|Helping Small Businesses Succeed Through Pollution Prevention|
|New York State Legislative Commission on Toxic Substances and Hazardous Wastes|
Helping Small Businesses Succeed Through Pollution Prevention
In order to reduce waste, if you have a change in address, please inform the Commission by mail, phone, or fax:
Assemblyman David Koon
|Table of Contents|
|Major Findings and Recommendations|
One key to business success is increased productivity and profitability. A second is having access to the most cost-effective means of environmental compliance. Reducing pollutants at their source - during the manufacturing process as compared to at the end of the pipe - is often the most effective way to increase productivity, achieve compliance, and protect the environment. Source reduction, also known as pollution prevention, includes a wide range of process modifications, from product re-design to in-process recycling. It can reduce the costs of purchasing raw materials, storing and managing hazardous materials, and disposing of waste, all while reducing pollution to levels that go beyond regulatory requirements.
Despite the value of such measures, small businesses often lack the expertise needed to pursue pollution prevention options. New York businesses need clear, accessible and pro-active assistance, provided by one local agency that can serve as a gateway to all other assistance programs.
While a number of state agencies in New York operate pollution prevention outreach and funding programs, two large gaps remain. With the exception of limited activities performed by the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC), no state agency provides on-site technical assistance to small businesses (for example, help with the development of a pollution prevention plan), and no agency performs research and development in support of pollution prevention.
The only programs offering on-site technical assistance for pollution prevention in New York are two municipal programs (Erie County and Monroe County); four regional Technology Development Centers/MEPs in Rochester, New York City, Long Island, and the Mohawk Valley; and two programs at the Rochester Institute of Technology. The Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies at RIT (CIMS) also performs research and development in support of pollution prevention.
In the last few years, Empire State Development’s (ESD’s) Environmental Services Unit has developed an innovative and effective model for funding the performance of on-site assistance services by local providers through their Environmental Investment Program (EIP). Four of these projects are located in the Rochester area. Three are being carried out by High Technology of Rochester (the regional MEP), and one by the Monroe County Department of Health in partnership with the Department of Civil Engineering at RIT. In total, these projects have performed or will perform preliminary pollution prevention assessments at 64 facilities, and have implemented or will implement pollution prevention projects at 24 facilities. Based on a state investment of $318,000, savings of more than $1.4 million per year have already been realized, and at least $738,000 in additional savings per year is expected. This represents more than a six-to-one return on state investment.
The benefits to be gained from investing in pollution prevention are impressive. A recent survey conducted by the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable documents that the work performed by pollution prevention programs across the country (82% of which offer on-site services) resulted in the avoidance of more than 167 billion pounds of pollution from 1990-2000. During the period 1998-2000, 13 pollution prevention programs with an average annual budget of $1.9 million reported total cost savings equal to $404 million. That represents savings of more than five times the investment made to run the programs.
Overall, the services New York offers to help small businesses prevent pollution are lacking compared to many other states. At least 22 states provide or finance on-site technical assistance services, and eight of those also fund research and development. Per capita, New York spends considerably less on pollution prevention than eight other states, and New York’s investment in pollution prevention is very small compared to other environmental spending - representing only 2% of what the state spends on traditional regulatory programs and the cleanup of already contaminated sites.
We strongly support recent internal recommendations for DEC to integrate pollution prevention into all its core activities, including permitting, inspections, enforcement, rulemaking, and technical assistance.
The New York State Assembly is dedicated to helping small businesses flourish in New York State. One key to business success is increased productivity and profitability. A second is having access to the most cost-effective and innovative means of achieving environmental compliance. Small businesses, in particular, often lack the technical expertise or resources they need to pursue the most efficient compliance options, and compliance costs can be high.
What is Pollution Prevention, and Why is it Valuable?
Reducing the use and generation of pollutants at their source-during the manufacturing process instead of at the end of the pipe-is often the most effective way to increase productivity, achieve compliance, and protect the environment. Such reductions can be realized through the substitution of nontoxic or less toxic materials, the redesign of products to reduce environmental impacts, in-process recycling, the modification of equipment, and/or housekeeping measures such as improved maintenance. As compared to treating or "controlling" pollutants just before they are released, source reduction measures (commonly referred to as "pollution prevention" or "P2") can reduce pollution beyond what is required in environmental regulations while at the same time enhancing productivity and lowering manufacturing and compliance costs. 1
Currently, even with thousands of pages of law and regulation on the books, a vast amount of toxic chemicals is discharged legally into New York State's environment on an annual basis (approximately 70 million lbs.).2 Pollution prevention offers a business-friendly way to reduce those releases.
Pollution prevention is business friendly because it is much more cost-effective than traditional command-and-control regulatory compliance. Instead of simply adding on the cost of pollution treatment to existing processes, source reduction saves money and enhances productivity by reducing raw material purchase costs, decreasing the cost of chemical storage and management, and, finally, reducing the cost of waste treatment, transportation and disposal. Liability, insurance, and regulatory compliance costs are also reduced. Even the costs to government of oversight and monitoring are diminished.
The benefits of pollution prevention have increased following the September 11 terrorist attacks. In addition to reducing pollution and costs, minimizing the amount of chemicals stored and used by companies also reduces the risk of a major chemical accident due to human error or criminal intent. With pollution prevention, profitability, environmental protection and national security all complement each other.
The Government's Role
Experience has shown that business managers fail to consider pollution prevention options because they are not aware of prevention opportunities or the cost savings associated with them. Small business owners, in particular, are consumed with managing their day-to-day operations and do not have the time or resources to investigate P2 options or even access the technical and financial assistance that may be available to them.3 Government has a role to play in encouraging businesses to make pollution prevention a priority, in providing up-to-date information on prevention opportunities, and in supporting cutting edge research into P2 design, practices and technologies. It also has a role to play in providing small businesses with the technical expertise and financial resources they need to successfully carry out P2 activities, and helping them to access those resources.
Over the last decade, the federal government and most state governments have developed programs to encourage and support pollution prevention. The federal Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established the goal that pollution "should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible." 4 All 50 states have some type of "pollution prevention" program, but the scope and requirements of these programs tend to vary significantly, and not all are consistent with the definition of source reduction established by the federal Act. Both regulatory and nonregulatory programs exist. Sixteen states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington) require some type of P2 planning by industry, while 45 states offer P2 assistance to businesses through information dissemination and outreach activities.
More than 23 of those states (including New York), go farther by either making grants and loans available to small businesses, providing on-site technical assistance to companies, or funding research and development programs.
There are essentially four different categories of pollution prevention assistance services offered by governments:
The results produced by these efforts are impressive. The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR), the country's largest membership organization solely dedicated to pollution prevention, has just completed a survey which documents the wide array of P2 programs across the country. More than 60 programs responded to the survey, which covers the period from the passage of the federal Pollution Prevention Act in 1990 to 2000. During that period, NPPR reports, thousands of companies and state and local governments implemented pollution prevention programs and activities. In almost every case, these efforts have not only led to environmental improvement, but have been cost effective, saving millions of dollars per year.
Of the programs surveyed by NPPR, the largest percentage (82%) identified themselves as technical assistance programs which offer site visits and telephone assistance. NPPR's report presents quantitative results data from 26 of those programs, and aggregates that data into nation-wide estimates of pollution prevented and dollars saved.6
For the period 1990-2000, NPPR calculates that more than 167 billion pounds of pollution were avoided, including reductions in air emissions, discharges to water, pollution created by energy use, and the generation of waste. In addition, more than 4 billion gallons of water were conserved. During the period of 1998-2000, 13 pollution prevention programs with an average annual budget of $1.9 million reported total cost savings equal to $404 million. That represents savings of more than five times the investment made to implement the programs responsible for these results.
NPPR's data shows that pollution prevention is not only a viable and effective solution for protecting the environment, it is also impressive as a cost saving measure. During 1998 alone, programs reported saving $256 million nationwide. In every case documented in NPPR's report, all costs of P2 activities were recuperated within several years after implementation, and in some cases companies began seeing added profits as soon as a few months after the adoption of pollution prevention measures.7
1 Appendix A describes P2 in more detail, including the definition of P2 found in the federal Pollution Prevention Act.
2 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Pollution Prevention Unit, 1999 Toxic Release Inventory Report (May 2001) pp. 2-3; see the Unit's website at www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/p2tri.
3 See the descriptions of points made at the Commission's Roundtables and meetings on pollution prevention, presented on pp. 25-28 of this report. These findings are supported by the experience of experts from other states; see the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable's 2003 survey of state and local P2 programs (described and cited below), which includes a list of barriers to P2 (pp. 22).
4 42 U.S.C.A. §13101.
5 Appendix B provides a more detailed list of the elements of P2 assistance programs offered in this state and around the country.
6 National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR), An Ounce of Pollution Prevention is Worth Over 167 Billion Pounds of Cure: A Decade of Pollution Prevention Results, 1990-2000 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003); available on the Roundtable's website at www.p2.org. The membership of the Roundtable is made up of experts from EPA's regional P2 resource centers and state and local government P2 programs. Small business assistance networks, non-profit groups, industry associations and other federal agencies also participate. The survey was funded by the U.S. EPA.
7 NPPR, pp. 4 &19-21. The figures reported by NPPR are compiled from quantitative data reported by 26 pollution prevention programs. Air pollution created by energy use was calculated by multiplying the kilowatt hours reduced by the average amount of SOx, NOx and CO2 emitted for each kilowatt-hour produced, as developed by the American Wind Energy Association. Respondents were able to provide hard data based on actual implementation, so the numbers cited are documented results, not estimates. No respondents were able to provide more than 50% of the data requested, and in many cases data were only available for the last few years of the time period covered. The figures provided typically report only results for the first year of project implementation and do not demonstrate repeat savings and reductions over multiple years. Thus, NPPR stresses that the figures reported represent the lowest possible threshold and are the most conservative approximation of pollution prevented and savings realized.
|Pollution Prevention Programs in New York State|
In New York State, a number of state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC), and Empire State Development (ESD), operate generic outreach and education programs that offer hotlines, workshops, and other types of "off-site" technical assistance for compliance and pollution prevention. The Environmental Investment Program (EIP) run by ESD has provided significant funding for pollution prevention projects (roughly $1 million annually) since it was expanded to include such projects in 1998. Finally, two large energy authorities, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the Power Authority, provide support for a large number of energy related research and development projects, a small percentage of which include a significant pollution prevention component.
The two largest gaps in New York's pollution prevention initiatives are in the areas of on-site technical assistance and research and development. With the exception of the limited on-site activities performed by EFC's Small Business Assistance Program (described below), no New York State agency performs on-site technical assistance to support pollution prevention. ESD and NYSERDA, however, do provide funding for such activities by local governments and not-for-profit organizations on a project-by-project basis.
The only programs offering on-site technical assistance for pollution prevention in New York are two municipal programs (Erie County and Monroe County); four regional Manufacturing Extension Partnership programs (MEPs) in Rochester, New York City, Long Island, and the Mohawk Valley; and two programs at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). The Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies at RIT (CIMs) also performs research and development in support of pollution prevention. Each is described in more detail below.
While many of NYSERDA's projects with a significant pollution prevention component also include research and the development of new technologies, the state does not provide a dedicated stream of funding for any one or number of academic centers or organizations to perform such work.
The following sections discuss New York's state and local pollution prevention and environmental assistance programs in more detail.
The Pollution Prevention Unit at DEC maintains a website with numerous sector-specific pages, links, and downloadable documents; publishes sector-specific manuals on pollution prevention and environmental compliance; conducts between 15 and 20 workshops a year for the regulated community; and operates a hotline that fields over 600 calls per year. Special projects include activities to reduce the use of mercury-containing products, implementing a coordinated outreach and enforcement initiative for auto recyclers, and coordinating the Multi-Media Pollution Prevention (M2P2) program, which has conducted M2P2 analyses and compliance inspections at 215 facilities across the state. The Unit also holds an annual Pollution Prevention Conference and administers the Governor's annual P2 awards. It has 21 full-time staff and an annual budget of $1.4 million, approximately $165,000 of which is provided by federal grants. Approximately 11 additional full-time staff located across the agency participate in the M2P2 program, at a cost of roughly $880,000 per year.8
The Unit recently completed the final phase of a seven-year project to compare and prioritize the risks posed by hazardous substances. DEC's Comparative Risk Project issued its final report in November 2002, which, in addition to substance-specific recommendations, broadly recommends that DEC provide a significantly greater amount of technical assistance, including on-site technical assistance, to businesses. It also recommends that DEC integrate pollution prevention into all its day-to-day activities, including permitting, inspections and enforcement.9
The Unit has also expressed interest in exploring innovative approaches to encouraging improved environmental performance. In November 2002 it hosted a "Dialogue on Tools to Improve Environmental Performance," co-sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Council of State Governments and other national organizations. The Dialogue, attended by over 70 participants, explored which environmental management tools hold the most promise for improved environmental performance, and how to integrate those tools into state environmental protection programs. Tools explored included increased technical assistance and recognition programs, such as New Mexico's Green Zia program or EPA's Performance Track Program, described in greater detail below. 10
The Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management, part of the Waste Management Section at DEC, administers a regulatory program, the Hazardous Waste Reduction Plan Program, established by statute in 1990.11 Large quantity generators of hazardous waste (over 25 tons/year) must submit, and periodically update, waste reduction plans to the Department. The Program covers wastes that would otherwise have to be disposed of in a hazardous waste disposal facility; it does not cover direct emissions to air, water, and sewage treatment plants.
Program resource commitments were substantial in the beginning of the program when large numbers of new plans were being submitted, and site visits were frequently part of the review process. As the Program has matured, resource commitments have diminished accordingly. About 570 plans have been approved to date, and currently about 300 generators are subject to the Program. The Program has 2.5 staff, one of which is a federally-funded vacancy. The budget is roughly $200,000 annually. 12
Empire State Development and the Environmental Facilities Corporation jointly run the Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program, a compliance assistance program for small businesses created under the Clean Air Act and limited to air emissions. ESD's Environmental Services Unit operates the Small Business Environmental Ombudsman program, which provides free and confidential compliance and self-audit advice, acts as an advocate for small businesses, and refers clients to EFC for more specific technical assistance. In fiscal year 2000/2001, the program sent out 24,419 regulatory notices to small businesses, sponsored 10 workshops on compliance and pollution prevention, and fielded 652 calls on their toll-free hot-line which provides small businesses with regulatory information and handles disputes with regulatory authorities. In 2002, it began to implement a new program to reach out to businesses which have air emissions but are currently not permitted. The program's budget is approximately $500,000 per year, $300,000 of which is provided by Clean Air Act Title V fees. The Unit has nine technical staff and two support staff, which also operate ESD's Environmental Investment Program (described below).13
EFC operates the Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP), which provides more specific technical information to help businesses achieve compliance and reduce air pollution, including advice on affordable alternative technologies, material substitution, and process changes. Information is disseminated through sector-specific workshops, written materials, a computer bulletin board and a toll-free hotline. Occasionally, at the request of a company, an on-site visit is made to ensure the facility meets code requirements. In calendar year 2001 the Program made 14 on-site visits, handled 826 hotline calls, and participated in nine seminars and workshops. The Program has five full-time technical staff, one part-time technical staff, and one support person. Its budget is approximately $800,000 per year, funded through Title V fees. Both ESD and EFC's programs were originally created with a greater emphasis on compliance than pollution prevention, although P2 is strongly advocated by program staff as an effective compliance mechanism. 14
EFC's general mission is to provide low cost capital and technical assistance to local and state governments and businesses for a wide range of environmental projects. Its major finance programs, the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) programs, are oriented toward environmental infrastructure, such as municipal drinking water and water pollution control projects, as well as land acquisition for environmental protection. In addition to the SBAP and SRF, the Corporation operates two main programs targeted to small businesses: the New York City watershed program, which administers grants and loans to protect the watershed on behalf of the City of New York and the Catskill Water Corporation; and the Financial Assistance to Business Program (FAB), which helps businesses cope with the cost of environmental compliance. A highlight of FAB, which is funded by the 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, is helping dry cleaners to upgrade or purchase more environmentally-friendly PERC machines. To date, the Program has assisted more than 650 dry cleaning facilities.15
ESD's Environmental Services Unit also operates the Environmental Investment Program (EIP). The Program provides financial assistance for projects that produce measurable results in waste prevention, pollution prevention, reuse and/or recycling. Funding is available for three types of projects: Capital projects, including improvements in physical assets, real property and infrastructure; Research, Development and Demonstration projects, which answer key business questions leading to commercialization or the implementation of product or process changes; and Technical Assistance projects, which provide assistance to New York State businesses to achieve waste reduction, pollution prevention, reuse, recycling, or remanufacturing results. The Program was expanded to include pollution prevention projects by a New York State Assembly initiative in 1998, and the Program's definition of pollution prevention closely tracks the federal Pollution Prevention Act.16
In fiscal year 2000/2001, the Program disbursed approximately $5 million in grants, of which approximately $1 million was targeted to pollution prevention projects as defined in law. Of that $1 million, approximately one-third was used to support on-site technical assistance projects by municipalities and not-for-profit organizations.17 In the last few years, the Unit has developed an innovative and effective model for funding the performance of on-site P2 services by local providers. Four of these projects are located in the Rochester area, and as discussed further below, have resulted in the implementation of numerous P2 projects and significant cost savings.
EIP is funded entirely through the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) under the category "secondary materials markets." The EPF received no funding in FY 2001/2002. In 2002, the Governor proposed only $3.75 million in funding for EIP in the 2001/2002 EPF deficiency budget and $3.75 million for the 2002/2003 budget. The final budget passed in May 2002 provided for an increase of funding of $1.5 million for the deficiency budget and $1.25 million for the 2002/2003 budget, for an overall program budget of $10.25 million. This increase was strongly advocated by Assemblyman Koon and the Assembly.
The Environmental Services Unit is currently in the process of disbursing those monies. In early January 2003, the Unit issued a special request for projects (RFP) for the provision of on-site P2 technical assistance services to small and medium-sized businesses. According to the Unit, $1 million has been exclusively dedicated to the RFP. 18
Two large energy authorities, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the New York State Power Authority, provide financial assistance for a large number of research and development projects, a small percentage of which include a pollution prevention component. NYSERDA administers a number of programs designed to reduce energy consumption by energy intensive industries and institutions, as well as residences. Services include energy audits, technical assistance, and financial assistance through both loans and grants. Eligible recipients include large and small companies, government agencies, and private institutions, including schools and health care facilities. The majority of projects supported by these programs are designed to reduce energy consumption, which results in less air pollution; some of these projects also result in direct reductions in toxic chemical use, such as a research project by the Rochester Institute of Technology Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies to develop equipment that would reduce the amount of VOCs used in cleaning auto parts. 19
Overall funding for NYSERDA comes from assessments on electric and gas utility sales (90%); general fund monies for research and development (9%) and federal and other grants (1%). Their annual budget for 2001-2002 was $141 million. Funding for environmental research and development projects is approximately $5.8 million annually, a portion of which is focused on reducing industrial pollution. In FY 2001-2002, NYSERDA spent approximately $2 million on energy efficiency projects with a significant pollution prevention component, primarily through its Industrial Research and Development Program. 20
The Power Authority is a public utility that provides low-cost electricity to government agencies, community-owned electric systems, rural electric cooperatives, and job producing companies. The Authority operates the Energy Services Program to assist its customers to achieve energy efficiency. The Program provides technical assistance, and will also directly purchase or provide financial support for their clients to install energy efficient lighting and appliances, as well as upgrade heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems.21
In addition to these state programs, three municipalities, Erie County, New York City, and Monroe County, offer pollution prevention assistance to businesses in varying degrees.
The Office has also worked closely with publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to train pretreatment inspectors to identify pollution prevention opportunities during their routine inspections. As a result, the Buffalo Sewer Authority has made P2 an important part of its pretreatment program, and, in partnership with the Office and the State University of New York at Buffalo, secured federal funding to reduce contaminant loading to the Buffalo River by assisting industrial dischargers and other users to minimize the generation of wastes at the source.22
In recent years, the Office has received state and federal funding (through ESD's EIP and EPA's PPIS) to reduce persistent and bioaccumulative toxics in urban air through P2 technical assistance, and is pursuing reductions in mercury through a P2 education program. The Office's budget is approximately $270,000 per year, with $120,000 in county funding, $100,000 in federal grants, and $50,000 in state grants. It has four full-time technical staff.23
Over the past decade, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection's Environmental Economic Development Assistance Unit has worked with businesses to promote pollution prevention. In the mid-1990's, the Unit provided sector specific workshops on pollution prevention and performed on-site assessments to identify P2 opportunities. In recent years, the Unit has stopped providing on-site assistance. From the Fall of 2000 to date it has focused on providing sector-specific workshops on New York City's Community Right-to-Know law (8 workshops) and pollution prevention incentives and initiatives f or metal finishers and the printing industry (12 workshops). The Unit has three full-time technical staff and one support staff. Full budget information was not available for the Unit, but their operating budget in FY 2001/2002 was $40,000.24
The Monroe County Health Department has recently begun to expand its traditional regulatory role to include more proactive measures to assist small businesses to achieve environmental improvements. During the past few years, the Department has undertaken a project to reduce the amount of mercury used by health care facilities, working in partnership with the Strong Memorial Hospital located at the University of Rochester. In 2001, it received funding from ESD's EIP program to implement a pollution prevention technical assistance pilot project with six small to medium-sized area companies.
The project will focus on training companies to implement an ISO 14001 environmental management program, including P2 activities. The training will be carried out by the Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Management at the Rochester Institute of Technology, in cooperation with an oversight committee that includes environmental quality staff from Kodak, Xerox, and the Industrial Management Council. After their training and initial implementation is complete, the six companies are expected to continue to identify and implement environmental improvement projects on a regular basis. A portion of EIP's funding is earmarked for this follow-up period, in order to verify that the project's projected waste reduction and pollution prevention results are realized. In addition, the companies will be expected to help other companies develop their own ISO 14001 programs. The project budget is roughly $280,000, with $75,000 being supplied by EIP. The project is expected to generate at least $280,000 in savings for the six evaluated companies.25
The Regional Technology Development Center (RTDC) program is operated by the New York State Office of Science, Technology and Academic Research (NYSTAR). It supports a regional, statewide network of not-for-profit organizations whose mission is to provide advice and direct service to small and medium-sized manufacturers and other science and technology-based businesses. RTDCs help companies improve productivity and quality, carry out strategic planning, secure financing, and establish links with academic and other research facilities. Each RTDC raises funds locally from members, supporters, and fees for services, in addition to receiving state funding through NYSTAR. Most RTDCs also receive funding through the federal Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program, operated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to help businesses reduce costs, increase their profitability, and become more competitive. Over the years, all RTDCs have built strong relationships with the Centers for Advanced Technology (CATs), local universities, federal laboratories, and local economic development organizations within their regions.26
There are currently ten RTDCs in New York State. A number of these provide environmental compliance and pollution prevention assistance.
High Technology of Rochester (HTR) is the RTDC for the Finger Lakes region and an MEP affiliate. One of HTR's main missions is to improve the competitive position of small manufacturing companies through product and process innovation. Over the past few years, HTR has received funding from ESD's EIP program to pursue three major waste reduction projects. The first, completed in March 2001, provided on-site technical assistance to eight area manufacturers to increase efficiency and reduce waste. Over two years, 18 waste assessments, 16 process assessments, and eight implementation projects were completed. Combined, these efforts led to savings of more than $405,000 per year, with an additional $208,000 in potential savings per year identified and expected to be implemented. The total project cost of $160,000 was shared by HTR and the participating companies, with a $64,000 contribution from EIP. Several of the companies were also successful in obtaining additional, direct funding from EIP and other state programs for more extensive waste reduction projects identified during the HTR project.
Two more projects are currently being pursued by HTR. One is assisting the Schlegel Corporation implement a Lean Manufacturing system to diagnose and correct process inefficiencies. The project cost is $487,750, with $86,240 contributed by EIP. In the first year, savings of $1 million have been realized. The second project will conduct preliminary waste reduction and pollution prevention assessments at 30 Rochester area facilities, and full assessments at nine facilities. It is projected that the project, at a total cost of $145,000 with $93,000 contributed by EIP, will result in between $250,000 and $330,000 in savings per year.
One staff member at HTR spends about a third of his time on waste reduction, and the part-time services of three outside consultants are also utilized. Project costs not covered by EIP are contributed by the client companies, with HTR investing time in pre-screening and pre-qualifying candidates. 27
The Industrial and Technology Assistance Corporation (ITAC) is the RTDC for New York City and an MEP affiliate. ITAC's mission is to strengthen the economy of the City by improving the performance of small to mid-sized firms that create or produce technical and manufactured products. Through its Lean Manufacturing services, ITAC project managers assist businesses to attack waste on all levels of the business. ITAC also helps companies acquire financing for capital improvement projects that will result in improved energy efficiency, thereby resulting in reduced emissions.
A recent pollution prevention project carried out by ITAC involved a company's large scale dyeing process which produced millions of gallons of contaminated wastewater. ITAC designed a pilot project using a membrane technology to recycle the wastewater within the production process and was successful in securing funding to support the project. In another project, ITAC helped a large scale bakery acquire new ovens which use less energy and emit fewer pollutants.
ITAC also runs the Wa$teMatch program, a materials exchange and waste reduction program which matches one client's waste to another's need for raw materials. In the past five years the program has served almost 400 businesses, diverted 8,000 tons of waste from disposal, and saved clients more than $886,000 on garbage hauling and materials purchasing costs. 28
Founded 25 years ago by local business and academic leaders, the Long Island Forum for Technology (LIFT) is the designated RTDC for Long Island and an MEP affiliate. In addition to a wide range of manufacturing improvement, management, marketing, and environmental compliance services, LIFT offers on-site assessments to identify and eliminate pollution through increased system efficiency and best management practices. One staff person spends about 240 hours a year working on approximately 10 environmental assistance projects a year. 29
The Mohawk Valley Applied Technology Corporation (MVATC) is the RTDC for the Mohawk Valley region and an MEP affiliate. Over the last few years MVATC has participated in four projects funded by EIP which have resulted in documented waste reductions and cost savings. One company alone in Fulton County was able to turn more than 100 tons a week of wood waste into a saleable product. Another business started the first of its kind garnet recycling company. While MVATC's main focus has been on waste reduction, it also helps companies minimize the toxicity of waste by substituting less toxic or nontoxic materials for more toxic ones. In September 2002, the Corporation was awarded an EIP grant to assist a minimum of 10 businesses identify and implement pollution prevention strategies. The project is expected to result in savings of at least $700,000 per year. 30
There are currently more than 20 Centers for Advanced Technology (CATs) and university-based Environmental Centers in New York State. These Centers provide a nexus between academic research and technological development. The CATs were established to focus on specific areas of emerging technology including biotechnology, telecommunications, advanced materials processing, robotics, thin film technology, electronic imaging systems, and etc. The purpose of the Environmental Centers is to broadly research environmental issue areas such as hazardous waste management and remediation, solid waste management, water resources, and brownfields. While all these Centers are not necessarily working on pollution prevention now, each could potentially perform research and development and provide technical assistance to businesses on P2 within their technology sector, issue area, or geographical region. Appendix C provides a list of such Centers.
The Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies (CIMS) at the Rochester Institute of Technology, is one Center that does have a significant pollution prevention program. Two of CIMS' major business units-the Sustainable Systems Research Center (SSRC) and the National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery (NCR3 )-target pollution prevention and clean technology as primary objectives. The goal of clean technology is to develop and promote manufacturing methods that use little or no hazardous material, generate little or no waste, are energy efficient, and are safe for workers, the public, and the environment.
Services offered by the Center include assistance with waste minimization assessments, the development of minimization plans, and implementing minimization projects. As part of these services the Center often evaluates the technical and economic feasibility of process changes, and helps companies implement material and waste tracking systems. These services are offered in several functional areas, including surface cleaning, surface coating and finishing, machining, process fluid recycling and reuse, remanufacturing, and energy conservation.
CIMS provides a full range of services through research and development to on-site technology application. In a recent project funded in part by NYSERDA, the Center worked with 24 New York State automotive parts remanufacturers to identify environmentally friendly cleaning technologies that will clean parts equally as well or better at reduced cost. Several firms purchased and implemented new, innovative cleaning equipment that does not use solvent. Two firms completely eliminated the use of organic solvents, thereby eliminating a toxic waste stream. A washwater filtration technology adopted by one firm resulted in significant reductions in energy consumption. Total project cost was $450,000, with $350,000 provided by NYSERDA and $100,000 provided by client companies. One company realized an annual cost savings of $105,000. 31
Appendix D provides contact information for all the pollution prevention programs in New York State.
8 Personal communication and correspondence with Mary Werner, Unit Director, January 2002 and 2003; and the Unit's website at www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu.
9 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Recommendations for Reducing Environmental Risks Through Pollution Prevention (November 2002) pp. 4-9, available at the Unit's website.
10 Dialogue materials and notes taken during the event; see also the Unit's website.
11 Environmental Conservation Law, §27-0908.
12 Personal communication and correspondence with Paul Counterman, Bureau Director, May 2002.
13 Empire State Development Clean Air Act Small Business Environmental Ombudsman, Annual Report to the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, April 1, 2000 - March 31, 2001; and personal communication with Linda Jacobs, Environmental Manager with the Environmental Services Unit, April 2002.
14 Personal correspondence with Susan Mayer, Director of Corporate Communications, April 2002; and EFC's website at www.nysefc.org.
15 Personal communication and correspondence with Erick McCandless, Director, Technical Advisory Services, January 2003; and www.nysefc.org.
16 ESD's website at www.empire.state.ny.us; Environmental Investment Program brochures; and Economic Development Law §§260-261, amended by Chapter 471 of the Laws of 1998.
17 Personal communication and correspondence with Randal Coburn, Assistant Director of the Unit, December 2001.
18 Personal communication with Keith Lashway, Unit Director, January 2003.
19 Investing in New York's Energy Future, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 2000-2001 Annual Report; and personal communication with Janet Joseph, Program Manager and Miriam Pye, Project Manager, NYSERDA, April 2002.
20 NYSERDA Envisioning the Future: A Three-Year Plan for New York State's Energy, Economic, and Environmental Future, pp. 1-3; and personal communication with Janet Joseph, Program Manager and Miriam Pye, Project Manager, NYSERDA, April 2002.
21 See the Authority's website at www.nypa.gov.
22 Office of Pollution Prevention website at www.erie.gov/environment/compliance and Office brochures.
23 Personal communication with Susan Attridge, Assistant Solid Waste Specialist, January 2002.
24 Unit brochures and workshop materials; and personal communication and correspondence with Rose Marabetti, Director of the Unit, and Virginia Smythe, Bureau of Environmental Compliance Bureau Administrator, April 2002.
25 Personal communication with Jim Gilbert, Project Reviewer for ESD and Dr. John Morelli, Professor of Engineering at RIT, April and May, 2002; and project descriptions available from ESD.
26 See NYSTAR's website at www.nystar.state.ny.us.
27 Personal communication and correspondence with Dick Krause, MEP Project Manager, May 2002; project descriptions provided by ESD's Environmental Services Unit and HTR's website at www.htr.org.
28 Personal communication and correspondence with Sarah Garretson, Director, May 2002; see also ITAC's website at www.itac.org.
29 Personal communication and correspondence with Patricia Howley, Executive Director, May 2002; see also LIFT's website at www.lift.org.
30 Personal communication with Paul McEnroe, Director of MVATC, May 2002; and award listings available from ESD's EIP.
31 Personal communication and correspondence with Newton B. Green II, Senior Staff Engineer, May 2002; see also CIMS' website at www.cims.rit.edu.
|Federal Pollution Prevention Programs|
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
EPA sponsors a number of programs to promote pollution prevention through their Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.32
National Environmental Performance Track
In addition to these programs, EPA established the National Environmental Performance Track program in 2000. Designed to motivate and reward outstanding environmental performance, the program has 300 current members across the country with 60 pending. Fourteen members are located in New York State.
To become a member, a facility must have a record of sustained environmental compliance; have a working environmental management system; demonstrate significant, quantifiable past P2 achievements in two areas; make a commitment to significant, quantifiable future improvement in four areas; and agree to meaningful engagement with the surrounding community. In return, members benefit from national recognition; media publicity; peer exchanges and workshops; a cooperative relationship with EPA staff and senior officials; and low priority for inspection.
To measure and verify performance, EPA performs site visits at 15-20% of facilities each year, and will soon require 3rd party audits. This August, EPA proposed changes to some of their regulatory programs to offer incentives to Performance Track members, including reduced frequency of reporting for facilities governed by the Clean Air Act; extended on-site storage accumulation times for hazardous waste generators; and reporting modifications for POTWs regulated by the Clean Water Act.33
32 See EPA's website at www.epa.gov/p2; the Exchange's website at www.p2rx.org, and the Centers' website.
33 Presentations by Daniel J. Fiorino, Director, and Marcia Seidner, Region 2 Regional Director, National Environmental Performance Track, at the NYS DEC Dialogue on Environmental Performance, November 2002, and the Business Council of NYS's 2002 Annual Industry-Environment Conference, October 2002; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register vol. 67, no. 156, August 13, 2002; and the Program's website at www.epa.gov/performancetrack.
|On-Site Technical Assistance Programs and Spending in Other States|
Twenty-two states have pollution prevention programs that include on-site technical assistance. The best of these programs also support research and development on source reduction methods and technologies.
Over the past year, Assemblyman Koon and Commission staff have collected information and data about the programs of these 22 states and compared it to New York's programs. Given its size, New York spends considerably less on pollution prevention than eight other states. Overall, the state spends $3.2 million on programs and projects which focus exclusively on pollution prevention, and another $3.3 million on Clean Air Act compliance programs and NYSERDA projects which have a significant pollution prevention component. Local governments invest roughly $400,000 in prevention assistance, while the federal government provides approximately $350,000 to state and local programs in New York.34
In the 22 states we reviewed, state financing for pollution prevention ranges from $150,000 annually in Maine to $9.66 million Pennsylvania. On a per capita basis, New York spends six times less than Vermont, four times less than Washington State, more than 50% less than Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and more than 30% less than Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, and Oregon. Its spending is roughly comparable to New Jersey, Georgia, and Minnesota.35
Funding sources for pollution prevention programs are varied and creative. California, Maine, and New Mexico support their programs by a tax or fee on waste (type unspecified). Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Washington State support theirs through fees on hazardous waste or hazardous waste generators. Michigan and Oregon finance their programs through a hazardous waste landfill tipping fee, and one Michigan grant program is funded by a portion of unclaimed beverage container deposits received by the state.
All states are required by law to have small business assistance programs financed by Title V Clean Air Act fees (although the funding for these programs is not included in most of the state budget data presented below). Minnesota has a fee on TRI releases, while one state, Georgia, funds pollution prevention in part by a fee on scrap tires.
A number of states fund their programs through front-end fees. Massachusetts has a fee on chemical use; Washington has a hazardous substance tax, and New Jersey has a per-employee fee on companies that use hazardous substances. The most unique funding source is possibly Oregon's State Fire Marshall Fee on hazardous substance possession. New York has no funding source dedicated to pollution prevention.
While New York spends almost half of its pollution prevention investment ($3 million out of $6.5 million) on grant and loan programs; the states we looked at spend more on personnel. This is not surprising, since these states provide significant resources to on-site technical assistance, which is labor intensive. Of the 22 states we reviewed, twelve funded more pollution prevention technical staff per capita than New York State.36 The states with the highest level of staff per capita were Maine, followed by Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts and Indiana.
These data correspond to the data on site visits and facility assessments. Generally speaking, those programs with the largest staffs performed the most site assessments, although data was available for a much smaller number of programs. Washington State performed the most, with roughly 2,320 site visits per year. These include what the state's Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program call "short technical assistance visits" to educate businesses on how to reduce and handle wastes. Oregon was next, with 435 visits per year. Massachusetts performs 105 facility assessments, involving 282 site visits, a year (assessments usually require more than one visit).
Through its Retired Engineer Technical Assistance Program, Michigan performs 92 assessments each year, while the modest Alabama Waste Reduction and Technology Transfer Foundation, with a small budget and only two full-time staff, draws on the resources of 57 part-time retired engineers and scientists to perform 80 on-site assessments each year.
A number of additional states, including Kentucky, Iowa, New Mexico and Washington rely in part on volunteers and interns to perform technical assistance services. Iowa places 20 graduate and undergraduate interns at facilities during the summer months to help them develop environmental management systems with a focus on pollution prevention. New Mexico's Green Zia program, with one full-time staff person, coordinates the work of 51 volunteers to review the environmental management systems of roughly 24 facility applicants to the program each year. Of the programs responding to NPPR's 2003 survey, the average number of site visits made annually, by those who reported doing so, was 72. Excluding non-state agencies increases this average to 92 annually. 37
Surprisingly, California turned out to have a smaller pollution prevention budget and staff per capita than New York, despite that state's strong leadership on environmental protection. It also performs only a small number of on-site assessments, 15 per year. This may have more to do with California's government infrastructure as much as anything else, where well funded and powerful, but regionally funded and controlled Water Quality Control Boards and Air Quality Management Districts play a central role in both traditional environmental protection and pollution prevention. These programs, with reportedly " several hundred" pollution prevention staff, carry out the bulk of on-site technical assistance in that state. Collecting budget and staff data for each of those programs was beyond the scope of this project.
Finally, the institutional structure of pollution prevention programs varied widely. The most common model, followed by 17 states, was to provide P2 assistance, including on-site technical assistance, through a program located within that state's environmental regulatory agency. Some of these programs are clearly identified as a non-regulatory program housed within a regulatory agency, but for most the distinction is not clear. This is an interesting and encouraging fact for New York's DEC, which has long perceived a strong tension between providing assistance and the traditional role of the agency as regulator and enforcer. If so many other states can successfully resolve this tension, so can we.
Other states, most notably Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, have established state assistance programs completely independent from the state regulatory agency. Many states, including Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Jersey and Pennsylvania finance pollution prevention programs at independent academic centers. The majority of these provide both on-site technical assistance and research and development services. A number of states, most notably New York, Arizona and Vermont, fund local governments and MEP centers which provide on-site pollution prevention services.
The results data reported by states with programs which provide on-site technical assistance services is impressive. For example, Pennsylvania's Office of Pollution Prevention and Compliance Assistance reports that in the eight-year period between 1995 and October 2002, small business P2 projects carried out by the Office reduced air emissions by 134 million tons, waste by 173 million tons, and water use by 7.3 billion gallons, all while saving businesses $1.09 billion. Substantial benefits are also reported by the 17 additional programs for which data were available.38
One of New York's closest neighbors, Massachusetts, has operated what is considered by many to be the most comprehensive and effective pollution prevention program in the country for the last 12 years. In addition to requiring toxics use reduction planning by large companies, Massachusetts operates the Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction (OTA), which provides comprehensive on-site assistance to companies, and funds the Toxic Use Reduction Institute (TURI) located at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, which carries out cutting edge research and provides professional training in toxic use reduction planning. Both programs are funded by a dedicated chemical use fee that raises between $4 and $5 million per year.
Small businesses are OTA's biggest clients. In addition to providing a wide range of information, outreach and educational services including sector-specific workshops, the Office provides on-site technical assistance to more than 100 clients per year. Over a ten-year period, it made 2815 site visits to 1047 facilities, helping companies to decrease their toxics use and cut costs. OTA has 21 full-time technical staff, which includes engineers and scientists with decades of experience in the application of toxic use reduction to real-world commercial and manufacturing processes. As part of a site visit, an OTA team tours a facility, discusses viable P2 opportunities, and follows up with a written report. Recently, the Office initiated an Environmental Insurance Incentives program, in which the Office negotiated with four carriers to lower insurance costs for companies who worked to reduce toxic use and associated liability.
TURI is a multi-disciplinary research, education, and technical support center which provides services that complement the on-site technical assistance provided by OTA. The Institute develops the core training courses for state-certified Toxics Use Reduction Planners; maintains a library on toxics use reduction and cleaner production; operates the Surface Cleaning Lab
In recent years, fee revenue in Massachusetts has dropped due to a decrease in the use of toxic chemicals by companies. In fiscal year 2001/2002, out of a total of approximately $4.3 million in fee revenues, approximately $1.8 million was appropriated for the Office of Technical Assistance and $1.7 million for the Institute. An additional $800,000 in fee monies were used to support the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's programs to administer the toxics use reduction planning law, perform multi-media P2 inspections, and integrate P2 into environmental enforcement. In a five-year period from 1991-1996, all of Massachussetts' toxic use reduction programs combined helped companies reduce their toxics use by 119 million pounds and realize $22 million in savings.39
In addition to Massachusetts, nine states (California, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania) have on-site technical assistance programs combined with research and development programs.
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control operates an Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development (OPPTD) which reviews hazardous waste source reduction plans submitted under California's mandatory planning law; provides technical assistance through a clearinghouse, extensive training activities, and a limited number of on-site visits; promotes and provides support for local P2 programs; and performs research on P2 alternatives. Approximately 1,800 reduction plans and summary progress reports are submitted by facilities and must be reviewed by Office staff. Training and technical assistance activities are currently targeted on the vehicle service and repair industry and refineries, where the goal is to make training available to 3,500 shops and 650 local government fleet operators, and work intensively with 10 state agency fleets to develop P2 plans. While only a limited number of on-site technical assistance visits (10-15 annually) are conducted by the Office, on-site visits are also conducted as part of reduction plan review.
In addition to technical assistance, the Office helps to demonstrate and evaluate innovative technologies to eliminate or reduce hazardous waste at its source. Current projects include substitutions for the cyanide used in jewelry making; the use of lasers to strip paint; and alternative solvents. The Office has a total budget of $3.5 million annually, the bulk of which comes from a state tax on waste. It has 45 full-time staff, about 2/3 of which are dedicated to pollution prevention and 1/3 to technology development. In addition, three regional staff are supported by about $300,000 in funding.
The Office has consistently placed a high value on building and supporting local government pollution prevention programs. Dozens of municipal, county or regional programs in California help businesses with P2, in part by providing on-site technical assistance services. These programs are loosely grouped into six regional Pollution Prevention Committees that meet bi-monthly with administrative support from the state. Members include regional water quality control boards, air districts, environmental health programs, and fire departments. One, the Bay Area Green Business Program, certifies and gives recognition to shops that implement P2 programs. Another, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, has performed extensive research to support their proposal of a new rule to phase out the use of PERC by drycleaners. Combined, these programs employ several hundred pollution prevention staff. They are not funded directly by the state.
In addition to the OPPTD, A number of state agencies perform P2 activities, although they may not be characterized as such. The Department of Pesticide Regulation has an extensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, and the Air Resources Board has the authority to require manufacturers to reformulate products to reduce air toxics and other pollutants.40
The state of Illinois funds two programs under the state's Pollution Prevention Act, which is focused on reducing the use of toxic materials. The state's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) operates the Office of Pollution Prevention, which provides regional, sector-specific workshops; integrates P2 into the state's regulatory programs; and provides direct technical assistance through its Technical Assistance Program. The Program employs a staff of field engineers and technical specialists who conduct P2 opportunity site visits at business and local government facilities. The visits are designed to help facilities identify ways to conserve resources, take advantage of less polluting raw materials, improve housekeeping practices and increase process efficiency. The Office has a total budget of $1 million, the majority of which is provided by the state.41
The state also provides funding for the Illinois Waste Management and Research Center affiliated with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The Center carries out research and provides direct technical assistance and training to businesses to reduce waste and increase profitability. The Center's budget is $1 million per year, with one half provided by the state and the balance by federal grants. It has 12 full-time staff. In the year 2000 the Center reports that it prevented the generation of 3.73 billion pounds of waste and saved businesses $27 million.42
In the state of Indiana, pollution prevention is strictly defined as source reduction. The state Department of Environmental Management operates the Office of Pollution Prevention and Technical Assistance, which in turn runs three assistance programs: The Compliance and Technical Assistance Program, the Pollution Prevention Program, and the Source Reduction and Recycling Program. The Compliance program operates the state's Small Business Assistance Program under the Clean Air Act, which provides confidential off-site and on-site assistance to businesses and which is currently working proactively to help businesses comply with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). The program has seven full-time staff.
The Pollution Prevention Program integrates pollution prevention into the state's regulatory programs, while the Source Reduction program provides financial and technical assistance to communities to promote recycling and reduce waste. The Pollution Prevention Program has five full-time staff, assisted by six staff from the Operations Branch and four staff from the regional offices. The Source Reduction program has five full-time staff. The total budget for the Office is approximately $2 million, with $1.5 million provided by the general fund, $400,000 by dedicated funds, and $100,000 by federal grants.43
The state of Indiana also provides significant funding to theIndiana Clean Manufacturing Technology and Safe Materials Institute, created by statute in 1990 and housed at Purdue University. The Institute acts as a focal point for coordinating and deploying outreach, education, on-site technical assistance, pollution prevention planning, and research services to Indiana businesses. The Institute has 11 full-time employees and two graduate assistants. It operates on a budget of approximately $1.75 million per year, $800,000 of which comes from the state general fund, $475,000 from dedicated state funds, and $475,000 from grants. During the seven years between 1994 and 2000, the Institute reports that its programs resulted in the avoidance of 7.7 million pounds of air emissions.44
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources operates the Land Quality and Waste Management Assistance Division, which in addition to general pollution prevention outreach, provides on-site technical assistance to businesses through its Waste Reduction Assistance Program (WRAP).
The Department also operates the Air Emissions Assistance Program, which provides general compliance assistance and also performs on-site assessments and helps clients develop pollution prevention plans. The Program has a budget of $368,000, which is funded entirely through Clean Air Act fees. It has five full-time staff. Both programs collaborate with the Waste Reduction Center located at the University of Northern Iowa, which conducts applied research on pollution prevention and provides free, confidential on-site technical assistance to small businesses. The Center has an annual operating budget of $968,000 provided by the state. It has 23 full-time staff.47
In Kentucky, the state established and provides funding for the Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center located at the University of Louisville. According to the Center, the most important service they
In addition to the Center, the state established the Kentucky Business Environmental Assistance Program at the Gatton College of Business and Economics in Lexington. The Program runs the state's Clean Air Act Small Business Technical Assistance Program, and performs on-site air quality assessments in addition to offering telephone consultation and technical seminars. It is funded by Title V fees, with a budget of $328,000, and four full-time technical staff.49 The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection also has a pollution prevention coordinator in every programmatic division. No separate funding breakout is available for P2 activities in the Department, since P2 staff are supported by existing programmatic general fund monies and grants.50
Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality houses a nonregulatory Environmental Assistance Division, which oversees a number of assistance and information activities focused on pollution prevention.
In 1998, Michigan enacted the Clean Michigan Initiative, which provides funding for a wide range of environmental cleanup, pollution prevention, and development projects. The Initiative provides roughly $1 million annually for regional P2 grants to public and private sector organizations. The Initiative also capitalized a $5 million revolving loan fund for small business P2 projects, and provided $10 million to capitalize the Retired Engineer Technical Assistance Program. A separate Community Pollution Prevention Grants program provides $500,000 annually for community-based pollution prevention projects and is funded by a portion of unclaimed beverage container deposits received by the state.51
The University of Michigan's National Pollution Prevention Center, whose primary mission was to prepare P2 education modules and disseminate them across a wide variety of disciplines, has evolved into the Center for Sustainable Systems. The Center continues to disseminate teaching materials, but its primary mission now is to develop life cycle models and evaluate products and systems with the goal of continually improving sustainability to meet societal needs. The Center operates on a budget of approximately $550,000, with $400,00 in competitive grants and $150,000 in discretionary gifts. It has raised almost 2/3 of the endowment funds required to obtain a $5 million endowment, required by the University for designation as a 'Center.' It has 11 full-time technical staff and two full-time support staff.52
The New Mexico Environment Department operates a pollution prevention incentive and technical assistance program entitled the Green Zia Environmental Excellence Program. The Program emphasizes
Tools, training and on-site technical assistance are available to companies across the state as they prepare their programs through community college continuing education programs, workshops, and the Pollution Prevention Technical Resources Center. The Center provides on-site assessments for businesses, municipalities, and tribes, with a focus on small businesses. It is administered by WERC (described below), and has an annual budget of approximately $264,000, 10% of which comes from WERC and 90% from federal grants.54 On-site technical assistance is also available to companies in New Mexico through a set of regional manufacturing extension programs, called "Industry Network Corporations."
New Mexico provides partial funding to the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC), which performs research, provides education and training, deploys new technologies, and provides off-site technical assistance to companies. WERC is a partnership between four academic institutions-New Mexico State University, the University of New Mexico, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and Diné College-plus two national laboratories-Los Alamos and Sandia-and thirty industry partners. Its budget is approximately $6 million annually, with $500,000 provided by the state's general fund, $2.5 million by the U.S. Department of Energy, and $2.2 million by the private sector, and $1 million by other grants and contracts. Pollution prevention is only one piece of the Consortium's mission, which covers hazardous and solid waste management in general.55
In North Dakota, the Environmental Health Section of the Department of Health is the state's pollution prevention assistance provider. In addition to general information dissemination and workshops, the Section provides on-site assessments and helps companies prepare pollution prevention plans. The budget for providing these services in 2002 is approximately $50,000, 75% of which is supplied by a federal grant and the remainder by the state. The Section has one full-time employee dedicated to providing pollution prevention assistance to state businesses.56
North Dakota is also home to the Energy and Environmental Research Center, which has a broad mandate but also uses a portion of its resources to develop and deploy new pollution prevention technology, perform on-site pollution prevention assessments, and help companies prepare pollution prevention plans. The Center's overall budget is $20 million, with $10 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, and $10 million in private funding. It has 194 full-time employees.57
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection houses the Office of Pollution Prevention and Compliance Assistance, which operates and provides financial support to a wide array of P2 programs. The Pollution Prevention Site Visit Program and the Small Business Ombudsman assist small businesses in realizing the potential cost savings of pollution prevention versus pollution control. The Technology Development program helps to demonstrate and deploy new P2 technologies. PennStar is a roving auto refinishing shop that provides businesses with hands-on training to use new, efficient spray paint guns. The Green Buildings Program encourages and provides technical assistance in the construction of green buildings. The Office also administers a number of grant and loan programs, including the Pollution Prevention/Energy Efficiency site assessment grant program, which funds up to 80% of the cost of P2 site assessments, and the Small Business Pollution Prevention Assistance Account, which gives loans to small businesses for P2 projects.
State funding for the Office was $6.5 million in FY 2002-2003. State funding for the Office's grant programs was $2.1 million. It has 37 central and 10 regional staff. The Office estimates that in the eight-year period between 1995 and October 2002, small business P2 projects carried out by the Office reduced air emissions by 134 million tons, waste by 173 million tons, and water use by 7.3 billion gallons, and saved businesses $1.09 billion.58
In addition, the Office also helps to coordinate the Pennsylvania Environmental Assistance Network (PEAN), a consortium of experienced technical service providers, including Industrial Resource Centers, Small Business Development Centers, other economic development centers, academic centers, and private sector consultants. PEAN members assist small businesses with the identification and implementation of P2 and energy efficiency opportunities and environmental management systems. 59
Envirohelp, a program funded by, but completely independent from DEP, operates a hotline, presents workshops, reviews permits prior to submittal, and performs site visits to identify P2 and energy efficiency opportunities. The program's annual budget of $300,000 is provided by DEP's Office of Air Quality. 60
The Electrotechnology Applications Center located at Northhampton College helps businesses investigate new equipment, materials and processes before making large investments or production changes. It conducts free site visits to help identify cleaner, faster and cheaper production alternatives, and performs P2 assessments. In 2000 the Center was awarded a 5 year, $3 million grant ($600,000 annually) from DEP's Office of Air Quality to continue this work. Between 1994 and June 2002, the Center assisted over 280 companies in 43 counties, resulting in the reduction of 50 million lbs. of VOCs, 140,000 lbs. of particulates, and 200,000 lbs. of solid waste.61
The Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program at Penn State University (PennTap) provides a broad range of assistance services to businesses, including on-site technical assistance with the preparation of P2 plans and the deployment of new technology. PennTap as a whole has 20 full-time employees, three of which are full-time environmental consultants. The budget for environmental services in 2002 was approximately $160,000, provided by the State Department of Community and Economic Development and federal PPIS grants. In 2001, PennTap provided direct environmental assistance to 90 facilities. 62 The Program reports that in the nine years from 1992-2000, it help save businesses $7 million.63
Twelve states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, and Washington) finance on-site technical assistance programs. Alabama operates the Special Projects Pollution Prevention Unit within the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. The Unit provides direct on-site assistance to companies and helps them to prepare pollution prevention plans. Its annual budget is $120,000, with $60,000 provided by state general funds and $60,000 provided by environmental permit fees. The Unit has two full-time technical staff. 64
Alabama is also home to the Waste Reduction and Technology Transfer Foundation (WRATT), which holds workshops, helps with the transfer of new technologies, and provides free and confidential waste reduction and pollution prevention on-site assessments to small and medium-sized businesses, communities, schools and government offices. WRATT has a main office and two satellite offices. It employs only two full-time staff, but draws on the services of 57 part-time retired engineers and scientists from six different states. Its budget is $450,000 annually, with a small portion contributed by the state, and roughly one-half from federal grants and the other half from private industry and foundation grants. It performs approximately 80 on-site assessments per year. A survey of clients documented annual cost savings of $8 million for 72 companies that participated in the program.65
The Pollution Prevention Unit at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality provides on-site technical assistance to help businesses identify pollution prevention opportunities and complete P2 plans. It also coordinates the "Partnership for Pollution Prevention," a network of industry associations and organizations that facilitates technical exchange and mutual assistance among members to reduce toxic chemical use and hazardous waste. The Unit's budget for fiscal year 2002 was approximately $370,000, with $300,000 provided by the state general fund and $70,000 from a PPIS grant. It has four full-time staff and two voluntary staff. Between 1991 and 2000, the Unit reports that the its P2 programs resulted in the prevention of 3.4 million pounds of air emissions, 242.3 million pounds of discharges to water, 669.7 million pounds of waste, and the conservation of 120.5 million gallons of water. 66
Maricopa County operates the Small Business Environmental Assistance Program which is focused on Arizona's biggest city, Phoenix. In addition to distributing information on pollution prevention and holding industry-specific workshops, the Program performs on-site inspections. Its budget is $155,000 per year, funded entirely by the state. It has three full-time staff. 67
The Colorado Environmental Protection Agency's Department of Public Health and Environment operates the state's Pollution Prevention Program. In addition to information, training, and sector-specific workshops, the program provides free, confidential on-site P2 assessments to businesses and awards grants for pollution prevention outreach. The Program's budget for FY 2001-2002 is $225,000, entirely from federal funding. The Program has two full-time and one part-time staff. 68
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources operates the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division. The Division provides free, confidential on-site technical assistance for pollution prevention, waste reduction, by-product re-use, recycling, and resource conservation. Its overall budget of $1.9 million is funded by $400,000 from the state general fund, $800,000 from the state Hazardous Waste Trust Fund (representing 10% of hazardous waste fees), $500,000 from the Solid Waste Trust Fund (supported by a scrap tire fee), and $200,000 in EPA grants, including a PPIS grant. The Division has 12 full-time technical staff, including five pollution prevention engineers and five pollution prevention specialists, two communications staff, and four support staff. During the year 2000, the Division reports that it prevented 5.9 million pounds of pollution, conserved 72 million gallons of water, and saved businesses more than $7.9 million. 69
Georgia also operates a Clean Air Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) similar to New York's. Through an ombudsman and technical assistance program, it operates a toll-free hotline, handles complaints, holds workshops, and performs on-site visits. The total budget for the Program is $190,000, funded entirely through Title V air permit fees. The Program has three full-time staff.70
In addition, the state provides funding for the Economic Development Institute located at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). The Institute operates a pollution prevention program that provides manufacturers, service companies, educational organizations and other industry groups with training, on-site technical assistance and assessments to minimize waste and achieve compliance. The program has a total budget of $350,000, with $100,000 provided by Georgia Tech and $250,000 by the state Pollution Prevention Assistance Division. It has 11 full time staff. The Institute's overall staff of 125 professionals also specialize in lean enterprise and process productivity. The Institute has 18 regional offices across the state.71
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection operates the Office of Pollution Prevention which in addition to generic information and outreach programs provides on-site technical assistance to companies, helps to prepare P2 plans, and finances P2 projects through grants and loans. The Office's budget of $250,000 is funded in part by waste fees ($150,000), and in part by federal grants ($100,000). It has five full-time and two part-time staff.72
Minnesota's overall budget for pollution prevention is $1.5 million, with $400,000 provided by the general fund, and $1.1 million by two state taxes, one on Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) releases and one on large quantity generators of hazardous waste. Of those monies, $400,000 are dedicated to the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. The Office focuses almost exclusively on pollution prevention and source reduction of solid waste. It provides broad outreach services, grants and loans to Minnesota businesses. Five full-time staff are dedicated exclusively to P2.73
The largest portion of state monies, $950,000, is used to support the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program based at the University of Minnesota. The Program focuses both on pollution prevention and general waste management. It performs research, provides on-site technical assistance, and helps companies prepare pollution prevention plans. The Program's $1.05 million budget is funded by the state and $100,000 in outside grants. It has 14 full-time technical staff and five additional communication and support staff. For the 11 years from 1990-2000, the Program reports that it helped prevent the generation of 130.7 million pounds of waste and pollution, conserve 212.8 million gallons of water, and save businesses $8.6 million.74
The New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act of 1991 established materials accounting and pollution prevention planning requirements for large companies and created the Office of Pollution Prevention and Permit Coordination within the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection. The Office, which is non-regulatory, assists companies with the preparation and implementation of prevention plans (roughly 600 facilities are covered by the Act); operates a facility-wide permitting program; coordinates a "one-stop" multi-media and pollution prevention permit assistance program; and runs a small business Clean Air Act assistance program. The Office is funded by a per-employee fee on all companies that use hazardous substances. Its budget is $2 million annually, and it has 22 full-time staff. During the seven years from 1994-2000, New Jersey reports that businesses involved in DEP's pollution prevention programs decreased total non-product output by 243.8 million pounds.75
A portion of the Office's budget, $200,000, is used to finance on-site technical assistance by the New Jersey Program for Manufacturing Excellence, located at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. The Program conducts site visits and provides recommendations on energy efficiency, waste minimization and pollution prevention. It has three full-time staff and five graduate and undergraduate interns.76
Ohio's Environmental Protection Agency operates the Ohio Office of Pollution Prevention, which works with companies on a voluntary, non-regulatory basis. It provides broad outreach services and on-site technical assistance, including help with the preparation of pollution prevention plans. The Office primarily serves Ohio's manufacturing companies, however it also provides services to commercial businesses, state agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and the general public. The Office's budget is approximately $850,000 per year, $500,000 of which comes from the state general fund, $100,000 from a state tax on waste, and $250,000 from federal grants. The Office has 10 full-time and one part-time staff. 77 During the three years from 1998-2000, the Office reports that its programs helped to reduce 85.1 million pounds of air emissions, 18.6 million pounds of discharges to water, and 14.046 billion pounds of waste, saving businesses $217.3 million.78
Ohio also has a large group of Small Business Development Centers-more than 100-located in host organizations across the state.79 One of these is the Manufacturing Small Business Development Center, which is part of TechSolve, Inc., a not-for-profit NIST MEP Center and an Edison Center specializing in machining technologies for the state of Ohio. The Center provides training and workshops, helps with the application of new pollution prevention technologies, and provides on-site evaluations and P2 assistance to small businesses. The Center has one full-time and one part-time technical staff. 80
Oregon operates the Toxic Use and Waste Reduction Assistance Program within the state Department of Environmental Quality. In addition to broad outreach services and training seminars, helps companies prepare P2 plans and annual reports. Over the last few years, the Program has increased its on-site technical assistance visits, from about 300 in FY 1998 to 435 in FY 2000. Data collected by the Program indicate that 70% of the toxics use and waste reduction recommendations provided by Program staff are implemented by facilities. The Program has 10 full-time technical staff and an overall budget of $1.75 million, with $1 million provided by a State Fire Marshall hazardous substance possession fee and $750,000 by hazardous waste tipping fees.81
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission operates a Small Business and Environmental Assistance Division which helps customers on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border prevent pollution, conserve resources, and achieve compliance through toll-free hot lines, workshops, and on-site technical assistance. The Division also operates an environmental leadership program, Clean Texas, which recognizes superior environmental performance. Free on-site assistance visits by Division staff result in a comprehensive Site Assistance Report that helps companies design and implement a permanent pollution prevention program. The projected budget for fiscal year 2003 is approximately $2 million, with the majority provided by the state and $138,000 in federal grants. The Division has 38 full-time staff. During the eight years between 1993 and 2000, the Division reports that it helped to reduce hazardous waste by 100,000 tons per year, nonhazardous waste by 172,000 tons per year, water use by 1.585 billion gallons per year, and saved businesses $117.6 million per year in reduced raw material, labor and disposal costs.82
The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation provides a range of pollution prevention and compliance assistance services through its Environmental Assistance Division. In addition to helping larger companies prepare pollution prevention plans (as required by state law), the Division offers small businesses free on-site waste reduction and compliance assessments, P2 and compliance workshops and training, and facility-specific research assistance. The Division's Small Business Compliance Assistance Program performs free, on-site compliance assessments and encourages businesses to use P2 as a means of achieving compliance. The Division's annual budget is $1.26 million, which funds 18 full-time staff, four of which are located in regional offices.83
The state also provides support to the Vermont Business Environmental Partnership, a voluntary, environmental assistance and recognition program run by the Environmental Assistance Division and the Vermont Small Business Development Center. Vermont
The Washington State Department of Ecology operates the Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program. The Program, which focuses on pollution prevention, also operates community right-to-know programs and corrective action closures of contaminated sites. Approximately 25% of its budget, or $4.5 million annually, is spent on implementation of the state's mandatory pollution prevention planning law. Through on-site visits, phone consultations and workshops, staff provide technical assistance in the preparation of plans and progress reports, and during implementation. In 1997, the Program started the Toxics Reduction Engineer Exchange, which uses teams of engineers to perform on-site facility analyses and recommend P2 strategies. Roughly $3 million of the budget for these activities comes from hazardous waste fees and the rest from a hazardous substance tax. Approximately 29 full-time staff are dedicated to these activities.85
Over the past five years, the Program has concentrated on providing information to businesses through personal (face-to-face) visits. The Department's Budget and Program Overview for 2001-2003 states that "reaching smaller businesses through site visits and providing clearly written materials on how to reduce and handle wastes has been very effective and has been appreciated by the business community."
Regional Program staff have made a concerted effort in the past few years to visit every business which handles waste either in a specific geographic area or business sector. The goal of these "short technical assistance visits" is to educate businesses on how to reduce and handle wastes. They are not enforcement related and no written record of the visit is kept. Program staff also respond to company requests for assistance through on-site consultations. Many of these consultations include state-of-the-art technical assistance on process changes that can help a business reduce or eliminate the use of toxic materials that create hazardous waste.
From July 1997 through June 1999, the Program conducted 3,640 site visits, or approximately 2,320 visits per year. These efforts to increase contact with businesses constitute approximately 22.5% of the Program's budget and staff, or $3.9 million annually, the bulk of which is funded through a state hazardous substance tax. Approximately 23 full-time staff are dedicated to these outreach activities. 86
Appendix D provides contact information for the state programs described above.
34 All the numbers in this paragraph are drawn from the budget figures presented on pp. 3-12 of this report.
35 These figures were calculated by dividing the budget figures for New York (presented above) and the budget figures for other states (presented below) by each state's population data (derived from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census), and comparing the results. While it was impossible to avoid counting activities beyond pollution prevention in some states, where a Division or Office performed additional duties (usually solid waste source reduction or recycling or energy efficiency), and a separate break-out for P2 was not available, if anything, the comparison is likely to favor New York, since a comprehensive review of P2 spending in New York was performed for this Report. Such a comprehensive review for other states was beyond the scope of this project; and as a result most of the budget information presented here for other states provides only a partial view of state funding.
36 This analysis was performed by dividing the staffing figures for New York (presented above) and the staffing figures for other states (presented below) by each state's population data. Since staff numbers for grant and loan programs were not available for most states, the staffs of those programs were not included.
37 NPPR 2003, pp. 15.
38 See the more detailed state program descriptions below. PA is on pp. 22.
39 Personal communication with and presentation by Paul Richard, Director of OTA, at Commission Roundtable "Helping Small Businesses Succeed Through Pollution Prevention" (May 2002); see OTA's website at www.state.ma.us/ota and TURI's website at www.turi.org.
40 Personal communication and correspondence with Kim Wilhelm, OPPTD Division Chief, and Robert Ludwig, OPPTD staff, January 2003; California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development, Pollution Prevention Report and Two-Year Workplan, doc. no. 543 (April 2002);and www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention.
41 Personal communication with Kevin Green, Manager, April 2002.
42 Personal communication with Tim Lindsey, Manager, April 2002; and see the Center's website at www.wmrc.uiuc.edu. The results data is from NPPR 2003, pp. 56.
43 Personal correspondence with Sue Keaton, Branch Chief for Operations and Acting Branch Chief for Pollution Prevention, and Mark Hancock, Branch Chief for Compliance and Technical Assistance, April 2002. See also the Office's website at www.state.in.us/idem/oppta.
44 Personal communication with Lynn Corson, Director, March 2002; see also the Institute's website at www.ecn.purdue.edu. Results data is from NPPR 2003, pp. 56.
45 Personal communication with Scott Vander Hart, Pollution Prevention Manager, April 2002; and WRAP's website at www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/wmad/wmabureau/pollution.
46 NPPR 2003, pp. 57.
47 Personal communication with John Konefes, Center Director, February 2003; and Christine Twait, Assistant Director, April, 2002.
48 Personal correspondence with Andrea P. Keatley, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality; and the Center's website at www.kppc.org. Results data are from NPPR 2002, pp.57.
49 Personal communication with Gregory Copley, Program Director, February 2003; see the Program's website at www.kbeap.org.
50 Personal correspondence with Andrea P. Keatley, as above, April 2002; see also the Department's website at www.nr.state.ky.us.
51 All of the information in the preceding two paragraphs is from personal correspondence with Marcia Horan, Pollution Prevention Section Chief, January 2002; and the Division's website at www.michigan.gov/deq. Results data are also reported in NPPR 2003, pp.58.
52 Personal correspondence with Helaine R. Hunscher, Program Coordinator, April 2002; see also the Center's website at www.css.snre.umich.edu.
53 Personal communication with Dave Wunker, Green Zia Manager, January 2003; and the Green Zia website at www.nmenv.state.nm.us/Green_Zia_website. The cost-savings figure is from NPPR 2003, pp. 59.
54 Personal communication with Chris Campbell, Program Manager, February 2003; see the Center's website at www.werc.net.
55 Personal communication with Patricia Sullivan, Assistant Director, February 2003; and WERC's website at www.werc.net.
56 See the Section's website at www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ.
57 See the Center's website at www.eerc.und.nodak.edu.
58 Personal communication and correspondence with Jane Seiler, Budget Analyst, February 2003; and the Office's website at www.dep.state.pa.us.
59 See PEAN's website at www.pean.state.pa.us; and www.dep.state.pa.us.
60 Personal communication with John Miller, PA Air Quality Division, February 2003; see EnviroHelp's website at www.pa-envirohelp.org.
61 Personal communication and correspondence with Jane Seiler, Budget Analyst, February 2003; and the Center's website at www.etctr.com; and www.dep.state.pa.us.
62 Personal communication with Jack Gido, Director, January 2002; and the Program's website at www.penntap.psu.edu.
63 NPPR 2003, pp. 61.
64 See the Unit's website at www.adem.state.al.us.
65 Personal communication with Roy O. Nicholson, Chief Operating Officer, March 2002; and Earl Evans, "An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure," Natural Resources and Environment, 14.2 (1999) pp. 132-134. See also WRATT's website at www.wratt.org.
66 Personal communication with J. Andy Soesilo, Pollution Prevention Unit Manager, April 2002; see also the Unit's website at www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/waste/hazwaste/p2. Results data are from NPPR 2003, pp. 55.
67 Personal communication with Richard Polito, Program Manager, April 2002; see also the Program's website at www.maricopa.gov/sbeap.
68 Personal communication with Parry Burnap, Manager, and Chuck Hix, Environmental Protection Specialist, April 2002.
69 Personal communication with Vanessa Freeman, Information Manager, April 2002; and the Division's website at www.dnr.state.ga.us/p2ad. Results data are from NPPR 2003, pp. 56.
70 See the Program's website at www.smallbiz-enviroweb.org.
71 Personal communication with Erin Callaghan, Public Service Representative, April 2002; and the Institute's website at www.edi.gatech.edu.
72 Personal communication with Ron Dyer, Director, April 2002; see also the Office's website at www.mainedep.com/tur.
73 Personal correspondence with David Cera, Supervisor for Business Assistance, January 2002; see also the Office's website at www.moea.state.mn.us.
74 Personal correspondence with Cindy McComas, Director, January 2002. Results data is from NPPR 2003, pp. 58.
75 Personal communication with Melinda Dower, Research Scientist, January 2003; see the Office's website at www.state.nj.us/dep/opppc. Results data are from NPPR 2003, pp. 59.
76 Personal communication with Melinda Dower, Research Scientist at NJ OPPPC, January 2003; see also the Program's website at www.njme.rutgers.edu.
77 Personal communication with Michael Kelley, Chief, April 2002; see also the Office's website at www.epa.state.oh.us/opp.
78 NPPR 2003, pp. 60.
79 See www.ohiosbdc.org and www.obdosbdc.org.
80 Personal correspondence with Norm Jacobsen, Manager, March 2002; see also TechSolve's website at www.iams.org.
81 State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, "DEQ's Toxic Use/Waste Reduction Assistance Program: 2001 Status Report," March 2001, pp. 2 and in general, available on the Program's website at www.deq.state.or.us/tuwrap.
82 Personal communication with Tamra Oatman, Small Business Advocate, April 2002; and the Division's website at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us. The Division's results data are also reported by NPPR 2003, pp. 62.
83 Personal communication with Gary Gulka, Waste Prevention Chief, February 2003; and the Division's website at www.anr.state.vt.us.
84 Personal correspondence with Peter Crawford, Director of the Center's Environmental Assistance Program, April 2002; see also www.vtsbdc.org; www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ead; www.veap.org; and www.vtgreenhotels.org.
85 Personal correspondence with Allen Robbins, Program Budget Planner, March 2002; and "Department of Ecology Budget and Program Overview 2001-2003," pp. 46,48-49, & 51, available at www.ecy.wa.gov.
86 "Department of Ecology Budget and Program Overview 2001-2003," pp. 47 & 51.
|Spending on Pollution Prevention vs. End-of-the-Pipe Regulation and Remediation|
The following table compares state spending on pollution prevention in New York to spending on end-of-the-pipe regulation and the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and oil spills. As the table shows, New York's annual investment in pollution prevention (roughly $6.5 million dollars) is negligible compared to its annual investment in end-of-the-pipe and remediation programs (roughly $310 million).
This pattern is consistent with environmental spending patterns at the federal level. The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR) reports that federal support for state and local government pollution prevention programs amounts to less than $6 million annually. This is less than one percent of what is allocated to support state media programs for air, water and land. 91
NPPR emphasizes that pollution prevention efforts, due to poor funding, are still in their infancy and just scratching the surface of what could be accomplished with greater commitment and financial support. In response to questions about barriers hindering successful implementation, 70% of the respondents to NPPR's survey said that they lack capital and 40% complained of a high rate of staff changes and lack of management commitment. NPPR estimates that if pollution prevention programs, which emphasize efficiency, were funded comparatively to their sister media programs such as the air, water and hazardous and solid waste departments, the U.S. would reap significant environmental and financial benefits. It would also lead to increased global market competitiveness for the United States.92
87 All numbers for pollution prevention spending are drawn from the budget figures presented on pp. 3-12 of this report, with federal contributions subtracted.
88 This estimate is drawn from the enacted state budget for 2001/2002, covering all air, water, solid and hazardous waste programs and enforcement. Estimates for remedial staff and pollution prevention spending under the same categories were then subtracted so as to avoid double-counting.
89 This figure was drawn from the Governor's 2002 Superfund proposal and is supported by an estimate of how long it has taken to deplete the 1986 $1 billion Hazardous Waste Remediation Bond Act: roughly 12 (actively functioning) years between 1988 and 2001.
90 This figure is drawn from the enacted state budget for 2001/2002.
91 NPPR 2003, pp. 5.
92 NPPR 2003, pp. 4-5.
|Commission Roundtables on Pollution Prevention, 2001-2002|
Environmental Business Roundtable, November 2001
Assemblyman Koon held a meeting in Rochester on November 16, 2001 to discuss ways to assist small businesses in their pursuit of pollution prevention. Meeting participants included a coating firm, a refrigeration company, a truck and autobody repair shop, an environmental remediation consulting firm, and an attorney who represents many small business clients. To begin the meeting, Commission staff presented information regarding the various state programs available to assist small business to achieve compliance and reduce their use of toxic chemicals. Much of this information seemed new to the participants.
The group was then asked to give their opinions regarding the most effective ways in which the state can help small businesses comply with environmental regulations. Generally, they endorsed the idea of investing more resources into preventing pollution, as compared to enforcement and cleanup after the fact. They liked the idea of being able to receive on-site technical assistance, as long as it did not threaten them with increased enforcement. They emphasized the paramount importance of better communication and a user-friendly approach. Interestingly enough, they also emphasized the importance of good enforcement to provide a level playing field for all businesses. Specific points included:
Roundtable on Pollution Prevention, May 2002
In May of 2002, Assemblyman Koon held a larger Roundtable on pollution prevention, entitled "Helping Small Businesses Succeed Through Pollution Prevention." The Roundtable was co-sponsored by High Technology of Rochester and Senator James Alesi, Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business. Its purpose was to provide immediate assistance to businesses in the Rochester area and to foster a dialogue regarding the best way to improve P2 assistance programs.
The Roundtable featured eleven speakers and was attended by approximately 40 representatives of small businesses, state and local government agencies, academic centers, and consulting groups. Speakers from state agencies included representatives from ESD's EIP program, ESD's Small Business Ombudsman, EFC's Small Business Assistance Program, NYSERDA's Industrial Research Program, and DEC's Pollution Prevention Unit. Local assistance providers, including High Technology of Rochester, the Monroe County Health Department, the Erie County Office of Pollution Prevention, the Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Management at RIT, and the Center for Manufacturing Studies at RIT gave presentations. Small business representatives from the Schlegel Corporation, Pixel Physics and D & W Diesel each described P2 projects undertaken by their companies with assistance from High Technology and CIMS, and funding from ESD and NYSERDA. Finally, Paul Richard, Director of the Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction (OTA), described the services provided by the Office and the impressive results they have achieved in that state over the past decade.
Generally, Roundtable participants emphasized the need for increased technical assistance and one-stop-shopping in New York. Front-line service providers play a critical role in motivating companies to look at their operations, helping them identify pollution prevention opportunities, and putting them in touch with the programs available to fund implementation. While funding for facility-specific projects is available through ESD and NYSERDA, most small companies are not able to access it without technical assistance and/or research and development support. Specific points included the following:
Paul Richard observed that multiple visits to a facility are often needed, and that as an assistance project proceeds, it often increases in technical complexity. The first round of assistance is usually devoted to "cleaning off the floor" - addressing the low-hanging fruit of operation and maintenance practices. The second focuses on developing a comprehensive roadmap for achieving more sophisticated gains in source reduction through available technologies, and how the company might pay for them. The third addresses knotty technical challenges and identifies what types of technologies need to be developed in order for a company to achieve significant additional reductions.
He emphasized the need for long-term assistance as a company goes through these phases of improvement, and expressed his belief that one-stop shopping and partnering between service providers and research and development programs is crucial. In Massachusetts, OTA has taken shop-floor problems, framed them as research questions, and brought them to Lowell's Toxics Use Reduction Institute for a solution. He emphasized that it is the front-line service provider's job to broker and link together everything that's available to help a company.
Meeting of the Ad Hoc Western New York Advisory Group on Pollution Prevention, November 15, 2002
In the Fall of 2002, Assemblyman Koon invited a core group of key participants from the May 2002 Roundtable to meet and serve as an "Ad Hoc Western New York Advisory Group on Pollution Prevention." The Group includes representatives from ESD's EIP and Small Business Ombudsman programs, Erie County's Office of Pollution Prevention, High Technology of Rochester, and RIT's Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies and Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Management.
The goal of the first meeting, held in November 2002, was to assist the Commission in finalizing the recommendations section of this whitepaper and develop a strategy to achieve the legislative and budget initiatives endorsed by it. The Group engaged in an intensive discussion of the options available to provide small businesses with on-site technical assistance and create a research and development program to support such activities. The substance of that discussion and conclusions reached by the Group are reflected in the "Recommendations" section below.
|Recommendations for Action|
The Commission's review of pollution prevention programs in New York State and across the country, as well as the valuable presentations and discussions which occurred during the Commission's Roundtable and meetings on P2, provide solid information about what businesses need and a wealth of ideas for new initiatives. Overall, New York's investment in pollution prevention is small. The State should develop a comprehensive approach to pollution prevention, especially in the area of providing assistance to small businesses. The largest gaps in New York's programs are in the areas of on-site technical assistance and research and development. Legislative and budget proposals could address these gaps by creating programs in each key area.
This action item seeks to deliver what small businesses say they need most-clear, accessible, and pro-active assistance with environmental compliance and source reduction.
Currently, roughly $1 million, partially provided by three municipalities (Erie County, New York City, and Monroe County) and partially provided by the state and federal government and disbursed through ESD's EIP program, the RTDC/MEP program, and EPA's PPIS grants, is spent in New York on on-site technical assistance. The State provides a total of approximately $400,000 in this area (although this will increase to $1 million in FY 2002/2003 if ESD's RFP is successful and funding is maintained) Funding for on-site assistance could be substantially and significantly increased by a state investment of as little as one million additional dollars. Options for how best to make this investment and achieve this goal are described below.
Each of these proposals has strengths and weaknesses.A. Expanding the Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program Operated by ESD and EFC.
A strength of this program is that ESD and EFC's staffs have a proven track record of compliance assistance. They know industrial issues, know how to read regulations, are good coaches, and they are effective at getting information out through hotlines, newsletters and workshops. Multi-media issues come up often now, and the staffs have some experience with pollution prevention. Building on this program would have the added benefit of building on an existing program, with resources already available.
A potential hurdle to expanding the program is that its funding comes from Title V air fees, and it is currently limited to assisting small businesses (defined as under 100 employees) with Clean Air Act compliance. Additional funding would have to be provided, and the program's mandate would have to be expanded to cover both small and mid-sized companies and include an increased level of on-site technical assistance. In addition, both staffs are fairly centralized, with the bulk of their personnel in New York City and Albany; they would have to be significantly expanded to provide a regional presence across the state. Finally, funding for the programs is administered by DEC, and historically there have been tensions between the agencies, some of which has to do with DEC's historical resistance to providing on-site assistance, discussed in more detail below.B. Establishing a new, centralized New York State Office of Small Business Assistance.
A strength of this approach is that it could provide greater focus and better coordination of existing assistance programs. A central coordinating body could provide one-stop-shopping for businesses, and provide a fast-track to earmarked resources. It would be consistent with the promotion of multi-media pollution prevention, and at its best would act as a consortium, building on the existing (although limited) regional presence of existing assistance agencies.
A potential weakness of this approach is that it might add yet another level of bureaucracy to the system. It is not clear who the new office would report to, and it could end up diluting the focus of existing programs. It would also, by necessity, be centralized, possibly too centralized to create a strong regional presence. It also might be very difficult to establish - given the natural territorialism and turf issues inherent between existing programs. Bringing existing programs and pots of money together under one roof may not be necessary, because a good front-line service provider could provide information and coordinate access for small business clients.C. Creating an on-site technical assistance program at DEC.
The greatest strength of this approach is the close tie such a program would have to DEC's permitting, inspection and enforcement programs. As the Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group of the Department's Comparative Risk Project has emphasized, both the agency and businesses would benefit greatly from increased integration of P2 into all the Department's core activities.93 Exemplary efforts made by a number of DEC staff have shown the benefits of P2 integration and an assistance-oriented approach, and the P2 Unit has expressed an interest in helping to make this integration happen. Housing the program at DEC would make it easy to target specific industry sectors for assistance followed up by coordinated inspections and enforcement. In addition, a strong program within DEC could be a valuable resource for other assistance providers.
A potential hurdle to this approach is the perceived tension between providing on-site assistance and DEC's enforcement role. While other states have been successful in establishing effective on-site assistance programs within their regulatory agencies and making a distinction between compliance and enforcement staff, DEC has evidenced "historic resistance" to such an approach. 94 The Risk Reduction Strategies Work Group reports that:
This resistance would have to be addressed through cultural change and/or statutory changes (if needed). There is also widespread reluctance on the part of businesses to contact DEC for assistance because they are afraid it will precipitate an enforcement action. In addition, the P2 Unit is fairly centralized, and would have to be expanded to provide a regional presence; but DEC does have existing regional offices across the state.D. Creating a network of regional on-site technical assistance providers by expanding the funding for and providing a clear mandate to NYSTAR's regional TDC/MEPs.
NYSTAR already provides direct funding to ten Regional Technology Development/MEP Centers across the state, as well as 20 existing Centers for Advanced Technology and Environmental Centers. As such, it may be the most effective option for providing sustained and reliable programmatic funding to a network of on-site technical assistance programs operated by such Centers. It may also be the best approach to ensuring a close connection between research and development activities and the shop floor. In addition, the TDC/MEPs and many academic centers have a strong regional presence, a terrific relationship with local businesses, and an established connection to federal funding sources through NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) and other programs.
The drawback of relying exclusively on TDC/MEPs and academic centers, however, is that it might leave existing municipal programs out in the cold, and fail to foster the creation of new programs by municipalities or other entities outside the NYSTAR system. Since municipal programs have historically been among the strongest in the state (Erie County's Office of Pollution Prevention is the best example, but New York City's program, the now-defunct Suffolk County program and Monroe County's emerging program are important to remember) this might not be good policy. In addition, the capability of MEPs and academic centers to provide pollution prevention assistance varies greatly - currently only four MEPs out of ten, and one academic center out of 20, provide such services. Our goal should be to build on the strengths of all existing assistance programs in the state.E. Creating a network of regional on-site technical assistance providers via a state grant program.
A strength of this approach is that it would build on existing programs without the need to create a new state program. The focus on building regional programs is positive because regional programs are closer, and therefore more accessible to businesses; they may be more familiar, and therefore more acceptable to businesses; and can focus on issues of local concern. In addition, many existing and potential regional providers, such as Erie County's Office of Pollution Prevention or the regional MEPs, are currently working with businesses and have a good relationship with the business community. Over time, this approach could be used to build a network of providers that serve every region in the state.
The weakness of this approach is that it may be difficult to ensure consistency and longevity over the long term. Funding would have to be awarded on a programmatic, as compared to project-by-project basis, in order to ensure long-term effectiveness and continuity. Mechanisms for coordination and networking among providers would also have to be established. A competitive grant process could help to ensure quality, but on the other hand, sustained and reliable funding will be important in order to foster the creation of new programs or expand existing ones. There will always be an inherent tension between room for creativity on the one hand, and the need for quality control and some degree of consistency on the other. Finally, while a handful of regional programs already exist, a significant investment of time and dollars will have to be made to create a strong network of regional providers state-wide.
(1) Administered by ESD's Environmental Services Unit
The greatest strength of utilizing ESD's Environmental Services Unit is that they are already administering a successful grant program - their EIP grants to High Technology, Monroe County and RIT have established a proven track record and show how such a program can be run.
The main weakness of the Unit is its small staff. To successfully create a statewide network of effective service providers, the Unit will need more staff and increased funding over time. It may also prove difficult for the Unit to provide a sustained and reliable source of funding to regional programs through a competitive grant program. Currently, ESD grants are mostly awarded through short-term contracts. Providing programmatic support to new, and/or significantly expanded programs may require ESD to invent a new approach to awarding grants. It may also be difficult to devise appropriate measurements and milestones of achievement for such programs.
(2) Administered by NYSERDA
NYSERDA is a well-established, highly respected agency with technically proficient staff and a large budget. It has the potential to be the best financed and most reliable source of funding for local assistance programs. NYSERDA also has regional offices and is viewed favorably by businesses. Its current project with RIT's Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies is a valuable model for integrating research and development with on-site technical assistance, and financing front-line service providers.
The greatest weakness of NYSERDA as a grant administrator for P2 assistance providers is that such programs are somewhat tangential to its mandate. All NYSERDA projects must have an energy nexus, and the agency's main focus is on research and development, not technical assistance. While it is becoming more widely recognized that energy conservation always results in pollution prevention, it is less obvious that pollution prevention will almost always result in energy conservation, and the latter connection may be more difficult to document. NYSERDA may not be interested in administering a grant program targeted to service providers, and the Public Service Commission, not the Legislature, controls how NYSERDA's funding is spent.
(3) Administered by NYSTAR
Again, NYSTAR may be the most effective means of providing sustained and reliable programmatic funding to assistance programs operated by TDC/MEPs, CATs, or Environmental Centers. The downside is that NYSTAR does not have a direct link to municipal pollution prevention programs, and may not be willing to expand its programs to include such entities.
(4) Administered by EFC
A strength of this approach is EFC's long history of administering environmental grants and loans for a wide range of environmental projects, and providing technical assistance, including on-site technical assistance, to government and businesses. It has the staff and expertise to run a sound and effective program.
A weakness of this approach is that at the present time, none of EFC's sources of funding would clearly allow for the financing of technical assistance providers outside the agency on a statewide basis. While it is possible (but by no means certain) that 1996 Bond Act monies might be used to fund municipal P2 assistance programs, the bulk of the uncommitted money potentially available for P2 under the Bond Act was allocated to the Pipeline for Jobs program in 1999.
(5) Administered by DEC's Pollution Prevention Unit
The strength of this approach is the nexus it would provide to DEC's regulatory and enforcement programs. DEC knows the regulatory requirements best, and could provide valuable technical support to regional assistance providers.
The weaknesses of DEC as a grant administrator are similar to its weaknesses as a direct service provider. The Pollution Prevention Unit is fairly centralized, and DEC is viewed with suspicion by small businesses. On the other hand, being once removed from the direct provision of services might provide the agency with the distance they need to balance their assistance and enforcement roles, and mitigate businesses' concerns.
2. Create a Source Reduction Research and Development Program
Currently, the State has no research and development program targeted to source reduction technologies. Successful programs in other states show that on-site technical assistance supported by research and development, including pilot demonstrations and hands-on experience, is an effective way to achieve the adoption of innovative technologies. New York, with eight Environmental Centers and 13 Centers for Advanced Technology, is well poised to become a leader in pollution prevention research if significant state funding is provided. Numerous options exist to expand New York's activities in this area.
Research and development could also be combined with on-site technical assistance, with both being performed by one service provider. This may be an effective model for assisting businesses, and it has been adopted by a number of states. It could be done by combining any of the technical assistance options discussed under Recommendation 1 above with any option listed in this section.Option Evaluation
Each of these proposals has strengths and weaknesses, with strong similarities to those described for providing on-site technical assistance above. Generally speaking, however, the value of centralization may be greater for research and development efforts, and the need for decentralization (in order to provide direct local assistance), less.
A. Establishing a single Center/Institute at a state or private academic institution.
This approach would focus resources in one location, and may be the most efficient way to utilize resources. It may also be the most effective way to ensure long-term, programmatic funding.
A weakness of this approach is that it may not be able to serve all regions of the state effectively. In addition, depending on where the Center is located, it might discourage existing institutions, like CIMs, from further developing their capacity.
B. Forming a consortium of two or more academic institutions.
This approach would provide many of the benefits of centralization while also providing regional accessibility. It would have a better chance of taking advantage of existing programs. In addition, it may offer the best solution politically, since resources could be shared between political regions.
A weakness of this approach is that creating a viable partnership between two or more institutions may prove difficult in practice.
C. Forming a network of regional research and development centers at existing academic centers.
This option is roughly equivalent to option D for providing on-site technical assistance described above, where NYSTAR would be largely in charge of creating a network of pollution prevention programs at existing academic centers. Its strength lies in NYSTAR's ability to provide sustained, programmatic support for such programs through its existing structure, and the potential ease of coordinating the work of academic centers with the assistance work carried out by RTDC/MEPs.
One weakness of this approach-the exclusion of existing and potential municipal, non-profit and private sector programs-is less critical in the area of research and development. The one institution currently providing such services in New York State, CIMs, is also a NYSTAR Environmental Center. Ensuring coordination and partnering among a number of different institutions may be difficult.
D. Creating a network of regional research and development centers across the state through a state grant program administered by ESD, NYSERDA, or NYSTAR.
The strength of this approach is that, if successful, it would serve all regions of the state, and be able to take advantage of promising programs wherever they arise. The weaknesses are that it may be less able to provide long-term, programmatic support, or ensure coordination among disparate programs.
ESD is authorized to provide grants for pollution prevention research and development and could begin straightaway. NYSERDA's existing grant with CIMs provides a promising model for supporting research integrated with on-site assistance. NYSTAR does not currently have a program targeted toward pollution prevention, but it provides financial support for all of New York's CATs and Environmental Centers.
93 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Recommendations for Reducing Environmental Risks Through Pollution Prevention (November 2002) pp. 4-10.
94 NYS DEC 2002, pp. 5.
95 NYS DEC 2002, pp. 4.
|Final Recommended Strategy: Increase Funding for ESD's EIP Program|
Our goal over the next five years should be to build a strong network of regional pollution prevention on-site technical assistance service providers. In some regions, that provider will be a local government agency. In others, it may be an MEP or academic center. This network should be supported by a smaller consortium of research and development programs, located at existing Environmental Centers or CATs.
The best way to fund these programs, especially in the short term, is to increase the funding for ESD's Environmental Investment Program and target a portion of its monies to on-site technical assistance and research and development for pollution prevention.
A regional approach, capable of building on the strengths of existing programs, is the most cost effective and promising way to make on-site technical assistance services available to small businesses across the state. Of all the possible options, ESD is the best situated to administer a grant program for service providers. Its program is well established, and it is already committed to creating such a program. Establishing programs at DEC, EFC, NYSTAR or NYSERDA would take time, and might not be successfully completed.
A regional approach is also best for research and development. While regional access to R & D is not as important as it is for on-site assistance, in a state as large as New York it would be best to foster the creation of more than one center so that services are at least modestly accessible in each region.
In the short-term, the best approach to funding R & D is also through ESD's EIP program. This is so because EIP has an existing grant category for research and development, and their budget is directly controlled by the Legislature. While NYSERDA funding is a viable option for such programs, it may not be interested in providing sustained, programmatic support.
In the long-term, the best course may be for NYSTAR to provide funding directly to CATs or Environmental Centers interested in performing pollution prevention work. NYSTAR would be able to provide programmatic support over the long term, but an institutional commitment to such programs would have to be established within the agency, something that may take a number of years to achieve. If more R & D projects, like NYSERDA's current CIMs project, are funded successfully by ESD and NYSERDA over the short term, they will establish a proven track record and may lead to the creation of a comprehensive NYSTAR program in the future.
This year, as the Governor and the Legislature decide how scarce resources can best be spent to protect the environment, investing in pollution prevention should be given greater weight. It is crucial that the funding provided in this year's budget for ESD's Environmental Investment Program not be reduced, especially the monies dedicated to the Program's recently released RFP for on-site pollution prevention technical assistance. In future years, EIP's funding should be increased, with at least $1 million exclusively targeted to the provision of on-site technical assistance services and $1 million targeted to research and development.
In addition to establishing an effective network of regional on-site assistance and R & D centers, the state would benefit from the creation or expansion of pollution prevention programs at the state level. ESD and NYSERDA's current programs which provide funding for P2 projects should be maintained, and thought should be given to providing P2 funding through EFC.
3. Maintain Financial Assistance for Small Business Capital Costs
In addition to the advice and modest financing available through on-site technical assistance programs, many businesses, especially small firms, will need help to finance any significant capital investments necessary to carry out P2 projects. The EIP program run by ESD and NYSERDA's Industrial Research and Development Program are currently set up to provide such monies. It is crucial that both programs continue to receive adequate funding in the years to come.
In addition, DEC, EFC, ESD and NYSERDA should review all their existing funding programs to ensure that pollution prevention projects are not prohibited or put at a disadvantage in the funding process, and should integrate pollution prevention into project review by giving priority (or extra points) to projects that have a pollution prevention component.96
4. Encourage and Support DEC's Efforts to Integrate Pollution Prevention into Permitting and Enforcement
We strongly support the recommendations contained in the final report of DEC's Comparative Risk Project for integrating pollution prevention into all of the agency's core activities, including permitting, inspections, enforcement, rulemaking, and technical and financial assistance. The recommendations include: establishing formal, department-wide programs for technical assistance separate from enforcement; encouraging the widespread use of environmental management systems; dedicating staff time and training to pollution prevention within each of DEC's regulatory programs; integrating pollution prevention into facility inspections; including pollution prevention requirements in consent orders; targeting certain industrial sectors for combined outreach/enforcement initiatives; and integrating pollution prevention into the permit application process.97
5. Expand ESD and EFC's Clean Air Act Compliance Assistance Programs to Cover All Media and Mid-sized Businesses
Efforts to promote pollution prevention would be enhanced by expanding the Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program operated by ESD and EFC. Currently, the Program is limited to helping small businesses (fewer than 100 employees) to achieve compliance with Clean Air Act requirements. The Program should be expanded to provide confidential, multi-media pollution prevention assistance (including a significant increase in on-site technical assistance) to both small and mid-sized businesses, as in A.3464, sponsored by Assemblyman Koon. Successful expansion of the Program will require a supplemental source of funding in addition to Clean Air Act fees.
6. Require Background Checks Prior to the Issuance of State Contracts
It is the established policy of the State of New York to award certain state contracts to the lowest responsible and reliable bidder. In order to maintain a level playing field and prevent the state from entering into contracts with bidders who have gained a financial advantage through noncompliance with environmental laws, Assemblyman Koon has introduced legislation to require background checks prior to the issuance of state contracts. The legislation, A.4256, would require the systematic collection and timely dissemination of information about the compliance history of bidders, contractors and sub-contractors seeking to do business with New York State. Agencies, public authorities, and public benefit corporations would be required to review this information prior to entering into a state contract. This legislation should be enacted into law this year.
7. Consider Establishing a New York State Program to Encourage and Reward Companies for Ongoing Pollution Prevention
New York State should consider establishing a program similar to EPA's National Environmental Performance Track or New Mexico's Green Zia to motivate superior environmental performance. Ten additional states, including Oregon, Michigan, and Colorado, have programs that provide environmental leaders with recognition and incentives for continual environmental improvement.
In most of these programs, facilities must demonstrate a strong compliance history, implement environmental management systems, commit to continuous environmental improvements, actively engage the public, and demonstrate accountability through reports, site visits, and quantified measurements of success. In return, the companies benefit from increased productivity and efficiency, media publicity, marketplace recognition, and a more cooperative and interactive relationship with regulatory agency staff and officials. In addition, a number of programs provide regulatory and financial incentives, such as decreased frequency of inspections, reduced reporting requirements, streamlined permits, credits on permit and emission fees, or lowered insurance costs.98
As New York considers the type of program it wishes to adopt, measures to ensure accountability will be important. If regulatory flexibility is offered, it should be tied to real improvements, and reductions in requirements should never compromise the ability to measure performance. If small businesses are to participate successfully in the program, the availability of technical assistance will also be crucial.
96 These measures are also endorsed in the final report of DEC's Comparative Risk Project, NYS DEC 2002, pp. 9-10.
97 NYS DEC 2002, pp. 4-10.
98 See EPA's website at www.epa.gov/performancetrack; New Mexico's site at www.nmenv.state.nm.us/green_zia_website; and NYS DEC 2002, pp. 7-8.
The experience of states across the nation, and most notably New York's sister state, Massachusetts, demonstrates that on-site technical assistance and research and development for pollution prevention can significantly enhance the productivity, profitability, and environmental performance of small businesses. New York has no current programs to provide such services state-wide. A new and increased commitment to pollution prevention, supported by significant and sustained financing, is needed to move New York's economy toward long-term health and sustainability.
The best strategy for providing businesses with access to services state-wide is to increase the funding for ESD's Environmental Investment Program by $1 million annually and target $2 million of its annual budget to on-site technical assistance and R & D. In the long term, the capacity to provide assistance services and perform research and development for pollution prevention should be built among additional state agencies, including DEC, EFC, NYSERDA and NYSTAR.
While falling state revenues will pose enormous fiscal challenges over the coming year, a pollution prevention technical assistance and R & D program will make a significant contribution to the success of small businesses in New York State. These businesses are the engine of New York's fiscal recovery, especially upstate. Furthermore, the monies to support these businesses will come from a fund that is already dedicated to a specific purpose.
While the level of increased investment needed to make an impact is small ($1-2 million), the potential benefits for both our economy and our environment are exciting. Only a long-term commitment to significant investment by the state will provide the impetus needed to help small businesses flourish and protect the environment at the same time.
Assemblyman Koon and the author thank the many people who have contributed to this report. Daphney Dlamini and Tracy Geoghegan provided hours of research, contacting pollution prevention programs across the country. The members of the Ad Hoc Western New York Advisory Group on Pollution Prevention reviewed early drafts, helped design our May Roundtable, and spent the better part of a snowy day in Rochester discussing various policy options. Their enthusiasm for this project and collective expertise has been invaluable. They are: James Gilbert, ESD; Newton Green, CIMS; Thomas Hersey, Erie County Office of Pollution Prevention; Richard Krause, High Technology of Rochester; John Morelli, RIT; Bailey Mylleville, Great Lakes United; Raymond Vaughan, NYS Attorney General's Office; and William Welisevich, ESD.
Additional staff from New York's state and local pollution prevention programs were also generous with information and their time: Mary Werner, Paul Counterman and John Vanna, DEC; Erick McCandless and Susan Mayer, EFC; Keith Lashway and Randal Coburn, ESD; Janet Joseph and Miriam Pye, NYSERDA; Sarah Garretson, ITAC; Robert German, CIMS; Patricia Howley, LIFT; Rose Marabetti, NYC DEP; and Paul McEnroe, MVATC.
The speakers at our Roundtable in May included, in addition to many of those listed above: Kathleen Whale, Creative Manufacturing Solutions; Gary Duckett, D&W Diesel; Kevin Kearney, Pixel Physics; Ronald Richards, Schlegel Corp.; and Paul Richard, Massachussetts Office of Technical Assistance, who gave a particularly inspiring presentation. Kevin Kelley, Kathy Goforth and Rhonda Penders from High Technology graciously hosted the Roundtable and our November Ad Hoc Group meeting; while Sarah Milko and Denise Shukoff from Assemblyman Koon's District Office provided substantive and administrative support. We also thank the persons who participated in our meetings and the Roundtable; your observations informed our thinking and contributed to our recommendations.
Here in Albany, numerous Assembly staff reviewed the document or contributed to it: Yolanda Bostic, Echo Cartwright, Marilyn DuBois, Vanessa Fascio-Lince, Liz Gordon, Elizabeth Hoffman, Debra Jenkins, Heidi Kromphardt, Michelle Litty, Julia Mallalieu, Janet Manella, Richard Morse, and John Williams. Judy Gines, Mary Heffernan and Patricia Lenihan provided crucial administrative support.
Finally, more than 40 contacts from pollution prevention programs across the country shared information with us, more than we can name here. Natalie Roy of the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable deserves special mention for her insight and support. We thank everyone listed here. Credit for the strengths of this paper extend to them, but any flaws or weaknesses are ours alone.
Some Examples of Pollution Prevention/Source Reduction:
Pollution Prevention DOES NOT Include:
Federal Definition of Pollution Prevention
The federal Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes that "pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible." The Act defines "source reduction" as follows:
Elements of Government Pollution Prevention Assistance Programs
Outreach and Education/Off-site Technical Assistance
Currently performed in NYS by DEC, ESD and EFC, and also municipal and MEP P2 programs.
On-site Technical Assistance
Making on-site presentations at industrial facilities to discuss pollution prevention options.
Currently performed in NYS by two municipal and three MEP P2 programs. It is funded by ESD but not performed at the State level, except on a very limited basis by EFC.
Currently provided by ESD, NYSERDA, and EFC.
Research and Development
Funded by ESD and NYSERDA on a project-by-project basis; not performed in a focused or comprehensive way in NYS.
State Environmental Centers
State Centers for Advanced Technology (CATs)
Empire State Development, Environmental Services Unit
New York Power Authority
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC)
New York State Office of Science, Technology and Academic Research (NYSTAR)
Regional and Local Programs
Erie County Department of Environment and Planning, Office of Pollution Prevention
High Technology of Rochester
Industrial and Technology Assistance Corporation (ITAC)
Long Island Forum for Technology (LIFT)
Mohawk Valley Applied Technology Corporation
Monroe County Department of Health
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester Institute of Technology
Programs in Other States
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Waste Reduction and Technology Transfer Foundation (WRATT)
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Small Business Environmental Assistance Program
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Georgia Small Business Assistance Program
Georgia Institute of Technology, Economic Development Institute
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention
Illinois Waste Management and Research Center (WMRC)
Indiana Clean Manufacturing Technology and Safe Materials Institute
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
Iowa Air Emissions Assistance Program
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center
Kentucky Business Environmental Assistance Program
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Pollution Prevention
Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction (OTA)
The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute
Center for Sustainable Systems
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Program for Manufacturing Excellence
The Green Zia Environmental Excellence Program
Waste Management Education and Research Consortium
North Dakota Department of Health
Energy and Environmental Research Center
Ohio Office of Pollution Prevention
1111 Edison Drive
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Electrotechnology Applications Center
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Vermont Small Business Development Center
Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington State Department of Ecology