating its fourth anniversary, Green
Lights is stronger than ever, counting over
1,600 participants by January 1995. A
total of 4.3 billion square feet of floorspace
is now Green Lightspace — more than 5
percent of all U.S. commercial and indus-
trial space. Participants, including corpo-
rations, hospitals, colleges and universi-
ties, governments, and non-profits, are
racking up savings on their electric bills at
a rate of more than $80 million annually
as a result of upgrading their lighting to
energy-efficient technologies.
Other Green Lights happenings:
1994 Partners of the Year included:
Johnson & Johnson (large corporation); The
Washington Times (small corporation);
Arlington Public Schools and Santa Cruz
Valley Union High School District (govern-
ment); University of Missouri-Columbia
(university); University of Michigan
Hospitals (large hospital); Lima Memorial
Hospital (small hospital); Whitaker News-
letters (small business); and Sligo
Adventist School (non-profit).
‘ Americorps Green Lights Project:
This National Service Corps project will
establish two teams of lighting surveyors
(one each in Oregon and Washington),
composed largely of undergraduate
students. After training, the student
surveyors will conduct lighting surveys
and suggest energy-efficient upgrades in
public schools and other buildings.
(Contact: Marc Ross. Bonneville Power
Administration, 503-230-5438; Carolyn
PUBLICATIONS:
A new WAVE Brochure is
available describing the
benefits of joining EPA’s
WAVE program. Call 202-
260-7288 to order copies.
Also available, from EPA’s
Office of Pollution Preven-
tion and Toxics: Case Studies
of Pollution Prevention at
POTWs (EPA 742-F-94-001,
Winter 1994), results of a
pilot program in municipal
wastewater pollution
prevention in five states.
((Green
Lights
For more information
on how to sate money and
energy wit/i Green Lights.
contact: Manager, Green
Lights, U.S. EPA 11202.1),
Washington, DC 20460,
hotline: 202.775-6650; fax:
202- 775.6680. For fax
information available 24
Gangmark, EPA Region 10, 206-553-4072.)
hours a day, call 202-233-9659.
-------
S Ikllutk*i Prevention News
March-April 1995
VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS, CONTINUED
WASTEWISE PROGRAM
EXPANDS IN 1995
by Robin Moran,
EPA Office of Solid Waste
M ore than 375 companies joined
WasteWi$e in its first year,
committing to reducing the
municipal solid waste they generate.
WasteWi$e partners set their own goals in
three areas: waste prevention (source
reduction , collecting recyclables, and
buying or manufacturing recycled prod-
ucts. The types of waste covered in
WasteWi$e include materials that would
normally be thrown in a company’s trash
dumpster (or their customers’ dumpster).
such as office paper, corrugated contain-
ers, packaging, cafeteria waste, yard
trimmings, and wood pallets.
This spring, WasteWi$e partners
reported to EPA on their waste reduction
achievements. In addition to environmen-
tal benefits, many companies already have
realized significant cost savings, especially
if their efforts focused on waste preven-
tion. EPA will compile companies’ waste
reduction results into the first Annual
WasteWi$e Progress Report, expected to
be released this fall.
EPA is continuing efforts to promote
WasteWi$e to a larger number of busi-
nesses. An exciting new expansion is the
WasteWi$e Endorser Program. Endors-
ers are trade associations and other
membership-based organizations that
champion the WasteWi$e program to their
members. To launch the Endorser pro-
gram, EPA initially targeted 1 0 key trade
associations representing a diverse mix of
business sectors. Endorsers commit to
recruit their member companies to join
WasteWi$e arid to provide them with
ongoing information on waste reduction
strategies. EPA will provide Endorsers
with WasteWi$e materials, help them
identify effective activities, and publicly
recognize their efforts. At press time, more
than 20 organizations had signed on as
\VasteWi$e Endorsers r see box
Another key emphasis this year is to
expand the range of technical assistance
services offered to WasteWi$e partners.
Through the new Peer Exchange Net-
work, WasteWi$e partners can contact
each other directly to share experiences on
implementing waste reduction programs.
WasteWi$e partners complete a simple
form indicating those topic areas for which
they would like to share or receive informa-
tion. Then EPA helps facilitate a ‘match.”
For example, a company looking for tips on
implementing an on-site composting
program can be matched with a company
that has already successfully done so.
Several of EPA’s Regional Offices will
be providing WasteWi$e partners with
workshops and waste assessments.
EPA will host the first workshop in
Boston on May 11 in conjunction with the
New England Environmental Expo.
EPA is proud of the accomplishments
WasteWi$e partners have made thus far,
and looks forward to more waste reduction
achievements this year.
WASTEWISE ENDORSERS
American Textile Manufacturers Institute
Business and Institutional Furniture
Manufacturers Association
Direct Marketing Association
Edison Electric Institute
Electronic Industries Association
Food Marketing Institute
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Institute of Packaging Professionals
National Association for Environmental
Management
National Association of Photographic
Manufacturers
National Automobile Dealers
National Retail Federation
National Soft Drink Association
National Wooden Pallet and (‘oritainer
Association
Newspaper Association of America
Polystyrene Packaging (‘ouncil
Steel Manufacturers Association
Steel Recycling Institute
The Glass Packaging Institute
The Vinyl Institute
Virginia Recycling Association
WASTE
W E
For more information, or
to receive the three-times-a-
year newsletter, WasteWi$e
Update, please call the
Waste Wi$e Hot/inc at
1-800-EPA- WISE.
-------
9 1 llution Prewntion News
March-April 1995
VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS, CONTINUED
33/50 PROGRAM:
THE NEXT GENERATION?
O ne of EPA ’ 5 earliest voluntary
environmental partnership experi-
ments, the 33/50 Program was
initiated in 1991 to challenge American
industry to show how much leaner and
cleaner it can be when it is allowed to find
its own solutions to reducing pollution.
Industry responded to the program with
enthusiasm, with nearly 1,300 companies
participating in the effort to reduce 17
high-priority toxic chemicals.
The Program’s 1992 interim 33 X-
reduction goal was exceeded by more than
100 million pounds, and its 50 ? reduction
goal is expected to have been met in 1994, a
full year ahead of schedule. Participating
companies have averaged a nearly 60
reduction in releases and transfers of the
17 chemicals since 1988. While it is not
possible to determine how much of this
decline is due to source reduction, facilities
report significantly higher rates of source
reduction activities for 33/50 Program
chemicals than for other chemicals reported
to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
WHAT NEXT?
Many people think that the 33/50
Program ends in 1995. since its ultimate
national 50 reduction goal is targeted for
1995. Increasingly. EPA is asked what, if
anything, is planned as a follow-up to the
33/50 Program.
Over the last few years. a consensus has
emerged that voluntary partnerships
between goveriirneiit and industry can be
effective in promoting pollution prevention.
However, perspectives differ on both the
need for and the design of a next-genera-
tion 33/50 Program. EPA has been spear-
heading public discussion on the prospects
for a next generation voluntary program.
The objective is to obtain input from
industry, environmental groups, citizens,
states. and other constituencies on whether
the 33/ () Program should continue, and if
so. how a successor program should be
designed. A decision will he announced
formally in the summer of 1995.
STILL GOING STRONG
Meanwhile, EPA’s
administration of
the 33/50 Program
will continue well
beyond 1995.
Public release of
the 1995 TRI data,
used to monitor
progress in meeting
the 33/50 goals,
will not occur until
the spring of 1997.
EPA is also review-
ing options for
commending
companies for their
final reduction
achievements.
Working with a
panel of represen-
tatives from
industry, states,
and environmental
considering whether 33/50 Program
Awards should be issued to a select set of
companies whose pollution reduction
achievements can be considered truly
remarkable.
Another idea being considered is to
encourage companies to submit 33/50
Program success stories detailing the ways
in which they achieved significant reduc-
tions in emissions of the target chemicals.
EPA has already produced a series of 33/50
Program Company Reduction Profiles, and
more are scheduled for release this spring.
CALL FOR COMMENTS
To obtain information or to comment on
the current program or its future, contact
Chris Tirpak, Acting Director, 33/50
Program:
Tel: 202-260-6907
Fax: 202-401-8142
Mail: Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (74O . U.S. EPA,
401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460
Internet: burns.mike@epamail.epa.gov
TRI RELEASES AND TRANSFERS OF
33/50 PROGRAM CHEMICALS, 1988-1993
1750
489 l 13
SI%
1i7’
91$ 1919 990 991 1992 993
1993 TRJ data shea releases and transfers of
33/50 Program chemicals dou’n by 685 million
pounds (46 ) from 1988. Participating companies
operate about one-third of the 18,000 facilities
reporting 33/50 Progra ni eh em ira Is, but I/i cv
account for large proportions of the reported
reductions in these chemicals, including 98 of
the 100 million pounds reduced in 1993.
groups, EPA is
NEW PESTICIDE
PARTNERSHIP FORMED
Following up on a commit-
ment to Congress made 1
months ago, three federal
agencies have formed a
partnership with agricul-
tural and non-agricultural
groups to promote steward-
ship and promote human
health and the environ-
ment. EPA, the Department
of Agriculture USDA) and
the Food and Drug Admin-
istration (FDA) announced
the formation of Pesticide
Environmental Steward-
ship Program in Decem-
ber 1994.
Look for more’ on the
Pesticide Enrironmenta/
. t ’wardship Program and
other actiuilics promoting
pollution prerention en
agriculture in the next
issue of Pollution
Prevention News.
o1;
-------
10 Pbllution Prevention News
March-April 1995
CASE STUDY
A BETTER TASTING PIZZA
SAUCE? NICE 3 INDUSTRY
USES AN ENERGY•SAVING
OSMOTIC FILTRATION SYSTEM
T he Challenge: The tomato proces,-
ing industry has been skeptical about
the use of membranes. Several years
ago, reverse osmosis systems were aggres-
sively marketed to the industry. However,
those systems required large amounts of
electricity and had membrane fouling
problems. The tomato processing season
lasts approximately 50 to 90 days/year:
therefore, reliability is of utmost impor-
tance. Any downtime impacts production
and leads to tomato spoilage.
The Solution: Osmotek developed a
low-cost membrane filtration module that
can produce high-viscosity
purees without clogging
the filter membrane.
The company modi-
fied reverse osmosis
membranes for DOC
applications to produce
higher quality concentrated tomato
purees and pastes.
In a direct osmosis svs tern, solvent
(water) diffuses through a semipermeable
membrane from a low solute solution
(tomatoes) to a high solute solution
(concentrated salt brine). The greater the
difference in the concentrations of the
solutions, the faster the water diffuses
through the membrane.
DOC uses modified reverse-osmosis
membranes that allow small amounts of
sodium to cross into the product and
remove water much faster. The DOC
process makes a more flavorful, thicker
puree or paste with more vitamins than
purees from evaporator systems.
In double-effect evaporators, the
tomatoes are heated during processing. In
the DOC/SOLAR system, the only heat
required is for reconcentrating the brine.
Because tomatoes are grown in hot, dry
regions, the sun provides all the energy
needed (through solar evaporation) to
reconcentrate the brine.
oJc
Osmotek will combine its DOC mem-
brane modules with a solar evaporation
system in a three-phase program. The first
phase will demonstrate a system that
contains a 2500 lb (1136 kg)/day tomato
processing unit with a 0.03-acre (0.01-ha)
evaporation tank at The Sabroso Company
in Sandy, Oregon. The second phase will
scale up to a 25 ton (23 tonne)/dav unit
with a 0.25-acre (0.10-ha) evaporation tank
at Tn-Valley Growers’ facilities in Modesto,
California. The final phase will develop
products that take advantage of the higher
quality of the cold concentrated sauce.
Energy Savings: 1.5 million Btulton
(1.6 gigajoules/megatonne) of water
removed. Most of the energy
consumed in tomato
processing is used for
running the double-effect
evaporators, which are
eliminated in the DOC/
SOLAR system. Osmotek
estimates that a plant
producing catsup or tomato
paste from 125 tons (113
tonnes )/day of tomatoes could save
150 million Btu (158 gigajoulesWyear.
Environmental Benefits: CO 2 emis-
sions reduction of 2371 lb/day/ton (1078
kg/day/0.9 tonne) of water removed. The
double-effect evaporators are powered by
natural gas or diesel fuel. By not burning
these hydrocarbons, producers can reduce
CO 2 and NO emissions by 237 lb (108 kg)!
ton and 0.82 lb (0.37 kg)/ton of water
removed, respectively.
Economic Savings: $30,800/year/10,000
lb (454.55 kg)/h water removal. Yearly
operating costs for a DOC/SOLAR system
will be an estimated $30,800 less than those
for a double-effect evaporator for a 10,000 lb
(454.55 kg)/h water removal unit.
National Impacts in 2010: Once the
technology is perfected, any fruit or
vegetable processing plant that performs
product concentration should be able to
apply this technology. National energy
savings: potentially 4.0 trillion Btu (4.2
petajoules)/year; national environmental
benefits: CO 2 emissions reduction of 1.2
million tons (1.1 megaton nes )/year.
Tomato puree and tomato
paste arc the main ingredi-
ents in a wide variety of food
products from pizza sauce to
catsup. To make these and
other tomato products, U.S.
food processors must evapo-
rate more than 13 million
tons (12 negatonnes)/vrof
water from fresh tomatoes.
Currently, industry uses
energy-intensive, double-
effect evaporators t dewater
the fruit.
Osmotek, Inc. in Corvallis,
Oregon, has developed an
energy-efficient method for
deu’atering tomatoes using
direct osmosis concentration
and solar evaporation
(DOC/SOLAR). Osmotek is
a recipient of a grant from
the NICE progra,n, spon-
sored by the U S. Department
of Energy (DOE) and EPA.
The company u’ill use these
funds to demonstrate
membrane filtration tech no!-
ogy in pilot-plant and full-
scale operation.
CONTACTS:
State Mark Kendall
503-378-8444
DOE Bill Ives
303-275-1755
-------
11 L llution Prevention News
March-April 1995
RESOURCES
PUBLICATIONS
Buy Smart, Buy Safe: a 20-page booklet
listing over 350 household products and
their toxic effects. Recipes for safer alterna-
tives are also included. $5.00 Contact:
Washington Toxics Coalition, 4516 Univer-
sity Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98105, tel: 206-
632-1545. (From: Household Hazardous
Waste Management News)
Local Government Guides: Two new
ones recently published: International City!
County Management Association, Pollution
Prevention: A Guide for Local Governments,
focuses on in-house improvements. Contact:
ICMA, 800-745-8780. Also, from the Bay
Area Hazardous Waste Reduction Commit-
tee comes Recipes for Success: Local
Governments’ Guide to Developing Elements
of a Pollution Prevention Program, culled
from members’ experiences. Call BAHWRC
at 510-287-1511.
MATERIALS
Training Curriculum.
After participating in a
1993 workshop on
metal finishing, Whyco
Chromium Company,
Inc. of Thomaston, CT
developed a four-session model pollution
prevention training curriculum to assist
manufacturers in conducting their own
training programs. ConnTAP, the Con-
necticut Technical Assistance Program,
helped out with a matching grant. For a
copy of the training report and model
curriculum, contact Barbara Barbieri,
ConnTAP, 203-241-0777.
Learning to be Water Wise and Energy
Efficient Customers is the goal of the
National Energy Foundation’s educational
program, recently expanded to encompass
lighting, space heating and cooling, and
general home energy use. The classroom
materials are written for children in
grades 4 through 8; accompanying the
materials is a hardware kit with tools such
as sink aerators, high efficiency
showerheads, toilet leak detector tablets,
filter tone alarms, and a lawn watering!
rain gauge, along with warranty and
installation instructions. Kids learn how
and why the materials can save resources,
and pass the information along to their
families. For information, contact Sarah
Quarante, NEF, 1-800-722-7778.
GUIDEWORD PROCESS ASKS
THE QUESTION: “WHAT IF?”
What if managers, engineers, and plant
personnel regularly asked the question
“what if...”? Asking “what ii ’ questions is
at the heart of a structured technique
developed by William W. Doerr, project
manager at CH2M Hill in Boston, presen-
ted at the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers’ annual meeting in November
1994. Structured techniques are among
the many methods by which pollution
reduction opportunities can be identified
for an industry. Doerr’s structured
method, called “Guidewords,” was devel-
oped to make use of the collective experi-
ence of site-based individuals, to apply to
virtually any industrial process, and to
stimulate thorough and creative thinking.
The guideword process begins by
organizing a multi-disciplinary team with
a comprehensive range of skills and areas
of familiarity, typically including a process
engineer, maintenance engineer, operator
or operations supervisor, material control
supervisor, environmental engineer, and
facilitator. Using detailed data, process
flow diagrams are segmented into a
limited number of wastestreams.
The actual technique involves asking
“What If ’ ?” questions about each identified
wastestream in a collaborative brain-
storming session. Other “what if” ques-
tions are used to consider process changes
as well as frequency modifications for
certain types of operations. The aim is to
systematically and collaboratively consider
routine as well as transient emissions. For
a copy of Doerr’s Guidewords paper,
contact AIChE at 212-705-7845.
VIDEO
“The Surfer, the
Garbageman, and the
Lady in the Sky” — an
entertaining video from a
high school student’s
perspective of economic and
environmental issues and
trade-offs. Produced by the
students and faculty of the
Anaheim Union High School
District along with a
workbook, “Economics and
the Environment - Teamed
for Success.” Contact:
California Dept. of’ Toxic
Substances Control, 916-
322-3670. (From Waste
Minimization Update, Sept!
Oct 1994)
Editorial Staff
Ruth Heikkinen. Editor
Gilah Langner
Joshua Katz
Free Hand Press. Layout
To be added to our mailing
list, please write:
Polution Prevention News
U.S. EPA (MC7409)
401 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20460
or fax to:
Ruth Heikkinen,
202-260-2219
Printed on recvded paper.
-------
12 Pollution Prevention News
March-April 1995
CALENDAR
TITLE DATE
Solid Waste Workshops for Rural, Dates in May,
County, and Local Governments October
1995 Intl. Symposium on Electronics and May 1-3
the Environment: A Life Cycle Approach
for Electronics Products
New England Environmental Expo May 9-11
DOE Pollution Prevention Conference XI May 16-18
"Partnerships": 8th Annual Pollution May 17-19
Prevention Conference
1995 American Tour de Sol May 20-27
Northeast Resource Recovery June 5 -6
Conference and Exposition
Solar '95 Conference: 24th American July 15-20
Solar Energy Society Annual Conference
and 20th National Passive Solar Conference
Air Force Worldwide August 15-18
Pollution Prevention Conference
Tribal Pollution Prevention August 15-17
LOCATION
CONTACT
Locations in WV, MD Brian Guzzone, SWANA
CO, SD, VT. ID, MT 301-585-2898
Orlando, FL
Boston, MA
Knoxville, TN
Albany, NY
Road rally thru CT,
MA, VT, NH, ME
Burlington, VT
Minneapolis. MN
San Antonio, TX
Billings, MT
IEEE,
908-562-3878
Longwood Environmental,
617-489-3400
Linda Josie McDonald,
DOE Oak Ridge, 615-435-3415
NY State Dept. of Environ.
Conservation, 518-457-2480
Northeast Sustainable
Energy Association,
413-774-6051
Northeast Resource
Recovery Association,
603-224-6996
ASES,
303-443-3130
W. Bruce Holt, American
Defense Preparedness Assoc.
703-247-2579
Todd MacFadden,
Montana Extension Service,
406-994-3451
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
Address Correction Requested
------- |