Regional Highlights Pacific Northwest
Pollution Prevention Roundtable
December 7-9, 1999 in Seattle, Washington — Full Report

Table of Contents

Goals and Audiences

December 7 Session:

P2 Projects Showcase
     • Eco-Logical Businesses
     • Clean Air EnviroStars
     • Dry Cleaners
     • Whatcom County Watersheds
     • Industry Outreach
     • Rehab the Labs
     • Idaho GEMStars
     • EMS Alternative to P2 Planning

December 8 Session:

Welcome and Introductions
Right Tool for the Right Job
Top Five Issues
Building Effective Partnerships: The Nuts and Bolts
     • Eco-Logical Businesses
     • Neighborhood Power Project
     • Soils for Salmon
Priority Sector Targeting
     • EPA
     • Seattle-King County Public Health Dept
     •Thurston County
     •WA Dept. of Ecology PBT Program

December 9 Session:

Plenary Speaker: Northwest Council on Climate Change
P2, Energy and Sustainability: The Big Picture
     •Climate Solutions
     •Energy Star
     •Solar Energy
     •Earth Day 2000
Collaboration Opportunities for P2 Programs
     •ITAP
     •Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
     •Climate Wise
     •Resource Efficiency Program
     •Sustainable Building 1
     •Sustainable Building 2

List of Attendees


Full Report

dot GOALS AND AUDIENCES

Summary of Goals

  1. Day One: Share information about pollution prevention projects, including outcomes, lessons learned, and future plans.
  2. Day Two: Explore perspectives on optimal use of enforcement and technical assistance tools to achieve positive environmental outcomes; build awareness of top issues among various media; learn how effective partnerships are created and managed; identify methods for selecting sectors for focusing technical assistance and/or enforcement efforts.
  3. Day Three: Examine the connections among energy, climate, and pollution prevention; explore opportunities for technical assistance providers to enhance the value of their services through partnerships between energy and P2 service providers.

Audience: Pollution prevention technical assistance providers (TAPs), P2 program managers, compliance assistance providers, energy and manufacturing assistance providers.

 

Tuesday, December 7 1999

 

dot P2 Projects Showcase

Facilitator:
  John Palmer
    EPA Region 10
    206-553-6521,
palmer.john@epa.gov

Eco-Logical Businesses
Speaker:
  Kelly Hendryx
    Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
    503-823-7585,
kellyh@bes.ci.portland.or.us

The Bottom Line
The Eco-Logical Business program recognizes auto service businesses that voluntarily protect the environment. Businesses receive comprehensive technical assistance that covers all environmental media and energy.

Handouts Available
Presentation overheads

Presentation
Kelly Hendryx: The Eco-Logical Business program recognizes auto repair and auto body businesses in the Portland area that implement "beyond compliance" pollution prevention practices and go through a certification process. The program provides comprehensive technical assistance covering energy, stormwater, air quality, hazardous waste, solid waste, pretreatment and recycling for businesses to become certified. Shops that win certification, which is good for three years, can display Eco-Logical Business stickers. The program is coordinated by the Portland area "P2O" team, representing cities, counties, Unified Sewerage Agency, Metro, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

The program started operating in the fall of 1999. So far, 20 shops have been certified and 20 more are going through the certification process. Participants must implement all required measures and 80 percent of recommended measures.

Examples of measures implemented by participants include the following:

The program works with auto service trade associations to market the program to businesses. Partners include the Pacific Automotive Trades Association, Automotive Service Association, AAA of Oregon/Idaho, and Oregon State Public Interest Research Group.

Notices have been sent to neighborhoods promoting certified businesses to potential customers, and radio advertising is planned.

(To find out more about the Eco-Logical Business Program, visit http://www.ecobiz.org.)

Clean Air EnviroStars
Speaker:
  Mike Schultz
    Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
    206-689-4060,
mikes@pscleanair.org

The Bottom Line
Clean Air EnviroStars program is a cooperative effort that allows two agencies to better focus their resources on accomplishing their missions, and rewards businesses that go beyond compliance to implement pollution prevention practices.

Handouts Available
EnviroStar checklists, Clean Air EnviroStar self-certification checklist

Presentation
Mike Schultz: Clean Air EnviroStars is a cooperative pilot project of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. Implementing the Clean Air Enviro Stars program has been both rewarding and frustrating. A lot of compromise and concessions by both agencies have been necessary to get the program off the ground, but the benefits were worth the effort.

EnviroStars is a voluntary program operated by King County and three other western Washington counties to recognize small businesses which properly manage and minimize hazardous waste. Businesses can earn ratings ranging from two to five stars, depending on the extent of pollution prevention measures that they undertake. Numerous types of businesses have been recognized. (To find out more about EnviroStars, visit http://www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/estars.)

EnviroStars and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency began a three-year experimental partnership to offer incentives to auto body shops that have earned four or five-star EnviroStar ratings. The clean air agency entered into the partnership for the following reasons:

The clean air agency has only three inspectors to keep tabs on 2,500 auto body shops, dry cleaners and gas stations in its four-county jurisdiction. It doesn't make sense to expend inspection resources on businesses that are strong environmental performers. Instead, resources should be focused on businesses that need technical assistance and/or enforcement attention.

For the clean air agency, EnviroStars offered an established recognition program to build on. For EnviroStars, the clean air agency offered another environmental medium to expand into, plus funding.

Auto body repair was chosen because the sector has both hazardous waste and air quality issues. There are more than 500 auto body shops in the Puget Sound area, plus there are trade associations that the two agencies could work with as a partner. The associations are the Automotive Service Association and the Auto Body Craftsmen Association.

Four and five-star shops that participate in the partnership program are not subject to regular air inspections and receive an 80 percent reduction in their annual air permit registration fees. Shops also receive free technical assistance and "green" marketing.

Goals of the program are to recruit 50 to 100 participating shops and participants from all four counties, and to create "environmental converts" within the industry.

As of December 1999, 500 shops had been notified about the program and 40 inquiries received. Nine shops had received $200 refunds on their air permit registration fees, and 20 articles had been published about the project. Technical assistance is to be carried out by EnviroStars staff trained by the clean air agency.

There have been problems to overcome. Some of the shops that qualified to participate were not interested. The reason is that they're well run shops, have all the business they need, and don't need additional marketing assistance. Only 25 percent of the shops in the area belong to a trade association, making them more difficult to reach in marketing efforts. There are cultural differences between the agencies. Since the clean air agency has a regulatory focus, it looks for measurability in programs. As a result, one outcome of the two agencies’ work together is that the EnviroStars rating system will become more quantified.

(To read a brief article about the Clean Air EnviroStars project, see the Spring 1999 edition of Pollution Prevention Northwest at http://www.pprc.org/pprc/pubs/newslets/newssp99.html.)

Dry Cleaners
Speaker:
  Jin Kim
    Northwest Dry Cleaners Association
    253-565-9422,
jykim@slash.net

The Bottom Line
A government agency and a trade association are working cooperatively to persuade hundreds of Puget Sound area dry cleaners to invest in technologies that reduce emissions of perchloroethylene, or "perc."

Presentation
Jin Kim:The Northwest Dry Cleaners Association has been working with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency for the past decade to educate dry cleaners about improving their environmental performance. Kim speaks both English and Korean, and consequently can help the clean air agency surmount language and cultural barriers in reaching out to Korean-owned dry cleaning shops. About 70 percent of the dry cleaning shops in the Puget Sound area are owned by Koreans or Korean-Americans.

Kim has visited 550 shops in the Puget Sound area to encourage them to upgrade to closed-loop cleaning machines that prevent exposure of perchloroethylene ("perc") to the air. Perc is a halogenated solvent that is listed as one of 188 hazardous air pollutants in the Clean Air Act, and is considered a potential human carcinogen by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. In his visits, Kim also covers other environmental issues, including occupational health and groundwater.

Most of the shops have responded positively to Kim's visits. Of the 550 shops, only about 40 to 50 were still using old "transfer" equipment that allows perc to be exposed to the air when clothes are transferred from washing to drying machines. Under a clean air agency regulation, transfer machines could no longer be operated after Dec. 31, 1999.

Dry cleaners have reduced their use of perc as a result of machine technology improvements that boosted solvent "mileage" ( the amount of clothing cleaned per gallon of solvent).

Wet cleaning is an option for eliminating perc emissions, but not all garments can be cleaned in the wet process. An additional concern for shops is price.

Wet Cleaning Resource

Alternative Clothes Cleaning Page
Center for Neighborhood Technology
http://www.cnt.org/wetcleaning

Whatcom County Watersheds
Speaker:
  Bruce Barbour and Dave Misko
    Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
    360-738-6249, 425-649-7014,
brba461@ecy.wa.gov, dmis461@ecy.wa.gov

The Bottom Line
The Whatcom County Watershed program takes a comprehensive, cooperative approach to encouraging household and business behavior changes that protect drinking water and salmon resources.

Handouts Available
Household and business pledges, newsletter, progress report, Lake Whatcom Watershed Survey

Presentation
Dave Misko and Bruce Barbour: The Whatcom County Watershed Project was established to foster behavior change in order to reduce pollution and allow salmon to thrive in the Whatcom Creek and Lake Whatcom watersheds. Lake Whatcom is the Bellingham area's drinking water resource. The program takes a watershed-based, multi-media, preventive approach that takes into account the sociology of behavior change, builds in feedback and continuous improvement, and sets priorities.

A key insight is that behavior change is more likely to come about if the message is delivered by people the target audiences find trustworthy.

Ecology worked cooperatively with local stakeholders to form residential and business teams that developed voluntary pledge programs. The residential pledge sought pollution reduction actions involving lawn care practices, stormwater runoff, and household hazardous materials use. The business pledge sought stormwater P2 and reduction of solid and hazardous waste.

Pledges were taken by 530 households and 307 businesses. An institutional pledge was taken by Ecology's Bellingham office and the city of Bellingham. A directory of businesses that have taken the pledge was prepared. The pledge program has been adopted by the Whatcom County cities of Lynden, Nooksack, Everson and Sumas, and the Bellingham-Whatcom County Chamber of Commerce.

A followup telephone survey found that 40 percent to 50 percent of respondents had made some behavior changes, such as eliminating pesticides and fertilizers that can wash into the creek. It was apparent from the survey that people understood the connection between lawn care practices and the health of Whatcom Creek. Ninety-six percent of surveyed businesses indicated they want to do the right thing.

To characterize watershed ecology and assess the impacts of the pledge programs, water and sediments were sampled for the presence of toxic chemicals, metals and pesticides. Whatcom Creek's biology also was monitored. In the spring of 1999, sampling revealed the presence of baby chinook salmon. The presence of stone flies was noted, an indicator that salmon habitat and the creek food web was improving. In June 1999, however, the nearby Olympic Pipeline ruptured, spilling 270,000 gallons of gasoline. The subsequent explosion incinerated a mile and a half of the creek’s riparian corridor, killing three people and destroying all fish in the vicinity of the spill and fire.

A long-term restoration plan was begun, including expansion of a downtown "salmon park." The project was awarded a $500,000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant to buy five acres in the watershed, which will supplement 50 acres the city of Bellingham has committed for the park.

The pledge program has drawn the attention of other communities in the Northwest. Similar projects are being implemented by the cities of Victoria, Burnaby and Abbottsford in British Columbia. In Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality is implementing a similar project near Salem.

Lessons Learned

Discussion Question: How can the program verify that people who take the pledge actually implement behavior changes? Is there monitoring or statistical analysis to verify what's happening?
Answer: The project is designed to promote long-term behavior change. People won't listen to state government officials, but they will listen to their neighbors. Households that took the pledge have been mapped using a GIS. Pledged households are clumped together, indicating the influence of neighbors.

(To read about the Service and Quality Improvement Award that Washington Governor Gary Locke gave to the pledge program, visit http://www.wa.gov/ecology/pie/1999news/99-226.html.)

Industry Outreach
Speaker:
  Chris Wiley
    Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center (PPRC)
    206-352-2050,
cwiley@pprc.org

The Bottom Line
PPRC worked cooperatively with fiberglass fabrication, paint and coating manufacturing, and metal machining sectors to develop synthesized, regularly updated information resources that describe regulatory perspectives and pollution prevention opportunities.

Presentation
Chris Wiley: PPRC is an information wholesaler, a matchmaker, researcher, and networker, with the goal of getting P2 information into the hands of business decision-makers.

As a wholesaler and researcher, PPRC synthesizes information for the use of information retailers, such as technical assistance providers. As a matchmaker and networker, PPRC can refer inquiries to people with specialized knowledge, acting as the wires of a P2 communications network.

PPRC developed "living document" information resources for the fiberglass fabrication, paint and coating manufacturing, and metal machining sectors. The documents, updated regularly, provide information about regulatory requirements and pollution prevention opportunities. Case studies, vendors, links to relevant projects in PPRC's Research Projects Database, and links to industry expertise are provided also. PPRC works in partnership with industry, and state and local governments to prepare the resources. The documents also serve as a home for information that TAPs have gathered in sector outreach projects.

PPRC markets the resources to trade associations and trade journals. For example, the fiberglass document was featured in the December 1998 edition of the Journal of Reinforced Plastics, which has about 8,500 subscribers worldwide.

Visit the Living Documents Fiberglass Fabrication: http://www.pprc.org/pprc/sbap/fiber.html Paint and Coating Manufacturing: http://www.pprc.org/pprc/sbap/painting.html Metal Machining: http://www.pprc.org/pprc/sbap/machine.html

Rehab the Labs
Speaker:
  Dave Waddell
    King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program (LHWMP)
    206-263-3090,
dave.waddell@metrokc.gov

The Bottom Line
Rehab the Labs is a technical assistance project that helps junior high and high school science labs dispose of surplus, dangerous chemicals, and properly manage chemicals that will be retained for classroom use.

Handouts Available
Rehab the Labs booklet, lab chemical disposal information sheet

Presentation
Dave Waddell: It's not unusual to find poorly managed, dangerous chemicals in junior high and high school science labs. Teachers often are not aware of the hazards the chemicals pose to them and their students. Hazardous chemicals found in school labs include:

Here are two examples of the hazards posed by poorly managed chemicals in school labs.

Hydrofluoric Acid: This corrosive is readily absorbed by the skin, but pain is not apparent until it starts dissolving bone tissue. Hydrofluoric acid is present in about half the schools King County hazardous waste staff has visited. The acid is used in art programs as a glass etchant, and typically, no protective equipment is worn. (For more information about the hazards of hydrofluoric acid, visit http://www.princeton.edu/~ehs/labguide/sec-1e.htm#HF.)

Perchloric Acid: This corrosive readily oxidizes with organic materials and can explode on contact with heat or certain metals. (For more information about the hazards of perchloric acid, visit http://www.ab.ust.hk/sepo/tips/ls/ls011.htm.)

Compressed gases, such as chlorine, that are stored in lecture bottles are another serious danger, especially when the valves have rusted and the bottles are not labeled properly or not labeled at all. One lecture bottle with chlorine could conceivably kill everyone in a school. Breathing chlorine could result in a lifelong case of chemical pneumonia, caused when hydrochloric acid forms inside the lungs.

Other examples of chemicals found in schools: White phosphorus is a pyrophoric chemical, meaning it can ignite spontaneously upon exposure to air. Potassium is a water reactive that forms shock-sensitive crystals. Chloroform can produce phosgene, an acute inhalation hazard, as it ages.

Properly disposing of surplus, dangerous chemicals is very costly. Unlabeled lecture bottles containing chlorine cost $5,000 to $7,000 each to dispose of.

Chemical management problems seen in schools include:

Poor labeling is another problem. Here are two examples that have been seen on field visits: "Bad Stuff NOS" (not otherwise specified), and "Sugar," which turned out to be explosive sodium crystals.

Rehab the Labs has several goals. They include:

An important element of bringing about long-term behavior change is to obtain buy-in at all levels in the school organization. This is done by asking district officials, principals and teachers to sign pledges to improve hazardous chemical management. Payment for disposal of chemicals is made only after pledges are signed. Technical assistance helps schools act on the pledges.

As of December 1999, the county had carried out 71 site visits to 52 schools, and had marked more than 5,000 containers for disposal. A total of 21 drums containing 1,000 pounds had been shipped for disposal.

A total of $220,000 will be available for chemical shipments in 2000 and $150,000 in 2001.

By 2001, the county's goal is to have visited more than 100 schools, shipped 100,000 containers for disposal, shipped 1,000 pounds of high-risk chemicals for disposal, and to have obtained pledges from 100 schools.

The county is encouraging schools to move toward microscale chemistry instruction. The volumes of chemicals handled go down by factors of 10 to 100, resulting in reduced costs, less danger and less liability.

(For an on-line copy of the Rehab the Labs booklet, visit http://www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/rehab/rehab.pdf.)

Laboratory P2 Resources

General Laboratory Safety
University of British Columbia, Department of Health, Safety and Environment
http://web.uvic.ca/ohs/labsafety.html

Microscale Chemistry
National Microscale Chemistry Center
http://www.p2000.umich.edu/chemical_waste/cw7.htm

Idaho GEMStars
Speaker:
  Heather Cataldo
    GEMStars
    208-364-4038,
gemstars@uidaho.edu

The Bottom Line
GEMStars recognizes Idaho companies, agencies and organizations that implement P2 measures.

Handouts Available
GEMStars information packet

Presentation
Heather Cataldo: GEMStars was conceived in 1997 when then-Governor Phil Batt proposed a P2 incentive program. The program was developed by a geographically diverse steering committee with government and business representatives, and is administered through PPRC. Participating companies are eligible for GEMStars recognition if they implement at least 12 of 19 "initial tier" criteria covering solid waste reduction, toxics use reduction, and energy and water efficiency.

So far, 15 companies, agencies and organizations have signed up to participate. The goal is to have 50 participants meeting initial tier criteria by September 2000. Recruitment began in November 1999.

GEMStars that want to go further can implement additional P2 measures to obtain middle and highest tier recognition. The latter is awarded exclusively by the governor.

Participants recognized as GEMStars will be eligible to use the GEMStars logo in company advertising and window decals. They will be promoted through media events and at local business functions, such as chamber of commerce luncheons.

The program is housed directly in the governor's office instead of within the Division of Environmental Quality. Having the governor's imprimatur on the program helps open doors for marketing.

Initial funding was provided from proceeds of a civil penalty paid by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Cash and in-kind support is provided by Idaho State University, the University of Idaho and Boise State University. Secure funding is available through August 2000. Potential sources for obtaining additional funding include supplemental environmental projects, grants, and private sponsors.

Program promotion and recruitment of participants is being carried out through contacts with chambers of commerce, the state's 64 cooperative extension offices, and city and county associations. The program has prepared articles for trade journals, newsletters, web pages and other media. Other promotional materials may include a brochure, paid advertising, and a display booth.

Long-range objectives include obtaining support from the Legislature, having the program administered by an Idaho entity, and greening up the state's procurement policies.

EMS Alternative to P2 Planning
Speaker:
  Rob Reuter
    Washington Department of Ecology
    425-649-7086,
rreu461@ecy.wa.gov

The Bottom Line
Businesses and organizations subject to Washington's P2 planning requirements can adopt environmental management systems as an alternative. Participants are using the EMS approach to prevent pollution and improve resource efficiency.

Presentation
Rob Reuter:In 1997, the Washington Department of Ecology gave businesses subject to P2 planning requirements the option of submitting environmental management system (EMS) documentation in lieu of P2 plans. Ecology's EMS requirements are similar to the ISO 14001 EMS standard, but there are important differences. One difference is that Ecology defines P2 as reducing and eliminating pollution at the source, whereas ISO includes control and treatment in its definition of P2.

An advantage that the EMS option has over the standard P2 plans is that goals and programs are set every year instead of every five years.

Examples of P2 achievements by businesses and agencies that have taken the EMS option include:

Standard components of the EMS' are tracking, benchmarking, training and education. Waste, energy, commute trip reduction, and habitat restoration are issues that the EMS may cover.

(To find out more about Ecology’s EMS alternative for P2 planning, contact Dave Zink at 360-407-6752 for a copy of Publication No. 97-401, "Environmental Management System (EMS) Alternative to Pollution Prevention Planning.")

EMS Resource

ISO 14001 Pilot Projects
Environmental Law Institute
http://www.eli.org/isopilots.htm

 

Wednesday, December 8 1999

 

dot Welcome and Introductions

The second day of the roundtable was opened by Madeline Sten, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center (PPRC). Sten said a goal of the roundtable is to help technical assistance providers (TAPs) work smarter, not harder. By focusing on comprehensive service delivery and tapping into the expertise of others as well as their own expertise, TAPs can enhance the value of their services.

 

dot The Right Tool for the Right Job

Facilitator:
  Lane Nothman
    Ross and Associates
    206-447-1805,
lane.nothman@ross-assoc.com

Speakers:
  Tom Eaton
    Washington Department of Ecology
    360-407-6086, teat461@ecy.wa.gov

  Mike Bussell
    EPA Region 10
    206-553-4198, bussell.mike@epa.gov

  Jeff Hunt
    EPA Region 10
    206-553-0256, hunt.jeff@epa.gov

  Ray Carveth
    King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program
    206-263-3053, ray.carveth@metrokc.gov

  Jim Nolan
    Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
    206-689-4053, jimn@pscleanair.org

Panel of Questioners:
  Dave McEntee
    Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company
    253-572-2150, dmcente@smpsn.com

  B.J. Cummings
    representing Puget Soundkeeper Alliance
    206-286-1309, pskeeper@halcyon.com

The Bottom Line

Handouts Available
"Clean Water Act Permit Violations," Puget Soundkeeper Alliance report

Presentations
Lane Nothman: There are no definitive answers to striking the right balance among compliance assistance, P2 technical assistance and enforcement. The right balance depends on individual situations.

Tom Eaton: Any successful strategy to improve compliance must start with goals. What are the desired results? Which pollutants are being targeted? Which regulations come into play? What's the compliance status of your target audience?

Two examples illustrate how Ecology has worked to find the right mix of tools for achieving environmental results.

A few general principles should be kept in mind when working with businesses. They include:

In the long-term, strategies that integrate enforcement, education and technical assistance work best.

Mike Bussell: There is continuing tension between state agencies that emphasize technical assistance and federal emphasis on enforcement. It's important to inform these debates with data instead of relying on anecdotes.

Jeff Hunt: EPA Region 10 has prepared a summary report of persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (PBT) release data, based on Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports from 1991 to 1997. While TRI data has shortcomings, notably lack of information about household and small business hazardous waste, it can be a powerful tool for measuring the effectiveness of agency compliance strategies. The report covers 53 substances, including halogenated chemicals, pesticides, non-halogenated phenolics, phthalate esters, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and various heavy metals.

EPA's goal is to reduce PBT releases into hazardous waste streams 50 percent from 1991 levels by 2005. Based on TRI data, Region 10 appears to be making progress toward that goal. Between 1991 and 1997, PBT production waste increased 18 percent nationally. In Region 10, PBT production waste fell 41 percent in that time period.

State by state, the reductions were 77 percent in Alaska (a pulp mill closure in southeast Alaska was a major factor), 7 percent in Idaho, 19 percent in Oregon and 69 percent in Washington. (The Idaho figure excludes zinc waste from one company because of the firm’s reporting errors. If the zinc waste is included, Idaho’s reduction figure is 1 percent.) Washington’s reduction accounted for more than 75 percent of the total regional reduction.

Across the region, chloroform and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) production waste fell 76 percent and 98 percent, respectively. Mercury releases declined 99 percent. Trichlorobenzene production waste was eliminated.

PBT releases per capita totaled 17.2 pounds nationally in 1997. In the Region 10 states, per-capita releases that year were 2.3 pounds in Washington, 7.7 pounds in Oregon, 10.6 pounds in Idaho and 0.4 pound in Alaska.

PBT releases per unit of economic output totaled 635 pounds per $1 million of gross national product in 1997. In the Region 10 states, the figures were 84 pounds for $1 million of gross state product that year in Washington, 277 pounds in Oregon, 469 pounds in Idaho and 11 pounds in Alaska.

Discussion
Issue: Program Effectiveness
Cummings said that Ecology's overall approach seems to make sense, but that the department has not measured effectiveness, including compliance rate and the time it takes for businesses to come into compliance. In response, Eaton said sector campaigns included an analysis to characterize compliance before the campaigns and a re-check of visited businesses afterward. The largest data gap overall is an analysis of how an enforcement action at one facility affects compliance statewide.

Issue: Regulatory Policy
McEntee agreed that strong enforcement is necessary, but questioned whether compliance should be the goal. Businesses need carrots to move beyond compliance through innovative technologies. There is nothing in current regulations that rewards businesses for installing new technologies that prevent pollution. Indeed, current regulations hinder innovation, by forcing businesses to go through complex permitting procedures in order to change a process. Instead of requiring businesses to comply with technology-based standards that fail to keep up with technology advances, agencies should offer incentives for businesses to invest continuously in new technologies. In the pulp and paper industry, Simpson Tacoma Kraft's competitors in Europe and Canada enjoy government assistance in testing new technologies that both prevent pollution and improve productivity.

He called for "early action" incentives, such as less paperwork or longer term permits, for companies that take voluntary actions to reduce pollution. Lower regulatory costs will give companies incentives to adopt beyond-compliance measures.

Many pulp and paper mills failed to keep up with technological innovations in the industry. More enforcement and regulatory tools that encourage technological advancement would have helped those mills invest in new technologies and remain competitive.

In response to McEntee's observations, Bussell said he agreed there is room for improvement in regulatory policy, but added that compliance requirements also drive businesses to innovate. Palmer said companies that are ahead of the curve won't stay that way permanently, because regulations tighten over time, thus raising the bar.

Mike Scott from the Navy Intermediate Maintenance Facility said federal funding for innovative technologies is available through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The program provides competitive grants to small, high-tech businesses. Solicitations are announced each October. In the announcements, the National Institute of Standards and Technology lists the topics for which proposals are sought. Phase 1 grants of up to $75,000 are available for six-month, technical feasibility studies. Successful Phase 1 participants can compete for two-year Phase 2 grants of up to $300,000 to develop their projects further. (For more information about SBIR, visit http://patapsco.nist.gov/ts_sbir.)

Another commenter said the regulatory framework is inflexible, providing only enforcement or single-media technical assistance. EPA's Project XL, a pilot program to test alternative regulatory approaches toward achieving pollution prevention, was described as an exhausting process.

Eaton said Washington businesses have shown no interest in the state Environmental Excellence program, which authorizes businesses to enter into agreements with regulatory agencies that supersede existing requirements, provided the agreement delivers improved environmental results or equal results at lower cost. In response, McEntee said the environmental community does not think Environmental Excellence will produce beyond-compliance benefits. Consequently, businesses are wary of entering into a program that does not enjoy broad support.

McEntee spoke favorably about a multi-media approach taken in Ecology's industrial section. There, staff is authorized to work with businesses on air, water and waste issues, providing one-stop shopping. He recommended that Ecology do more along that line.

Scott said shifting the goal from compliance to environmental quality improvement could result in measurable differences in, for example, the quality of salmon habitat. Eaton replied that rules accompanying endangered species listings for salmon will make habitat protection and restoration a compliance requirement anyway. The National Marine Fisheries Service has released draft "4-D" rules to prevent illegal "take" of West Coast salmon and steelhead listed as threatened species. Once those rules are finalized, habitat protection will be required of land use and other activities in areas affected by the listings. (To find out more about the 4-D rules, visit http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/4drules.htm.)

Issue: Simplifying Regulations
Bussell said EPA's regulations can be very difficult to understand. Even agency staff can experience difficulty grasping their meaning. EPA has a mandate to write regulations in plain English. On the other hand, there is a tradeoff, because regulations have to be legally enforceable. Clarifying language cannot come at the expense of enforceability. (To find out more, visit the Plain Language Action Network at http://plainlanguage.gov.)

Presentations

Jim Nolan: Three of the leading air quality problems in western Washington are photochemical smog, particulates and hazardous air pollutants. Industry is responsible for only a small percentage of these pollutants. The region won't continue making progress on improving air quality if agencies target all their resources on industry and none on the polluting actions of individuals, such as use of automobiles or wood-burning stoves.

There are three types of industries: leaders that are ahead of the curve, laggards, and those in between. Enforcement efforts should be concentrated on laggards, which cannot be allowed to enjoy a competitive advantage through poor environmental performance.

What's often missing in technical assistance is that the businesses agencies work with aren't organized to take optimal advantage of the information they're being given. Environmental management must be integrated into everyday business operations, through the following measures:

Two examples illustrate the disconnect when environmental management is not integrated into core business functions

Well managed companies make line managers responsible for compliance. People make mistakes and mechanical systems fail, but companies should have systems in place to correct mistakes and breakdowns. Companies must continuously question why they do things the way they do and look for improvements. The companies that integrate continuous improvement principles into their businesses are leaders in their industries.

Parting quote: "If the chance of enforcement is the same as the chance of being struck by lightning, then enforcement better feel like being struck by lightning."

Ray Carveth: Dinosaur brains see enforcement and technical assistance as an either-or proposition. If you have only one tool for getting environmental results, then you're a dinosaur. By using both resources appropriately, the King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program is getting more results with less expenditure of resources. The 1970s model of command and control was necessary when rivers were catching on fire. As the scale and nature of pollution problems has changed, the 1970s model is not as effective anymore.

A significant fraction of businesses use hazardous materials. Take the population of your community, multiply that figure by 0.08, then multiply the result by 0.30 and you'll get an estimate of the number of businesses in your community that use hazardous materials, as defined by fire codes.

Agencies working with businesses must understand their audience. Businesses want technical assistance with specific information that helps them improve their companies. They want more incentives and fewer disincentives. With nine years of experience conducting 25,000 inspections, the county has found that 85 percent of the businesses visited by its hazardous waste inspectors implement some recommended changes within 10 days.

Incentives are helpful. King County can offer businesses up to $500 in incentives for adopting recommended changes in hazardous materials management and waste reduction. For small businesses that don't have environmental management staff, $500 is a big deal. (For more information about King County's incentives program, visit http://www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/lhwmp/voucher.html.)

King County's reliance on technical assistance doesn't mean that enforcement is not used when called for. When the hammer is pulled out, it must be used. A technique that King County has found effective is to bring property managers, insurers or bankers into the picture to apply pressure on recalcitrant shops that are out of compliance. Inspectors talk to property managers, who call in lawyers, who in turn tell the shop to either fix the problem or lose its lease. By bringing in other players who will play hardball for business reasons, the county can get quick results with very little expenditure of resources. Businesses are not opposed to enforcement, they just don't like the way the government usually does it.

Discussion
Issue: Roles of Enforcement and Technical Assistance

McEntee said making technical assistance user-friendly is helpful. It's important for agencies to understand the wide range of pressures that face small business owners on a daily basis. Adopting an environmental management system along the lines of the ISO 14001 standard helps ingrain an environmental ethic, as long as companies focus on results.

Nolan said that business employees must understand the reasons for changes recommended by technical assistance, or else implementation of the changes will not succeed.

Cummings said environmentalists want to see results, and have criticized what they see as poor enforcement by the Washington Department of Ecology. A report issued by the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance in October 1999 showed that nearly one in five National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees in the Puget Sound region were in chronic violation of their permits, and only 6 percent of the chronic violators had been fined by Ecology. (To find out how to obtain a copy of the report, visit the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance at http://www.halcyon.com/pskeeper/cwavnews.html.)

Yet King County has not been the target of environmentalists' complaints, because its technical assistance efforts seem to get results. Carveth said his program is not based on the 1970s model. To design it, he asked both business and environmental interests for advice on the best way to get positive environmental results.

Nolan commented that measures of success are tied to the 1970s model, encouraging agencies to continue relying on it. Carveth pointed out most of a police officer's time is spent on a small minority of the population that causes trouble. The 1970s compliance model is built on the assumption that every business needs to be hammered. Agencies should be held accountable for the results they get, not the number of enforcement activities they carry out.

Issue: Pollution Sources

Nolan said agencies cannot concentrate all their resources on industry when individuals are responsible for a significant share of pollution. Ten percent of the smog in the Puget Sound region comes from gasoline-powered lawn mowers, twice industry's share.

Closing Comments

 

dot Top Five Issues

Facilitator:
  Dave Waddell
    King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program
    206-263-3090,
dave.waddell@metrokc.gov

The Bottom Line
Be watchful about the way businesses are run. If they seem sloppy, that’s a telltale indicator that there may be compliance problems affecting more than one environmental medium. Watch for little things that common sense says other programs would be interested in: Fire departments are concerned about flammable materials. Air agencies are concerned about odors. Wastewater and stormwater agencies are concerned about what goes down drains.

Handouts Available
Standard Guidance Files CD-ROM

Presentation
Dave Waddell: Most businesses just want to know what the right thing to do is. They may have a variety of questions that may or may not relate to an inspector's or technical assistance provider's area of expertise, whether it's air, water, occupational safety, or fire codes.

In order for agency personnel conducting field visits to maintain their credibility, they have to be able to answer their questions. You don't have to know all the details when responding to questions, but you should have enough general knowledge to steer the business owner in the right direction. To be helpful to businesses that don’t compartmentalize their concerns by media, inspectors and TAPs have to know something about issues other agencies are concerned about.

To deal with this concern, the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program has produced a CD-ROM that includes standard, plain-English paragraphs about fire codes, air, stormwater, secondary spill containment, MSDS's, and health and safety that can be dropped into letters sent in response to business inquiries. (To obtain a copy of the CD-ROM, contact Dave Waddell.) As issues evolve, agencies should be thinking about new issues they may have to answer questions about. A good example is salmon habitat.

The workshop was kicked off with a discussion of waste issues, including secondary containment, waste characterization, housekeeping, spill planning, documentation, waste reduction goals, employee training, and self-evaluation. Questions for discussion included sources of information that field staff use and how information is shared.

Regulations Booklet: Kevin Masterson said the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has a booklet that summarizes regulations for small quantity generators. The booklet is shared with other media staff, but not systematically. They are welcome to attend the hazardous waste staff's trainings.

Self-Evaluation Software: Mike Scott from the Navy said a software program has been developed that takes an ISO 14001 type of approach to environmental management. The software is a kind of checklist that can be used for self-evaluation.

Peer Group: The Navy has a P2 network that posts discussions on its intranet. Another idea is to maintain a list of peer group contacts with telephone numbers. Local health departments, meeting minutes, web sites, and regulatory guidance/interpretation documents are other sources of information.

IRAC: King County's Interagency Regulatory Analysis Committee (IRAC) is a successful tool for helping agencies resolve issues and regulatory conflicts that cut across jurisdictional boundaries. Several years ago, a Washington door manufacturer faced conflicting regulatory requirements: the state Department of Labor and Industries ordered the company to put up a railing next to a high storage area to guard against falling objects. The local fire department ordered the company to remove the railing because it impeded firefighter access. To resolve the conflicts, the company owner made appointments for different agency inspectors to meet at his business at the same time, unbeknownst to the inspectors. After they had arrived at the business, they were asked to sort out their conflicts on the spot. (For more information about IRAC, read an article in the September 1999 edition of FlashPoint at http://www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/lhwmp/fpsep99.html#irac.)

Waste Directory: King County has a Yellow Book designed to help businesses manage different types of waste. (Find out more by visiting http://www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/yb.)

Watch for Sloppiness: Mario Miller from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency said that if a shop is sloppy, it indicates there are systemic problems that likely will affect all environmental media.

Air Issues: Representatives of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency said the presence of outside odors is a good indicator that the business may have an air quality compliance issue. Another indicator to trigger hazardous waste staff to think about contacting an air agency is a business that uses materials containing VOCs. Air quality field staff also like to see written maintenance manuals and some kind of environmental management plan.

Keep Your Eyes Open: Waddell said it pays to be observant. He recalled visiting a transmission shop and noticing extension cords lying in puddles, a situation definitely of interest to both fire protection and occupational safety agencies.

Waddell listed his Top Five issues that will trigger referrals to another agency:

 

dot Building Effective Partnerships: The Nuts and Bolts

Speakers:
  Kevin Masterson
    Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
    503-229-5615,
masterson.kevin@deq.state.or.us

  Mailee Jose
    Seattle City Light
    206-684-3868, mialee.jose@ci.seattle.wa.us

  Sego Jackson
    Snohomish County Solid Waste
    425-388-6490, sego.jackson@co.snohomish.wa.us

The Bottom Line

Presentations

The Eco-Logical Business Program

Handouts Available
Presentation overheads

Kevin Masterson: The Eco-Logical Business program is a partnership involving eight agencies, three non-government organizations, and two automotive service trade associations. The program covers all environmental media, along with energy and water efficiency. (For details about program goals, implementation and early results, see presentation above.)

The partnership is modeled on the GreenStar and EnviroStar recognition programs. With so many players that have varying missions and different cultures, the partnership faced a series of challenges to overcome.

Challenge: Assembling a team and developing consensus in a timely fashion
Solutions: Use existing structures if possible. Start with simple projects, then move forward to more complex undertakings. For example, in 1992, Portland’s "P2O" team pulled together a simple brochure on waste paint for contractors. (The "P2O" team is overseeing the Eco-Logical Business Program. The team includes representatives from Portland-area cities, counties, Portland Metro, the Unified Sewerage Agency, and Oregon DEQ.

Challenge: Gaining support and funding
Solutions: Obtain top management support early. Show measurable effectiveness in advancing agency goals. The Eco-Logical Business team hit on a number of strategies for implementing these solutions. Leading-edge automotive service companies, those who already "get it," were quickly certified under program criteria. A press conference was held near an agency director’s house, and media publicity was generated, including an article in The Oregonian, a daily newspaper serving the Portland metropolitan area.

Challenge: Equitably distributing the workload
Solutions: An annual work plan with commitments from each partner was prepared. Business organizations and NGO’s were conduits to market the program to the target audience.

Challenge: Each partner had different expectations for the program outcome, complicating measurement.
Solutions: The group reached consensus on standard measures and agreed to obtain as much data as possible on best management practices at each participating shop.

(To find out more about the Eco-Logical Business Program, visit http://www.ecobiz.org.)

The Neighborhood Power Project

Handouts Available
Miscellaneous program public outreach materials, including contacts list

Mialee Jose: The mission of the Neighborhood Power Project is to save energy, conserve water, and reduce solid waste; facilitate economic growth and development in targeted Seattle neighborhoods; and to contribute toward Seattle’s efforts in environmental stewardship and sustainability.

The Neighborhood Power Project is a partnership that delivers conservation and neighborhood improvement services to residences and businesses in targeted neighborhoods. The city establishes partnerships with community organizations and schools, and projects are driven by neighborhood needs identified by local residents. Volunteer participation is essential for making the projects work. For example, in the Lake City neighborhood, energy-efficient lighting was installed at 38 businesses, home energy audits were conducted for 102 households, 600 energy-efficient porch lights were distributed, and community litter cleanups were held.

In the Georgetown/Maple Hill neighborhood, the project sponsored a crime prevention fair for businesses. Businesses were informed about security lighting, but also received information about recycling, solid waste reduction, and energy and water efficiency. In Southeast Seattle, the newest project, a "BlockWise" project offered residents free energy-efficient porch lights, efficient showerheads and faucet aerators, and information about disaster preparedness and fire safety. A pledge was developed to help residents make choices to care for the environment and their neighborhood.

Lessons Learned

(To find out more about the Neighborhood Power Project, visit http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/light/conserve/neighborhood/power.)

Soils for Salmon

Handouts Available
Soils for Salmon newsletter, poster

Sego Jackson: Soils for Salmon is a project highlighting the salmon restoration benefits of improving disturbed soils in urban environments. The Washington Organic Recycling Council was assisted by public agencies, research institutions, businesses, and non-government organizations in creating the project. A conference was held March 31, 1999, at which more than 200 professionals explored the connections among soil health, watershed hydrology and salmon restoration.

The conference resulted in tangible products. Cedar Grove Composting, one of Washington’s largest commercial compost producers, printed information on 550,000 product bags describing how organic soil amendments can help salmon by restoring watershed health. A newsletter summarizing the conference findings and recommendations was published. Participants pulled together informally to develop information resources for key audiences, including contractors, watershed keepers, and the general public. Those resources include seminars, brochures, best management practices for soils, a poster illustrating the benefits of organic soil amendments, a Soils for Salmon curriculum for watershed keepers, recyclers and master gardeners, and inclusion of soil conservation into a stormwater management manual.

Lessons Learned

Discussion
Question: How do partnerships work around bureaucratic barriers to inter-agency cooperation?
Answer: Jose said she tries to parcel out discrete tasks to each partner. Evaluation of Neighborhood Power Project activities was shared by Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle City Light. Jackson said Soils for Salmon tasks were divided up informally.

A reality is that departments within agencies don’t communicate with each other or work together. Jackson works in Snohomish County’s solid waste department, and Soils for Salmon brought him into contact with planning and surface water departments in the county he had never worked with before.

Funneling administration through a non-profit organizations helps avoid the administrative issues of inter-agency agreements. For example, six western Washington counties participate in the Reusable Building Materials Exchange, but the program itself is housed at Climate Solutions, a Northwest NGO with offices in Olympia. Sally Toteff from Thurston County said agencies need to get away from the mentality that projects always must be led by government.

 

dot Priority Sector Targeting

Speakers:
  Dave Tetta
    EPA Region 10, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
    206-553-1327,
tetta.david@epa.gov

  Steve Burke
    Seattle-King County Public Health
    206-296-3965, steve.burke@metrokc.gov

  Sally Toteff
    Thurston County Environmental Health
    360-754-4663, toteffs@co.thurston.wa.us

  Mike Gallagher
    Washington Department of Ecology
    360-407-6868, mgal461@ecy.wa.gov

The Bottom Line

Presentations

EPA

Dave Tetta: EPA has reorganized its enforcement program to place more emphasis on sectors. Using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, EPA sets priorities by ranking sectors for their rate of compliance and pollutant releases. A high-priority sector is one with a high likelihood of violations that raise serious enforcement concerns, a high risk of pollution releases, and low frequency of inspections.

Examples of sectors that rank highly in potential for violations and pollution releases include electroplating, petroleum refineries, iron and steel production, and manufacturing of plastics and synthetic resins. In Region 10, mining and agriculture are sectors targeted for compliance efforts. Data sources used for the sector targeting analysis include Dun & Bradstreet, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and spill reports.

Several years ago, EPA developed the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system for pulling together compliance information from single-media databases and developing reports describing all the permitting, inspection and enforcement activity covering all media.

The Sector Facility Indexing Project (SFIP) is a pilot project to improve and simplify public access to all the environmental information for five profiled industrial sectors: automobile manufacturing, pulp and paper, petroleum refining, iron and steel production, and primary production of aluminum, copper, lead and zinc. Indexed sectors of special interest to the Northwest include petroleum refining, pulp and paper, iron and steel production, and primary production of aluminum.

SFIP provides environmental data about each facility in these sectors, including inspections, compliance history, enforcement actions, chemical releases, and spills. Background information is available also, including location and production capacity, and information about the surrounding population’s demographics. (To find out more about SFIP and query its database, visit http://www.epa.gov/oeca/sfi.)

Sector targeting helps focus resources and encourages out-of-box thinking. Occasionally, data showing low rates of compliance is used for compliance assistance and auditing projects.

As data is used more for everyday decision-making, the importance of updated data rises. Public access keeps the agency on its toes so that data quality is maintained.

Seattle-King County Public Health

Steve Burke: King County uses a set of questions to determine sector priorities. They include:

Sector targeting can be time-consuming. Different county departments may have differing ideas on priorities, for example. Staff try to work out disagreements at lower levels.

Discussion
Question: What are King County’s future sector priorities?
Answer: The county is looking at campaigns for painters, lithographic and screen printers, marinas, autobody shops, and fleet vehicle operations. The county is presently working on a project to characterize the metalworking fluids used in metal machine shops, and develop a set of pollution prevention and best management practices recommendations.

A point raised in discussion is that SIC codes are not very descriptive for certain sectors. Metal fabrication, for example, is very diverse in the processes and materials used.

Thurston County

Sally Toteff: Thurston County is a community where groundwater protection is a high priority. The county has undertaken a series of campaigns aimed at sectors with the potential to pollute groundwater aquifers that supply drinking water. In the early and mid-1990s, the county worked with contractors, auto repair, landscapers, and janitorial services. Also in that period, lithographic and screen printers, photo processors, medical offices, schools, gravel mines, and painting contractors were targeted for education, technical assistance, and compliance assistance. In the late 1990s, auto repair, marinas, nurseries, and Christmas tree farms were priorities. In 2000, the county plans to work with landscape contractors.

Selection of sectors is based on hunches, baseline survey data, political concerns, and priorities of cities providing funding to focus on wellhead protection areas. The county’s environmental health staff is small enough that communications with other media programs can easily take place.

Washington Department of Ecology PBT’s Program

Handout Available
Presentation overheads

Mike Gallagher: The Washington Department of Ecology is developing a strategy to eliminate release of persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs) into the state’s environment. A combination of pollution prevention, voluntary incentives, multi-media projects, and remediation will be necessary to accomplish the goal over the next 20 years.

PBT’s are toxic, long-lasting substances that accumulate at the upper levels of food chains and can damage human and ecosystem health. PBT’s can move easily among air, water and land over long distances.

(To find out more about the state’s PBT strategy, visit http://www.wa.gov/ecology/eils/bcc/bccfaq.html.)

Discussion
Question: What followup activities do agencies conduct after sector campaigns are concluded?

Jill Trohimovich from the Seattle-King County Public Health Department said some shops are revisited after sector campaigns. For example, the county conducted an auto repair sector campaign several years ago and plans to revisit some of the shops. John Taylor from Oregon DEQ said 10 percent to 15 percent of businesses visited in geographic area campaigns are revisited to measure the extent of behavior changes.

Kevin Masterson from Oregon DEQ said the timing of followup visits is important. Going back several years later will give some indication of the persistence of behavior change. A problem area is employee turnover within agencies, which results in loss of institutional memory.

Toteff said Thurston County provides educational materials with new building permits or business license changes, and stocks fact sheets at county permit centers.

 

Thursday, December 9 1999

 

dot Welcome and Introductions

The third day of the roundtable was opened by Carolyn Gangmark from EPA Region 10. Gangmark said there is a confluence of issues involving energy efficiency, renewable energy resources, pollution prevention, and global climate change. Not as many people are concerned about climate issues as there needs to be.

 

Plenary Speaker:
  Blair Henry
    Northwest Council on Climate Change
    206-547-3871,
blairhenry@email.msn.com

The Bottom Line
The buildup of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause large-scale changes in weather patterns, with profound consequences for public health, water supply, forest health, fisheries, air quality, and host of other resources. The window of time for halting the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations through energy efficiency and conversion to non-fossil energy sources is only about 40 years.

Handouts Available
Contact information and resource sheet

Presentation
Blair Henry: In the global scientific community, there is little doubt that human activities are altering the world’s climate, but uncertainties about specific impacts on a local level remain. The U.S. is spending $2 billion annually on climate research, and understanding of the phenomenon is moving ahead at a rapid pace.

The physics of climate change are straightforward. Carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are building up in the atmosphere. Like the glass in a greenhouses, these gases prevent the sun’s heat from escaping back into space. The increase in heat energy in the atmosphere and oceans is altering the chemical and physical processes that drive the world’s climate, leading to increasing incidence of "weird weather." Weather systems skewed by increased heat energy in the atmosphere will result in a variety of impacts around the world: different regions may experience more frequent severe storms, prolonged droughts and heat waves, wetter weather, or colder weather caused by redistribution of heat to other regions.

A major source of greenhouse gases is combustion of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas. Of the three, coal emits the most carbon dioxide, oil is second and natural gas third. Since 1900, fossil fuel combustion has increased 800 percent.

Climate change is a very controversial political issue. However, a number of CEO’s of major corporations, including Ford Motor Co. and BP Amoco, have concluded that the threat of climate change is real. Two others are Boeing and Weyerhaeuser.

The reason for the political controversy surrounding climate change is the economic and consequent political heft of companies that produce fossil fuels or are dependent on fossil fuel-generated electricity for their manufacturing processes. These companies are found in most parts of the U.S., with the exception of the Northwest and New England.

The casualty insurance sector in general is concerned about a changing climate because of the potential danger that more frequent severe storms will result in huge property losses. 1998 losses from extreme weather totaled more than $90 billion, greater than all of the 1980s put together. The Reinsurance Association of America, a trade association of companies that cover insurance companies against catastrophic losses, believes that a changing climate could bankrupt the industry. (To find out about one reinsurance company’s perspectives on climate change, visit Swiss Re at http://www.swissre.com/e/issues/climate.html.)

Since the combustion of fossil fuels began on a wide scale in 1800, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen 30 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 360 ppm, where it stands today. Average global temperatures have risen 1.5 degrees F in the past 120 years. Average global temperatures are higher than they have been for the past 1,000 years. The 1990s were the hottest decade in the past 600 years. 1998 was the hottest year in the past 1,000 years.

In the long reach of geologic time, atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate naturally. Research shows that CO2 and global temperatures have gone up and down in lockstep for the past 150,000 years. But the recent increase has taken place on a much faster time scale than increases in pre-industrial times. CO2 levels have increased 30 percent since 1800. That’s as much change in 200 years as normally took place during the past 150,000 years. At present rates of emission, CO2 levels will increase to 560 ppm by 2050, twice the pre-industrial level.

What does that mean for the climate, particularly in the Northwest? University of Washington research findings project average temperature increases of 5.3 degrees F by 2050, with a 70 percent certainty. Adding the 1.5 degree increase recorded since the 19th century will bring the average temperature increase to 6.8 degrees over a two-century period. On a planetary scale, a 6.8-degree increase is monumental. Consider this: If average temperatures were to fall by 6.8 degrees, Seattle would be buried under 3,000 feet of ice.

The effects of average temperature increases on weather patterns and, consequently, on ecological processes are sweeping. Mountain snowpack is the Northwest’s natural water storage system. With more heat energy in the atmosphere, the hydrological cycle will be accelerated, resulting in warmer, wetter winters. Snowpack will be thinner and will melt off sooner, resulting in more winter flooding and reduced river flows in the summer. In turn, hydroelectric generation will be reduced and less water will be available for summer irrigation. With continued warming, Canadian scientists estimate that snowpack in the Cascades will be gone forever in the 2070 to 2080 time period. Hotter summer temperatures will lead to increased incidence of unhealthy "hot smog," which occurs as a result of chemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds and extended daytime heat.

The biological impacts of these changes will be enormous. Hotter summer temperatures will stress out the Northwest’s coniferous forests, and could result in their disappearance east of the Cascades. Stressed trees are more susceptible to insect and disease attack. Extensive tree dieoffs would fuel forest fires. With reduced river flows and warmer water temperatures, salmon will be under even more stress than they are today. Invasive weeds and insects may have a field day.

Melting of ice and thermal expansion of the oceans will raise sea levels. Don’t buy shoreline property in low-lying places such as downtown Olympia, Aberdeen or Hoquiam. Rising sea levels will lead to saltwater intrusion farther inland.

Those are the effects of a "2X" world with CO2 levels doubled from pre-industrial levels. With strong action, CO2 levels could be held at that level. Without strong action, CO2 levels could very well hit "3X" or "4X" levels. The consequences of a 4X world are stunning. For example, the current average day/night temperature in Washington, D.C. during the summer is 85 degrees. In a 2X world, that average rises to 95 degrees. In a 4X world, the average shoots up to 110 degrees. Today, there is no human community in the world that lives in such extreme conditions.

Rapid action is necessary to arrest the buildup of CO2 at even the 2X level. There is a 40-year window, during which a 90 percent reduction in fossil fuel consumption is necessary, to stop the buildup at 2X. If we don’t act, the atmosphere will not return to 2X levels for an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 years.

There is little chance of meaningful action at the federal level because of political obstacles. Federal agencies have to be careful about even discussing the issue.

However, actions can be taken at the regional, state and local levels. Municipal governments could join the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, which offers grants and technical assistance and training to support programs that cut greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors. (Find out more by visiting http://www.iclei.org/us/US_ccp.html.)

Vehicle purchasers can be smart about their buying decisions. Sixty percent of the CO2 emitted in Washington comes from the transportation sector, whose CO2 emissions are growing three times faster than the state’s population. Furthermore, inefficient sport-utility vehicles (SUV’s) account for more than half of all new vehicle purchases. One tank of gasoline in a SUV can result in the emission of 466 pounds of CO2. A SUV can emit three times its own weight in carbon dioxide every year.

Consider the differences in vehicle fuel efficiency. A SUV gets only 17 miles per gallon. In contrast, a gasoline-electric hybrid can get more than 70 miles per gallon. (You can compare the fuel efficiency of passenger cars by visiting http://www.fueleconomy.gov.)

(To find out more about the work of the Northwest Council on Climate Change, visit http://www.nwclimate.org.)

 

dot P2, Energy and Sustainability: The Big Picture

Speakers:
  Rhys Roth
    Climate Solutions
    360-352-1763,
rhys@climatesolutions.org

  Mike Nelson
    WSU Cooperative Extension Energy Program
    360-956-2148, nelsonmk@energy.wsu.edu

  Maria Tikoff-Vargas
    EPA Energy Star Building/Green Lights Program
    202-564-9178, vargas.maria@epa.gov

  Michael Closson
    Earth Day 2000 Network
    206-876-2000 x213, mclosson@earthday.net

The Bottom Line

Presentations

Climate Solutions

Handouts Available
"Global Warming Is Here: The Scientific Evidence, Climate Solutions special report
"In Hot Water – A Snapshot of the Northwest’s Changing Climate" Climate Solutions special report
"How the Northwest Can Lead a Clean Energy Revolution" Climate Solutions special report
"NW clean energy industry is ready for blastoff" Daily Journal of Commerce article, July 17, 1998

Rhys Roth:Energy is the single largest enterprise in human industry. Revolutionary technologies for generating electricity are on the horizon. The shift to clean, highly efficient and decentralized energy resources could be as dramatic as the information revolution in which mainframe computers gave way to PC’s.

Wind and solar are the fastest growing energy resources in the world. Germany, Denmark, and Spain are world leaders in wind energy use and production of wind energy equipment. Sanyo, Mitsubishi and Sharp are examples of Japanese companies investing in solar energy. BP Amoco and Shell are two oil companies that see a promising future for solar energy and are backing up their expectations with big investments.

In vehicle technology, the world’s largest automakers are racing to bring gasoline-electric hybrids and fuel cell cars to market. The Honda Insight, a gasoline-electric hybrid, is available in U.S. showrooms now. Later in 2000, Toyota will begin marketing the Prius, a gasoline-electric hybrid, in the U.S. DaimlerChrysler is planning to market a fuel cell vehicle by 2004.

Other promising markets for fuel cells are transit buses and decentralized power generation.

The Northwest has been a leader in energy efficiency for the past 20 years, and the industry is mature. Nearly 900 companies accounting for 20,000 jobs are in the business of selling energy efficiency products and services in Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

What can businesses do to help prevent disruptive climate change? The best way is to improve energy efficiency through measures such as lighting upgrades and purchase of efficient vehicles. Energy service companies can help businesses retrofit their lighting and other energy using equipment. In addition to saving money, energy efficiency improves business productivity.

Energy efficiency upgrades implemented with the help of energy service companies can be accomplished at no up-front cost to the customers, because the energy service companies make their money by taking a share of the energy savings. (A directory of energy service companies and other firms in the energy efficiency business is available by visiting the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council, at http://www.neec.net.)

P2 technical assistance providers are in a strategic position to make a contribution by making appropriate referrals to energy and manufacturing assistance providers with energy expertise.

(To find out more about the work of Climate Solutions, visit http://www.climatesolutions.org.)

Energy Star

Maria Tikoff-Vargas: Energy Star is a voluntary partnership program that helps businesses reduce their costs and improve competitive advantage through energy efficiency. Today’s efficiency technologies could reduce energy use by 30 percent and save $200 billion nationwide by 2010. Pollution prevention benefits include reductions in greenhouse gases, and pollutants that cause smog and acid rain.

There is an enormous opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by incorporating efficiency measures into building design. Capital stock that is not yet built will account for 60 percent of the CO2 that the U.S. is expected to be emitting in 2010.

Energy technologies used in buildings often date back to the 1940s. Who today would purchase a car built with 1940s-era technologies?

Energy Star is a market-based partnership program that removes barriers to making good purchasing decisions. About 13 percent of the commercial, industrial and institutional building square footage in the nation is participating in the Energy Star Buildings program. In 1998, efficiency upgrades in participating buildings reduced energy costs by more than $800 million and prevented emission of 2.4 million metric tons of greenhouse gases (expressed as carbon equivalent). Potential savings total $130 billion.

Energy Star has helped consumers save $7 billion through purchases of efficient homes, appliances and equipment. Potential savings total $100 billion. In 1998, use of Energy Star products saved 4 million metric tons of greenhouse gases (carbon equivalent).

In the Northwest, Energy Star savings total $204 million in Washington, $106 million in Oregon and $30 million in Idaho.

Barriers to implementing energy efficiency include the following:

Lack of awareness is another barrier. For individuals, energy is close to being a non-existent issue when they make appliance purchasing decisions.

Energy Star Buildings has developed a powerful on-line benchmarking tool that will help promote participation in the program. The tool is used for giving office buildings 5,000 square feet or larger an efficiency score ranging from 0 to 100. Buildings that score 75 or higher are eligible for recognition as Energy Stars. The scores are based on actual billing data, normalized for weather and verified by an independent party. The scores permit apples to apples comparisons of buildings.

The advantages: Building owners can see at a glance how much more efficient an equipment upgrade will make their buildings, and can check on how their buildings compare with their competition’s properties. Tenants can compare efficiency and costs. (Find out more about the benchmarking tool by visiting http://www.epa.gov/buildings/label/html/benchmarking.html.)

For consumers, Energy Star labels help them shop for the most efficient appliances. Manufacturers work voluntarily with Energy Star to label products that meet efficiency standards.

One example is Energy Star labels for home electronics. Television sets and video cassette recorders use $1 billion worth of electricity per year when they are turned off, because of standby features that consume power. In 1998, manufacturers began offering Energy Star TV’s and VCR’s that reduce standby power consumption.

Energy Star products are available in 29 product categories in 3,500 stores. Categories include home appliances, lighting, windows and office equipment.

Energy Star programs are available for non-CO2 greenhouse gases, including methane and perfluorocarbons. In 1998, 10.5 million metric tons (carbon equivalent) of non-CO2 greenhouse gases were saved through Energy Star partnerships.

Discussion
Question: How do energy efficiency measures affect indoor air quality?
Answer: Buildings that score 75 or higher with the Energy Star benchmarking tool do not receive the Energy Star recognition label unless they meet indoor air quality standards. An Energy Star building or product does not equate to a reduction in quality of life or functionality.

Question: Will Energy Star labels be given to passenger cars?
Answer: Energy Star means no sacrifice in quality of life or comfort. The transportation link hasn’t been figured out yet.

(To find out more about Energy Star, visit http://www.energystar.gov. For more information about the work of EPA’s Climate Protection Division, visit http://www.epa.gov/cpd.html.)

Solar Energy

Handouts Available
Miscellaneous commercial solar marketing materials

Mike Nelson: Nelson’s home solar array produced 3.4 kilowatts of electricity on Dec. 8, 1999 an overcast late autumn day in Seattle. At a cost of 22 cents per kilowatt-hour, the electricity was not cost-effective in conventional terms. But the 3.4 kilowatts were enough to run the home for one day, at a cost of 70 cents a day, which works out to only $21 per month. This illustrates that the most important factor in the energy cost equation is the overall cost, not the price per unit of energy. Solar energy is a clean, inexpensive form of energy when used efficiently.

Solar technology is available and practical today. The only reason it is not in widespread use is that conventional economics discounts the value of the future. Coal is still the cheapest form of energy, but only because the future is discounted. The effects of fossil fuel use are evident worldwide: loss of short-grass prairies in the Plains, a persistent pollution haze the size of the U.S. over the Indian Ocean, the west Antarctic ice sheet in danger of collapse, which would raise sea levels 20 feet worldwide and inundate coastal areas where 70 percent of the world’s population lives.

Energy efficiency alone will not make for a sustainable society. An essential element is the use of renewable energy resources. Ordinary sand is the raw material for clean solar energy. Sand contains silicon, the sixth most abundant element in the universe. A plant in Moses Lake, Wash., extracts silicon from sand. A Siemens facility in Vancouver, Wash., grows crystals from the silicon. The crystals can be used to generate electricity from photovoltaic cells without pollution and without making a sound. The price will continue falling. In 1955, the price of solar photovoltaic electricity was $1,755 per watt. In 1999, the price was $5 per watt. At $2 per watt, solar energy is a better deal than any other energy resource.

Purchased in increments of less than 50 kilowatts, solar is cost-competitive today. No one needs 50 kilowatts to run a household.

Switzerland is a nation that understands the benefits of solar energy. Photovoltaic arrays have been installed beside highways, on garages, and on ski slopes. Solar cells could be integrated into building facades and atop their roofs. Consider the price of building facade materials. Aluminum panels cost $110 per square meter. Stone costs $540 per square meter. A photovoltaic panel made of amorphous silicon costs $180 a square meter. Critics say the payback on a photovoltaic panel would be too long. What is the payback on an aluminum panel that produces no energy?

Adding solar panels to a $200,000 home would raise the home’s cost to $214,000. The difference in the monthly payment would be only $60 per month.

Discussion
Question: What is the potential for solar in Alaska?
Answer: Alaska could potentially be a large market for solar energy. During the extended days of summer, solar equipment could track the sun all day long.

Challenge to the audience: It’s hard to think of an overcast December day in Seattle as being favorable for solar energy production. How much light is available outside under those conditions? A quick test showed the light level outside at 600 foot-candles, more than 10 times the illumination that might be found in a typical office.

(Find out more about solar energy and other renewable resources by visiting the WSU Cooperative Extension Energy Program at http://www.energy.wsu.edu/renewables.)

Earth Day 2000

Handout Available
Brochure

Michael Closson: Earth Day 2000 will be a worldwide event with the theme "Clean Energy Now." One goal is to have 500 cities in the U.S. be Earth Day cities. The Earth Day 2000 Network is working with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which has a Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. So far, 68 U.S. municipalities have joined the campaign, including Seattle, Olympia and Burien in Washington, and Portland in Oregon.

The first city to join the campaign was Berkeley, Calif., which retrofitted traffic signals from incandescent lamps to energy-stingy light emitting diodes that last 10 times longer. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District is planting trees to reduce summer air conditioning loads and has installed 500 photovoltaic systems on home rooftops.

Earth Day Network is developing a states campaign and is hoping to get all 50 to sign up. States are being encouraged to develop green buildings and to buy alternative fuel vehicles for their fleets.

The point of the whole exercise is to push a clean energy revolution from the bottom up, with citizens and local governments pushing the higher levels of government.

(To find out more about the Earth Day 2000 campaign, visit http://www.earthday.net. Find out about the Earth Day 2000’s cities campaign by visiting http://www.earthday.net/action/communities.stm.)

Discussion
Question: Has there been outreach to environmental justice organizations?
Answer: Environmental justice organizations concerned about immediate environmental health issues such as toxics have been contacted by the Earth Day 2000 Network. The focus on energy came about after extended discussion, and the decision was made to focus on long-range solutions.

Climate Change Resources

Research

Federal Agencies

Environmental Organizations

Climate Change Skeptics

 

dot Getting Down to Brass Tacks: Collaboration Opportunities for P2 Programs

Facilitator:
  Peter Hurley
    Seattle City Light
    206-684-3782,
peter.hurley@ci.seattle.wa.us

Speakers:
  Rob Penney
    Industrial Technical Assistance Providers(ITAP)
    360-956-2053, penneyr@energy.wsu.edu

  Blair Collins
    Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NWEEA)
    503-827-8416 x233, bcollins@nwalliance.org

  Jack Brautigam
    ClimateWise
    206-684-3954, jack.brautigam@ci.seattle.wa.us

  Nancy Bond
    Portland Public Schools (speaking for Resource Efficiency Program)
    503-916-2000 x4279, nbond@pps.k12.or.us

  Lucia Athens
    Seattle Public Utilities Resource Conservation
    206-684-4643, lucia.athens@ci.seattle.wa.us

  Judith Leckrone
    EPA Region 10
    206-553-6911, leckrone.judith@epa.gov

The Bottom Line

Welcome and Introductions
Hurley said the purpose of the afternoon session is to translate the big picture information on climate change into practical change on the ground. Energy efficiency and pollution prevention are two sides of the same coin. Through collaboration, energy efficiency and P2 technical assistance providers can deliver more value to businesses. Assistance providers don’t have to be experts on energy or P2, respectively, to make appropriate referrals to assistance programs that will benefit their clients.

Presentations

ITAP

Handout Available
Presentation overheads

Rob Penney: To provide comprehensive services, assistance providers should keep the following principles in mind for finding good information and building partnerships.

Four energy programs are worth considering as information resources and/or partners by P2 assistance providers. They include:

Other useful web sites:

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NWEEA)

Handouts Available
NWEEA information packet

Blair Collins: The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is a utility-funded, non-profit organization working to clear away market barriers to the use of energy-efficient products and practices.

The alliance has funded 32 residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural projects to provide education, catalyze technology transfer, demonstrate technologies, and develop training programs. Projects of interest to commercial and industrial sectors include the following:

(To find out more about the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance’s work, visit http://www.nwalliance.org.)

ClimateWise

Handouts Available
Program flyers, "Environmental Efficiency," Puget Sound Business Journal article, Sept. 10-16, 1999

Jack Brautigam: ClimateWise is a voluntary partnership program that helps businesses cut costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent pollution. More than 500 companies have become partners nationwide. The program is administered by state and local governments. In the Northwest, Seattle City Light, the city of Portland, and the Oregon Office of Energy are ClimateWise allies that administer the program.

ClimateWise takes a comprehensive approach. Participating businesses are assisted with improving energy and water efficiency, waste reduction, and commuter trip reduction. Companies are asked to sign a participation agreement, identify project opportunities, then implement, track and report on progress.

Companies can commit to projects that best suit their needs. Some may focus on upgrading their lighting. Others may work on improving efficiency of motors and water use. Starbucks, for example, committed to 56 projects.

The scope of projects doesn’t have to be restricted to installing better technology. Product design and management policies can be part of the package. Once the company has decided on projects, the local ClimateWise office pulls together resources to help the company implement them.

Eight Puget Sound area ClimateWise partners were recruited in 1999:

Program goals for 2000 are to form a peer group network of participants, broaden regional participation, and emphasize transportation projects.

(To find out more about ClimateWise, visit Seattle City Light at http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/light/conserve/business/cv5_cw.htm or the ClimateWise national site at http://www.epa.gov/climatewise.)

Discussion
Question: With so many programs available, is ClimateWise easier or harder to sell?
Answer: As the climate issue becomes better known, companies that participate will be able to see that voluntary greenhouse gas reductions will put them in a favorable position if emissions reductions are ever required. (To find out about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Voluntary Reporting program, visit http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/frntvrgg.html.)

Resource Efficiency Program

Nancy Bond: Resource Efficiency was a pilot project to build community-based programs that help participating small businesses improve energy and water efficiency, and reduce waste. The pilot ran from 1996 to 1998.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality worked with three partner communities: Corvallis, Milwaukie and Cannon Beach. In each community, Oregon DEQ contracted with a primary sponsor to employ a resource efficiency coordinator who marketed the program, conducted on-site assessments of participants, provided resource efficiency recommendations, and tracked implementation. In each community, the local chamber of commerce was either a primary sponsor or an additional sponsor. Business participants were recruited through marketing activities, such as public presentations and articles. No cold calls were made.

Once businesses agreed to participate, resource efficiency coordinators did walk-throughs, and obtained utility billing information (with business permission) to analyze energy and water usage, and solid waste generation. Then, businesses were given reports with recommendations for improving efficiency and reducing waste through technology and behavior change. Businesses were free to implement whatever they wanted and the resource coordinators worked with them to track the results of efficiency projects.

Out of 77 participants, 71 implemented at least some recommendations. In total, participants reduced solid waste by 57,000 pounds, conserved 360,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, decreased natural gas usage by 1.9 million cubic feet, and reduced water consumption by 5.5 million gallons. Cost savings totaled $82,000 per year, an average of $42 per employee.

Lessons Learned

(To find out more about the Resource Efficiency Program, read the final report at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/solwaste/repp/resefpp.html. Visit the Oregon Commercial Waste Reduction Clearinghouse at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cwrc.html.)

Sustainable Building 1

Handouts Available
List of sustainable design and construction assistance and incentives; Sustainable building facts and figure sheet; Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system report

Lucia Athens: There are numerous connections between sustainable building and pollution prevention. Sustainable building refers to the integration of materials and practices to restore environmental quality, promote economic vitality, and incorporate social benefits. Well-known practices such as energy efficiency, construction site recycling and water efficiency are integrated into a single discipline that considers the environmental and social effects of the building as a whole.

Buildings account for an enormous share of economic activity and resource consumption. More than 50 percent of the nation’s wealth is tied up in buildings. They account for 40 percent of total energy use, 25 percent of timber harvest, 50 percent of ozone-depleting substance use, 30 percent of raw materials consumption, 35 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and 40 percent of solid waste going to landfills.

In a Northwest context, sustainable building is an important element of salmon recovery. On a local level, salmon habitat is affected by stormwater runoff, water use, and water pollution caused by development. On a broader scale, climate change caused by fossil fuel energy consumption is altering hydrological cycles and water temperature patterns, which also affect the health of the region’s salmon runs.

Salmon-friendly building practices include the following:

When planning a building project, it’s important to consider life cycle capital and operating costs, including the labor costs of people who will be living or working in the building. Only 2 percent of a building’s total life-cycle costs are the up-front costs. Building maintenance costs account for 6 percent. The remaining 92 percent are the labor costs of people using the building.

The comfort and health of building occupants can be improved by illuminating the building with daylight and by preventing poor indoor air quality from causing "sick building syndrome." A good indoor environment can improve building productivity by up to 16 percent. A recent study, using multiple linear regression analysis, documented the positive impact of daylighting on school test scores in three school districts, one of which was Seattle, and in increasing sales in a retail chain (For details about the study’s results, visit the Heschong Mahone Group, an architectural consulting firm, at http://www.h-m-g.com (click on project icon). The study was conducted by Heschong Mahone on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric.)

Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle City Light are implementing a sustainable building strategic plan. The intent of the plan is to transform the building market and make sustainable practices the norm. (Read the plan at http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/RESCONS/susbuild/plan.htm.)

The city itself will be undertaking a number of large-scale building projects, including a new city hall, justice center, main library, library branches and an aquarium. By incorporating sustainable features into these projects, the city will demonstrate commitment to stewardship, save taxpayer dollars, improve workplace health, conserve resources, and set a good example.

The city will use the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system to assess the environmental performance of its building projects. LEED takes into account indoor air quality, energy efficiency, water efficiency, construction site management, and materials conservation. (To find out more about the LEED rating system, visit the U.S. Green Building Council at http://www.usgbc.org.)

Other green building activities are being undertaken by the private sector. For example, the master builders association of King and Snohomish counties is developing a green building guide. Build a Better Kitsap (http://www.kitsaphba.com) and Build a Better Clark are networks of architects, contractors and real estate agents promoting sustainable building practices and construction of homes that have reduced energy costs, improved comfort, and enhanced indoor air quality.

In the Seattle Public Schools, sustainable practices will be used in the remodeling of Greenwood Elementary School.

Sustainable Building 2

Handout Available
Project report

Judith Leckrone: In 1999, EPA Region 10 renovated the 2,085-square-foot executive office suite housing the regional administrator, the deputy administrator, other senior program managers, and support staff. Before renovation, the suite was a somewhat dysfunctional place to work, with oversized executive offices that were frequently unused because of executive travel schedules, outdated dark paneling, no daylight, and inefficient storage.

The goals of the renovation were to create an attractive office suite that meets executive standards and is resource-efficient, flexible, efficient and configured to encourage staff interaction. The resource goals included minimizing demolition waste, using sustainable materials, improving energy efficiency and protecting indoor air quality. Another goal was to carry out a demonstration project that would have educational value for the region.

The administrator’s and deputy administrator’s offices were shrunk from 400 to 225 square feet, but the smaller offices are more functional. In anticipation that future administrators may want different office configurations, modular, easily moved walls were installed to separate their offices from the rest of the suite. For support staff, space is configured more equitably, better storage is available, and daylighting creates a more pleasing indoor environment.

Ninety-five percent of construction waste was diverted from the landfill through reuse or recycling. Drywall, metal framing, wiring, and ceiling tiles were recycled. Door frames, doors and glass were reused.

The renovated suite incorporates daylight. Occupancy sensors and compact fluorescent lamps improved lighting efficiency. For indoor air quality, low or no-VOC paints, drywall mud and adhesives were used. Plastic sheeting and ventilation were used to prevent workers elsewhere on the floor from being disturbed by odors during the renovation.

Sustainably produced materials or recycled materials were used for furniture and countertops. Textiles used for furniture were produced from free-range sheep and fabricated without toxic chemicals. Furniture wood came from a working forest certified for its use of sustainable forestry practices. Countertops were made from recycled soda bottles.

EPA was assisted with the project by the Business and Industry Recycling Venture (BIRV), a project of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce; the Lighting Design Lab; Paladino Consulting, a sustainable building consulting firm; and the Certified Forest Products Council, a non-profit organization that promotes the use of wood products from independently certified forests.

Discussion
Question: How did the project’s cost compare with conventional construction?
Answer: The cost was higher, by about $9 per square foot. EPA believed that the educational value of the project justified the higher cost. The information gained in the executive suite remodeling project is being used in a subsequent remodeling elsewhere in the building that EPA Region 10 uses.

Question: Did the renovation result in improved office productivity?
Answer: At first, the support staff resisted the changes, then came around. The administrator and deputy administrator like their new, smaller offices, because they’re simpler and more elegant.

Hurley said Seattle City Light obtained a grant to examine the productivity impacts of sustainable building. The information may be available by the fall of 2000.

Green Building Resources

See compendium of resources in the Summer 1999 edition of Pollution Prevention Northwest, http://www.pprc.org/pprc/pubs/newslets/news0799.html#resources

 

dot LIST OF ATTENDEES

NameOrganization TelephoneE-mail
Lucia AthensSeattle Public Utilities 206-684-4643lucia.athens@ci.seattle.wa.us
Mary Bell AustinEPA Region 10 206-553-1059austin.marybell@epa.gov
Cynthia BaloghKing County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program 206-263-3075cynthia.balogh@metrokc.gov
Phil BandyID Division of Environmental Quality 208-373-0439pbandy@deq.state.id.us
Bruce BarbourWA Dept. of Ecology 360-738-6249brba461@ecy.wa.gov
Tim BernthalBernthal Environmental 206-783-3088tbernthal@gowebway.com
Michele BluemerWA Dept. of Ecology 425-649-7166mble461@ecy.wa.gov
Nancy BondPortland Public Schools 503-916-2000nbond@pps.k12.or.us
Jack BrautigamSeattle City Light 206-684-3954jack.brautigam@ci.seattle.wa.us
Cathy BullerPPRC 206-352-2050cbuller@pprc.org
Steve BurkeSeattle-King County Public Health Dept. 206-296-3965steve.burke@metrokc.gov
Mike Bussell EPA Region 10206-553-4198 bussell.mike@epa.gov
Rosemary BusternaPuget Sound Clean Air Agency 206-689-4021inspection@pscleanair.org
Ray Carveth King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program 206-263-3053ray.carveth@metrokc.gov
Heather Cataldo Idaho GemStars 208-364-4038gemstars@uidaho.edu
Alice ChapmanKing County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program 206-263-3058alice.chapman@metrokc.gov
Michael ClossonEarth Day Network, Earth Day 2000 206-876-2000mclosson@earthday.net
Blair Collins Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance503-827-8416 bcollins@nwalliance.org
Richard ComfortU.S. Navy, Bangor   
B.J. Cummings Puget Soundkeeper Alliance 206-286-1309pskeeper@halcyon.com
Renee DagsethEPA Region 10 206-553-1889 
Dave DaviesWA Dept. of Ecology 360-407-6339dada461@ecy.wa.gov
Dan Dell'AgneseCity of Seattle Transportation 206-386-1203daniel.dellagnese@ci.seattle.wa.us
Kinley Deller King County Solid Waste Division 206-296-4434kinley.deller@metrokc.gov
Ed DeNoyellesUS Navy Sub Base Bangor 360-315-2419edward.denoyelles@imfb.navy.mil
Kate DickersonPPRC 206-352-2050cdickerson@pprc.org
Jim DiPesoPPRC 206-352-2050jdipeso@pprc.org
Celeste DuncanSeattle Public Utilities 206-684-7653celeste.duncan@ci.seattle.wa.us
Tom Eaton WA Dept. of Ecology 360-407-6086teat461@ecy.wa.gov
Sue EnnesEPA Region 10 206-553-6249ennes.susan@epa.gov
Curtis FramelU.S. Dept of Energy, Seattle 206-553-7841curtis.framel@hq.doe.gov
Michelle GaitherClean Washington Center/PPRC 206-352-2050gaithermj@aol.com
Mike Gallagher WA Dept. of Ecology 360-407-6868mgal461@ecy.wa.gov
Carolyn Gangmark EPA Region 10 206-553-4072gangmark.carolyn@epa.gov
Bill GlasserEPA Region 10 206-553-7215 
Tod GoldEPA Region 10 206-553-2569 
Diana GrantLighting Design Lab 206-325-9711diana@northwestlighting.com
John GroblerEPA Region 10 206-553-1196grobler.john@epa.gov
Lynn HelbrechtWA Dept. of Ecology 360-407-6760lhel461@ecy.wa.gov
Kelly Hendryx Portland Bureau of Environmental Services 503-823-7585kellyh@bes.ci.portland.or.us
Blair HenryNorthwest Council on Climate Change 206-547-3871blairhenry@msn.com
Rick HessPuget Sound Clean Air Agency 206-689-4029rickh@pscleanair.org
Jeff HuntEPA Region 10 206-553-0256hunt.jeff@epa.gov
Peter HurleySeattle City Light 206-684-3782peter.hurley@ci.seattle.wa.us
Sego JacksonSnohomish County Solid Waste 425-388-6490sego.jackson@co.snohomish.wa.us
Penny JonesPuget Sound Naval Shipyard   
Mialee Jose' Seattle City Light 206-684-3868mialee.jose@ci.seattle.wa.us
Judy KennedyWA Dept. of Ecology 360-407-6744jken461@ecy.wa.gov
Jin KimNorthwest Dry Cleaners Association 253-565-9422jykim@slash.net
David KunzOR Dept. of Environmental Quality 503-229-6237kunz.david@deq.state.or.us
Tim LanctotSeattle Public Utilities 206-684-7489 
Judith Leckrone EPA Region 10 206-553-6911leckrone.judith@epa.gov
Barbara LitherEPA Region 10 206-553-1191lither.barbara@epa.gov
Kevin MastersonOR Dept. of Environmental Quality 503-229-5615masterson.kevin@deq.state.or.us
Susan McDonaldKing County Local Hazardous. Waste Management Program 206-263-3059susan.mcdonald@metrokc.gov
Dave McEnteeSimpson Tacoma Kraft Company 253-572-2150dmcente@smpsn.com
Mario MillerPuget Sound Clean Air Agency 206-689-4023mariom@pscleanair.org
Barbara MintonOR Dept. of Environmental Quality 541-278-4622barbara.a.minton@state.or.us
Dave MiskoWA Dept. of Ecology 425-649-7014dmis461@ecy.wa.gov
Ryan MisleySeattle Public Utilities 206-684-7489 
Peggy MorganWashington Department of Ecology 360-407-6739pmor461@ecy.wa.gov
Mike NelsonWSU Cooperative Extension Energy Program 360-956-2148nelsonmk@energy.wsu.edu
Jim Nolan Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 206-689-4053jimn@pscleanair.org
Alice NorthWA Dept. of Ecology 425-649-7142anor461@ecy.wa.gov
Lane NothmanRoss & Associates 206-447-1805lane.nothman@ross-assoc.com
Margaret NoverPortland Bureau of Environmental Services 503-823-7623margaret@bes.ci.portland.or.us
John Palmer EPA Region 10 206-553-6521palmer.john@epa.gov
Mark P. PattersonU.S. Navy Commander Navy Region NW 360-315-5430mpatterson@cnbs.navy.mil
Rob Penney WSU Cooperative Extension Energy Program 360-956-2053penneyr@energy.wsu.edu
Charley RainsID Division of Environmental Quality 208-373-0112crains@deq.state.id.us
Rob ReuterWA Dept. of Ecology 425-649-7086rreu461@ecy.wa.gov
David RobersonSCS Engineers 425-746-4600droberson@scsengineers.com
Anne RobinsonEPA Region 10 206-553-6219 
Jon RogalskyNaval Facility   
Rhys RothClimate Solutions 360-352-1763rhys@climatesolutions.org
Mike SchultzPuget Sound Clean Air Agency 206-689-4060mikes@pscleanair.org
Alexandra ScottKing County Solid Waste Division 206-296-8454alexandra.scott@metrokc.gov
J. Michael Scott Navy Intermediate Maintenance Facility 360-315-2419mike.scott@imfb.navy.mil
Mike ShepherdNavy Intermediate Maintenance Facility 360-315-2419mike.shepherd@imfb.navy.mil
Neal ShulmanPuget Sound Clean Air Agency 206-689-4078neals@pscleanair.org
Heidi SiegelbaumO'Neill & Siegelbaum 206-784-4265wastenot@speakeasy.org
Bill SmythAK Dept. of Environmental Conservation 907-451-2177bsmyth@envircon.state.ak.us
Pat SpringerEPA Region 10 206-553-2858 
Madeline StenPPRC 206-352-2050msten@pprc.org
Crispin StutzmanPPRC 206-352-2050cstutzman@pprc.org
Natalie SullivanPPRC 206-352-2050office@pprc.org
Jim TalbotSeattle Public Utilities 206-684-7489james.talbot@ci.seattle.wa.us
John TaylorOR Dept. of Environmental Quality 503-378-8240taylor.john@deq.state.or.us
Freda TepferSnohomish County Solid Waste 425-388-6473freda.tepfer@co.snohomish.wa.us
Dave TettaEPA Region 10 206-553-1327tetta.david@epa.gov
Brenda ThomasSeattle Public Utilities 206-684-7489brenda.thomas@ci.seattle.wa.us
Maria Tikoff-VargasEPA Headquarters 202-564-9178vargas.maria@epa.gov
Laurel TomchickKing County Local Hazardous. Waste Management Program 206-263-3063laurel.tomchick@metrokc.gov
Sally ToteffThurston County Environmental Health 360-754-4663toteffs@co.thurston.wa.us
Jill TrohimovichSeattle-King County Public Health Dept. 206-296-3974jill.trohimovich@metrokc.gov
Rick VolpelOR Dept. of Environmental Quality 503-229-6753volpel.rick@deq.state.or.us
Dave WaddellKing County Local Hazardous. Waste Management Program 206-263-3069dave.waddell@metrokc.gov
Rusty WaltersSeattle Public Utilities 206-684-7489 
Jim WashingtonU.S. Air Force Regional Env'l Officer   
Lisa WestgardSeattle Public Utilities 206-684-7489lisa.westgard@ci.seattle.wa.us
Chris WileyPPRC 206-352-2050cwiley@pprc.org


Home Industry Sectors/Business Assistance Government P2 for You Northwest P2 Contacts Northwest P2 Calendar About PPRC P2 Research P2 Funding Opportunities PPRC Resources

© 1999, Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center
phone: 206-352-2050, e-mail: office@pprc.org, web: www.pprc.org
how to use this site
feedback