United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention Washington, DC 20460 May 1990 Pollution Prevention News Inside O Reports from ^ EPA Offices Energy ** Technologies 4 Ughting 5 Utilities Renewable O Energy 7 TRI Data 3 Calendar To be added to our mailing list, please write: Pollution Prevention News U.S. EPA 401M Street SW(PM-219> Washington, DC 20460 Editorial Staff: Prisdlia Flattery, Editor Herman Phillips Gilah Langner Editor's Corner by Alex Cristofaro, Director Air and Energy Division Office of Policy, Planning & Evaluation U.S. EPA The interrelationship between energy and the environment is increasingly a complex one. The ways in which energy is produced, transported, and consumed help determine our quality of life. Yet we are beginning to learn that energy con- sumption brings its own problems, sometimes undercutting the quality of life that it has made possible. Interestingly, the attention now being given to reexamining our society's energy profile is being driven not by oil price fluctuations, such as occurred in 1973 and 1979, but primarily by environmental concerns. Energy prod uction a nd use are responsible for the bulk of air pollutants that comprise or cause urban air pollution, acid deposition, air toxins, and "greenhouse gases." Two energy-related environmental problems that have recently become the focus of much concern stratospheric ozone depletion and global cli- mate change may have worldwide effects that will persist for decades or centuries. What is now becoming apparent is that ample opportunities exist to cut energy use and en- hance the energy security of this country while allowing consumers to enjoy the same or an improved level of amenities. A combination of new technologies and new ways of thinking about energy can save vast amounts of energy in the coming years, without driving up consum- ers' utility bills or requiring new power plants. Institutional mechanisms, such as an emphasis on "demand side management" and decoupling the profits of utilities from the amount of energy they sell to consumers, are changing the way energy is produced and consumed. Over the coming years, here are some of the initiatives you can expect to see federal, state, and local governments encouraging: reform of rate-making structures for certain utilities; competitive bidding schemes that will allow demand side options to compete with supply options; least-cost utility planning (also known as inte- grated resource planning); modified appliance and transportation stan- dards that reflect technological improvements in efficiency; a greater emphasis on research and develop- ment projects for renewable technologies; and increased consumer and corporate education to help realize the potential implied by new technologies. Here at EPA, we are developing a national energy modeling system to examine the costs and impacts of a variety of energy-related poli- cies and to make informed decisions in promot- ing a preventive approach to energy issues. We will be working with the Department of Energy to incorporate pollution prevention and resource conservation concerns into the National Energy Strategy. And, since most utility regulation and many other important energy and environmen- tal decisions occur at the state level, we hope to develop a working partnership with regional, state, and local program officials. In the short run, the Agency's pollution pre- vention approach to energy will be to seek in- creased energy conservation and massive im- provements in energy efficiency in buildings, industry, and automobile fuel economy. For the longer term, research into renewable energy sources will provide us with alternative means of generating and supplying energy that are cost- effective, clean, and consistent with sustainable growth for generations to come. Printed on Recycled Paper ------- Pollution Prevention News - 2 Reports from State Grants Awarded EPA's Pollution Prevention Division re- cently announced awards of grants totalling S7 million to fund 25 state-based initiatives to further pollution prevention across the country. Projects are being funded in all 10 EPA regions, in the following locations: Cali- fornia, Colorado, District of Columbia, Dela- ware, Georgia, Iowa (2), Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan (2), Min- nesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Ten- nessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and American Samoa. EPA's awards range from $125,000 to S300,000 for projects lasting up to three years. States are required to contribute at least 10 percent of the total cost of each project in their jurisdiction. Funded projects include the establishment of state-wide integrated pollution prevention programs, educational programs, expanded technical assistance and auditing, training of state inspectors and interns, and demonstration projects that test different pollution prevention methods and technologies at the state level. EPA received 112 proposals for this sec- ond round of funding. In March 1989, EPA awarded approximately S4 million in pollu- tion prevention grants to 13 states and one regional organization. For further informa- tion on the multi-media grants program, contact Jackie Krieger in EPA's Pollution Prevention Division, 202-245-4164. EPA Plastics Report A new EPA report to Congress, Methods to Manage and Control Plastic Wastes (Febru- ary 1990) analyzes the role of plastics in mu- nicipal solid waste and the management methods available for disposing of these wastes. While plastic wastes represent only 7% by weight of municipal solid waste (MSW), plastics make up an estimated 15 to 21 percent of MSW volume. The report notes that the added burden of plastics on landfill capacity is due to the large and growing amount of plastic waste now being produced, not to differences in the speed of degradation of wastes. The report examines some of the major A g*g~% :PA Offices management options source reduction, recycling, and making plastics degradable and discusses key actions by EPA in each ofthese areas. Also included in the report is a discussion of the disposal of plastics pel- lets, which are the raw materials used in processing and manufacture of plastic prod- ucts; they have been found in high concen- trations in the marine environment and pose risks of ingestion to marine life. For technical information on the report, contact Susan Mooney at EPA, 202-382-5649. To obtain a free copy of the Executive Sum- mary, call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline, 800-424-9346. The full report is available only from NTIS (Order No. PB90-163106, S39.00), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161, 703-487-4650. Pollution Prevention Materials Available: Training Resources Guide, Booklet EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention has developed a resource guide entitled, Pollu- tion Prevention Training Opportunities in 1990. The guide describes the types of training courses, workshops, and seminars being offered in each state and provides contact names and addresses. Other sections of the guide list available instruction manuals, opportunity assessment materials, fact sheets, videos, and state and EPA contacts on pollution prevention. Copies of the guide may be obtained through the RCRA/ Su- perfund Hotline, 800-424-9346, or the Pollu- tion Prevention Information Clearinghouse, 202-382-3000 (mailing address: SAIC, 8400 Westpark Drive, McLean, VA 22102). EPA'sOfficeof Solid Waste has prepared a free booklet providing detailed informa- tion on how consumers can alleviate the garbage glut. The booklet, Be An Environ- mentally Alert Consumer, emphasizes the four basic principles o f Red uce - Reuse - Re- cycle - Respond. It also includes lists of safer substitutes for hazardous household prod- ucts. The booklet can be ordered from the RCRA/Superfund Hotline or through the Pollution Prevention Information Clearing- house. May 1990 EPA's Terry Davies with Walter R. Quanstrom, V-P at Amoco for Environmental Affairs and Safety, and John Stanhope, Manager of Amoco's Yorktown refinery EPA & Amoco Launch Prevention Project at Yorktown Refinery On March 28, EPA and Amoco Oil Co. launched a joint research project to assess pollution prevention opportunities at Amoco's oil refinery in Yorktown, Va. The project will develop plant-wide strategies and options for reducing pollution and will help EPA assess the feasibility of coordi- nated cross-media permits. EPA hopes this will be the first of several studies that dem- onstrate the feasibility of integrated ap- proaches to pollution reduction. Calling this a "landmark occasion," EPA Assistant Administrator Terry Davies ex- pressed EPA's hopes that the project would yield useful information about the effects of using a more integrated approach, and pro- vide a basis for implementing pollution pre- vention opportunities at other industrial facilities. Howard Klee, director of the proj- ect at Amoco, discussed the need for a better understanding between regulators and in- dustry, and expressed the hope that this project would enable both EPA and Amoco to understand each other's organization and processes better. The Yorktown refinery was built in the 1950s and currently processes about 55,000 barrels per day of crude oil. The SI .6 million project will proceed in two phases; data col- lection is scheduled to be completed by Janu- ary 1991, and the analysis of alternative pol- lution reduction options will be completed by October 1991. For more information, con- tact Mahesh Podar at EPA, 202-382-2756. ------- May 1990 3 - Pollution Prevention News ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Highlights of new technologies and approaches in energy efficiency and renewable sources. Efficiency Technologies The good news is that if we simply pursue the narrowest of economic in- terests, the energy problem has alread y been solved by new technologies.... In the United States, for example, full practical use, in existing build- ings and equipment, of the best elec- tricity-saving technologies already on the market would save about three-fourths of all electricity now used, at an average cost certainly below 1 cent per kilowatt-hour and probably around 0.6«/kW-h. full practical use of the best demon- strated oil- and gas-saving technolo- gies (many already on the market and the rest ready for production within 4-5 years) would save about four-fifths of all oil now used, at an average cost below $3/bbl. Efficiency technologies have already begun to sweep the market despite the many obstacles placed in their way... Since 1979, the U.S. has gotten more than seven times as much new energy from savings as from all net increases in energy supply.... Because of the reductions in energy intensity achieved since 1973, the an- nual U.S. energy bill has recently been $430 billion instead of $580 billion. However, if the U.S. were now as effi- cient as its competitors in Europe and Japan, it would be saving an additional $200billionperyear. And simply choos- ing the best energy buys for the rest of this century could yield a cumulative net saving of several trillion of today's dollars enough to pay off the entire National Debt. Amory B. Lovins, Director of Research, Rocky Mountain Institute. (Excerpted and updated from "Energy, People, and Industrialization," January 1989). "Superwindows" Offer Super Insulation Until the advent of improved window technology, windows made of single panes of clear, untreated glass could account for up to 25% of a home's heat loss in winter as well as unwanted heat gain in the summer. En- ergy efficient approaches are dramatically reducing these figures. Lo w-emissivity (low- e) glazing for windows was first used in the U.S. in 1981. Since then, low-e windows have become widely available commercially; by 1991, more than half of all double-paned sealed insulating windows made in the U.S. are expected to incorporate low-e glazing. Low-e technology uses a special coating (on the panes of glass or on a suspended polyester film) to reduce radiant heat trans- fer through the window. Heat loss can be cut further by injecting low conductivity gas into the space between the panes of glass. While single paned windows usually have an R- value (a measureof insulation ability) around 1 and conventional double-glazed windows have about an R-2 rating, most low-e win- dows have R-values between 3 and 5, and new models are moving into the "superwin- dow" range of R-6 to R-10*. Other technology advances in windows can help decrease the fading of furniture and drapes exposed to direct sunlight and can eliminate condensa- tion problems. A variety of window technologies are still in the laboratory stage. They include prod- ucts and ideas such as: AtoMMt / Mirror'films Wk i J \ Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA uses 55,000 square feet of Heat Mirror insulating glass, cutting estimated energy loads by 35 percent Superglass* system introduced by Southwall Technologies in 1990 boasts an R-8 rating filling the space between window panes with new types of insulators such as aero- gel (a thick, extremely lightweight silica material), or creating a vacuum between the panes (evacuated-glass windows). switchable glazings, such as Cloud Gel a material that is transparent when the in- door temperature is cool, but turns white when warm or hot, blockingout unwanted heat gain. A similar result can be achieved with commercially available electro- chromic film, which works by electric cur- rent and primarily offers privacy for inte- rior windows. holograph ic optical fil m when mounted on ordinary windows, makes it possible to bounce sunlight to any desired spot in a room, such as dark areas, regardless of the sun's position. The R-values of emerging technologies are expected to go still higher; one type of evacuated-glass window, for example, will probably offer an R-16 rating. As R-values of windows approach those of walls, windows may shed their reputations as thermal weak spots yielding the possibility of still more energy savings and still more windows. Sources: RMI Newsletter (Rocky Mountain Insti- tute, 1739Snowmass Creek Rd., Snowmass, CO 81654- 9199), February 1989; Window Innovations, CAREIRS (P.O. Box 8900, Silver Spring.MD 20907), February 1990; Todd Sitrin, Southwall Technologies, Palo Alto, CA. Photos on this page copyright South- wall Technologies. ------- Pollution Prevention News - 4 Lighting Lighting the Way to Revolution by David Warm EPA Region 8 America's billions of electrical fixtures offer a harvest of opportunities for prevent- ingpollution. Many of the country's utilities and corporations are discovering a space- age source of electrical power high effi- ciency. Attacking the demand side of the power equation can prevent environmentally un- acceptable emissions of carbon dioxide the major greenhouse gas as well as the primary causes of acid rain, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Innovative research at Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), Lawrence Berkeley Labora- tory, and elsewhere has demonstrated that upgrades in bulbs, fixtures, and electronic controls, along with the creative use of day- light can reduce electrical demand for light- ing by at least three-fourths, eliminating the need for at least one hundred 1,000 mega- watt power plants, according to RMI. While the typical incandescent light bulb consumes 75 watts, state-of-the-art compact fluorescents (which screw into standard sockets) produce higher quality light with only 18 watts, and last 9 to 13 times longer. By the end of 1989, Southern California Edison had given away more than 800,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs free to low- income households, avoiding both costs and pollution by doing so. At the corporate level, executives are Photo courtesy of Philips Lighting Company Efficiency tapping into cost savings from higher effi- ciency by retrofitting "task lighting,"and by using natural daylighting and smart elec- tronic controls in their buildings. At Com- paq Computer, for example, lights are auto- matically turned off by photocells when window light is sufficiently bright. The same strategy is used in the stairwells at the new headquarters of the Natural Re- sources Defense Council (NRDC), specifi- cally designed to reduce lighting from a typical 2.03 watts per square foot to 0.3 - 0.5, without any sacrifice in "seeability." As a bonus, air conditioning loads were also re- duced by a third. NRDC's Rob Watson maintains that the new headquarters is liv- ing proof that energy efficiency "doesn't mean you have to wear miner's hats," since the majority of the lighting shines precisely where it's neededin workspaces and other high use areas. (NRDC's upgrade of this 31,000 square foot office space will save enough energy that New York's utility Con Ed gave the group a SI 00,000 rebate as an in- centive.) The systematic displacement of the obso- lete light bulb is lighting the way toward pollution-preventing improvements in mo- tors, window glazings, building heating and cooling needs, and appliances. Awareness of these opportunities is the first step in getting them into building codes, efficiency standards, and architectural plans. Cumula- tively, this revolution can and will signifi- cantly cool the fires of global warming. A singlel8-watt compact fluorescent, costing between $18 and $20, over its lifetime will slow global warming and reduceacid rain by avoiding emissions from a typical U.S. coal plant of one ton of COj and about 20 pounds ofSOr It will also save the cost of buying and installing a dozen ordinary bulbs (about $20); the cost of generating 570 kW-h of electricity (about $20 worth offuel); and, during its lifetime, approximately $200- $300 worth of generating and grid capacity. Ma\^1990 Richard Nelson, rooms manager of the Lewiston Maine, Ramada Inn, displays new 15-watt Dulux EI electronic bulbs that last lOflOO hours and use 75% less energy than standard incandescents Lighting accounts directly or indirectly for 25% of all electricity used in the U.S., rep- resenting the output of about 130 large power plants. Improvements in technology have changed the face of energy-efficient light bulbs: New fluorescent bulbs eliminate unnatu- ral and harsh color. Made with rare-earth phosphors, they have improved color ren- dition, yielding "warm" light moreclosely resembling natural sunlight. New electronic ballasts for fluorescent tubes make it possible to dim the light and eliminate the annoying hum and flicker of older fluorescents. Lining the inside of a fluorescent fixture with a silver or aluminum mirror reflec- tor can deliver about the same amount of light to a work space with only half as many lamps, increasing the efficiency of the lighting system by 25 to 40* percent. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. replaced the fluorescent bulbs and bal- lasts in its55-story Security Pacific Plaza Building in Los Angeles with more ef- ficient models. After the retrofit, an- nual savings in combined electric and air conditioning costs amounted to $504,000. After a rebate from the local utility, these savings produced a 6- month payback. Sources: RMI Newsletter, November 1988; Trends in En- ergy-Efficient Lighting, CAREIRS, March 1990. ------- Energy Economics How can one harness the business in- centive to save a resource more cheaply than it can be produced? The electric utility industry provides an illuminating example. Since the mid-1970s, many U.S. pro- viders of electricity or natural gas have realized that a saved watt (which we may call a "negawatt") is just like a generated watt, only cheaper, cleaner, safer, and faster to produce. Such utilities havethere- fore helped their customers to save elec- tricity (or gas) through information, tech- nical design support, concessionary loans, leases, gifts, and rebates for buying effi- ciency equipment. Today, a complementary set of more market-oriented approaches is emerging from work at Rocky Mountain Institute and elsewhere. In essence, these techniques make saved electricity (or other saved resources) into a commodity subject to all the features of modern markets in wheat, copper, and sowbellies. Applied to sav- ing electricity, for example, this can mean: Local fungibility. Saved electricity can be traded between customers with the utility acting as a negawatt broker. National fungibility. Saved electricity can be traded between utilities. Derivative instruments. Markets in saved electricity can be not only spot markets but also futures and options markets. Auctions. Saved electricity can be bought by competitive bid to mini- mize its cost. A utility (or an inde- pendent broker) wanting a certain number of megawatts can simply so- licit bids for that much electricity, or less, to be made or saved or displaced by anyone, by any means, at a series of in- creasing prices, until the target is reached; or the auctioneer can simply ask for bids and choose the lowest ones. Such "all-source bidding" is now required in eight of the United States and is spreading rapidly. Effi- ciency bids generally undercut power plants, beating even industrial cogen- eration and otherwise competitive renewable energy sources.... Peopledon't want kilowatt-hours; they want energy services such as comfort, light, mobility, and torque. But if the only way they know to get the services is by buying electricity, then a choice to use lesselectricityand more efficiency cannot be expressed in the market; utilities will therefore have an effective monopoly in providing the final services; and price elasticity of demand for electricity will appear to be very small. The solution is to articulate, makeavailable, and make mar- kets in the efficient use of electricity, so that electricity must openly compete with electrical productivity. Amory B. Lovins, Director of Research, Rocky Mountain Institute. Excerpted from "Making Markets in Resource Efficiency," June 1989. May 1990 Utilities Managing the Demand Side: A Case Study by Alan F. Destribats Vice President, Demand and Least Cost Planning New England Power Service Company New England Electric is implementing an aggressive program to promote Demand Side Management (DSM) throughout its service territory. In our current long-range plan, demand-side projects account for almost one- third of theequivalent new resources over the next 20 years. DSM is forecasted to grow rapidly from 129 megawatts (MW) of contracted savings and actual reductions in 1988 to almost 1000 MW of peak load reduction by 2008. This is equivalent to 1149 MW of supply-side re- sources in 2008 when credits for reserve mar- gin and transmission line losses are consid- ered. New England Electric agrees with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and several state commissions that a utility's least cost plan should also be its most profitable plan. Issues of program cost recovery, lost revenue, and some form of incentive need to be addressed to promote the maximum efficient utility implementation of DSM programs. New England Electric has recently devel- oped a DSM incentive concept in conjunction with the Conservation Law Foundation and hasfiled incentive proposalsinthethree states in which we operate (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island). The premise behind these proposals is that if a NEES (New England Electric System) retail com pany, Mas- sachusetts Electric for example, can deliver a demand-side program at a cost lower than what it pays its wholesale provider, value is created for our customers. Total value of program savings is calcu- lated including avoided generation, trans- mission and distribution costs. The value is then compared to the program cost. The net savings would be shared between customers and shareholders, with more than 80 percent returned to customers. The incentive formula is proposed with two factors. The first, the maximizing factor, is calculated as 5 percent of the total value of the programs. The second, the efficiency factor, is calculated as 10 percent of the differ- ence between total value and cost. The maximizing incentive is designed to encourage the maximum amount of conser- vation as it establishes a reward for the com- pany regardless of variable costs. In addition, it provides an incentive to pursueall available conservation and avoids cream skimming. The efficiency incentiveisdesigned to give the customers a significant share of the value created by conservation investments. In addition, it provides the company with the incentive to implement conservation at the lowest possible cost and to pursue all avail- able cost-effective opportunities. Using Massachusetts Electric's 1990 pro- gram asan example, we expect $100 million of 5 - Pollution Prevention Nervs total value to be created with a program cost of $37 million. More than 80 percent, or $53 million, of the net value would be returned to our customers with $10 million as the utility incentive.* Our incentive proposal also guarantees that value is produced or the customer does not pay. If the value created is less than expected, the incentive to the utility would be less. In the extreme case, if the valuecreated is less than the program cost, we would recover only an amount equal to the value created. Reflects minor adjustments to the incentive formula. Excerpted from a paper presen ted at the Electric Cou ncil of New England, Demand Side Management National Conference, Boston, November 17,1989. ------- Pollution Prevention News-6 May 1990 Renewable Energy California is Test Bed for Technology Seeded with state funds, a growing number of projects to develop and commer- cialize renewable energy technologies are flourishing in California. Over 16,600 megawatts (M W) of depend- able electric generating capacity about one-third of the state's total capacity have been developed using hydroelectric and pumped storage, biomass, solar, wind, geo- thermal, and cogeneration resources. Alter- native energy resources expanded rapidly in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when govern- ment, utilities, and private industry under- took aggressive R&D programs. These pro- grams stimulated growth among non-utility companies selling electric power to utilities. Federal legislation authorized these sales in 1978. Today, California advertises itself as a world center for alternative energy hard- ware and practical experience. The Califor- nia Energy Commission reports that 1,500 firms are active in renewables throughout the state. Much of California's progress in renew- able energy technologies originated with help from the state. Through the Energy Tech- nologies Advancement Program (ETAP), created by the state legislature five years ago, the California Energy Commission has awarded $10.8 million for 35 advanced en- ergy technology research and development projects. Public and private partners have added another $64 million. ETAP-funded projects include: Development of layered, thin film pho- tovoltaic (PV) modules. PV modules are solid state devices that produce electric- ity directly from the sun. A biogas-fueled engine that will generate electricity from methane produced from fermentation of animal manure. A biomass gasification system that uses fiber residue and black liquor, a waste product of paper mills. The Energy Commission administers four additional programs to develop advanced or renewable energy technologies: (1) a geothermal-related grant and loan program to assist local governments; (2) a demonstra- tion program to explore gasoline substitutes; Luz International's solar collector focuses sunlight onto pipes that transfer heat to a steam turbine electric generator. (3) a small business technical assistance and loan program; and (4) an energy technology export program. California's incentives to promote renew- able energy sources include a rapidly grow- ing population and continued reliance on vehicular transportation. The population boom has taken its toll on the environment. The Energy Commission estimates that 80 percent of Califomians breathe air that falls short of state or federal pollution standards. Growing concern over global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion, as well as concern over possible oil supply disruptions, make California a natural test bed for advanced technologies. Due largely to federal and state funded programs, California today has more geo- thermal, wind, and solar energy power plants than the rest of the world combined. The Mojave Desert in California is the site of the world's largest solar plants. Operated by LUZ International, the plants create more than 90 percent of all solar thermal power. While the Energy Commission recognizes that California's dependence on fossil fuels will last well into the next century, the Commission regards change as inevitable. The Commission intends to continue what it calls the "tireless pursuit" of non-fossil fuel based technologies. "Stricter environmental controls are forc- ing significant changes in the way we pro- duce and consume energy," notes Charles R. Imbrecht, Chairman of the Energy Commis- sion. "In order to maintain our standard of living and compete for emerging foreign markets, we must continue to be the world leader in developing clean, reliable, and cost- efficient energy technologies." Fuels of the Future 1988 Electric Generating Capacity in California Geothermal: Uses the earth's heat to produce electricity and provide 2,055 MW industrial, commercial and residential thermal energy. Cogeneration: Makes more efficient use of power generation equip- 2,300 MW ment by using them for both electricity and thermal energy at the same time. Hydroelectric: Produces electricity from water-driven generators. 11,000 MW Wind: Uses wind turbines to produce electric or mechanical energy. 170 MW Biomass: Uses wood byproducts and agricultural, animal, and 675 MW municipal solid waste to produce electricity and process heat. (estimate) Solar Photovoltaics (PV): PV technologies have been used in space to 10 MW power satellites and manned vehicles. PV can be installed on rooftops or used by utilities in central station applications. Solar Thermal: Collects the sun's energy to supply steam to run 455 MW electric fuel generators. Source: California Energy Commission. Figures reflect "dependable capacity" available to utilities. ------- May 1990 7 - Pollution Prevention News TRI Data Toxic Release Inventory, Round 2 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data for 1988 were issued in April by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances. The data show a total re- ported release of 4.57 billion pounds of toxic chemicals into the nation's environmental media in 1988. This represents roughly a 9 percent drop from levels reported in 1987, despite an increase in the number of facilities reporting (from 18,846 in 1987 to 19,762 in 1988), and a decrease in the reporting thresh- old (from 75,000 pounds in 1987 to 50,000 pounds in 1988). Under section313 of the Emergency Plan- ning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), certain manufacturing facilities are required to report their annual emissions of listed chemicals to air, water, and land. Section 313 contains a list of 332 toxic chemi- cals and chemical categories which may pose potentially significant hazards to human health and the environment. However, the TRI data by themselves do not provide an indication of human or environmental expo- sure to these chemicals. The distribution of releases across air, water, and land reported in 1988 is shown in the accompanying chart; it has remained virtually unchanged from 1987. Louisiana and Texas reported the highest levels of toxic releases (716 and 596 million pounds, re- spectively). Four other states (Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and Tennessee) reported over 200 million pounds of releases. Although total 1987 TRI releases were initially reported at 18 billion pounds, the figure was adjusted down to 5.01 billion pounds when EPA delisted four high-vol- ume, low-risk chemicals which had ac- counted for the majority of the 1987 releases. The four chemicals sodium sulfate, mela- mine, aluminum oxide, and sodium hydrox- ide weredelistedbasedonan EPA finding that they do not cause, nor could reasonably be anticipated to cause, significant adverse human health or environmental effects under normal industrial conditions. EPA believes it is premature to draw conclusions about trends in toxic chemical release based solely on two years' worth of data. Further analyses are being conducted to determine to what degree the 1988 figures represent a real reduction in pollution as 1988 TRI Releases to the Environment (percent distribution) Air 39% Water 6%, Underground Injection 20% Off-Site 18% Publicly-Owned Treatment Works 9% opposed to a variety of other factors (such as improved emission estimates by industry, changes in production levels, or shipping more chemicals off-site for recycling or en- ergy recovery). TRI's Impacts on Public Action In the year since the first TRI data became available, they have had a rapid and positive impact on pollution prevention and control initiatives across the country. In a number of states, TRI has become the foundation for legislative efforts aimed at curbing toxic re- leases. Other states have also levied TRI-re- lated fees, intended to finance some of the costs of the TRI program as well as to serve as an incentive to companies to minimize use and release of toxic chemicals. Environmental organizations and citizen groups have been using TRI data to initiate and support pollution prevention efforts at the local level. For example, a public associa- tion in California's Silicon Valley organized a campaign to push companies to lower emissions of ozone-destroying chemicals as identified through TRI. Based on TRI data for their region, citizens in Lima, Ohio, were able to convince state officials of the need for additional air-toxics monitoring. In Texas, citizens used TRI data to support a petition for toxic "hot spot" status for the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay under the Clean Water Act. And in Chicago, Citizens for a Better Environment and the Chicago Lung Association have taught community groups how to use TRI to address toxic pol- lution in the city. These groups are planning to negotiate with plant managers to reduce their TRI emissions by four million pounds. Regional News Voluntary Ozone Agreement for Kansas City Region All major oil and pipeline companies sup- plying gasoline to the Kansas City, Missouri region have voluntarily agreed to a plan to reduce the amount of ozone created this summer as a result of emissions from gaso- line and tailpipes. The plan, prepared by the Air Quality Forum of the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) and the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City, is to reduce the volatility of the gasoline as low as possible, with a goal of 9.0 during the sum- mer months of 1990. Less volatile fuel releases fewer emis- sions into the atmosphere and thereby re- duces ozone formation. If all refiners meet the 1990 goal, total emissions will be reduced by nearly 5.7 million pounds this summer. The Kansas City region is in attainment with all federal health standards for air pollutants except ozone; by implementing this plan, the Air Quality Forum hopes to make Kansas City the only metropolitan area with more than one million population to be desig- nated as a "Clean Air Region" by EPA. For more information, contact Cindy Kemper at MARC, 816-474-4240. EPA is considering a number of actions to strengthen the impact of TRI and its ability to prompt pollution prevention initiatives. Possible actions include requiring facilities to report their pollution prevention meas- ures, expanding the number of industries that must report to TRI, and collecting infor- mation on "peak releases" of TRI chemicals. TRI Database and Report Like last year, EPA is entering the TRI reports into a national computerized data- base that will be accessible by modem next month through the National Library of Medicine (301-496-6531), and on microfiche at over4,000 libraries within several months. EPA will also release a summary of the TRI national report in book form this summer. More information can be obtained from the Emergency Planningand Community Right- to-Know Hotline, 800-535-0202. ------- Pollution Prevention News - 8 Mayl990 Calendar of Events Title Sponsor Dates Contact 14th Biennial National Waste Processing Conference/Exposition American Society of Mechanical Engineers June 3-6 Long Beach, CA Leslie Friedman 212-705-7788 Pollution Prevention and Waste Reduction Center for Hazardous Materials Research June 6-7 Philadelphia, PA Lawrence Bonino 800-334-CHMR Int'l Conference on Pollution Prevention: Clean Technologies & Clean Products EPA, International Association for Clean Technology June 10-13 Washington, DC Mary Bourassa 703-734-3198 1st U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management U.S. EPA June 13-16 Washington, DC GRCDA 800-456-4723 9th Annual New England Resource Recovery Conf/Expo New Hampshire Resource Recovery Assn., Assn. of Vermont Recyclers June 13-15 Burlington, VT NHRRA 603-224-6996 Hazwaste '90 Expo National Association of Hazardous Waste Generators June 18-21 San Diego, CA Ken Sellinger 415-726-3823 3rd Annual Hazardous Waste Reduction Congress N.Y. State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, The Business Council of N.Y. State, Inc. June 19-20 Albany, NY Mark Moroukian 518-485-8400 83rd Annual Air and Waste Management Association Meeting and Exhibition AWMA June 24-29 Pittsburgh, PA Sharon Andrea 412-232-3444 1st National Symposium on Recycled Paper CERMA, U.S. EPA June 26-27 Atlanta, GA Ellen Kopelman 703-642-1120 World Recycling Conference and Expo Recycling Today Magazine June 27-29 Baltimore, MD CMC 203-852-0500 Hazardous and Solid Waste Minimization Government Institutes, Inc. June 28-29 Hilton Head, SC Terri Summers 301-251-9250 Pollution Prevention News is interested in receiving information on events that address pollution prevention, waste minimization, and / or recycling. Information must be received two months before the month of the event (e.g., by June 1 for an August event). See mailing address on page 1. Space limitations may preclude listing all events. United States Environmental Protection Agency (PM-219) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 ------- |