United States
Environmental Protection
Pollution Prevention Office
Washington, DC 20460
March 1990
<&EPA Pollution
Editor's Corner
Forum on
£* Sustainable
O Demonstration
«3 Projects
/* Calendar of
* Events
Special Insert:
PPIC User Bulletin
To be added to our mailing
list, please write:
Pollution Prevention News
401 M Street SW(PM-219)
Washington, DC 20460
Editorial Staff:
Prlsciila Flattery, Editor
Gilah Langner
by Rob Wolcott, Director,
Environmental Resource Economics
Division, Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation, U.S. EPA
What economic activities result in the
most severe and intractable environmental
problems? Which of these are most ame-
nable to a source reduction/pollution pre-
vention approach? Reflecting upon EPA's
assessment of the relative significance of
residual environmental problems (Unfin-
ished Business, 1987), one sector of concern is
Agriculture consists of multiple sources
(over 2 million farms) generating diverse
loadings (sediment, pesticides, fertilizers)
to numerous pathways (streams, lakes, riv-
ers, soils, and air). The sheer numbers which
characterize agriculture are daunting.
In order to supply the world's most
prolific bounty, we apply enormous
amounts of chemical inputs. Over 11 mil-
lion tons of fertilizer and 8 million pounds
of pesticidal active ingredients are applied
annually in the United States. And the ex-
panse of lands in agricultural use is vast —
over 800 million acres.
Non-point source pollution, primarily
related to agriculture, has become the most
pervasive remaining water quality prob-
lem in the U.S. For example, 70% of phos-
phorus pollution, responsible for green
algae and other excessive plant growth in
lakes, is due to agriculture. Sediment is
identified as a problem in most streams in
the U.S.; detection of pesticides in surface
and ground water is also a growing con-
cern. In addition to water quality, agricul-
ture is implicated in the majority of ongo-
ing wetland losses, and emerging concerns
about food safety and farm worker safety.
The long term solutions to agricultural
pollution, like the sources themselves, are
highly diverse. Options include point source
controls on feedlots, farm management
plans that include practices such as nitro-
gen soil testing, and ridge tillage to reduce
erosion and pesticide losses, as well as
regulatory and educational programs.
In large part, however, the dominant
theme of resolution must be voluntary,
profit-maximizing, source reduction. The
key elements of such a reduction strategy
are the following:
•	Revision of current federal farm price
support policies which inefficiently foster
continuous planting of single crops, the
result of which is the use of more chemi-
cally intensive production practices.
•	Support of targeted, sustainable agricul-
ture research to demonstrate and evalu-
ate lower input production practices.
•	Permanent placement in conservancy of
agricultural lands that are critical envi-
ronmentally either for habitat, ground-
water vulnerability, surface water impacts,
or wetland preservation and restoration.
•	Demonstration and education regard-
ing more environmentally benign pro-
duction practices which also sustain yield
and net farm income.
Two common themes cut across all these
approaches: first, the need to eliminate
public policies that work against sustaina-
bility in agriculture; and second, the need
to generate and disseminate information
that will make possible a voluntary shift in
agricultural practices over the longer term.
Printed on Recycled Paper

Pollution Prevention News - 2
March 1990
Forum on Sustainable Agriculture
A Sustainable Agriculture
Goal for the 1990 Farm Bill
by Garth Youngberg
The phrase "sustainable agriculture" has
recently come into widespread use to de-
scribe an ideal future agricultural system for
the United States and the world as a whole.
Using the word in its everyday sense, a sus-
tainable system is one that can be main-
tained indefinitely. By contrast, several fea-
tures of the current system make it unsus-
tainable, particularly in the long term. These
•	heavy reliance on fossil fuels, including
fuels consumed indirectly in the form of
fertilizers and pesticides;
•	environmentally damaging use of syn-
thetic pesticides and inorganic fertilizers;
•	cropping systems that degrade soils and
water, both on and off the farm;
•	chronically low economic returns that
continue to force farmers, particularly
family farmers, out of business; and
•	undesirable side effects on the quality of
life for rural communities, consumers,
and society at large.
At our present stage, no single set of
currently available systems and technolo-
gies can lay exclusive claim to having
achieved the ultimate goal of agricultural
sustainability. There is also much we do not
know regarding the relationship between
specific technologies and the actual sustaina-
bility of an agricultural system.
Nevertheless, this much we can say: that
a variety of techniques currently available—
rotating crops, scouting fields to determine
actual pest populations, the use of pest resis-
tant crop varieties, recycling of animal ma-
nures, and a number of biologically-based
methods of pest control — all hold consider-
able promise for reducing the need for pesti-
cides, conserving soil or enhancing soil pro-
ductivity, and making farming systems more
The relevance of sustainable agriculture
as a guide for federal agricultural policy is
also becoming more widely apparent, not
only for purposes of the 1990 farm bill, but
also as a general policy standard. One need
only ask if the federal government ought to
support an unsustainable agriculture — an
agriculture that damages the environment,
or that is heavily dependent on limited, non-
renewable resources, or that forces farmers
out of business, or that for any other reason
cannot maintain itself into the indefinite
future. Clearly, the long-term goal of sus-
tainability is the only valid one for the fed-
eral government to pursue.
Although the concept of sustainable agri-
culture has only recently achieved popular
currency, it appears to be capable of mobiliz-
ing a broad coalition of interests both within
and outside the agricultural communities.
To be sure, there is still much work to be
done in developing, refining and using cri-
teria of sustainability to help guide the farm
bill discussions. But if that can be accom-
plished, there is reason to believe that the
1990 farm bill can provide the basis for a
truly new and more sustainable direction in
American agriculture.
Dr. Youngberg is the Executive Director of the
Institute for Alternative Agriculture in Green-
belt, Md., and editor of the American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture.
Alternative Agriculture:
Lessons From the NRC Report
by Charles M. Benbrook
The National Research Council's report
on Alternative Agriculture, released in Sep-
tember 1989, presented a comprehensive as-
sessment of American agriculture, focusing
on how alternative agriculture production
systems can contribute toward improving
both the economic and environmental per-
formance of American agriculture. The con-
clusions reached in the study may help to
dispel certain misconceptions about alterna-
tive agriculture, while also pointing the way
to a hopeful future. The study's key conclu-
sions include the following:
•	Farmers who adopt alternative farming
systems often have productive and prof-
itable operations, even though these farms
usually function with relatively little help
from commodity income and price sup-
port programs or extension.
•	Well-managed alternative farming sys-
tems nearly always use less synthetic
chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and anti-
biotics per unit of production than com-
parable conventional farms. Reduced use
of these inputs through increased effi-
ciency in the designs of cropping systems
lowers production costs and lessens agri-
culture's potential for adverse environ-
mental and health effects, without neces-
sarily decreasing {in some cases, increas-
ing) per acre crop yields and the produc-
tivity of livestock management systems.
One of the most critical findings of the
report is that the economic and environ-
mental performance of farming systems are
often closely interrelated. Farming systems
that result in high per unit production costs
often do so because of a mismatch in crop-
ping patterns, natural resource conditions,
and technology. High cost systems tend to
make poor use of purchased inputs, and con-
tribute disproportionately to pollution.
Conversely, low-cost systems are not always
or necessarily low-input systems. Indeed, al-
ternative systems are typically more hi-tech,
more sophisticated, and clearly more de-
pendent on information, management, and
resource conservation expenditures.
In recent years, about 70 percent of the na-
tion's cultivated cropland has been enrolled
in commodity price support programs. By
tolerating and at times encouraging unreal-
istically high yield goals, inefficient fertilizer
and pesticide use, and unsustainable use of
land and water, federal program rules have
in some cases had adverse effects not only on
the environmental but also on the economic
performance of some farming systems. Fu-
ture farm programs should reduce or elimi-
nate incentives to manage farms and other
fragile lands in a way that impairs environ-
mental quality.
Finally, our report places considerable
faith in the resourcefulness of the American
farmer. The transition to more biologically-
based farming will challenge both farmers
and academic researchers to develop new
skills and much greater sophistication in re-
enlisting Mother Nature in the enterprise of
Dr. Benbrook is the Executive Director of the
Board on Agriculture, National Research Coun-
cil. This article is based on his testimony before
joint Congressional hearings in October 1989.

March 1990
Demonstration Projects
Mississippi's Pesticide
Containers Recycling Project
by Patti Drapala and
Robert McCarty
An ambitious container disposal project
begun last May in Washington County,
Mississippi, has given pesticide users a legal
and affordable alternative to burning pesti-
cide containers or dumping them in landfills.
The project involved the rinsing, collecting
and recycling of empty pesticide containers,
and could point the way for farmers and
applicators to solve a mounting problem in a
county heavily dependent upon agriculture.
Mississippi is the first state to start a vol-
untary disposal project that addresses all
phases of the container disposal problem.
The comprehensive aspect of the program
has attracted the attention of such agricul-
tural states as Iowa, Kansas, Florida and
Minnesota. Program participants were asked
to pressure rinse or triple rinse metal and
plastic containers used during the 1989 grow-
ing season, emptying the rinsate back into
the spray tank for further use on crops. More
than 650 pressurized nozzles were supplied
to farmers and users by ICI Americas.
Eight designated collection sites were
made available by aerial pesticide applica-
tors in Washington County. Empty contain-
ers were separated at these collection sites.
Metal containers were hauled to Friedman
Steel, a metalwork plant in Greenville, Miss.,
where they were melted at a high tempera-
ture, destroying all remaining residues.
Plastic containers, however, posed a dis-
posal problem. It wasn't feasible to melt
A cotton trailer full of empty pesticide containers
ready for crushing and baling at the cotton gin.
them. Project organizers improvised a solu-
tion after cotton producer Rex Livingston of
Leland, Miss., suggested using his old cotton
gin to crush and bale the plastic. The bales of
plastic were then shipped to Ohio and pul-
verized into flakes and pellets for recycling.
A research team from Du Pont was re-
cruited to analyze samples of the rinsed
plastic containers and residues left within
the plastic. The analysis, when completed,
will provide answers concerning possible
products made from recycling containers
and will be shared with manufacturers of the
collected products and members of the Na-
tional Agricultural Chemical Association.
Project organizers are pleased with the
success of the project. They note, however,
that a number of issues require further atten-
tion, including the availability of facilities
for crushing plastic containers; the need to
separate sodium chlorate containers because
of the risk of fire if they come in contact with
phosphate-based products at high tempera-
3 - Pollution Prevention News
^, w > s mm
tures; and the need to provide ongoing com-
prehensive instructions to participants on
implementing the program.
What happened in Washington County,
though, is a good example of what can hap-
pen elsewhere. More counties in Mississippi
are eager to begin recycling projects, and
many organizations, including EPA, are
studying the experiment. "Farmers don't
want to contaminate the environment," says
Robroy Fisher, a prominent cotton and soy-
bean farmer from Glen Allen, Miss. "Here,
we think we've proved that farmers do care,
that they can properly clean and collect the
containers and that the containers can be
recycled into a useful product."
As part of the project, Mississippi has
been examining a variety of packaging and
transportation options for pesticide prod-
ucts, with the goal of minimizing the han-
dling and disposal of containers. Discus-
sions were held with dealers, manufactur-
ers, distributors, farmers, and commercial
applicators on the feasibility of returnable,
refillable containers; the useof different types
of materials for containers (such as paper,
glass, plastic, and metal); and how best to
match different types of container materials
with different types of disposal programs. A
report summarizing the findings of the proj-
ect will be available later this year.
Patti Drapala is a writer with the Department of
Information Services at Mississippi State Uni-
versity. Robert McCarty is deputy director of the
Division of Plant Industry for the Mississippi
Department of Agriculture and Commerce. For
further information, call 601-325-3390.
Pollution Prevention/
LISA Project
As part of last year's Agency-wide 2%
pollution prevention project competition,
EPA is funding a new initiative to educate
farmers, extension agents, and crop consult-
ants to use the latest information in their
weed management decisions. Scheduled to
begin in October 1990, the project calls for
the joint efforts of EPA Regions 7 and 8,
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and
agriculture experiment stations and univer-
sities in Minnesota, Illinois, and Colorado.
The aim of the project will be to involve
farmers and others directly in research, dem-
onstration, and educational activities which
promote low-input sustainable agricultural
production decisions. A computer model
will be distributed that contains ten years of
research data with over 150 herbicide/cul-
tural options for corn and corn rotations,
plus their projected yields and costs. Grow-
ers can use this information to reduce their
reliance on chemical herbicides. The benefits
of reducing herbicide usage in corn produc-
tion include cost savings to farmers; reduced
exposure to herbicides during mixing, load-
ing, application, and cleanup; and a reduced
risk of ground-water contamination in the
Central Great Plains and Midwestern Corn
Belt corn production systems.
Pilot studies conducted in Colorado have
demonstrated an 85% reduction in the use of
herbicides and a cost savings of $25 per acre.
On a national basis, this would translate to a
potential reduction in the use of corn herbi-
cides by 170 million pounds annually. The
use of herbicides on corn accounts for roughly
40% of all agricultural herbicide use in the
United States and 25% of all agricultural
pesticide use. All eight of the major corn
herbicides have been detected in groundwa-
ter in recent studies. For more information,
contact Dr. Bernard Smale in OPP at

Pollution Prevention News - 4
March 1990
Calendar of Events
EarthTech 90: Technology Fair and
International Forum
Environmental and Energy Study
April 4-8
Washington, DC
Nisha Desai
New England Environmental Expo
Various organizations
April 10-12
Boston, MA
Daniel Moon
8th Annual Virginia Waste Management
Government Refuse Collection &
Disposal Association
April 24-25
Richmond, VA
Lanier Hickman
Waste Exposition '90
National Solid Waste Management
May 2-4
Atlanta, GA
National Conference on Building Products
Tennessee Initiative for Environ-
mental Sensitivity in Construction
May 6-8
Washington, DC
Trust for Future
Hazwaste Expo Atlanta '90
National Association of Hazardous
Waste Generators
May 7-9
Atlanta, GA
Robert McCarty
Haztech International '90
Institute for International Research:
American Chemical Society
May 8-10
Houston, TX
Benjamin Deutsch
Enviro Expo
Anchor Resources, Inc.
May 15-16
Baton Rouge, LA
Andy Johnson
5th Annual Aerospace Haz. Waste
Minimization Conference
Hughes Aircraft Company
May 22-24
Costa Mesa, CA
Alex 3apre
The first National Town Meeting on Solid Waste issues will be held on April 4,1990,2-4 P.M. Eastern Time, through a video
conference entitled "Let's Not Waste the '90s." Sponsored by Keep America Beautiful, Inc., the conference can be picked up free
of charge by any college, hotel, or community center with a satellite receiving the C or KU bands. For more information, contact
Susanne Woods at (203) 323-8987.
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (PM-219)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
II1.I.II.....I.III.....I.II..I1I iiiMn.Mniilsluhllnainii.nl

Pollution Prevention
Information Clearinghouse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — Pollution Prevention Office
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration
March 1990
The Bulletin Sets Its Course
The PPIC User Bulletin is designed to assist Federal, State, and local pollution prevention programs in the transfer of relevant technical,
scientific, and legislative information. The Bulletin will appear as a periodic insert of the Pollution Prevention News and will spotlight
information available through the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC). A national and international communication
network, the PPIC consists of: a hotline, repository, the Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES), and networking activities.
Telephone Access to
PPIC Information
The PPIC has coordinated with the RCRA/
Superfund hotline and Small Business Ombudsman
(SBO) hotline to provide free telephone service to
answer or refer pollution prevention questions, access
information in the PPIC, and assist in document
searches and ordering. The number for the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline is (800) 424-9346. The number for the SBO
Hotline is (800) 368-5888.
The RCRA/Superfund hotline
has access to the following PPIC
•	pollution prevention
•	Federal, State/local
program summaries
•	industry programs/case
•	waste minimization
•	Regional and State
•	calendar of events
•	the EIES.
The SBO and ORD's Pollution Prevention Research Branch will
also convey information on grants available to small businesses
to demonstrate innovative pollution prevention techniques and
programs. The project results will be disseminated by the PPIC as
they become available.
The RCRA/Superfund hotline, staffed with 25 information
specialists, receives about 100 calls per month regarding pollution
prevention. The large majority of these calls are requests EPA
publications on pollution prevention.
The SBO Hotline, staffed with 5 information
specialists, provides small businesses and their trade
associations with answers to technical and policy
questions concerning asbestos, TSCA, RCRA, CERCLA,
and chemical emergency preparedness, in addition to
general information on pollution prevention.
John Ferris of the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
In addition to these Hotlines, interested parties can pose
questions on pollution
prevention and the EIES system
J, ,	through the PPIC Technical
. Assistance Line (703) 821 -4800
or through the EIES Message
Center. ¦
Pollution Prevention
Hotline Resources
Karen Brown, Director of the
SBO Hotline
Send Us Your Comments
Welcome to the first Issue of the PPIC User Bulletin. EPA's
PPIC Staff encourages comments on topics for future Issues. The
effectiveness of The Bulletin will depend in large part on the
participation of our readers. Comments should be mailed to:
PPIC User Bulletin
USEPA — 401 M Street, SW, RD 681
Washington, DC 20460
Thank you!
Myies E. Morse, PPIC Director
Printed on Recycled Paper

Resources Available
Open to the public — With the help of State
agencies, PPIC is expanding a nationally accessible
repository of pollution prevention information. The
repository is an important resource for EPA and State
technical assistance programs and serves as the
backbone of the PPIC. The repository documents
include texts, journals, manuals, fact sheets, case
studies, and legislation.
Over half the documents have been provided by state pollution
prevention programs. The states of California, Alaska, Oregon,
and the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) have
been major contributors of fact sheets and case studies for
industries including: automotive repair, pesticide formulating,
metal finishing, printing, photo finishing, and dry cleaning.
A bibliography of available documents can be
accessed through the EIES or upon request, obtained
directly from the PPIC. Smaller documents and
brochures, especially those developed by EPA, are
also available upon request through the PPIC. Other
documents, will be available through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS). For those
documents not available through the PPIC or NTIS,
information will be available on how to obtain these
documents through their original publishers. By
late summer, the entire collection will be available
for viewing at the EPA Headquarters Library. Abstracts of all
documents in the repository are currently available on the EIES.
If a document is not currently available through the repository,
PPIC staff will be glad to help locate it. If you have a document
about pollution prevention that you wish to list or distribute
through the repository, let us know by phone (703) 821-4800,
letter, or through the EIES. ¦
New Publications
Clean Technology —
Great Britain's Department of the
This 24-page booklet describes clean
technology options and payback
scenarios for eleven common industries.
Using examples of actual companies,
each section describes a process that was
modified, how the modification was
made, and what advantages were gained,
including economic benefits.
Hazardous Waste Minimization
(HWM) — McGraw-Hill
This 344-page text is written by waste
reduction experts and edited by Harry
Freeman, Chief of EPA's Pollution
Prevention Research Branch of the Office
of Research and Development. To order
HWM, call McGraw-Hill Inc., at 1-800-
HWM identifies solutions and
incentives in adopting a company
pollution prevention program such as
reduction of operating costs and waste
management liabilities. HWM describes
the essential components of a corporate
pollution prevention program; details
how to include pollution prevention in
your business and marketing plans; and
how to conduct a waste minimization
assessment. HWM summarizes inventory
management, process modification, and
recovery techniques and technologies.
HWM also profiles local government
and corporate programs, including
California's Ventura County Waste
Minimization Program and the General
Dynamics Zero Discharge program. ¦
Upcoming PPIC Publications
Pollution Prevention Training
Opportunities in 1990
A new publication of the Office of
Pollution Prevention, this document will
soon be available from the PPIC repository.
The manual describes State pollution
prevention training programs and lists
instructional materials, including manuals
and videos.
Pollution Prevention Curricula
A document describing pollution
prevention curricula in college and graduate
level science and engineering programs is
also being produced and will be available
from the PPIC repository when completed.
Teleconference Video
The PPIC will distribute copies of a video
about PPIC and EIES, being produced as
part of the upcoming teleconference
sponsored by the University of Tennessee's
Center for Industrial Services.
PPIC Vital Statistics
Case Studies
Video Library
January 1, 1990 to February 22,1990
EIES	745
PPIC Staff	353
PPIC Technical Support Line	32
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Information Packets
PPIC offers a general information packet
that contains:
•	Waste Minimization:
Environmental Quality with
Economic Benefits
•	EPA Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessment Manual
•	Flyers summarizing PPIC and EIES
•	EIES User Manual
•	"Profiting from Waste Reduction
in Your Small Business," published
by the Alaska Health Project
•	EPA Pollution Prevention Policy
The PPIC also offers industry-specific
information packets. A packet now
available on metal finishing contains:
•	Waste Minimization in Metal Parts
Cleaning (EPA Manual)
•	Pollution Prevention in Metal
Manufacturing: Saving Money
Through Pollution Prevention
(EPA Manual)
•	Oregon Hazardous Waste
Reduction Program:
Guidelines for Waste Reduction
and Recycling: Solvents and
Metal Finishing, Electroplating,
Printed Circuit Board
•	Case Studies on Metal Finishing
from Minnesota, Oregon, and
the PPIC
To receive any of these materials, write,
call, or leave a message on the EIES. ¦
User Bulletin — 2

Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES)
EIES To Expand
On March 15, 1990, EPA opened its Electronic
Information Exchange System (EIES) on a new
computer system dedicated to the Pollution Prevention
Information Clearinghouse (PPIC). The new system
is faster, more accessible, and offers users additional
features. The new EIES system allows up to 20 users
toaccess information simultaneously via 14 telephone
lines. Six additional lines will allow connection through
a dial-up service such as Dialcom or Telenet.
The new EIES boasts new features:
EIES Contact List:
An electronic directory of over 400 State and Federal contacts
that can be searched by name, state, and area of expertise.
Pollution Prevention Legislation Data Base:
This Federal and State tracking system contains summary,
status, and the full text of legislation.
New Mini-exchanges:
Each mini-exchange is a self-contained system that allows
users to access message systems, files and data bases dedicated to
specific pollution prevention topic areas. They include:
•	International Cleaner Production Information
Clearinghouse (ICPIC)
Users can convey messages, view bulletins and download
files from the computer system developed for UNEP in
Paris, France. All messages and files are automatically
transferred bi-weekly to and from the ICPIC.
•	EPA Regional Exchanges
Set up to assist in communication among EPA regions
and their states, the first two exchanges feature the
Region I Association of State and Interstate Agencies and
the Region X Northwest Regional Roundtable.
•	Waste Exchange
PPIC is developing a national waste exchange to
promote the reuse of waste materials. PPIC is
coordinating its efforts with existing waste exchanges.
International EIES Underway
EPA donates new computer—As part of a proposed
three-year cooperative agreement between EPA and
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
EPA delivered a computer and a duplicate of the
Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES) to
UNEP in Paris, France in October, 1989. EPA has
donated the system to assist UNEP in the development
of an international information network on pollution
prevention. The EIES computer system will operate as part of the
International Cleaner Production Information Clearinghouse
Information on UNEP's computerized system will include
technical, programmatic and legislative information on activities
ongoing within United Nations member countries, and will
expand upon the EIES case studies data base. Information will be
transferred on a bi-weekly basis between ICPIC/EIES and the U.S.
PPIC/EIES. EIES users will be able to exchange messages and
information with international contacts without making an overseas
During the next few months, the EPA and a limited number
of other users will assist UNEP in testing the ICPIC system to
prepare for the unveiling of the UNEP network at the Seminar
on the Promotion of Cleaner Products in Canterbury, England
in late September of 1990. ¦
EIES IS... A computerized system that provides easy
access to pollution prevention information contained
in the PPIC. The system is open to the public free of user
fees. EIES features literature search functions; a national
calendar of conferences and workshops; a message
center; and direct access to news and documents. For
more information on EIES, you may obtain a free user
guide by calling the PPIC Technical Support line at
(703) 821-4800. ¦
PPIC poster sessions and demonstrations will be on display
at the following events:
•	Hazmat Chicago
March 13 to March 15, 1990
•	Globe 90 Vancouver, BC
March 19 to March 21,1990
•	University of Tennessee Teleconference
March 19 to March 21, 1990
•	EPA RREL 16th Annual Research Symposium
April 3 to April 5, 1990 — Cincinnati, OH
•	New England Environmental Expo, Boston
April 10 to April 12, 1990
•	ADPA Atlanta
April 17 to April 20, 1990
•	Haztech International Houston
May 8 to May 10, 1990
•	Waste Minimization in Metal Finishing
May 23 to May 24, 1990 — Manhattan, KS
Connect with EIES for detailed conference schedules and
After March 15, EIES users must dial (703) 506-1025 to
access EIES. A toll-free number is reserved for State and
local government users. Clearance for the toll-free number
can be obtained by either dialing EIES using the number
above and leaving a message with the system operators, or
by phoning the PPIC Technical Support number, (703)
User Bulletin — 3

Networking and Outreach Efforts
One of PPIC's roles is to network with other Pollution
Prevention efforts. By developing this network, EPA
can provide all PPIC users with information on current
pollution prevention projects. Two members of the
national network are EPA Region IV and EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Updates of their
latest projects can be accessed through PPIC.
Summaries of these programs appear below.
Region IV Undertakes Pollution
Prevention Efforts
EPA Research Center for Waste Minimization and
Region IV and Region VI operate one of EPA's five Hazardous
Substance Research Centers. The center's mission is to develop
practical means for industry to eliminate the use and generation
of hazardous substances. Research is provided by North Carolina
State University, which focuses on pollution prevention, and by
the University of North Carolina and Texas A&M University, which
both study remediation and control issues.
According to Elizabeth Shaver, Region IV's Pollution Prevention
Program Manager, researchers at the year-old center are studying
ways to eliminate chlorinated solvents in semiconductor
manufacturing. Other potential projects include studying dioxin
and chlorinated organics in the pulp and paper industry and
volatilization of organics in flexible foam manufacturing.
The PPIC includes a description of the center's activities in
EIES bulletin #13. PPIC is creating a mini-exchange on
pollution prevention research. (See the EIES section of this
Bulletin for information on mini-exchanges.)
Waste Reduction Resource Center
for the Southeast
The Region IV Hazardous Waste
Management Roundtable sponsors the Waste
Reduction Resource Center for the Southeast (WRRC). The WRRC
was established to assist Region IV states in developing and
implementing their pollution prevention programs. Businesses
and communities within the Region can
contact the WRRC with specific pollution
prevention questions. The WRRC draws from
the extensive experience and resources
established by the North Carolina Pollution
Prevention Pays (NCPPP) program, including
a library of over 2,500 pollution prevention
holdings. WRRC's trained engineers suggest pollution prevention
options and compile responses (including case studies and
equipment vendors) to businesses and communities within the
Region. Information requests vary greatly. "Sometimes it's as
simple as office solid waste recycling, or as complicated as 'I've got
a mixed waste stream and want to do source reduction,"'
observes John Keith, staff engineer.
The WRRC also refers callers to other links in the national
pollution prevention network. "One of our big referrals is to the
Southeast Waste Exchange. If someone has already done what
they can in source reduction, I try to hook them up with the waste
-jUJltON PWvtNn
exchange," Keith says. Keith also relies on the EIES as
a technical back-up. "I access the EIES regularly," he
says. "Sometimes we get a question we just can't
answer, so I will throw the question out to the
network." Keith also uses the EIES to keep abreast of
"what's going on in industries, what users are chatting
about." Individuals in Region IV may reach the WRRC
by contacting:
Waste Reduction Resource Center
512 N. Salisbury Street • P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
(919) 733-7015
The WRRC has compiled a Core Reference Library, a selection
of documents from the NCPPP, for Region IV states. EPA will
make the core library references available to PPIC users in
April. The core bibliography is available in Bulletin # 4 on EIES.
Inspection and Enforcement Innovations
Region IV's pollution prevention strategy employs enforcement
and inspection programs as a conduit for pollution prevention
information to the regulated community. Inspectors receive
pollution prevention instruction as part of their training. During
inspections, they will be distributing basic materials and answering
questions on pollution prevention. Further, the Region actively
participates on an Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring (OECM) work group that is drafting guidelines to
incorporate prevention options into enforcement actions.
Region IV will pilot the new guidelines in at least one
settlement within each media program in 1990. The progress
of enforcement efforts will be tracked In Bulletin #13 on ties.
Progress summaries will be updated quarterly by PPIC. ¦
Innovative Technology Research
The Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE)
Program is one of several pollution prevention programs run by the
Pollution Prevention Research Branch (PPRB), of EPA's Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory. WRITE is designed to develop, evaluate,
and demonstrate clean production technologies and implement
other innovative pollution prevention techniques. WRITE conducts
these evaluations by issuing R&D grants to States and directly to
Several projects are now underway through the WRITE program:
•	New jersey DEP is evaluating the Zerpol "Zero Discharge"
electroplating wastewater recovery system.
•	California DHS is evaluating several process modifications at
General Dynamics. These include on-demand rinsing;
substitution of bead blasting for TCE paint stripping;
installation of a robotics with proportional paint mixing,
and electrostatic spray guns.
•	Illinois HWRIC is exploring the substitution of water based
and soybean oil based inks in the flexographic printing
Summary reports from each WRITE project will be filed in
the PPIC repository upon completion of each case study. The
new EIES R&D mini-exchange will also track the progress of
each WRITE project. For further information contact PPIC
through its Technical Assistance Line or through the EIES. ¦
User Bulletin — 4