Table of Contents Foreword EPA Programs 33/50 Program: Reducing Risks Through Voluntary Actions (Not Available) Green Lights' Successes Shine Through (Not Available) Agriculture "Bootstraps" Promotes Cattle Profitability With Environmental Protection Cheese Corporation Reduces Waste Generation 75 Percent; Dollar Savings Began in Two Months Pollution Prevention Engineering Increases Fertilizer Production Consumer Goods Dry Cleaning Firm Shows 80% Waste Reduction Dydee Diaper Service Achieves Pollution Prevention Through Customer Outreach (Not Available) Energy NICE3 Promotes Energy Efficiency and Clean Production Technologies Enforcement EPA Encourages Pollution Prevention Through Compliance and Enforcement Settlements Federal Facility Kelly Air Force Base Soars With Pollution Prevention Navy Pollution Prevention Results in Quick Payback (Not Available) Industry Furniture Manufacturer Assembles More With Lower Emissions Newspaper Recycles Waste Ink Mine Finds Gold in Pollution Prevention Measures (Not Available) Motorola Goes Solder-less Parker Pen Reduces Hazardous Waste (Not Available) Local Government Los Angeles Takes Innovative Pollution Prevention Approaches School District Gets A Lesson in Pollution Prevention (Not Available) Tastes Better - Costs Less POTWs Septic Facility Reduces Odors While Increasing Capacity (Not Available) State Government Connecticut Initiative Encourages Pollution Prevention Ohio Promotes Pollution Prevention Goals Techniques and Technologies for Toxic Use Reduction (Not Available) Transportation Biodiesel: "Not Blowing Smoke" Cleaner Bus Operations and Maintenance Pollution Prevention Takes Off Appendix A FOREWORD POLLUTION PREVENTION THE FUTURE LOOK OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Since the environmental movement began growing in the 1960s, people have been looking for the best and most cost effective methods to prevent pollutants from entering the environment. For over 20 years, the generally accepted approach was through regulation and then control of waste materials through chemical, physical, mechanical, or even electrical treatment and collection (for disposal), transformation, and/or destruction of pollutants after they were generated. In the 1990s, there is a growing emphasis on "pollution prevention," looking at ways to prevent the generation of the waste itself. This approach reduces the need to control the wastes, because they are not produced to begin with. Pollution prevention takes many forms. It involves simple efforts, such as buying the correct amount of raw material so that no excess material needs to be discarded (for example, paints that have a specified shelf life), or producing less wastewater by better controlling the amount of water used in cleaning or manufacturing. Or, it may mean substituting nontoxic chemicals for the hazardous or toxic materials currently used in the process. It may even involve re-engineering and redesigning a manufacturing line to take advantage of newer, cleaner process equipment. Pollution prevention applies well beyond the manufacturing sector. Creative ways to minimize waste generation abound in a variety of economic sectors and institutional settings. Many organizations, institutions, and industry sectors, in addition to manufacturers, can institute pollution prevention ideas and reduce or even eliminate the generation of waste materials. It is from the perspective that more creative approaches to pollution prevention should be shared and others developed that the idea for this document was born. Considerable progress and success have been made in attaining pollution prevention in various sectors of the economy. It is the purpose of this document to provide pollution prevention success story examples that demonstrate cost-effective, environmentally preferable solutions to waste problems. Generally, the success stories illustrate that approaches based on reduction at the source can be implemented successfully by nearly everyone. In selecting success stories for inclusion in this presentation, the Environmental Protection Agency used several criteria. First, the actions taken involve true prevention of pollution (source reduction). Second, the solutions are relatively simple and yield benefits exceeding the investment cost. Third, the actions are instructive to a relatively large audience, demonstrating a new application, innovative approach, or creative solution to a pollution problem. In several cases, it is the process, not the prevention action itself, that is worth noting. This document highlights 26 success stories, spread over a wide spectrum. The studies include pollution prevention on farms, in schools, and within government organizations, as well as in the more traditional areas of manufacturing and operations. "Bootstraps" Promotes Cattle Profitability With Environmental Protection In the cattle raising industry, "pollution" can be any activity that destroys the ecosystem, hinders a ranch's ability to support cattle, or causes the ranch to operate inefficiently. On a cattle ranch, the chief resources are grass and water. Therefore, activities that maintain the efficiency of a ranch by preventing pollution or degradation of land and water resources are pollution prevention activities. These activities can include vegetation growth, erosion control, and surface water management. The Bootstraps "Ranching for the 90s" management program successfully decreased pollution on over 100,000 acres of land in Todd and Mellette Counties in south central South Dakota. Also, over 250,000 acres of land have been positively affected by implementing mangement practices that use pollution prevention techniques. The loss of topsoil, onsite and offsite sediment deposits, and the use of pesticides and fertilizers have decreased on many ranches that have incorporated environmentally friendly resource management strategies. The Problem Allowing cattle to graze too long in one portion of a field may damage the ability of the plants in that field to recover properly, leading to inadequate vegetation cover later in the season which can eventually increase runoff and erosion. Sometimes family-run ranches face financial difficulties because of improper field maintenance and use of vegetation (e.g., grass). Approach Selected "Bootstraps" is a program developed by the Todd and Mellette Conservation Districts in South Dakota to help farmers and ranchers increase, among other things, the financial stability of their operations. The program's goal is to teach people "to wisely use natural resources to stabilize agriculture, the economy and the community." The program uses a Holistic (interdependent) Resource Management (HRM) approach to ranching and "capitalizes on harvesting grass resources without hurting the range." "Bootstraps" began with a series of meetings and studies to identify concepts, consider suggestions, and determine stock rates that would not degrade the natural resources. Recommendations on watering and fencing techniques were also made. Some of the program factors recognized as essential to financial success included: addressing all resources; family teamwork; good recordkeeping on all aspects; long-range planning; knowledge of marketing options; and land management practices that improve or maintain soil and water quality. Approach Implemented The Bootstraps program began in 1991 included 26 families and 23 ranches. The second group of participants included 30 families and ranches. Expansion of the original program included ranch families who live on or near the Ogalala Aquifer, Little White River, Rock Creek, Keyapaha River, and several large dams. The pollution prevention management practices implemented by ranchers participating Bootstraps directly benefited those water sources. Bi-weekly classes, resource inventories, and one-on-one technical assistance enhanced life-long learning skills. Awareness of all environmental concerns and methods of prevention were accentuated throughout the program. Planning is crucial to the success of a ranch. A ranch plan includes: short- and long-term goals, and activities necessary to attain those goals; inventories, including land, livestock, machinery, etc.; natural resource information, such as climatic condition patterns, pasture records, and water quality inventory checklist; livestock production records, crop production records, and soil loss and erosion control plans; financial records for all enterprises of ranch operation; and best management practices to protect the environment while increasing ranch production. A ranch plan has been completed by 29 percent of the local Bootstraps participants. The major "cost" of implementing an HRM approach at a ranch is time. The 2-year Bootstraps program was successful in creating more interest in grass replenishment and its response to various treatments. In this regard, staff members and ranchers installed a transect at each ranch. The transect allows for uniform clipping and weighing of grass production. The clipping and weighing provide an ongoing charting of production and analysis of planned grazing systems outcomes. By tracking all aspects of ranch management (inventory, seeding requirements, grass production, etc.), the rancher can measure the success of implementing best management practices. Success is generally based on how many cattle the rancher can produce per acre of land, and the weight of cattle sold. Results Of the participants involved in the Bootstraps Program, 80 percent have implemented one or more best management practices; 60 percent have implemented several. The local Bootstraps participants instituted: cross fencing (a procedure that allows for uniform distribution of grazing), native grass seeding, changing calving dates for better utilization of pastures, improved grazing systems, weighing cattle to access pounds per acre, purchasing hay instead of cutting hayland, reducing cattle numbers, and increasing studies of grasses and the benefits of grasses. These practices generally yielded less runoff and erosion, which in turn, decreased nonpoint source pollution. Future ranch plans include 39 percent of the Bootstraps participants developing improved grazing systems to reduce runoff and gully erosion; 28 percent changing cattle numbers to match ranch potential; 11 percent installing new wells to evenly distribute watering locations, thereby, decreasing over grazing and gully erosion; and 44 percent adding more cross fencing to ensure proper use of available grass. Followup services will continue to be provided to the ranchers in Todd and Mellette County by local and State agencies. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs The Bootstraps program was funded by a 2-year, $50,000 EPA and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources grant, starting in 1992. In addition, money from the Conservation Commission and other sources funded a significant portion of the project. In regard to the success of the program on a ranch-specific basis, at least 75 farms and ranches in South Dakota now know that using practices that maintain or improve the environmental health of their range and crop lands are essential to sustain a profitable operation. One ranch family that turned to HRM went from a situation of having unmanageable debt and facing the possibility of losing their ranch, to a profitable operation with the projection of paying off their land debt seven years ahead of schedule. Another participant discovered that their herd size could be increased by 20 percent without affecting the surrounding ecosystem. Contact For Further Information U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service White River, SD 57579-0709 Telephone: (605) 259-3252 Sources "Water and Environment Today." Summer 1994, Issue. Volume 8, Number 2: 6-7. "Bootstraps; Ranching For The 90's; Final Report (with attachments)." Todd County Conservation District, undated. Cheese Corporation Reduces Waste Generation 75 Percent; Dollar Savings Began in Two Months Cheese production is a biochemical process in which milk is converted to a solid intermediate product known as curd. After the liquid by-product, whey, is drained from the curd, salt is added to remove additional whey. Because of its saltiness, this salt whey cannot be used as a food grade additive and is treated as a waste. Frigo Cheese Corporation manufactured a wide variety of cheese at its Morgan, Wisconsin, plant. Approximately 2,000 gallons per day of salt whey were generated at the facility. For some time, Frigo Cheese spread the salt whey on nearby agricultural land. This was a common practice for plants that could not discharge their high strength wastewater to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). This method of waste disposal, however, increased the level of chlorides in the soil and could result in crop damage if the salt whey was applied incorrectly. In addition, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had recently placed limitations on chlorine land loadings. Approach Selected Frigo Cheese Corporation investigated better methods of salt whey disposal to reduce the amount of chlorine in its discharge. Some alternatives that were available included process modifications, offsite disposal of the salt whey, and onsite treatment (e.g., reverse osmosis) of the salt whey with subsequent discharge to a POTW. After considering its options, Frigo Cheese decided to modify the processes involved to recover salt from the salt whey and reuse it in production. P2 Approach Implemented The salt recovery process involved modifying an evaporator previously used for recovering edible whey. A stainless steel process pipeline was installed from the salting tanks to the evaporator. The evaporation recovery process significantly reduced the salt whey waste by separating the pumpable salt whey from water. The salt whey was then recycled in the production process (i.e., a "partially" closed-loop system), while the recovered water was used for cleaning and other purposes that do not require potable water. Operating Results As a result of the "partially" closed-loop recycling process, Frigo Cheese reduced its waste generation by 75 percent to 500 gallons of salt whey per day. Fresh salt usage was cut in half, from 1,000 to 500 pounds per day. Water consumption also was reduced. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs The capital costs for the purchase and installation of additional stainless steel piping was approximately $2,000. The operating and maintenance cost for the recovery process was $0.03-per-pound of salt recovered. The payback period was approximately 2 months, based upon the capital cost and an annual salt purchasing savings of $12,500. Other Benefits Initially, concern existed that the recovered salt would adversely affect the flavor and shelf life of the cheese. However, almost the opposite has occurred; the recovered salt whey enhanced the flavor of the cheese and did not affect the cheese composition shelf life. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibited Frigo Cheese from reusing any salt whey that has contacted a wooden container due to sanitation concerns. The company hoped to eventually replacing wooden containers with plastic ones, thus allowing the recovery of all the salt whey. The salt whey that cannot be reused is still spread over agricultural areas. However, the quantity of waste, along with the level of chlorides in the soil and the risk of crop damage, hve been greatly reduced. Contact For Further Information Greg Sevener, District Office, Wisconsin DNR Telephone: (715) 732-5525 Source Pollution Prevention Case Study: Frigo Cheese, Wisconsin DNR. Pollution Prevention Engineering Increases Fertilizer Production Here's how one company lowered its fuel and other costs by using a Pollution Prevention Engineering Approach. Producing ammonia for fertilizer utilizes water for steam generation and natural gas as fuel. Burning of natural gas produces carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen as air pollutants. These "greenhouse gases" are released to the atmosphere. Process condensate is generated as a wastewater stream. The wastewater is managed by a holding pond and injection wells. Approach Selected Cominco America Incorporated retained the engineering services of M.W. Kellogg Company to provide a re-engineered design of its ammonia plant that would lower fuel and make-up water usage. Such re-engineering aimed at reducing fuel and water requirements would reduce the wastewater and air emissions from ammonia production. Re-engineering to reduce waste generation is the modification of an existing process to take advantage of pollution prevention without sacrificing production. The re-engineering at Cominco America Incorporated was an innovative application of existing technologies. Approach Implemented Fuel consumption per ton of ammonia produced was reduced by replacing existing plant parts with newer material that improved the heat transfer. The original convection section and heating coil modules were replaced with more efficient units that resulted in reduced heat and improved heat transfer. This reduced nitrogen oxide emissions and lowered fuel consumption. The original ammonia converter reactor was modified, and a new, more efficient equipment was installed to lower steam consumption. The new designs reduced fuel consumption and raised the ammonia production rate. Finally, additional new equipment was installed as part of the new convection section. Wastewater is now recovered for conversion to steam, reducing make-up water and fuel consumption. Operating Results The pollution prevention measures took by Cominco significantly reduced greenhouse and acid gas emissions and wastewater generation. Fuel consumption was lowered by 22 percent, and emission rates of oxides of nitrogen were reduced by 35 percent. Fresh make-up water consumption was reduced with 95 percent recovery of the process condensate. Overall, the re-engineering resulted in improvements in production efficiency and reduced energy consumption, disposal costs, and environmental pollution. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs Actual and estimated cost savings for the pollution prevention re-engineering measures included: Reductions in annual natural gas usage equivalent to 1-billion cubic feet per year, for a savings of over $1.7 million; An average reduction of water for steam production of over 110-million gallons per year, saving $65,000; and Other savings realized through reduced disposal costs of wastewater into injection wells. The capital costs for the project were approximately $16 million. The plant anticipates payback in approximately 6 years from the plant restart date. Other Benefits Re-engineering has produced greater plant reliability. Ammonia production has been much higher on an annual basis than any time in the plant's history. Contact For Further Information Larry E. Wood, (806) 274-5204 Dry Cleaning Firm Shows 80% Waste Reduction The Problem Perchloroethylene (PERC) is used as a cleaning solvent in the dry cleaning industry. In the 1980s, PERC was considered to be a potential cancer-causing agent. (The carcinogenic effects of PERC are currently being studied). The dry cleaning industry made operational changes to reduce environmental discharges and employee exposures. Then the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required the industry to develop pollution prevention plans to reduce emissions by 1995, to strictly monitor current consumption, and to report PERC emissions to the air and transfers to hazardous waste landfills (adsorbed on filters from dry cleaning machines). Approach Selected Rather than just plan for future pollution prevention, Leff-Marvins Cleaners took a proactive approach and looked to immediately replace all its old dry cleaning machines with new equipment that could condense, distill, filter, and recycle the PERC within a self-contained unit. By reducing its emissions earlier than required, Leff-Marvins Cleaners realized that it would have to deal with less stringent control requirements and less recordkeeping than would be imposed in 1995. Approach Implemented Leff-Marvins Cleaners spoke with a number of equipment vendors to find machines that could provide closed-loop handling of PERC. They sought to replace a transfer dry cleaning unit and two reclaimer units that handled 150 pounds of dry cleaning. The units had significant PERC fugitive emissions and generated two disposable filters that were treated as hazardous wastes because of the nearly 200 gallons (per month) of trapped PERC. The old equipment was replaced with two new dry cleaning units that had a combined capacity of 110 pounds of dry cleaning. The new units used a cold water, closed loop, chiller process to capture and recycle the PERC. Nylon, reusable filters for capturing lint replaced the disposable hazardous waste filters. The permanent filters were stripped of lint by distillation through the system, reducing the hazardous wastestream to 35 gallons per month of still bottoms. Four dye-clarifying, activated carbon filters are replaced annually and disposed as hazardous waste. Operating Results Since installation of the new equipment, Leff-Marvins' purchases of PERC have dropped from 200 gallons per month to less than 40 gallons per month, a reduction of 80 percent. Annual hazardous waste disposal volumes have dropped from 1,600 gallons of spent PERC and lint to 420 gallons of still residues (also an 80 percent decrease) plus the number of hazardous waste filters requiring disposal was reduced to four from 24 per year. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs The changeover to new equipment produced a net annual savings of about $17,000. The environmental and hazardous material savings were actually $2,000 per month, but this was offset by an increase in the electric power bill of $500. The additional power requirements reflected electrical needs for condensation/distillation and an increase in business. Leff-Marvins Cleaners estimated that payback of the $81,400 in new equipment would be achieved in 4 years through reduced PERC purchases, waste disposal savings, and fewer returns of clothing for recleaning, because the new equipment proved to clean better than the old dry cleaning machines. In addition, the new equipment had lower maintenance costs. Environmental Benefits Leff-Marvins Cleaners achieved other benefits in addition to decreasing PERC emissions well before the mandated deadline and reducing waste disposal by 80 percent. The new equipment brought an increase in business, a reduction in clothing returns for recleaning, and lower downtime with less maintenance. Also, employees expressed a greater satisfaction with their working environment. Contact For Further Information Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, P.O. Box 8472, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8472. Telephone: (717) 787-7382 NICE3 Promotes Energy Efficiency and Clean Production Technologies The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have combined to sponsor an innovative, cost-sharing program to promote energy efficiency, clean production, and economic competitiveness in industry. The grant program, known as NICE3, provides funding for projects that develop and demonstrate advances in energy efficiency and clean production technologies. From 1991 to 1994, NICE3 sponsored 26 projects, totaling $7.8 million of government funding. The program requires an industry applicant to submit project proposals through a State energy, pollution prevention, or business development office. Funds are awarded to State/industry partnerships that can match the DOE/EPA Federal funds at least dollar-for-dollar. Awardees receive a one-time grant of up to $400,000 for the proposed project. After the initial funding, the awardee is expected to commercialize the process or technology. NICE3 project proposals are evaluated on the following criteria: concept description, innovation, cost efficiency, applicant capabilities, energy savings, waste reduction, economic competitiveness, commercialization/marketing plan, and impact on jobs. The following example illustrates just one of the successful NICE3 Projects. Case Study: Carpet Manufacturers Reduce Pollution via Automated Dyebath Reuse In a conventional batch dyeing process, water is pumped into a dyeing machine, and fabric is placed in a bath and saturated with water. Chemicals and dye are then added to the water. The bath is heated to dyeing temperature and held at that temperature until dyeing is complete. When complete, the dyebath is emptied, the machine is refilled, and the process is repeated for the next load. When a dyebath is emptied, large quantities of energy, water, and useful chemicals are sent to treatment and subsequently discharged. A more efficient procedure would be to analyze the spent dyebath for remaining dye, add make-up chemicals to the bath to bring it to the required strength, and then reuse it for subsequent dyeings (i.e., closed loop recycling). The technical and economic viability of reusing dyebaths has been demonstrated in the past; however, applying the process requires skills that were not always available to the textile manufacturer. For example, this procedure usually requires chemical analysis of the dyebath to determine what chemicals need to be added for reuse. If a chemist is not available to analyze each bath, automation of the process can be accomplished with an analytical system that will simply, accurately, and economically determine the concentration of the remaining dyebath, and add the proper amount of make-up chemicals. Implemented Approach Through a grant from the NICE3 program, several innovative techniques were investigated and evaluated that could allow full automation of the dyeing process. With a fully automated process, low-cost precision pumping systems allow a small volume of dyebath chemicals to be used for numerous dyeing operations. Using innovative monitoring insturments, a system is being developed that can analyze the dyebath and communicate the results to a computer for calculation of what chemicals need to be added for the next dyeing operation. Operating Results The waste reduction in the automated dyebath reuse process is straightforward; approximately 6 percent of the dyes, 60 percent of the auxiliary chemicals, and 42 percent of the water are directly reused in the manufacturing process and removed from the wastestream. Nationwide, waste would be reduced by 36-million pounds (16.3-million kg) of chemicals each year. Widespread implementation of the automated dyebath reuse process would enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness by lowering costs. In addition to applications in the carpet industry, this technology could prove useful in the dyeing and finishing sectors of the textile industry. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs The cost to implement the program was $832,741 (Industry share: $432,741). By implementing this program, the savings at the test facility (Shaw Industries) were $1.6-million per year. Based on the industry share of $432,741, the payback period for this project was less than 3 months. Cost projects indicated that implementation of the dyebath reuse process could save money in terms of carpet production at almost all carpet plants. Energy Benefits The project has energy savings that are derived from three sources: (1) the reduction in direct thermal and electrical energy to heat dyebaths; (2) the elimination of energy to produce additional dyes, auxiliary chemicals, and water; all of which are reused with the new technology; and (3) reduction in energy associated with treatment of wastewater. If fully implemented throughout the carpet industry, dyebath reuse technology could save up to 3.6-trillion Btu per year. On a national scale, and including the textile industry, full implementation would produce energy savings of up to 7-trillion Btu (7.4-quadrillion joules) each year by the year 2010. Based on the national average, residential energy consumption of 7-trillion Btu could supply all of the energy needs for about 70,000 homes for 1 year. Contact For Further Information Eric Hass, (MATEC), U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office Telephone: (303) 275-4728 Charlie Pike, State of California, Telephone: (916) 327-1649 Greg Andrews, State of Georgia, Telephone: (404) 651-5120 Sources NICE3 Project Summary: "Automated Reuse of Dyebaths in Carpet Manufacturing." (DOE/CH10093-235; DE93017075) Revised September 1994. NICE3 Program Summary: "Wouldn't it be NICE ..." (DOE/CH10093-349; DE94011821) September 1994. EPA Encourages Pollution Prevention Through Compliance and Enforcement Settlements EPA's Pollution Prevention Approach The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages pollution prevention when negotiating enforcement settlements with industrial facilities that have violated environmental laws or regulations. In most settlements with pollution prevention conditions, the pollution prevention activities are negotiated as supplemental environmental projects (SEPs); the prevention activity is included in exchange for some degree of penalty mitigation. Promoting pollution prevention within the enforcement context gives EPA the ability to pursue a settlement that optimizes environmental performance, rather than a settlement aimed only at achieving compliance with the regulations. When implementing pollution prevention in enforcement settlements, the Office of Enforcement (OE) suggests the following strategies: maintain flexibility when creating settlements; use pollution prevention SEPs/injunctive relief cases to develop new technologies; provide an avenue for EPA to verify that pollution prevention activities are being successfully implemented at the facility; design demonstration projects; and use multimedia inspections to promote multimedia pollution prevention SEPs/injunctive relief outcomes. During the settlement process, EPA's compliance and enforcement programs have two basic avenues for promoting pollution prevention within the regulated community. The first avenue is to use the settlement conditions to require the respondent/defendant to use pollution prevention methods to redress the original violation and to achieve compliance. In the absence of statutory, regulatory, or permit language, members of the regulated community are free to choose how to comply. However, once a civil or administrative action has been initiated, the specific means of returning to compliance are subject to mutual agreement between EPA and the respondent/defendant. Therefore, under the mutual agreement process, EPA can establish pollution prevention compliance methods in place of more traditional end-of-pipe compliance methods. The second important avenue is the inclusion of SEPs in settlement agreements. As part of a settlement agreement, a respondent/defendant will agree to conduct a project(s) that reduces risks posed to human health and the environment beyond what would be required by law. Unlike settlement conditions, SEPs are not designed to redress the original violation(s); instead, the SEP serves to mitigate the size or gravity component of an assessed penalty. The voluntary and flexible nature of SEPs allows companies to explore various of options to both mitigate their penalties and benefit the environment. These options may include more traditional methods, or new, innovative pollution prevention approaches. Approach Implemented Enforcement of environmental acts (in particular the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act or EPCRA) has been successful in requiring violators to undertake SEPs to reduce penalties. Examples of how pollution prevention was successfully incorporated into settlement agreements are presented on the next page. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs In this program, two types of costs require consideration. The first is the cost to the facility, and the second, is the cost to EPA to implement a program to encourage the use of pollution prevention. Obviously, the cost for a facility to implement a pollution prevention project will vary, depending on project size and complexity. And, although the examples presented here only cover a small price range, facility pollution prevention implementation costs can vary from under $10,000 to millions of dollars. Payback time can range from immediately to many years. Regarding EPA costs, sufficient resources must be available to accommodate the increased time and attention that pollution prevention enforcement activities require. In June 1990, various EPA offices received funds to develop regulatory, compliance, and analytical pollution prevention projects. The Office of Enforcement is providing technical support to help incorporate pollution prevention conditions in regional enforcement cases, as well as to conduct analyses of the environmental, institutional, and (innovative) technological impacts of pollution prevention settlements. Pollution prevention injunctive relief offers the opportunity for both EPA and the respondent/ defendant to reduce or eliminate an environmental problem at the source, without cross-media transfer of pollutants. Pollution prevention SEPs, and injunctive relief, in some cases, offer the possibility of reducing environmental impacts in excess of that which is required by regulation. Significant "indirect" environmental, health, and economic benefits can be achieved through the transfer of pollution prevention technology to other processes in the subject plant or to other plants owned by the company; organizational changes that lead to improved environmental practices; and further implementation of other pollution prevention technology. Furthermore, particularly in the case of SEPs (where penalty relief is granted), the option to include a pollution prevention project creates an opportunity to turn a negative situation into a better or positive situation for the facility and to improve the relationship between the company and EPA. Contact for Further Information Pete Rosenberg Office of Enforcement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (202) 260-8869 Sources "Recent Experience in Encouraging the Use of Pollution Prevention in Enforcement Settlements; Report Summary" prepared for the USEPA, Office of Enforcement by the MIT Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development; February 1994. "Pollution Prevention Through Compliance and Enforcement; A Review of OPTS Accomplishments." USEPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, January 1993. Settlement Agreements That Successfully Incorporated Pollution Prevention An industrial coater was fined $50,000 for not submitting reports on toluene and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (both high-priority toxic chemicals) under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). This fine was reduced to $30,000, and the facility implemented a project to reformulate its coating material and change its coater equipment. By using ultraviolet and infrared radiation to aid in the application of scratch-resistant coatings to polyester film, the company reduced its use of the toxic chemicals (toluene by 90 percent and MEK by 50 percent). The project cost $54,000 to implement, and the payback time was estimated to be between 6 months and 2 years. A casted metal products manufacturer was fined $95,000 for Clean Water Act (CWA) violations. The penalty was reduced to $30,000, and the facility implemented a project to redesign its rinse system on several coating and cleaning process lines to reduce the amount of water used and the amount of wastewater generated. Also, the facility substituted organic solvents and Freon with aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners. The project cost was not available; however, the payback time was estimated at 5 to 8 years (excluding the $65,000 "savings" in the fines). A pump service and sales company was fined $17,000 for not reporting emissions of Freon 113 under EPCRA. This fine was reduced to $8,500, and thefacility implemented a project to make process changes and material substitutions at multiple facilities. The company replaced its freon-based cleaning systems with water-based systems that eliminate emissions of toxic chemicals into the environment. The project cost $54,000 to implement, and the payback time was estimated to be between 6 months and 2 years. A powder metallurgy manufacturing company was fined $76,000 for EPCRA violations. This was reduced to $30,550, and the facility had a waste minimization opportunity assessment performed at the site. The facility instituted product substitution (blended hydrogen/nitrogen sintering atmosphere for anhydrous ammonia); eliminated a trichloroethylene (TCE) vapor degreaser by switching to an aqueous tapping fluid; and installed a closed loop cooling system. The project cost $78,300, and the payback time was estimated at 3 to 7 years, with a savings of $1,000 per month in energy costs. If the "savings" for a reduced fine are included, the payback is reduced to 2.5 years. Kelly Air Force Base Soars With Pollution Prevention The Problem The daily ground operations of an Air Force base involve many sources of environmental contaminants. Airborne emissions occur as a result of painting, degreasing, and maintenance operations. Plating and metal refinishing operations generate large quantities of metal-contaminated wastewater. De-painting can produce large quantities of hazardous wastes. In the past, these individual pollution problems were typically dealt with by "end-of-pipe" controls. That is, wastewaters were conveyed to wastewater treatment plants, air emissions were controlled in the stack or vent, and solid wastes were disposed of in landfills. Approach Selected In 1992, the U.S. Air Force embarked upon an ambitious program to reduce hazardous wastes, ozone-depleting chemicals, and particularly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 17 33/50 Program toxic chemicals. This program is aimed at determining whether voluntary reduction programs can achieve targeted reductions more quickly than the EPA's traditional command-and-control approach to environmental protection regulations. The 33/50 program derived its name from its goals. The goals are to have a 33 percent reduction by 1992 of releases and offsite transfers of the 17 33/50 program chemicals using the 1988 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) report as a baseline. A 50 percent reduction is the goal for 1995. The 33/50 program encourages pollution prevention as the best means of achieving these goals. At Kelly Air Force Base, the approach was to target individual operations for development of pollution prevention and waste management techniques that would reduce or eliminate targeted wastestreams. Overall pollution prevention and waste generation reduction goals were set by the Air Force Materiels Command (AFMC) and implemented at the base. Approach Implemented In order to implement the overall pollution prevention and waste generation reduction goals set by AFMC, the following pollution prevention measures were adopted: Replaced a chromated deoxidizer with a phosphoric acid deoxidizer in the bonding shop anodizing line; Changed from a manual, labor-intensive method of cleaning paint guns to totally enclosed paint gun washers; Replaced all cyanide metal strippers with noncyanide metal strippers for nickel and silver strippers; Constructed and uses a plastic media blasting facility large enough to enclose a C-5A transport aircraft. The process replaced chemical-based (methylene chloride) paint removers with physical, dry, abrasive paint removal; Replaced vapor degreasers with 13 small, more efficient and compliant vapor degreasers that reduce the use of perchoroethylene up to 90 percent; and Upgraded the aluminum oxide blasting system in the plating shop and improving wastestream segregation to improve reclamation efficiency and reduce the generation of hazardous waste. Operating Results In only 2 years, these pollution prevention measures cited produced significant reductions in ozone-depleting substances (88 percent), EPA 17 chemicals (59 percent), and hazardous waste generation (24 percent). Specific successes include: Reducing perchloroethylene use by 47 percent in 2 years by using aqueous cleaners and degreasers for parts washing, with a projected reduction of 88 percent by 1996; Eliminating use of methylene chloride as a paint stripper, resulting in a 20 percent reduction in base-wide EPA 17 chemical use, a 50 percent reduction in waste generation from paint removal operations, and a decrease in water consumption of about 20-million gallons per year; Cutting cyanide use by about 75 percent in metal stripping operations; Eliminating over 1,000 pounds per year of sodium dichromate, thereby reducing the chromium discharged to the base industrial waste treatment plant; and Realizing a 55 percent reduction in aluminum oxide blast media purchases (150,000 pounds per year) and a 60 percent reduction in hazardous waste disposal. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs Actual and estimated cost savings for the implemented pollution prevention measures included: Eliminating the use of sodium dichromate in the anodizing process generated cost savings of approximately $1,100 per year. Increasing the efficiency of the degreasing operations yielded an annual savings of $31,000 per year in material purchase and approximately $18,000 per year in waste disposal. Replacing nickel and silver cyanide metal strippers with noncyanide strippers saved over $100,000 per year in disposal costs alone. Converting from methylene chloride to a dry abrasive paint removal process saved approximately $343,000 per aircraft; and cut the time required to strip the paint from an aircraft from 14 to 7 days. Upgrading the efficiency of the aluminum oxide blasting process generated a savings of $75,000 per year in blast media purchases and $16,000 per year in hazardous waste disposal. Realizing cost savings from the process change in paint gun washing of at least $13,000 per year in chemical purchases and waste disposal costs, and labor savings of approximately 215 hours each year in cleaning time. The above reflect a combined annual savings of over $500,000 per year, excluding other associated costs, such as recordkeeping, reporting, and liability. Contact for Further Information Greg Vallery, Paul Hughes, and Dave Leeson, Pollution Prevention Division, Kelly Air Force Base. Telephone: (210) 925-3100 Furniture Manufacturer Assembles More With Lower Emissions New England Woodcraft, Inc. manufactures household and institutional furniture at its factory in Forestdale, Vermont. The plant determined that it was emitting significant amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on the order of 6 to 7 pounds per gallon of finish. (VOCs can result in the formulation of smog in reaction to ozone.) The nitrocellulose coatings being used contained toxic and carcinogenic ingredients such as formaldehyde. Significant amounts of solid and hazardous waste were generated at the plant as well. Nitrocellulose coatings have been used by many furniture manufacturers to produce high quality coatings. However, New England Woodcraft sought to reduce worker exposure to toxics and reduce the emissions and hazardous waste generated from the use of nitrocellulose coatings. Approach Implemented In 1988, this company, began testing water-based coatings as a replacement for the traditional nitrocellulose coatings. In 1990, New England Woodcraft, in a joint effort with C.E. Bradley Laboratories, formulated a successful water-based coating and the necessary application equipment to replace the old nitrocellulose coatings. Operating Results The pre-mixed water-based emulsion finishes now used at New England Woodcraft contain only 1.67 pounds of VOCs per gallon of finish, a 75 percent reduction when compared to nitrocellulose finishes. Also, the new formulation contains no formaldehyde. Moreover, the high solids, water-based finish covers more area with less material. These factors have combined to reduce VOC emissions at the facility from 90 tons to 9 tons annually (90 percent reduction). Also, hazardous waste generation was reduced by over 90 percent, from greater than 2,200 pounds per month to less than 220 pounds per month. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs Significant cost reductions were realized in waste management, waste disposal, and taxes associated with hazardous waste generation. As a result of a 90 percent decrease in hazardous waste generation, the facility's regulatory status changed from a large quantity generator to a small quantity generator. Hence, the facility is conditionally exempt from some reporting and regulatory requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Additionally, the facility received a 25 percent decrease in insurance rates due to decreased fire hazards. Other Benefits Reduced employee exposure to toxics and hazardous waste has improved the employee's work environment and subsequently their health and safety. Contact For Further Information Mr. Harmon Thurston New England Woodcraft, Inc. Route 53, Box 165 Forestdale, VT 05745 Telephone: (802) 247-8211 Newspaper Recycles Waste Ink The Hartford Courant is a regional newspaper with a daily circulation of 225,000 and a Sunday circulation of 320,000. Approximately 175 gallons of waste ink are generated each week. The lithographic presses produce waste ink that is a mixture of mostly black ink blended with other colors and press cleaning solvents. During printing, excess ink contaminated with the blanket wash solvent, fountain solution (mostly water), and paper dust is collected in trays under the presses. In general, the ink and solvent wastestreams generated by a printing operation are considered hazardous wastes, especially if they contain chromium or lead or have a low flash point. Prior to implementing pollution prevention actions, the waste is shipped offsite for reuse as a supplemental fuel. Approach Selected The newspaper set out to essentially eliminate the generation of hazardous waste inks by cleaning and recycling waste ink. A study was performed under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Waste Reduction and Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) Program to evaluate a technology that could be used to recycle waste printing ink for reuse in lithographic printing operations. Approach Implemented The Hartford Courant now collects the waste, recycles the solvent, and blends the waste ink back into virgin black ink for reuse. The facility has decreased both the toxicity and quantity of its hazardous waste from 9,100 gallons of waste ink and solvent to 46 gallons of paper dust and 3,050 gallons of water, a significant reduction that has allowed the facility to report its emissions as a small quantity generator. The major components of the recycling unit at the The Hartford Courant were purchased on a skid, and other equipment was added as required. The waste ink goes to a large waste ink storage tank; when enough ink is collected in this tank, a batch is processed through a recycling unit back into a reusable black ink product. The recycling process primarily involves vacuum distillation, filtration, and blending. After solvent and water from the waste ink are separated tests are performed to determine the amount of virgin black ink required for blending. The ratio of virgin ink to processed ink can vary from about 3:1 to 5:1. The virgin ink is added to improve the color, consistency, and other functional properties of the processed ink to an acceptable range. After blending, the recycled ink is transferred to a clean holding tank. The recycled ink is then drawn by a pump through a final filter to the presses. Operating Results Product quality of the spent, recycled, and virgin inks was evaluated by conducting selected performance tests and comparisons of the printed material by qualified professionals. The recycled ink fared well in laboratory performance tests such as viscosity, grind, residue, tinting strength, water content, and water pickup. In addition, there was no significant difference in print quality between the virgin and recycled inks in the opinion of experienced readers. The waste volume reduction potential of this technology involves the amount of waste ink prevented from being disposed into the environment (by landfilling, waste incineration, or as a supplemental fuel). The facility generates approximately 175 gallons per week or 9,100 gallons per year of waste ink. The waste ink contains about 40 percent water and solvent (mostly water) and 60 percent ink. By recycling, the ink is recovered. The recycling wastestreams consist of water (wastewater) from the separator and the paper-dust paste residue from the filters. Any solvent that distills off is reused in the printing process. The facility plans to discharge the wastewater to the municipal sewer, but is considering installing an activated carbon filter for removing organics in the wastewater, so that the water can be reused. The paper-dust residue (about 1 gallon for every 200 gallons of waste ink processed) is disposed of by an offsite contractor for incineration or use as a supplemental fuel. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs The company has eliminated the disposal costs for the hazardous waste that they no longer generate. The disposal cost was $38,000/year. The major cost of the recycling option is for utilities (energy), labor, and disposal of wastewater and paper-dust residue, which is $7,100/year. The value of the recycled product is almost $20,000/year. When this is added to the difference in operating costs, the total "savings" are $50,000/year. With a purchase and installation cost of $318,000, a rough estimate of the payback period is about 6.25 years, based upon the current rates of items such as labor and utilities. When inflation and taxation are taken into account, the payback period is more accurately calculated as 10 years. Environmental Benefits By recycling virtually all of the potential pollutants in the waste ink (chromium, lead, barium, organics, etc.) are reused and, thus, prevented from entering the environment. In addition, the recycling unit was easy to install and operate. At The Hartford Courant, no additional labor was needed to operate the recycling equipment. Current employees were utilized to perform tasks similar to their previous job descriptions. Contact For Further Information The Hartford Courant; 285 Broad Street, Hartford, CT 06115 Telephone: (203) 275-1917 Sources Final Report; On-site Waste Ink Recycling. Technology Evaluation Report; WRITE Program. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. August 1992. "Connecticut WRITE Today" ConnTAP Quarterly, 1993, 6(1):4. Motorola Goes Solder-less Traditionally, soldering methods use chemical fluxes to remove oxides from metal surfaces prior to soldering. Unfortunately, these fluxes leave corrosive residues, which must be removed with chemical rinses. Freon 113 and trichloroethane (TCA), both known ozone depleting chemicals (ODCs), were commonly used as part of these chemical rinse activities. Approach Selected Motorola Government Systems and Technology Group, in an effort to eliminate ODCs from its manufacturing processes, entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the Department of Energy's National Laboratories at Sandia and Los Alamos. Motorola provided manufacturing technology while the labs provided analytical expertise and reliability predictions. Successful approaches were likely to either eliminate production of oxides or eliminate corrosive residues requiring rinses. Ultimately, the team developed a soldering process that is so clean that no chemical rinses are needed. Approach Implemented The new soldering process replaces flux with a preparation fluid that is lightly sprayed onto the bottom side of circuit boards. The fluid is a 2 percent mixture of adipic acid in isopropyl alcohol. Adipic acid is a safe, nontoxic, organic acid that is used in various commercial food products as a neutralizer and flavoring agent. The circuit boards travel into an inert gas section of a wave soldering machine. The inert atmosphere in the chamber prevents oxide formation while the board is heated to soldering temperatures. When the board passes onto the liquid wave of solder metal, the adipic acid breaks down to scavenge oxides from the metal surfaces being soldered. A small amount of formic acid can be introduced into the atmosphere to assist in oxide removal. The acid is almost totally decomposed to carbon dioxide and water vapor. The boards do not require cleaning. Residues left after soldering were noncorrosive in the normal life cycle of electronics hardware. Operating Results Typical old-style soldering machines use up to 8,000 pounds of cleaners per month, or 48 tons of cleaners per year. The use of the new soldering process has eliminated the need for a rinsing stage and, therefore, has eliminated the use of Freon 113 and TCA cleaners and their associated air emissions. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs Costs for the cleaning solvents ranged from 52 cents to $2.55 a pound. Each machine that employs the new soldering process now saves between $50,000 and $245,000 per year in chemical use alone. The machines used in the development effort cost from $300,000 to $400,000 each. However, conventional wave solder machines can be retrofitted with nitrogen inert capability for $40,000 to $100,000, depending on the degree of mechanical and computer control modification required. Environmental Benefits As a result of the new soldering process, Motorola has helped eliminate the chemical air emissions of Freon 113 and TCA. For its efforts, Motorola has received the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award for the second time in 3 years. Contact For Further Information Jim Landers, Motorola Government Space and Technology Group, Scottsdale, AZ Telephone: (602) 441-3600 Source Arizona Pollution Prevention, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality APPLE+ Newsletter. Los Angeles Takes Innovative Pollution Prevention Approaches A large metropolitan government with many agencies and internal organizations may find it difficult to plan and implement waste minimization activities. Yet, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Federal and State orders, and fiscal shortages have forced municipalities to face the issue of adopting pollution prevention within their own operations. In addition, small commercial and industrial concerns often request help from municipalities. The City of Los Angeles has taken several innovative approaches to addressing these problems. Approach Selected One of the first steps Los Angeles took in setting up its pollution prevention program was to form the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Hazardous Waste Reduction. The committee was comprised of industry experts, researchers, environmental scientists, engineers, and government regulators. Subsequently, Los Angeles established the Hazardous and Toxic Materials (HTM) Project. The HTM Project is a nonregulatory initiative that provides assistance to small- and medium-sized businesses concerned with waste minimization. Its goal is to ensure that the City of Los Angeles conforms to and promotes the national hazardous waste minimization policy. The Project provides direct regulatory and waste minimization assistance to city departments, industry, and businesses that use hazardous materials and generate hazardous waste, using new and existing city resources to accomplish its objectives. The City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department is a participant in the U.S. EPA Region 9 Merit Partnership for Pollution Prevention. This program brings the business community together with Federal, State, and regional regulatory agencies to facilitate adoption of pollution prevention methods that reduce environmental impacts and enhance industrial efficiency. Approach Implemented Under the HTM Project, the supervisors of all city departments are required to participate in an interdepartmental Hazardous Waste Management Task Force and to adopt the city-wide policy. The Project conducts training programs and conferences for businesses, trade associations, and city employees; and provides free technical assistance to industry through education and outreach programs. Every city facility has been inspected and audited to determine where and how much waste is being generated by city operations. The city also makes use of the Bureau of Sanitation's water pollution control inspectors to help enforce hazardous waste control laws and encourage hazardous waste minimization. Operating Results The HTM Project provides the following services to assist with pollution prevention efforts: Onsite Technical Assistance. Provides assistance in identifying and implementing pollution prevention methods and process technologies. The HTM Office acts as a facilitator between business and enforcement agencies on waste minimization regulations. Industry Outreach. Provides onsite training, public workshops, and trade shows presentations. Vendor Data Base. Provides information on environmental consulting services, hazardous waste treaters, disposers, and manufacturing equipment. Technical Library. Provides cost effective pollution prevention case studies and free publications on financial resources, hazardous waste regulations, industry specific fact sheets, waste reduction, and compliance checklists and videos. The USEPA Merit Partnership for Pollution Prevention Program has several pollution prevention projects in progress, which include: Formation of a roundtable of major California refiners, regulatory agencies, and pollution prevention experts to share information; Creation of a Distribution Spill Prevention Group with Dow Chemical leading the effort to strengthen industry standards for safe transportation of chemicals; Information Sharing by Northrop and other corporations on cost-effective manufacturing processes that reduce pollutant releases; Development by Xerox Corporation of a new soldering process to replace pollutant-forming compounds with water-based fluxes; and, Conduct waste minimization workshops for small metal plating companies, sponsored by the Metal Finishers Association of Southern California. Environmental Benefits Information from numerous case studies provided by the HTM Office shows that pollution prevention efforts effectively reduce air emissions, wastewater discharges, and hazardous waste generation, as well as improved the operation of businesses in the Los Angeles area. Los Angeles provides a leading example of how waste reduction can be an integral part of city business. The HTM Office's innovations and successes have caught the attention of cities around the world. Some have expressed interest in replicating the office activities in their own government structure. For example, officials from Rio de Janeiro met with Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, officials from the Los Angeles Board of Public Works, and members of the Mega-Cities Project to sign an agreement that marked the beginning of cooperation and information exchange on pollution reduction methods between the two cities. Currently, other cities such as Bangkok, Jakarta, Buenos Aires, Manila, and San Paulo have contacted the HTM Office to set up similar exchange agreements. Contact For Further Information The Hazardous & Toxic Materials Office 200 North Spring Street, Room 353 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Ms. Donna Toy Chen (Director) Telephone: (213) 237-1209 The Merit Partnership Program U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 Mr. Dan Reich (Co-Chair) Telephone: (415) 744-1336 Tastes Better - Costs Less The Village of LeRoy is a rural community located in western New York State with a population of approximately 5,000. LeRoy depends on two village-owned reservoirs, Lake LeRoy and Lake LaGrange, for its water supply. For a number of years, the village experienced serious taste, odor, and color problems with its water supply. As a result, the village installed a new water filtration plant in 1983. Improvements were immediate, but brief. Within 2 years, the problems reoccurred. In 1986, officials from Kent State University identified the source of the water quality problems to be algal blooms and weed growth resulting from nutrient runoff into the lakes from nearby farms. Traditionally, the village would remove the weed overgrowth, select source water for the village from higher lake elevations to avoid the anoxic zones in the lakes, and aerate the water using lake circulators. However, the farmers in the surrounding area realized that a long-term watershed management program was necessary to recover the lakes and prevent further degradation. In 1988, these farmers initiated the reservoir and watershed management program and created the LeRoy Watershed Advisory Committee (LeWAC). LeWAC, in cooperation with the Cornell Cooperative Extension from Genesee County, aimed to improve the water quality, abate nitrate contamination, and enhance agricultural and recreational activities in the watershed. To accomplish this, LeWAC developed programs focused on fertilizer use and controlling nutrient runoff. Approach Implemented To control the amount of nutrients leaching to the lakes, a survey of the farmers in the watershed area was initiated. The survey focused on existing land use and farming practices. Soil sampling kits were provided to the farmers, who in turn were responsible for testing the nitrogen content of their soil and decreasing fertilizer use if the nitrogen content was shown to be excessive. LeWAC members met with individual farmers to review proper fertilizer and manure management practices and the need to control land erosion through the use of filter strips. LeWAC also developed an education program to better inform the surrounding community, to increase cooperation with the landowners and residents, and to provide a forum to demonstrate the equipment used for lake monitoring and testing. Operating Results Since the inception of LeWAC, the public water supply no longer has taste, odor, or color problems. In addition, the following conservation practices have also been implemented: Installation of diversion ditches, open ditches,grass waterways, terraces and tile drains; Initiation of permanent hayland planting, tree planting, and forest management; and Introduction of pasture management, rotational grazing, and no-till and conservation management. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs Initially, funding for the LeRoy watershed management program was not available. However, the Village of LeRoy pursued the development of the program and sought to increase awareness with the resources it had available. Eventually, funding for the $206,000 project was obtained through a series of grants and loans from the New York State Cost-Share Aquatics, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Cooperative Extension and Soil Conservation Service, and the village landowners. Financially, the Village of LeRoy was able to decrease the use of chemicals in the area at an estimated savings of $9,000 per year. Additional capital improvements have also been eliminated that would have been necessary to comply with the safe drinking water requirements for the public water supply system. Detailed information on these capital improvements was not available. Environmental Benefits The Village of LeRoy is an example of how a rural community with a population under 25,000 can successfully implement a reservoir and watershed management program. Not only did the program improve the quality of the water and abate nitrate contamination, it also enhanced the agricultural and recreational activities in the watershed. Contact For Further Information Administrator for the Village of LeRoy, Telephone: (716) 768-2527 The Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Centre, Telephone: (800) 667-979. Source Pollution Prevention Case Study, Watershed Management. Village of LeRoy, New York. Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Centre. Connecticut Initiative Encourages Pollution Prevention Hazardous waste management in the United States is dynamic. The last 10 years have seen major shifts in hazardous waste generation, increased demand for waste management services, and sporadic shortfalls in available capacity. While commercial capacity is generally sufficient in the near term, States must remain aware of national trends in hazardous waste management because of the nature of the industry and the changing regulations that govern hazardous waste. A program that encourages facilities to properly manage and reduce their hazardous waste generation is important in any State to ensure that management capacity remains available to industries that rely on it. Connecticut has developed such a program to provide information about pollution prevention initiatives at other facilities, and to provide expertise to help facilities identify and implement pollution prevention techniques within their own facilities. In 1983, the Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service (Service) was established as an independent, nonregulatory entity, with statutory responsibility to promote and encourage appropriate management of hazardous waste in the State. The Service's Hazardous Waste Program, through the Connecticut Technical Assistance Program (ConnTAP), contributes to successful waste minimization efforts by generators throughout the State. ConnTAP encourages waste reduction, recycling, and sound hazardous waste management practices by providing Connecticut businesses with free, technical and financial assistance. The program focuses on multimedia pollution prevention (i.e., minimizing air emissions, wastewater discharges, and hazardous waste requiring land disposal). Approach Implemented Some of the services provided by ConnTAP include: site visits that bring retired industry professionals to businesses to offer customized pollution prevention solutions and an information and referral hotline to answer requests for publications, technical information, referrals to State and Federal agencies, and information on ConnTAP programs. It also provides a library with over 1,000 documents on hazardous waste management, waste minimization, and pollution prevention; videotapes on pollution prevention and hazardous waste management, and access to EPA computerized data bases that provide the latest technical information; a free quarterly newsletter that features waste minimization case studies and articles on pollution prevention; and workshops and seminars on pollution prevention that promote technology transfer and pollution prevention training. In 1988, ConnTAP established its ongoing Matching Challenge Grant Program to help recipients identify opportunities for pollution prevention to evaluate the feasibility of specific methods and technologies for preventing pollution and to generally improve waste management. Also, through the Connecticut Development Authority, small Connecticut businesses can receive loans up to $250,000 to implement pollution prevention projects that are approved by ConnTAP. The Matching Challenge Grant Program demonstrates that a relatively small amount of money can go far toward minimizing or eliminating hazardous waste and encouraging pollution prevention. From its inception through 1994, the grant program has awarded about $100,000 to 22 Connecticut organizations. Environmental Results As a result of this program, the Service anticipates a total annual reduction of almost 1,000 tons of hazardous metal hydroxide sludge. Over 560-million gallons of water can also be saved annually as a result of the grant program projects. Further projections of the grant program's impact include an annual 177-ton reduction in other hazardous waste and hazardous air emissions. In addition ConnTAP has been selected by EPA to participate as one of six technical assistance programs in the Waste Reduction Through Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) project. The WRITE project evaluates, in typical workplace environments, examples of innovative or prototype commercial technologies for pollution prevention. The success of the project is dramatically illustrated in the following examples: Automatic Plating of Bridgeport, Inc. invited ConnTAP to help evaluate the use of electrodialysis technology in its nickel plating process. Electrodialysis allows recovery and reuse of both nickel and rinsewater and removes as much as 90 percent of the nickel so that acceptably clean water is recycled back to the process. This recirculation reduced wastewater generation by more than 1-million gallons each year. Automatic Plating also found that almost 30,000 pounds of nickel could be recovered and reused each year. The capital cost of the equipment, for purchase and installation, was $110,000, with an estimated payback time of 1 year. The system has relatively high operating costs due to its high energy and maintenance requirements. However, these costs are offset by the value of the recovered nickel and the savings from elimination of wastewater treatment. Quality Rolling and Deburring Company, Inc. (QRD) in Thomaston wanted ConnTAP to evaluate the recovery system that it had been operating for a year on its chromating line. ConnTAP concluded that the recovery system had potential use in many other manufacturing applications that generate wastewater. The fully-automated recovery system unit combined vacuum evaporation and flash distillation, in conjunction with a patented liquid/vapor separation system to remove chromate, zinc, and other dissolved solids from the wastewater. The system provided a continuous supply of good quality rinsewater back to the chromating line. The closed-loop recirculation unit prevented nearly 450,000 gallons of wastewater from being generated each year. The contaminant stream is concentrated to 200 gallons per year, and disposed of offsite. QRD realized a $22,000 savings in annual operating costs for wastewater treatment alone. The capital cost of the equipment was $87,000, with an estimated payback time of 4 years. Contact For Further Information Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service 900 Asylum Avenue, Suite 360 Hartford, CT 06150-1904 Sources "1993 Status Report on Connecticut Hazardous Waste Generation and Management." Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service. June 30, 1993. "ConnTAP Quarterly." Volume 7, Number 3. 1994. Connecticut Technical Assistance Program. Ohio Promotes Pollution Prevention Goals Ohio's pollution prevention goal is to reduce solid and hazardous waste generation statewide by 50 percent and toxic chemical releases by 75 percent by the year 2000 from 1987 levels. Ohio defines pollution prevention as the use of source reduction techniques to reduce risk to public health, safety, welfare, and the environment. As a second preference, Ohio encourages the use of environmentally sound recycling. Ohio believes that pollution prevention avoids cross-media transfers of waste and/or pollutants and is multimedia in scope. On September 20, 1991, Ohio's Governor George V. Voinovich announced the formation of the Pollution Prevention Development Workgroup (PPDW). The purpose of the workgroup was to develop and coordinate pollution prevention initiatives throughout State government, businesses, and consumers in Ohio for implementation of pollution prevention activities. PPDW developed a pollution prevention strategy for Ohio that proposes 121 initiatives to promote pollution prevention throughout all sectors of Ohio. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prevention is integrating pollution prevention into every program and operation activity of the Agency. Ohio EPA is making a parallel transition toward an environmental protection program that more strongly promotes pollution prevention. Approach Implemented The Ohio Prevention First Program A major initiative by the State of Ohio is the Ohio Prevention First Program, which involves voluntary pollution prevention and pollution reduction planning. It has three primary objectives. The first requires the "Top 100" toxic chemical reporters (based on the 1991 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports) to prepare comprehensive pollution prevention plans. The second to encourages facilities to initiate or expand existing pollution prevention or pollution reduction practices through development of comprehensive pollution prevention plans. The third publicizes the exemplary pollution prevention or pollution reduction efforts being made by these organizations. Currently, 82 of the "top 100" toxic chemical reporters, and 150 companies overall, are participating in this program. The Ohio Prevention Loan Program On November 21, 1994, Ohio's Governor announced creation of the $10-million Ohio Pollution Prevention Loan Program to provide low interest capital improvement loans for the construction and/or purchase of equipment to complete pollution prevention activities at small- and medium-sized facilities throughout Ohio. Loan amounts range from $25,000 to $200,000 per facility and have a fixed interest rate currently set at 2/3 the prime rate. The program is jointly administered by the Ohio Department of Development and the Ohio EPA Office of Pollution Prevention. 33/50 Program Ohio EPA is involved with U.S. EPA's 33/50 Program which is a voluntary initiative seeking a 50 percent reduction of 17 targeted chemicals by 1995. There are 490 Ohio facilities associated with parent companies participating in the 33/50 program. Waste Minimization Measurement Pilot Project The Ohio EPA Waste Minimization Measurement Pilot Project is a joint U.S. EPA/Ohio EPA pilot project to determine effective measures in waste minimization and pollution prevention (i.e., assessment of the benefits and shortcomings of pollution prevention projects). Lake Erie Basin Pollution Prevention Activities Ohio EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention activities in the Lake Erie Basin include projects that dealt with the following: 1991-1995 Achievements T echnical Assistanc e Develo p ment of Pollution Prevention Fact Sheets (18). Development of Pollution Prevention Information P ackages (6). Development of a Guidance Manual for Waste Minimization Planning Guidance for Ohio Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in the Lake Erie Basin. Provided Technical Assistance to 15 Waste Generators focusing on the Lake Erie Basin portion of Ohio. Provided Technical Assistance for Preparing and Implementing Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Facility Plans. (Informa-tion available on OPP bulletin board) Regulatory Integration Re v iew and Analysis of Wast e Managemen t Alternative Plans Required Through Ohio's Waste Profile Revi ew System. Compiled Ser i es of Recommendations for Improving the U.S. EPA's Great L a k es Pollution Prevention Strategy. Review of Waste Generator Survey to Identify Barriers to Pollution Prevention. Analysis of Ohio EPA's Efforts to Integrate Pollution Prevention into the Agency's Regulatory Programs. Investigation of the Extent to Which Laboratory Waste Contribute to the Generation of Hazardous Waste. Revision of the Ohio EPA Pollution Prevention Strategy. Poll ution Prevention Data Management Analysis of Hazardous Waste Generation and Management Data in Order to Provide Foundation for Future Pollution Prevention Activities. Assessment of Hazardous Waste Minimization and Toxic ReleaseInventory Information. Green Lights Program Ohio EPA is a member of the Green Lights voluntary program sponsored by the U.S. EPA. This program challenges businesses and government agencies to reduce air pollution associated with the production of electricity by using energy efficient lighting. Pollution Prevention Roundtable Participation Ohio EPA is a member of the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR) and the Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Roundtable (GLPPR) and serves on the Board of Directors for the NPPR and on the Steering Committee for the GLPPR. These organizations share information from State, local, and Federal programs throughout the United States (NPPR) and the Great Lakes Region (GLPPR). Tri-State Geographic Initiative Ohio took part in the Tri-State Geographic initiative that is concerned with identifying risk reduction efforts in the Ohio River Valley. Governor's Awards Since 1986, Ohio EPA has coordinated the Annual Governor's Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Pollution Prevention. These awards recognize companies, organizations or individuals who have made outstanding efforts to reduce waste. Operating Results Based on the Ohio Toxic Release Inventory from 1988 through 1993, Ohio facilities participating in the 33/50 Program have achieved a 24 percent reduction in the 17 chemicals targeted in the program. Overall, a 55 percent decrease in the 17 chemicals targeted in the 33/50 Program has been achieved in Ohio when facilities not participating in the program are included. On July 9, 1992, the State of Ohio signed the U.S. EPA Green Lights Program Memorandum of Understanding officially marking Ohio's participation as a partner in the Green Lights Program. The State of Ohio expects to save approximately $4 million annually in energy costs, in addition to saving natural resources and reducing emissions from power plants. Contact for Further Information Mike Kelley, Ohio EPA Office of Pollution Prevention 1800 WaterMark Drive Columbus, OH 43215-1099 Telephone: (614) 644-3469 Biodiesel: "Not Blowing Smoke" The combustion of diesel fuel in mass transit vehicles generates emissions such as particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur oxides (SOx). The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) and the corresponding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations specify the reduction of these pollutants by imposing requirements such as stricter emission standards for newer vehicles and limiting the sulfur content in the fuels. To meet the requirements of the new CAAA, and potential, tougher diesel regulations in the future, transit authorities across the country have begun to consider the use of alternate fuels for their mass transit vehicles. In 1993, more than 30 transit authorities participated in a program, sponsored by the biodiesel industry, to evaluate biodiesel as an alternative fuel. Biodiesel (methyl esters) is a cleaner-burning fuel made from natural, renewable resources such as vegetable oils. Approach Implemented In 1993, the biodiesel industry distributed enough fuel to log nearly 7-million road miles in more than 100 demonstrations involving more than 1,500 vehicles. During that time, transit authorities and school districts recorded information on emissions, performance, and oil contaminants. The practical road demonstrations included million-mile tests with transit authorities in Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Oakland, as well as more than 30 50,000-mile tests. For this program, mass transit authorities used a mix of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum diesel. However, some municipalities have used a blend of up to 40 percent biodiesel without experiencing any operational problems. Operating Results When biodiesel was used in place of conventional diesel fuel, transit managers noticed a reduction in smoke, odor, and diesel engine emissions. Some operators reported a 20 to 30 percent reduction of smoke. In tests conducted by independent researchers comparing emissions from vehicles using biodiesel vs. conventional diesel fuel, PM was reduced by 31 percent, HC was reduced by 47 percent, CO was reduced by 21 percent, and NOx was reduced by 3 percent. SOx emissions were not quantified, but would also be reduced, compared to conventional fuels, because biodiesel contains no sulfur, while diesel fuel contains about 0.05 percent sulfur. Biodiesel performs similarily to petroleum diesel in terms of torque, horsepower, and miles per gallon but provides about 2 percent fewer Btus/gallon than conventional diesel. Also, maintenance shop supervisors have noted that biodiesel appears to provide slightly better lubrication to engine parts than standard diesel fuel. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs The cost of biodiesel depends on the cost of its components, diesel, and vegetable oil. In general, a 20/80 blend can cost up to 40 cents per gallon more than petroleum diesel. However, not all of the costs of meeting tougher emission standards have been quantified. Therefore, an emission management system based on biodiesel could be an inexpensive option for meeting these standards. According to an April 1994 study commissioned by the National SoyDiesel Development Board, the cost of biodiesel can range from about 18 cents per mile for a commercial medium-duty truck fleet to 28 cents per mile for a transit fleet. The study also found that a truck or bus fleet using 20 percent biodiesel blended with conventional diesel would experience lower total annual costs than with other alternatives. Other Benefits Biodiesel is made from natural, renewable resources such as soybean and vegetable oils. (Based on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, one unit of energy used to produce biodiesel can supply a minimum of 2.5 units of fuel energy.) The primary by-product of the biodiesel production process is glycerine, which has more than 1,600 commercial applications. A principal feedstock source of biodiesel is soybeans, a major crop produced by nearly 400,000 farmers in 29 States across the Nation. The supply (equivalent) of 40- million gallons/year is nearly equal to projected demand if biodiesel use is implemented in all urban transportation buses. The use of biodiesel requires no expensive engine modifications. Because it has a higher flash point, offers low-pressure storage at ambient temperatures, handles like diesel, and is nontoxic and biodegradable, biodiesel is safer to transport and safer for the environment than conventional diesel fuel. Contact For Further Information National SoyDiesel Development Board 1907 Williams Street P.O. Box 104898 Jefferson City, MO 65110-4898 Telephone: (800) 769-3437 Sources Passenger Transport, APTA, May 16, 1994. Excerpt from April 1994 issue of "Bus Ride." Cleaner Bus Operations and Maintenance Bus (and rail) transportation companies recognize the need to keep their revenue-generating equipment constantly serviced with the goal of maximizing the longevity of the equipment. Operations in bus servicing include refueling, fluids check and replenishing, interior and exterior cleaning, and washing. Principal maintenance operations are engine and under chassis washing, minor repairs, tune-ups, and chassis lubrication. Both bus servicing and maintenance generate significant amounts of oily wastes and wastewaters. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Four Mile Run bus maintenance facility in Virginia received a Notice of Violation of its pretreatment permit for effluent violations of lead, cadmium, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. All sanitary sewers from the facility discharge to the Arlington County Pollution Control Treatment Plant located across the street from the plant. The facility had no central treatment system, and most oily wastes were conveyed to oil-water separators located near the discharge points to the sanitary sewer. The discharge problems appeared to result from several sources that, when combined, were overloading the oil-water separators and adding emulsifiers to the oily wastestreams that adversely affected oil-water separation. In addition, the only onsite control for metals was settling in sumps and separators prior to discharge. There was no system for removing dissolved metals in the wastewaters. In response to the Notice of Violation, WMATA told the Arlington County Department of Environmental Services that rather than attempt to upgrade the oil-water separators or put in expensive metals removal systems, that the Authority would conduct a pollution prevention study that would significantly reduce all discharges to the sanitary sewer. The pollution prevention approach concentrated on two major waste generating operations: bus refueling at the bus service building and repair operations in the bus maintenance facility. The approach would classify all pollution prevention options into short-term (implemented within 1 month), moderate-term (implementable within 6 months), and long-term (1 year or longer required for implementation). The 1-month pollution prevention study resulted in identification of 24 actions that could reduce the quantity and improve the quality of the discharge. Approach Implemented Some pollution prevention measures that are scheduled for implementation at WMATA for both the bus service building and the bus maintenance building are shown below and are identified as either short-term (S), medium-term (M), or long-term (L) solutions. Bus Service Building Reduce fuel and oil spills to the pavement and surrounding soil by: 1. Retraining employees to discontinue the practice of "topping off" or milking fuel into buses; (S) 2. Using absorbent materials (S) and purchasing explosion- proof portable vacuums to immediately collect spilled diesel fuel/oil/hazardous materials; (L) 3. Installing new efficient refueling nozzles;(M) 4. Using oil catchment canisters under parked buses and adding secondary pans under bus engines during servicing. (M) Construct an internal trench drain system to separate the runoff from the refueling operations and the external paved area. (L) Increase environmental awareness by providing training; and review maintenance/repair techniques to minimize waste generation and contamination to the environment. (S) Bus Maintenance Building Clean the oil/water separators of the excess sludge to eliminate the source of leaching metals and oils. (S) Discontinue use of detergent in engine wash water and replace the engine wash system with a medium pressure steam cleaner to eliminate dissolving small quantities of the metal substrate from the bus engine. (S) Purchase an explosion-proof, portable vacuum for spills of fuel/oil/hazardous materials. (M) Disconnect the washrack from the oil/water separator and connect it to a holding tank to eliminate contamination to the sanitary sewer system. (L) Install a self-contained recycling wash system to the wash rack to reduce the cost of liquid disposal. (L) Install a cabinet-type parts washer to preclude personnel from washing bus components outside the building and contaminating the outside pavement with metals and oil. (L) Purchase an antifreeze reclamation unit. (M) Purchase a recycling floor scrubber (M), and discontinue washing down the maintenance bay areas to reduce metal and oil loading to the oil/water separator. (S) Operating Results The short-term pollution prevention initiatives were implemented quickly at the Four Mile Run facility. Visible improvement were immediate in the facility's discharge. The facility now expects to more effectively comply with its pretreatment effluent limitations, thereby reducing Notices of Violations. Generation of solid and hazardous waste requiring disposal has decreased significantly. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs The waste minimization initiatives discussed above include a combination of source reduction or elimination, recycling/ reclamation, and wastestream reduction. The cost of implementing the pollution prevention initiatives range from negligible to approximately $145,000. A number of highly effective short-term initiatives were implemented at a minimal cost either by changing operational procedures or through the purchase of relatively inexpensive equipment. In addition, the list of recommendations was sent to all 15 bus and rail facilities throughout the entire system. It is anticipated that many of the pollution prevention activities could be implemented system-wide, resulting in significant reductions in discharges for the Authority and a concomitant reduction, if not elimination, of Notices of Violations for WMATA facilities. Contact For Further Information Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 2131 Eisenhower Avenue Alexander, VA 22319 Ms. Joan LeLacheur Manager of Environmental Service Telephone (202) 962-5113 Pollution Prevention Takes Off The Problem The day-to-day operations of an airport provide a multitude of pollution-related emissions. From air discharges associated with the aircraft and support vehicles, to the organic solvents and deicing agents used in airline maintenance, to the tons of daily waste generated by the restaurants, gift shops, rest rooms, etc., pollution sources abound at an airport. Each individual pollution problem can be dealt with by "end-of-pipe" controls, as has been done at most airports in the past. That is, wastewaters can be conveyed to onsite wastewater treatment plants, engine or boiler, air emissions can be controlled after generation, and waste can be disposed of in landfills. At the new Denver International Airport (DIA), the solution to airport waste generation was to develop pollution prevention and waste management techniques before the waste was generated. And, because the airport had more than a 10-year horizon for design and construction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regional office in Denver had the opportunity to work with the City and DIA designers to incorporate pollution prevention into the airport operations before it opened its doors. EPA assigned a full-time staff scientist and other Agency resources to provide regulatory and technical assistance to the new airport. Of significance, EPA used a "multimedia" rather than single media approach in the development of pollution prevention strategies for DIA. In addition, the Region worked in cooperative partnership with the City of Denver and County personnel to prevent pollution and provide a win-win situation for all participants. By working outside of its traditional enforcement role, EPA Region 8 proved to be influential in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance activities, ensuring the airport minimized its impact on the surrounding environment. Approach Implemented Some of the pollution prevention measures implemented at DIA include: Aircraft servicing area recycling systems, including deicing pads that reduce the release of glycol deicing fluids to the environment; Wastewater volume reduction by using ultra-low flow toilets, reclaiming wastewater for irrigating outside vegetation, landscaping with water-stingy plants, and requiring accountability for stormwater management by onsite tenant; A central heating and cooling plant that uses boilers with low NOx burners and flue gas recirculation; Above ground storage tanks with floating roofs to prevent ground-water contamination from corrosion-produced leaks (a major problem at airports); Use of fly ash from nearby power plants as additive for 180,000 tons of concrete; Development of a solid waste management plan by EPA's onsite cordinator to reduce solid waste generation by 30 percent; and Addressing energy conservation through efficient lighting consistent with the EPA's Green Lights Program, designing a fiberglass roof to take advantage of natural lighting, including air intakes for terminal cooling in the winter months, and developing an alternative fuels policy for DIA tenants. Operating Results The pollution prevention measures cited above are expected to produce impressive reductions in various emissions and releases resulting in significantly less impact than comparable airport facilities. The reductions include: Recovery of 95 percent of the glycol deicing agents that are applied to the aircraft. This results in an annual savings in glycol purchases of 760 tons per year. Use of low flow restroom facilities and application of reclaimed, nonpotable wastewaters for plant irrigation. As a result, DIA will save 700-million gallons of water per year; enough water to supply almost 7,500 households annually. New designs for automobile parking facilities, staggered employee shifts, compressed workweeks, use of natural gas-fueled fleet and shuttle vehicles, and operation of special burners and flue gas recircul ation, all contribute to reducing nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide emissions by almost 100 tons per year. Floating roof tanks and fuel transfer equipment that capture and recover vapors. This new design will eliminate over 50 tons per year of volatile organic emissions. Cost, Savings, and Tradeoffs Actual cost savings are difficult to calculate until after the airport has been fully operational, with the new pollution prevention activities in place. However, savings of chemicals (i.e., glycol), water, and waste disposal can be quantified with associated annual savings, as follows: Reduced glycol purchases of $650,000; Water consumption savings of about $1.5 million; and Solid waste disposal savings of $32,000. Because DIA is the Nation's largest airport, there will still be a net increase in pollution over the current conditions. However, the impacts from additional pollution were outweighed by the need for more efficient and modern airport facilities, and the anticipated growth in the area's economy with improved transportation systems. In addition, DIA provided positive examples of both pollution prevention by design and EPA contributions that involve partnerships rather than controls and oversight. Contact For Further Information Dave Duster, EPA Region 8, or Jim Piatt, New Denver Airport Office Telephone: (303) 270-1992 Appendix A Sources Used to Identify Pollution Prevention Success Stories U.S. EPA and Other Federal Agencies Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS) Project. USEPA Region 9. 1994. Case Study: Clairol Inc. Jocelyn Woodman. USEPA. Chemicals In Progress Bulletin. USEPA, OPPT. Fall 1994. Case Studies from the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, Electroplating. USEPA. November 1989. Design for the Environment Cleaner Technologies Substitute Assessment Outline with Examples. USEPA. March 1993. Design for the Environment Case Study, Printing Industry. USEPA, EPA 744-K-93-001. 1993. Design for the Environment Case Study, Screen Printing. USEPA, EPA 744-F-93-015. 1993. DuPont Chambers Works Waste Minimization Project. USEPA, EPA/600/R-93/203. November 1993. EPA Announces Pollution Prevention Effort in Los Angeles. USEPA Region 9. October 1993. EPA Pollution Prevention Grant Application. Three Affiliated Tribes. Natural Resource Department, Environmental Division. 1994. EPA Pollution Prevention Accomplishments: 1993. USEPA, EPA 100-R-94-002. Spring 1994. Environmental Protection Agency's Pollution Prevention Strategy. USEPA. January 1991. Federal Register Volume 58, Number 241. EPA Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and Paperboard Category: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production. December 1993. Green Lights: An Enlightened Approach to Energy Efficiency and Pollution Prevention, USEPA, EPA 430-K-93-001. July 1993. Guides to Pollution Prevention: Metal Casting and Heat Treating Industry. USEPA, EPA/625/R-92/009. September 1992. Guides to Pollution Prevention: Wood Preserving Industry. USEPA, EPA/625/R-93/014. November 1993. Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Mechanical Equipment Repair Industry. USEPA, EPA/625/R-92/008. September 1992. Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Metal Finishing Industry. USEPA, EPA/625/R-92/011. October 1992. Industrial Pollution Prevention: A Critical Review. Pollution Prevention Research Branch, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. 1992. Innovative Clean Technologies Case Studies. USEPA, EPA/600/R-93/175. August 1993. Measuring Pollution Prevention Program Proceedings. USEPA, EPA/600/R-93/151. April 1993. Multiprocess Wet Cleaning. USEPA, EPA 744-R-93-004. September 1993. On-Site Waste Ink Recycling. USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. August 1992. Presentation Notes, Federal Government Sector Pollution Prevention Strategy. USEPA, OPPT. Pollution Prevention Accomplishments in Region 9. USEPA. Summer 1992-Fall 1993. Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse. Pollution Prevention, EPA Region 8 Inventory of Projects and Activities. USEPA Region 8. 1994. Pollution Prevention Fact Sheets. USEPA. 1991. Pollution Prevention Through Compliance and Enforcement. USEPA. January 1992. Pollution Prevention Incentives for States. USEPA, OPPT, EPA 742-R-93-001. 1994. Pollution Prevention Case Studies Compendium. USEPA. March 1995. Pollution Prevention in the Federal Government. USEPA, EPA 300-B-94-007. April 1994. Pollution Prevention 1991, Progress on Reducing Industrial Pollutants. USEPA, EPA 21P-3003. October 1991. Pollution Prevention Case Studies Compendium. USEPA, EPA/600/R-92/046. April 1992. Promoting Pollution Prevention by Voluntary Initiatives. National Conference. USEPA. June 1994. Quarterly Project Status Report, NICE3 Program. U.S. Department of Energy. October 1994. Recent Experience in Encouraging the Use of Pollution Prevention in Enforcement Settlements. USEPA, Office of Enforcement. February 1994. Report on the Environmental Protection Agency's Pollution Prevention Program. USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. September 1991. Results of SARE and ACE Projects Having Implications for Pollution Prevention, Excerpts from 1994 Regional Reports to Congress. April 1994. State Pollution Prevention Initiatives Utilizing Media-program Grant Flexibility. USEPA, EPA 100-R-94-001. March 1994. Summary of Pollution Prevention Case Studies with Economic Data (By SIC Codes). USEPA, EPA 742-S-94-001. January 1994. Total Quality Management: A Framework for Pollution Prevention. President's Commission on Environmental Quality. January 1993. Pollution Prevention News (various articles). USEPA, OPPT. 1991-1994. State Agencies Case Studies from the Arizona Pollution Prevention Newsletter. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Summary of Arizona Pollution Prevention Plans: Goals, Methods, and Target Chemicals. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 1994. Arkansas' VIP2 and Scrapmatch Programs. 1994 Brochures. Case Study Writeups. Colorado Department of Health and Environment. 1994. Pollution Prevention Partnership, Cooperating for a Cleaner Colorado. Progress Report. Pollution Prevention Partnership. February 1993. 1993 Status Report on Connecticut Hazardous Waste Generation and Management. Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service. June 1993. Pollution Prevention Program Annual Report. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1993. Pollution Prevention Success Stories. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Production. 1992. Pollution Prevention Illinois Industry Success Stories. Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Information. May 1994. Pollution Prevention in Maryland. Maryland Department of the Environment. 1994. Pollution Prevention in Maryland: A Challenge of Change, State of Maryland Department of the Environment, September 1993. The Central Massachusetts Pollution Prevention Project Summary Report. Office of Technical Assistance, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1994. Pollution Prevention Case Studies. Office of Technical Assistance, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1994. The Resource, Perspectives on Minnesota Waste Issues. Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, October 1994. Various Copies of the Nevada Waste Reporter. Nevada Small Business Development Center. New Jersey Governor's Awards for Outstanding Achievement. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. Ohio Pollution Prevention Case Studies for Non-Hazardous Industrial and Commercial Waste. Ohio EPA. October 1993. Ohio Prevention First, Implementation Strategy. Ohio EPA. March 1994. Ohio EPA Pollution Prevention Summary of Activities. October 1994. Case Studies from the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program and the Hazardous Waste Reduction Program of Oregon. USEPA. November 1989. Source Reduction Success Stories. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 1994. Pollution Prevention in Rhode Island Case Studies. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 1994. Presentation on Waste Minimization. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, South Dakota. Waste Minimization Program Planning: An Assessment of Industry Needs and Options for the State. The State of South Dakota. September 1991. "Pollution Prevention Ideas from Texas Industries." Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Pollution Prevention and Recycling, Clean Texas 2000. November 1994. Pollution Prevention Case Studies, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Office of Pollution Prevention. Municipalities and Local Government Organizations "Bootstraps Ranching for the 90's Final Report." Todd County Conservation District. Los Angeles Pollution Prevention Newsletter. Hazardous and Toxic Materials Office, City of Los Angeles. Summer 1994. Local Government - Policies of and Guides for Pollution Prevention. Pollution Prevention: A Guide for Local Government. International City/County Management Association. 1994. Sustainability Profile for the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sustainable Cambridge Coalition. September 1992. Industry Automotive Pollution Prevention Project Progress Report. American Automobile Manufacturers Association. February 1994. Appliance Recycling Services Brochure. Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., December 1994. AT&T Environmental Safety Report, 1992 and 1993. Prevention Pollution in the Chemical Industry, 1982-1990. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Spring 1992. DuPont Corporate Environmentalism. Progress Report. 1993. Presentation Notes on Ford's "Preventing and Generation of Wastes" Program. July 1993. General Motors Environmental Report. 1994. General Motors Corporation Waste Reduction Program Overview. June 1991. SOCMA Pollution Prevention Study. SOCMA. January 1993. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Four Mile Run Bus Maintenance Facility. Versar, Inc. December 1994. Presentation Notes on Xerox Life Cycle Design. July 1993. Universities and Other Organizations State Congress Pollution Prevention Proceedings. The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. May 1990. Facility Level Pollution Prevention Benchmarking Study. The Business Roundtable. November 1993. Pollution Prevention Review, Issues from 1991-1994. Executive Enterprises. Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Opportunities for the Mining Industry. Front Range Community College Hazardous Materials Program. October 1993. Corporate Quality: Environmental Management II: Measurements and Communications Conference. Global Environmental Management Initiative. March 1992. Case Studies from the Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Center. 1994. Environmental Dividends: Cutting More Chemical Wastes. INFORM. 1992. Pollution Prevention Manual for Lithographic Printers. Iowa Waste Reduction Center, University of North Iowa. 1995. BIODIESEL Information Kit. National SoyDiesel Development Board. 1994. Pollution Prevention Successes: A Compendium of Case Studies From the Northeast States. Northeast Waste Management Officials Association (NEWMOA). December 1993. Searching for Success. RENEW America. 1990. Case Histories of Cost Saving Through Waste Reduction by Industries in Tennessee. Tennessee Valley Authority Industrial Waste Reduction, University of Tennessee and State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. January 1994.