United States	Office of Pollution Prevention	October 1991
Environmental Protection	Washington, DC 20460
&EPA Pollution
Interviews with:
Joanna Underwood
Robert Pojasek
Paul O'Connell
Denny Beroiz
Jim Allen
Regional Perspectives
with Val Adamkus,
EPA Region 5
To be added to our mailing
list, please write:
Pollution Prevention News
401 M Street SW (PM-222B)
Washington, DC 20460
Editorial Staff:
Priscilla Flattery, Editor
Cilah Langner
Suzanne Harris
Judith Rosenthal
The Preferred Option
William K. Reilly
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The last few years have seen an explosion
in pollution prevention activity and a veri-
table transformation in the way we at EPA
and others have come to understand and
pursue our Agency's mission. One year ago,
EPA's Science Advisory Board released its
report, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and
Strategies for Environmental Protection. One of
the report's principal conclusions was that
EPA — and the nation as a whole — should
make greater use of all the tools available to
reduce risk, and among those tools, pollution
prevention should be at the top.
If anyone doubted in the past whether
prevention was necessary, the news from
the environmental front should be suffi-
ciently convincing. Poland's former environ-
mental minister, for example, has told me
that environ-
tion is causing
a 15 percent
drag on his
gross national
When we
focus on treating waste, rather than on
preventing waste, new environmental
problems tend to outstrip whatever
progress we can make.
On the occasion of the third anniversary
of EPA's pollution prevention program,
I extend my congratulations for the suc-
cesses achieved thus far, and encourage
continued vigor in developing innovative
pollution prevention solutions to the
environmental challenges before us.
A Look Back and A Look Ahead
Reflections on the Three-Year Anniversary of EPA's Pollution
Prevention Program
Gerald F. Kotas
Director, Pollution Prevention Division
As EPA's pollution prevention program
marks its three-year anniversary, it seems an
appropriate time to take a look back at our
accomplishments and a look ahead at the
many issues and challenges that remain.
One of the most gratifying things I've
seen in the last three years is how quickly
the pollution prevention concept has
captured the imagination of people both
inside and outside of EPA. Much has been
done in a short time. Each day, EPA can
point to new success stories in industry,
government, and academia — literally, in all
sectors of the environmental community.
Likewise, new success stories are happening
continuously in the various EPA programs
and regional offices arid in state programs.
This is not to say that we can accomplish
all our environmental objectives overnight.
Indeed, we have only recently begun to
recognize that some changes will take
generations to achieve. Nevertheless, at the
continued on page 2
Printed on Recycled Paper

Pollution Prevention News - 2
October 1991
A Look Back...
rvoias continued from page 1
three-year mark, there is reason for
EPA first established a central office
for pollution prevention in the Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE)
in Fall 1988. Much of EPA's activities in
1988 and 1989 anticipated the passage of
the Pollution Prevention Act in 1990.
Legislative Breakthrough
The Pollution Prevention Act, along
with the Clean Air Act Amendments
passed by Congress on the same day in
November 1990, represent a clear
breakthrough in this nation's under-
standing of environmental problems.
The Pollution Prevention Act calls
pollution prevention a "national
objective" and establishes a hierarchy of
environmental protection priorities as
national policy (see box).
Several items are of particular
significance about the Act. First is its
establishment of source reduction as the
preferred option for addressing the
nation's pollution problems. Second is
its clear understanding that productivity
and economic competitiveness can go
hand in hand with environmental
The Pollution Prevention Act also
expands the types of phenomena
receiving attention — from the release of
wastes to their generation. Thus, the
reporting of source reduction informa-
tion under the Act applies to substances
that exit the confines of the production
process, not just wastes that meet the
RCRA definition of hazardous waste.
Setting Direction
Formally announced in February
1991, EPA's Pollution Prevention
Strategy establishes EPA's future
direction in pollution prevention. The
strategy indicates how pollution
prevention concepts will be incorpo-
rated into EPA's ongoing environmental
protection efforts and it set up the "33/
50 Program" (Industrial Toxics Project),
under which EPA is seeking substantial
voluntary reductions of 17 targeted
high-risk industrial chemicals that offer
significant opportunities for prevention.
The goal is to reduce environmental
releases of these chemicals by at least 50
percent by the end of 1995.
In a relatively short
timeframe, every office at
EPA has become aware of
the new approach and has
begun to reshape and re-
envision its mandate to
promote prevention.
To date, response to the 33/50
Program has been highly positive, with
hundreds of companies responding with
commitments to reduce their waste
More recently, we have begun the
process of drafting strategies for other
Pollution Prevention Act
Under the Pollution Prevention Act,
it is the national policy of the United
States that pollution should be
prevented or reduced at the source
whenever feasible; where pollution
cannot be prevented, it should be
recycled in an environmentally safe
manner; in the absence of feasible
prevention and recycling opportuni-
ties, pollution should be treated;
disposal should be used only as a last
Among other provisions, the Act
directs EPA to facilitate the adoption of
source reduction techniques by
businesses and federal agencies, to
establish standard methods of mea-
surement for source reduction, to
review regulations to determine their
effect on source reduction, and to
investigate opportunities to use federal
procurement to encourage source
reduction. The Act also authorizes an
$8 million state grant program to
promote source reduction, with a 50
percent state match requirement.
industry —
energy and
tion, federal
ment, and
— which
prevention solutions to high-risk
environmental problems. My office and
others in the Agency are working
closely with other federal agencies such
as USDA, CEQ, the Department of
Energy, and the Department of Trans-
portation, to define specific goals and
actions for each of these strategies.
Notable Changes
One of our prime goals in the first
few years of the pollution prevention ^
program was to ensure that preventio®
became an integral part of the mandate
of each EPA office. Multi-media source
reduction is now promoted as part of
the Agency's strategic planning and
budget processes. Pollution prevention
has been incorporated as a component
of EPA's regulatory development course
for Agency staff, with special training
offered for regulation writers. Specific
regulations are being targeted for
promoting pollution prevention con-
In a relatively short timeframe, every
office at EPA has become aware of the
new approach and has begun to reshape
and re-envision its mandate to promote
prevention. EPA's air, water, solid
waste, toxic substances and research
offices are particularly prominent in this
effort. The Green Lights program (see
box), the Pollution Prevention Action
Plan for the Great Lakes region, the
municipal wastewater pollution preven-
tion guidance, and the comprehensive
lead strategy are all exciting examples^
recent efforts. Cross-program initiativS
are attempting to bridge the single-
media focus that has been characteristic
of many of our efforts in the past.
Closer coordination among EPA's

October 1991
3 - Pollution Prevention News
... And A Look Ahead
Headquarters and regional offices and
with the burgeoning number of state
pollution prevention programs has also
been evident.
EPA's pollution prevention initiatives
are characterized by their use of a wide
range of tools, including market incen-
tives, public education and information,
small business grants, technical assis-
tance, research and technology applica-
tions, as well as the more traditional
regulation and enforcement. In addi-
tion, there are other significant behind-
the-scenes achievements: identifying
and dismantling barriers to pollution
prevention; laying the groundwork for a
systematic prevention focus; and
creating advocates for pollution preven-
tion that serve as catalysts in a wide
variety of institutions.
Not all of these changes come easily.
But here are some often-unheralded
examples that we are particularly proud
to note:
^A/PP. In 1989, EPA established the
American Institute for Pollution
Prevention in cooperation with the
University of Cincinnati. The
Institute provides a bridge between
EPA and industry and acts as liaison
between professionals in the field of
pollution prevention and those who
need to employ prevention tech-
•	EPA Regional Offices. EPA's 10
Regional Offices represent the
Agency's front line in pollution
prevention. Each Regional Office has
a pollution prevention staff that
coordinates and initiates projects.
Some of the most innovative preven-
tion work is taking place at the
regional and state levels.
•	Research. Current initiatives of EPA's
Office of Research and Development
include the WRITE program (Waste
^ Reduction Innovative Technology
^Evaluation) whereby EPA has
entered into cooperative agreements
with five states to evaluate some 30
waste reduction technologies.
Technology transfer is also a goal of
the Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse which operates an
electronic bulletin board (PIES) and
other services (call 703-821-4800 to
get hooked up!).
• Enforcement. An important EPA
policy statement strongly encourages
Agency negotiators to include
pollution prevention conditions in
enforcement settlements when
feasible. In the first such case in 1990,
an Ohio manufacturing company
which was in violation of a notifica-
tion provision of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act, agreed to pay a
civil penalty and institute a pollution
prevention project at one of its
facilities. The $525,000 project should
result in waste reduction of a half
million pounds of waste material
• Education and Training. As we
continued on page 6
Green Lights Update
More companies and organizations continue to join the roster of partici-
pants in EPA's energy-efficiency Green Lights program. At the end of
September, the program had:
•	114 corporate partners, an addition of 55 since May,
•	Four government partners, the States of California, Florida, Maryland, and
•	166 allies, including lighting management companies, manufacturers, and
utilities, and
•	Commitments to use energy-efficient technologies to light a total of 1.6
billion square feet.
Green Lights staff figure that every time an ordinary incandescent light
bulb is replaced with an energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulb, carbon
dioxide emissions are reduced by 300 pounds a year. When Green Lights'
current partners meet their commitments, their carbon dioxide savings will
total over 6.7 million tons annually, sulfur dioxide savings will be 49,000 tons
a year, and nitrogen oxide savings will be 26,000 tons.
Utility bills are being reduced as well. Elkhart General Hospital in Indiana
reports saving $100,000 per year on utility bills through its conversion to high-
efficiency lighting, with only 30 percent of the conversion completed.
Soon, EPA will be offering a computerized decision support system to
assist partners in planning upgrades for maximum cost-effectiveness and
energy savings. For more information, contact the Green Lights Information
Center at 202-479-6936.

Pollution Prevention News - 4
October 1991
n the occasion of the third anniversary of EPA's Pollution Prevention Program, we
asked representatives of different sectors of the pollution prevention world
to comment on the progress that's been made and the challenges that lie ahead.
Denny Beroiz
Director of Environmental Resources
B2 Division of Northrop Corporation
Several years ago, Ollie Boileau, now
president of Northrop's B2 Division,
stood up and said, "We're going to go to
zero discharge." This decision was
criticized by industrial types and science
types who said it was a stupid goal,
because it's technically unfeasible. But we
weren't talking about technology, we
were talking about moving people, and in
moving people you have to give them a
simple goal.
We've got to get away from the end-
of-pipe approach and talk about
patterns of consumption within our
society. If it were a high enough na-
tional policy, then I think the message
would get to the CEOs, who really have
it in their power, as ours did, to write a
policy that says, "We're basically going
to get out of the business of pollution."
Joanna D. Underwood
President, Inform, Inc.
Over the last three years we've seen
a dramatic expansion of interest
and government infrastructure for
addressing pollution prevention. It's
become very clear in government and
the business community that end-of-
pipe measures are costing us too much.
That was very compelling. It really
changed the way that our production of
waste was done. In 18 months we've
reduced over 50 percent of our waste,
simply based on a goal that the CEO set.
Industry should be given opportu-
nity to demonstrate a self-governance
program that meets regulations. Because
I firmly believe that regulation is an
extremely poor substitute for leader-
Also, there needs to be more rational
and more informed decision making
before we go out and attack Chemical A
or B, or Process A or B. We've got to
make the shift to the long-term view,
that we don't want to engineer any
more products with X, Y or Z in them,
much more along the lines of EPA's 33/
50 program and other longer-range
In 1986, Inform did 29 case studies of
industrial plants, and they showed
almost no efforts in pollution preven-
tion. We've just gone back to those same
plants five years later and found that
some companies are taking a broad and
serious approach to pollution preven-
tion, with well-articulated corporate
policies, careful waste audits, incentives
to workers, and so on. By forging ahead,
those companies have also saved
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The encouraging thing is how much
potential environmental and economic
gain is out there. The opportunities are
even more extensive than we thought,
and we hope our new report will be a
spur to other companies that haven't
made much progress. If s our hope that
with this remarkable momentum for
prevention, crucial changes can come
about and we look forward to seeing that
progress reflected in EPA's TRI data.
concepts that are coming out. Environ-
mental persistence, recyclability, ease of
materials separation and recovery—
those concepts are not in our design
criteria, but if someone were to say,
"They'd better be in industry's design
criteria," then industry would start todg
working toward that solution.
Robert Fojasek
Vice President,
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
1991 Chairman,
American Institute for
Pollution Prevention
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and the Office of Research and
Development have sponsored the
startup of the American Institute for
Pollution Prevention. We represent
about 22 associations, both professional
associations and trade associations.
I think communication is the biggest
challenge today in pollution prevention,
and it's becoming even more important
now, because of three factors: the new
state programs that require pollution
prevention planning, EPA's 33/50
program, and the enforcement pro-
grams where pollution prevention plans
can be used as a mitigating factor in
penalties. So I think the need for

October 1991
5 - Pollution Prevention News
'Paul O'Cornell
Deputy Administrator, Cooperative State Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The Sustainable Agriculture and
Research Program (formerly known
as LISA) program started about four
years ago, and we've now cooperated
with about 1,600 farmers. One of the key
things we did with this program was to
have in each of four regions representa-
tives of producers, scientists, extension
folks, nonprofits, and in some cases,
environmental groups, and they chose
projects for funding. That was a very
successful model.
People assume that farmers are going
to reduce their net return if they farm
with more concern about the environ-
ment. But we've pulled together
information from many different
research studies showing that producers
can maintain their bottom line while
being more in harmony with nature.
Many of the farm and commodity
programs give incentive to farmers to
information is just going to skyrocket.
AIPP's charter is to take EPA infor-
mation and disseminate it expeditiously
to our members so that the Agency can
tap into the broader distribution
channels that the associations have.
We're also trying to foster communica-
tion between the associations them-
selves, with a quarterly information
exchange. We have a number of our
member associations doing their first
national pollution prevention efforts—
we're trying to plant those seeds and
nurture that growth.
Dr. James Allen
Chief, Alternative
Technology Division,
Dept. of Toxic
Substances Control,
California EPA
In California, I think we've had a lot
of success in working with industry
and local government over the last
several years. For example, we identi-
fied incinerable hazardous waste as a
major shortfall and focused a state
program on reducing those wastes by 50
percent by the end of 1992. We've been
working very closely with industry to
assist them in voluntarily reducing their
incinerable hazardous waste—provid-
ing technical assistance, elevating their
requests for permit modifications to the
head of the queue, and generally
sharing information with them.
This exemplifies the way we're
focusing our efforts by identifying key
waste streams. I think the EPA 33/50
project is an example of using the same
pattern of targeting key chemicals of
maintain maximum yield rather than
maximum net return. And quite frankly,
there's a lifestyle barrier. If you grow
just one or two crops, you don't have to
spend a whole lot of time on the farm.
We have every indication that farmers
are looking more honestly at alternatives.
And a number of states offer loans and
other programs to actively encourage
farmers to look at alternative techniques.
Most of the leadership for this kind of
thing is coming from the states. And
pesticide companies are beginning to
move in the direction of more environ-
mentally benign products, developing
resistant plants and animals, and so on.
There has been a topping out of the use of
the more toxic chemicals.
concern and working with industry on a
voluntary basis to reduce those waste
streams. I have great optimism that these
voluntary approaches, supplemented by
command-and-control systems, are going
to pay great dividends.
EPA's Pollution Prevention Office is
facilitating a lot of contact among the
state and local governments, encourag-
ing and facilitating a lot of information
sharing, and that's very much appreci-
ated. I think we probably need a lot
more attention given to developing case
studies and other information about
pollution prevention that anyone can
access and get in hard copy. I can see
EPA playing a much bigger role as a
technology clearinghouse in this area.

Pollution Prevention News - 6
October 1991
Pollution Prevention ...
continued from page 4
announced in last month's issue of
Pollution Prevention News, EPA has
established a national pollution
prevention center at the University of
Michigan which will develop curricu-
lum for engineering, business, and
other university educational tracks,
and disseminate the material to other
universities nationwide. A new
Office of Environmental Education
also has been set up at EPA with
pollution prevention forming the
core of the office's approach.
Looking Ahead
As progress is made on the techno-
logical side of pollution prevention,
there is a growing recognition of the
need for prevention to become an
integral part of our basic philosophy of
environmental protection. Pollution
prevention must become the strategy of
first choice in addressing any environ-
mental problem. Creating this new
"pollution prevention ethic" requires a
shift in the perspectives of those whose
activities affect the environment.
Without question, this is a massive
undertaking, and one that will continue
to challenge the Agency and all of
society in the years ahead.
Central to the Pollution Prevention
Act is the premise that source reduction
of wastes and other pollutants is
complementary to improvements in
efficiency and competitiveness. For the
most part our pollution prevention
efforts to date have involved easily
accessible measures — such as better
housekeeping and inventory control —
that save money and resources with
fairly short payback periods. We have
found that once businesses clearly see
the volume of materials they are
routinely wasting through releases to
the environment, they begin to make the
link between source reduction and
efficiency improvements.
Nevertheless, more fundamental
changes will be needed in the future to
keep our environment healthy. Many of
these changes will take time, and some
will require more costly and far-sighted
investments than has been the case until
now. Major pollution prevention
advances will need to be built into our
infrastructure (for example, in designing
new plants, assembly lines, transporta-
tion networks, etc.), in the selection of
less or non-toxic inputs, and in the
manufacture of less toxic products. I
believe that moving in the direction
toward "clean sustainable technologies"
will ultimately be more cost-effective
than sole reliance on treatment/dis-
posal. It will however, require signifi-
cant shifts in investment and in think-
One question that EPA will
face is how aggressively to
act in order to ensure that
change occurs.
The institutional and informational
barriers to such investment shifts
continue to be formidable. Many
companies still see investment in
pollution prevention as risky, particu-
larly after substantial investments have
been made in pollution control tech-
nologies. Because we continue to
measure compliance in single-media
terms against finite standards, multi-
media prevention approaches are not
necessarily promoted. We need to
rethink how to encourage multi-media
gains through continuous improve-
ments incorporated in our rules and
One question that EPA will face is
how aggressively to act in order to
ensure that change occurs. For example,
EPA is attempting, through education
and technical assistance, to bring all
companies in an industry to a higher
level of pollution prevention. My office,
in conjunction with OSW, has done this
with the dye industry.
Another approach that has already
been applied in some EPA programs is
to stipulate in regulations that the most
advanced pollution prevention tech-
nologies will be preferred as Best
Available Technology when negotiated
in permits. This approach would offer a
competitive advantage to advanced
permit-holders, compensating them for
their investment in innovation or
pollution prevention technology and
encouraging the rest of the industry to
change operations in order to stay
For now, it is clear that the problems
must be tackled on several fronts —
first, through the funding of research,
development, and demonstration
projects that will lay the technical basis
for preventive approaches. Second,
through continuous improvements in
In the States
Before 1985 there was only one
state law which dealt with any aspect
of pollution prevention; today,
almost every state has some type of a
pollution prevention law, policy, or
program. Over half the states have
passed pollution prevention laws of
some type and more are in the
pipeline. In 1989, Massachusetts and
Oregon broke new ground by
enacting legislation which empha-
sizes toxic use reduction and also
requires certain facilities to conduct
comprehensive, ongoing pollution
prevention planning. As of April of
this year, another 13 states had
followed suit with facility planning
statutes. All of the legislation adopts
the environmental management
hierarchy supported by EPA. Seven
states have established numerical
pollution prevention goals.
State pollution prevention pro-
grams have mushroomed over the
years, partly in response to EPA
grant funding and cooperation.
Many state programs offer technical
assistance to industry (e.g., telephone
assistance and on-site audits), as well
as serving as clearinghouses for
technical and public information.
Other state programs also include
financial incentives (e.g., tax credits,
loans, etc.) for pollution prevention,
regulatory functions, and facility

October 1991
7 - Pollution Prevention News
. . . A Three-Year Perspective
•he regulatory and policy "climate" to
urther encourage innovation and
pollution prevention. Third, by putting
in place economic incentives that
reward innovation in this area, rather
than discouraging it. And, fourth, by
offering public recognition to organiza-
tions that take a leading role in pollution
More broadly, we must realize that
the shift to pollution prevention is
relevant not only to government
inspectors and regulation writers and
company executives. It is relevant on
the plant floor, in the shipping depart-
ment, in every office and workplace, in
every professional training course, in
our universities, high schools, elemen-
tary schools, and in our households.
Pollution prevention is not merely a
strategy for environmental protection; it
is part of a strategy for protecting our
children, our fellow workers, and our
quality of life.
Last year, President Bush remarked
in a speech:
To those who suggest we're only trying
to balance economic growth and environ-
mental protection, I say they miss the
point. We are calling for an entirely new
way of thinking to achieve both while
compromising neither.
This is precisely the message of
pollution prevention. Economic growth
and environmental stewardship go
hand in hand; a healthy environment is
the basis for a healthy economy, both in
our own lifetimes and for future
generations. I consider it a real honor to
lead this program for the Environmental
Protection Agency.
33/50 Program
"Our nation is clearly at a crossroads
regarding the scope and future actions
necessary for the protection of the envi-
ronment and the economic well being of
the nation's industry. IVe believe that
your voluntary program sets the right
—Martin Marietta
Martin Marietta Corp. has instituted a corporate-wide
initiative to achieve an overall reduction of at least 49%
by the end of 1992, and 76% by the end of 1995 for all
33/50 chemicals. Additional goals include an 87%
reduction in the generation of hazardous waste and in
the release of all toxic chemicals by the end of 1995. In
his letter informing EPA of these commitments, Norman
R. Augustine, Chairman and CEO of Martin Marietta,
"We have gained some useful insights as a result of
our long-standing internal programs and believe that
there are three lessons which you may find of value in
your discussions with other members of industry:
1.	Involve the people responsible for achieving the
goal in setting the goal. . . This approach . . . results
in strong operator involvement and commitment.
2.	But, a goal must be set and commitments made.
3.	From our experience, we have concluded that
substantial pollution prevention and/or reduction can
be achieved cost effectively."
Environmental specialist Dan Messer of Martin Marietta Astronautics
Group (Denver) examines a sample of the plant's clear wastewater
effluent. A new integrated treatment plant has eliminated over 1500 tons
of waste annually.
EPA's 33/50 Program calls for voluntary industry
reductions of toxic wastes, aimed at achieving an overall
national reduction of 33 percent by 1992, and 50 percent
by 1995. The 17 high-priority toxic chemicals included in
the program accounted for 1.4 billion pounds of releases
and transfers in 1988; a 50 percent reduction would
eliminate 700 million pounds by 1995. Thus far, close to
300 companies have committed to an average reduction of
50 percent by 1995, for an overall reduction commitment
of at least 262 million pounds.

Pollution Prevention News - 8

October 1991
Pollution Prevention in EPA's
Regional Offices
Valdas V. Adamkus
Administrator, Region 5
Over the past three years, even the
most devoted advocates of pollution
control and the most skeptical questioners
of the need for an EPA Pollution Preven-
tion Initiative have come to see the
benefits of pollution prevention. This
change in attitude has partially resulted
from observing successful pollution
prevention projects take place. Attitudes
have also changed because many EPA
employees realize that pollution preven-
tion concepts reflect their original reasons
for wanting to work for the Agency — to
protect the environment and sustain
ecological integrity.
The Regions, in partnership with the
Pollution Prevention Division, have
brought about a multitude of activities:
• One of the Agency's "2% set-aside"
projects was to develop a pollution
prevention curriculum for kindergar-
ten through twelfth grade. All
regions have been actively involved
in this project, with Region 7 provid-
ing overall leadership. Phase I,
which involved surveying available
curricula and assessing needs, has
been completed. Phase II, the actual
curriculum development, is well
underway, with the first two mod-
ules, Drinking Water and Recycling,
ready for implementation.
•	A Pollution Prevention Training
Committee, with representation from
headquarters and all regions, has been
charged with integrating pollution
prevention into all aspects of EPA's
activities. Following successful "train-
the-trainer" sessions, some regional
pollution prevention coordinators have
formed their own training committees.
Appropriate pollution prevention
concepts are now included in training
courses for permit writers, inspectors,
regional counsel, and enforcement staff.
•	The Great Lakes Pollution Prevention
Action Plan is being implemented by
the eight Great Lakes States, Regions
2,3, and 5, and the Great Lakes
National Program Office. The action
plan encompasses a number of
initiatives, including: strong coopera-
tive measures by the states of Minne-
sota, Wisconsin, and Michigan to
prevent pollution of Lake Superior; a
pilot program with New York State
to reduce nonpoint source pollution
in urban areas; and a public/private
initiative with Chrysler, Ford, and
General Motors to implement
prevention programs in their manu-
facturing plants.
• In an effort to achieve source reduc-
tion in geographically focused areas,
Regions 5 and 7 and the States of
Illinois and Missouri have held
"mini-33/50" meetings. These
meetings convene senior manage-
ment from companies identified as
large emitters of chemicals on the
Toxics Release Inventory. At the
meetings, the goals of the program
are explained and the companies are
invited to participate. In July, the
Chemical Manufacturing Associa-
tions of both Missouri and Illinois
volunteered to organize the partici-
pating companies, document their
commitments, and track progress.
One of the most exciting things about
this last example is to watch how
environmental action in the industrial
sector takes off when it is peer-driven
and community-focused. The peer
pressure of other companies and trade
associations can be a powerful incentive
for a company to do more for the
environment. Companies are starting to
see that the "clients" for environmental
improvements are in their communities,
not the regulatory agency. While these
shifts in perspective may seem small,
they form the framework for a respon-
sible and cooperative approach to
pollution prevention.
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (PM-222B)
Washington, DC 20460