United States	Pollution Prevention Office	April 1989
Environmental Protection	Washington, DC 20460
Reports from
EPA Offices
People & Places
in the News?
North Carolina's
Roger Schecter
in May
Your comment* and
fetters are welcome!
Pollution Prevention Office
401 M Street $W> (PM-2X9),
Washington, DC 20460
Editor's Corner
This month marks the publication of the
first EPA data gathered as part of the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI). The inventory shows
a staggering total of 10.4 billion pounds of pol-
lutants released into water, land, and air in
1987. Although it is difficult to quantify the risk
associated with these emissions, and many of
them are managed under EPA or state regula-
tions, the levels are still far too high.
In some ways, the TRI data is a lot like going
for a physical after years of avoiding the doctor's
office. The news is both good and bad. If your
doctor is like my doctor, the bad news always
comes first: your food is too rich, your choles-
terol is too high, it's time to take care of your
body. The good news is that maybe there's still
time to do better.
As a nation, the TRI data is giving us a very
similar prognosis. We have been producing and
releasing too many toxic chemicals, not recy-
cling enough, and not taking care of our natural
resources. The good news is that we have finally
gone for a checkup, and there may still be time
for change. The TRI data are telling us that we
have succeeded as well as we can hope to
succeed with a traditional diet of end-of-pipe
controls. Despite good compliance with envi-
ronmental regulations, the level of emissions,
releases, and discharges of pollutants into our
environment is still unacceptable. We need
solutions, and by all accounts, prevention has
got to be at the top of the list.
If we are willing to work together and seek
innovative and creative solutions, maybe our
checkups over the next few years won't be so
hard to swallow.
In this issue, we're pleased to report on
North Carolina's program and i ts director, Roger
Schecter, a key player in the national preven-
tion movement. Also, news from a number of
offices at EPA that are involved in building
bridges across sectors of society, exchanging in-
formation, and moving forward on the many
facets of municipal solid'
Priscilla Flatte
Reports from EPA Offices
Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management
In an effort to coordinate environmental
management activities among EPA, state and
local governments, industryandacademia, EPA
has established the Office of Cooperative Envi-
ronmental Management (OCEM). OCEM
absorbs and expands the functions of the Agen-
cywide Technology Transfer Staff. Under the
leadership of R. Thomas Parker, the new office's
main objectives will be to build working rela-
tionships across organizations to explore new
approaches to environmental problem-solving,
to improve communications, and to increase
voluntary compliance by the regulated commu-
nity, both public and private.
"Our job is bringing people together," ex-
plains Robert Hardaker, director of OCEM's
State and Educational Programs Staff. "What
OCEM tries to become is a catalyst to involve
outside organizations in environmental issues,
and move government out of its regular bounds.
EPA will never have enough resources to do
continued on page 2
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Pollution Prevention News - 2
April 1989
EFA Reports
(from page 1)
this on our own, so we need to rely on
business and academic resources."
OCEM will place a high emphasis on
technology transfer, training, and the de-
velopment and sharing of new technologies.
OCEM supports the operations of the Na-
tional Council for Environmental Technol-
ogy Transfer (NACETT), a 37-member
council representing government, business,
academia, and public interest groups. Four
NACETT committees have been created in
the areas of education and training, tech-
nology innovation and economics, and in-
ternational cooperation, and state and local
OCEM is divided into two staffs. The
Technology, Economics and International
Cooperation Staff, led by William Garetz,
seeks to reduce technical and institutional
barriers to effective environmental tech-
nology transfer. The State and Educational
Programs Staff, among other activities, seeks
to develop an environmental ethic and in-
fuse environmental education into school
curriculums. Despiteasmall staff size, OCEM
is an organization with big plans. Says
Hardaker, "We're rolling a lot of snowballs
down the hill and hoping they become
avalanches." For further information, con-
tact OCEM at (202) 475-9741.
Public-Private Partnerships
Faced with a growing shortfall in the
funds necessary to meet pollution control
costs, EPA is seeking to increase the private
sector's investment in environmental pro-
jects through public-private partnerships and
alternative financing mechanisms. EPA is
assisting in exploring financing opportuni-
ties for drinking water, wastewater treat-
ment, and solid waste disposal facilities.
Partnership options include loan funds, pri-
vatization of wastewater treatment facili-
ties, turnkey development projects, and
developer financing.
EPA estimates that federal, state, and
local governments spent $40 billion in 1987
for environmental protection. If recent
trends continue, annual government ex-
penditures in the year 2000 will need to rise
to over $55 billion just to maintain 1987
levels of environmental compliance and
quality. Meanwhile, 22 regulations issued in
the last two years will impose an additional
$5.3 billion price tag on local governments.
For further information on Public-Pri-
vate Partnerships, contact David Osterman
in EPA's Office of the Comptroller, Re-
source Management Division, (202) 475-
Sources of Lead arid Cadmium
in Municipal Solid Waste
Two toxic constituents, lead and cad-
mium, are found in high concentrations in
municipal waste combustor ash. In all, over
213,000 tons of lead and 1,700 tons of cad-
mium are currently discarded annually in
municipal solid waste.
As a first step towards addressing this
problem, EPA's Municipal Solid Waste
Program commissioned a study to identify
the sources of lead and cadmium in munici-
pal solid waste (MSW). The study, con-
ducted by Frankl in Associates, found that in
1986 two primary sources — lead-acid bat-
teries and consumer electronics—accounted
for over 90 percent of the lead in MSW.
Lead-acid batteries are the largest source of
lead in MSW, despite the fact that some 80
percent of lead-acid batteries are recycled.
Without recycling, an additional 700,000
tons of lead could find its way into munici-
pal waste. Other much smaller sources of
lead in MSW include glass and ceramics,
plastics, soldered cans and pigments.
The report identified rechargeable nickel-
cadmium household batteries as the number
one source of cadmium in MSW. The sec-
ond major source is plastics products. Cad-
mium additives can be found in nonfood
packaging, footwear, housewares, records,
furniture, and other plastic products. Addi-
tional smaller sources of cadmium are older
consumer electronic units and appliances,
pigments, and glass and ceramics.
EPA is currently evaluating the availa-
bility of substitutes for lead and cadmium in
these products, and is developing guidelines
to help states, localities, and waste managers
remove leading sources of lead and cad-
mium from MSW prior to incineration and
land disposal.
For information on obtaining copies of
the executive summary and/or complete
study report, contact the RCRA Hotline at
1-800-424-9346 (or 382-3000 in Washing-
ton, D.C.). Questions on lead and cadmium
in MSW can be directed to Paul Kaldjian at
EPA, (202) 382-2349.
EPA Region 4
The Southeast Waste Reduction Re-
source Center has recently opened in North
Carolina to support the activities of South-
east states. The Center will be operating a
library/clearinghouse of pollution preven-
tion materials, providing technical assis-
tance support to state agencies and indus-
tries in the Southeast, publishing recent
case studies, and maintaining a list of con-
tacts and referrals in the pollution preven-
tion field. Southeastern states can contact
the center through a toll-free number. For
further information, contactRoger Schecter,
On March 1, Governor Jim Martin of
North Carolina issued an executive order
requiring permit applicants to show that
they have undertaken source reduction and
recycling efforts and that their wastewater
discharges and incinerator emissions are at
the lowest levels that are reasonably tech-
nologically and economically achievable.
The order also calls for an expedited devel-
opment and implementation of rules to
control incinerator emissions of toxic air
pollutants and to set ambient air standards
for toxic pollutants. Legislation is pending
in North Carolina to require annual state-
ments of waste reduction from all permit
The Southeast Hazardous Waste Round-
table is producing a TV program intended
for use on publ ic TV and by citizen groups in
the Southeast states. The program will focus
on the capacity for treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste in the Southeast, with an
emphasis on the need to prevent waste from
being generated in the first place.
For more information on EPA Region 4
pollution prevention efforts, contact Betsy
Shaver, (404)347-7109.

April 1989
3 - Pollution Prevention News
People and Places in the News:
North Carolina's Roger Schecter
Operating with a philosophy that "pollu-
tion prevention pays," North Carolina
started the first cross-media waste reduction
program in the country in 1983. The North
Carolina Prevention Program provides tech-
nical assistance, sponsors research and edu-
cation, and funds challenge grants to the
state's industries and communities. Using a
nonregulatory approach, the program oper-
ates out of the Department of Natural Re-
sources and Community Development, in
coordination with the Solid Waste Man-
agement Section and the Governor's Waste
Management Board.
The program has funded research and
education projects in a variety of industries
including textiles, fabricated metals, food
processing, and furniture. Over 50 publica-
tions have been prepared on general waste
reduction issues as well as on specific tech-
nologies for individual industries. The pro-
gram operates a clearinghouse and handles
about 200 telephone and letter requests for
assistance each month. North Carolina also
provides matching grants of up to $10,000
for developing waste reduction programs.
Since 1985, the state has put up $370,000 in
matching funds on 68 pollution prevention
and waste reduction projects, with another
$630,000 supplied by the private sector.
Credit for much of the success of North
Carolina's Pollution Prevention Program
goes to the program's director, Roger
Schecter. PPN spoke to him recently in an
PPN: Lookingbackon the first five years, what
do you consider the most important achieve-
ment of your program?
RS: The most important achievement in
North Carolina is the increasing credibility
with industry and local governments for
contacting our program and actually imple-
menting real waste reduction efforts.
PPN: Where do you expect to concentrate your
efforts in the next 2-3 years? Will it be a
continuation of the past or are you setting forth
in new directions?
RSs We are continuing the focus on direct
technical assistance but we also plan to shift
into two new areas. First, in line with the
industrial waste management bill currently
pending in the legislature, we will be look-
ing at the documentation accompanying
permit applications on source reduction and
recycling activities. What we will use it for
is to see where waste reduction opportuni-
ties have not been taken. Not in a regulatory
sense — as in "your plan did not include the
following...but for example, to go to elec-
troplaters who say they are not doing any
waste reduction and have no plans for the
future, and provide them with information
on product substitution, on recovery of
metals, on recycling electroplating sludge
and reusing water.
We are also using an EPA multi-media
grant to look at the SARA Tide 3 chemical
release data, our annual state air toxics sur-
vey, monitoring reports on water toxic dis-
charges, and the annual generator reports to
see if there are indicator data for targeting
future waste reduction efforts. At that point
we can go to the Governor, the legislature,
or the Secretary, lay before them the envi-
ronmental contaminants being released in
the state, and develop a plan for targeting
our waste reduction efforts for the next year.
Then, after a year is up, we will evaluate the
targeted wastestreamsorgeographic areas or
industries, and say, OK, how did we do?
What waste were we able to reduce? What
research were we able to generate? Have we
met our goals or not? Then we can develop
a plan for the coming years. That's a very
proactive response and we're hoping it can
serve as a model nationally.
PPN: Can your non-regulatory approach still
produce results m North Carolina or is it reach-
ing its limits?
RS: I don't believe there is an either-or
answer. In the last 5 years, both industry and
the regulatory agencies here have been learn-
ing more about waste reduction and starting
to see it as one of a range of responses that
needs to be taken into account. If there were
only a regulatory function, waste reduction
would be overshadowed by compliance as-
sistance. You could have people coming in
and saying anything they do is waste reduc-
tion. It's the technical assistance program
that says, yes, waste reduction uses the verb
"reduce," but we're talking about source
reduction and recycling, not burning or
In the same vein, a technical assistance
Roger Schecter has been the director of the
North Carolina Pollution Prevention Program
since 1983. He also serves as director of the
National Roundtable for State Waste Reduc-
tion Programs and the Southeast Waste Re-
duction Resource Center. In 1987-88, Mr.
Schecter served as special assistant on waste
reduction issues to EPA Assistant
Administrator J. Winston Porter.
program should not be issuing permits or
getting involved in enforcement. If you go
to an industry and try to provide them with
"mixed" waste reduction and compliance
assistance, you're in a very difficult and un-
tenable situation. I see the need to have a
non-regulatory technical assistance program
that works through the regulatory programs
because regulatory programs characteristi-
cally are negative incentives, while waste
reduction programs offer posi ti ve incentives.
And you also need a third level, in terms
of educational responses at the university to
(continued on page 4)

Pollution Prevention News - 4
April 1989
Upcoming Conferences in

Hazardous Waste
Reduction Conference
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
May 10, 1989
New Brunswick, NJ
Kevin Gashlin
(609) 292-8341
New Regulatory Initiatives for Control
and Cleanup of Industrial Wastes
Executive Enterprises, Inc.
May 15-16,1989
Washington, D.C.
Steve Lieffer
(301) 289-8660
Pollution Prevention
INFORM, Mitre Corp.
May 17-19,1989
McLean, VA
Kit Krickenbergi
(703) 883-6000
CM A Regional Waste
Minimization Workshop
Chemical Manufacturers
May 25-26, 1989
Chicago, IL
Amy Norgren
(202) 887-1173
Waste Minimization & Clean
Technology Conference
International Solid Wastes and
Public Cleansing Assn., U.S. EPA
May 29-June 1, 1989
Geneva, Switzerland
Arthur Purcell
(213) 206-5348
Waste Minimization
See below
Doug Williams
(513) 569-7361
Seattle, WA	May 2-3, 1989	Wood preserving, metal finishing, electronics
Atlanta, GA	May 9-10, 1989	Chemicals, textiles, wood preserving,
Baltimore, MD	May 31 - June 1, 1989	Petroleum refining, plastics, textiles
North Carolina
(from page 3)
train engineers, MBAs, and environmental
planners and scientists to understand what
waste reduction is and what their own roles
are in promoting it. We need to develop the
kind of educational perspective that says,
instead of trying to figure out how to detox-
ify this heavy metal, let's do some research
into product reformulation to eliminate the
heavy metal from the start.
PPN: Has there been a lot of negative reaction
in your state to die recet it release of data on toxic
air emissions?
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
RS: Not really. I think the report did a very
good job in showing, for individual areas,
where chemical releases were coming from.
Some of the industries we are dealing with
have acknowledged there is a problem, and
they are trying to find substitutes, whereas if
that material had come out 5 years ago when
waste reduction was not yet a stand-alone
response, they might have screamed bloody
murder, and said, we can't afford the treat-
ment technologies, we're going to go out of
business. But there is a growing maturity in
the industry and in the state agencies in
using a range of options to deal with envi-
ronmental situations.
PPN: What role can EPA play in supporting
and developing state capabilitiesJ
RS: One of the most important roles EPA
can play is a leadership role by Agency
example, and with recent developments at
EPA that leadership has become extremely
clear. An equally important role is the de-
velopment of technical infromation at the
national level. EPA's support role is magni-
fied 50 times when it is picked up by the
states. Because it is the state agencies who
need to work on an individual level with
local governments, industry, environmental
groups. Ultimately that is where the reality
of waste reduction potential will be seen.
For further information on the North Caro-
lina Pollution Prevention Program, call (9jy)
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300