DOCSLIB.ORG

Guides to Pollution Prevention Municipal Pretreatment Programs EPA/625/R-93/006 October 1993

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Office of Research and EPA/625/R-93/O06 Environmental Protection Development October 1993 Agency Washington, DC 20460 Guides to Pollution Prevention Municipal Pretreatment Programs EPA/625/R-93/006 October 1993 Guides to Pollution Prevention: Municipal Pretreatment Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Center for Environmental Research Information Cincinnati, Ohio Printed on Recycled Paper Notice The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA). This document has been reviewed in accordance with the Agency’s peer and administrative review policies and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii Acknowledgments This guide is the product of the efforts of many individuals. Gratitude goes to each person involved in the preparation and review of this guide. Authors Lynn Knight and David Loughran, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Lexington, MA, and Daniel Murray, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Research Information were the principal authors of this guide. Technical Contributors The following individuals provided invaluable technical assistance during the development of this guide: Cathy Allen, U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL Deborah HanIon, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC William Fahey, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA Eric Renda, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA Timothy Tuominen, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Duluth, MN A.R. Rubin, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Peter Scott, Linn-Benton Community College, Science and Industry Division, Albany, OR Foster Gray, Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ithaca, NY Adriana Renescu, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Fountain Valleyj CA Guy Aydlett, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, VA Sam Hadeed, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, Technical Services and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC Philip Lo, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Whittier, CA Matt Chadsey, Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Rick Riebstein, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Technical Assistance Paul Richard, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Technical Assistance Peer Reviewers The following individuals peer reviewed this guide: H. Douglas Williams, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH Garry Howell, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH Johnny Springer, Jr., Office of Research and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH . Ill Editorial Reviewers and Document Production Inc., Lexington, MA, provided editorial review and John Bergin and David Cheda of Eastern Research Group, produced-this Handbook. Technical Direction and Coordination Center for Environmental Research Information, Daniel Murray, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, coordinated the preparation of this guide and provided technical direction throughout its development. iv Page Chapter 1 Introduction . � . 1 Chapter 2 Overview of Pollution Prevention Concepts . 4 2.1 Source Reduction . 4 2.1.1 Good Operating Practices . 4 2.1.2 Technology Changes . 6 2.1.3 Input Material Substitutions . 6 2.1.4 Product Changes . 7 2.2 Recycling . 7 Chapter 3 Targeting Pollution Prevention Efforts . 9 3.1 identifying Pollutants of Concern . 9 3.2 identifying Users of Concern . 11 3.2.1 Industrial Users . 11 3.2.2 Commercial Users . 12 3.2.3 Domestic Users . 14 3.3 Prioritizing Users of Concern . 14 3.4 Utilizing Pollution Prevention Resources . 14 Chapter 4 Promoting Pollution Prevention Among Regulated and Unregulated Sewer Users . 19 4.1 Inspections . 19 4.1.1 Preinspection Activities . 19 4.1.2 inspection Procedures . 24 4.1.3 Postinspection Followup . 27 4.1.4 Multimedia inspections . 27 4.2 Encouraging Pollution Prevention Through Regulatory Activities . 28 4.2.1 Issuing User Permits . 28 4.2.2 Responding to User Noncompliance. 31 v Contents (continued) 4.3 Community Education and Outreach. 31 4.3.1 Sponsoring Workshops and Training. 32 4.3.2 Convening Local Pollution Prevention Forums . 32 4.3.3 Publicly Recognizing Pollution Prevention Achievements. 33 ­ 4.3.4 Compiling and Distributing Pollution Prevention Information . 33 4.3.5 Publicizing Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs and Industrial Waste Exchanges . .“. 34 Chapter 5 References . � � � � 9 � � 9 � . 9 . 35 Appendix Pollution Prevention Resources . 37 Appendix Pollution Prevention Summaries on Specific Industries . ...0.... ...* 49 Automotive-Related Industry . ...-* ..* 50 Commercial Printing . ...** .** 53 Fabricated Metal Products . 56 Industrial and Commercial Laundries. ..* 61 Paint Manufacturing . 63 Pesticide Formulation . .......... 66 Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing. 69 Photoprocessing . ................. 72 Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing .. 75 Selected Hospital Waste Streams . 79 List of Tables Table Page 3-1 Commercial Establishments and Their Potentially Hazardous Discharges . 12 3-2 Consumer Products and Their Potentially Toxic or Hazardous Constituents . 15 3-3 States with Existing or Proposed Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance and Facility Planning and Reporting Requirements . ...18 4-1 Sample Materials Accounting List for a Photoprocessing Example . 22 4-2 Sample Pollution Prevention List for Photoprocessing Example . 25 B-1 Wastes Generated from Automotive Shops . ...50 B-2 Wastewater Generated by Printing Processes . ...53 B-3 Metal Fabrication Processes: Cleaning, Stripping, and Painting . 56 B-4 Metal Fabrication Processes: Machining, Surface Treatment and Plating . 57 B-5 Aqueous/Liquid Wastes from Metal Parts and Stripping . 58 B-6 Aqueous/Liquid Wastes from Electroplating and Other Surface Treatment Processes . 59 B-7 Aqueous/Liquid Wastes from Paint Manufacturing . 63 B-8 Aqueous/Liquid Wastes from Pesticide Formulation . 66 B-9 Aqueous/Liquid Waste from Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing . 69 B-10 Aqueous Wastes Generated from Photoprocessing . 72 B-11 Nine Stages in Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing . 75 B-12 Waste Streams Generated from Circuit Board Manufacturing Processes . 76 B-13 Drag-Out Reduction Techniques . ...77 B-14 Rinsing Techniques . ...77 B-15 Selected Waste Streams from Hospitals . ...80 vii List of Figures Figure Page 2-1 Pollution prevention . 3-1 Sample POTWpollution prevention policy statement . 10 3-2 Setting pollution prevention priorities. ...11 3-3 Example of a commercial facility survey form . ...13 4-1 Using onsite inspection to promote the benefits of pollution prevention . 20 4-2 Sample flow diagram of photoprocessing operation . 22 4-3 Tracking the silver material balance in a color photoprocessing operation . 23 4-4 Comparing silver input and output in a photoprocessing operation . 24 4-5 Hypothetical waste stream concentrations before and after pollution prevention . 31 4-6 Example of compliance schedule that incorporates pollution prevention . 32 . Chapter 1 Introduction With the enactment of the Pollution Prevention Act of prevention (Chapter 3), and outlines a broadly 1990, Congress formally established pollution applicable approach to integrating pollution prevention prevention as a national objective, placing it ahead of concepts into existing pretreatment programs (Chapter waste recycling, treatment, and disposal in the 4). Appendix A contains a comprehensive list of pollution hierarchy of environmental management methods. The prevention.
Recommended publications
  • Water Supply and Sanitation & Integrated Water Resources

    Water Supply and Sanitation & Integrated Water Resources

    Water Supply and Sanitation & Integrated Water Resources Management: why seek better integration? John Butterworth1 and John Soussan2 1Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, UK 2Centre for Water Policy and Development, University of Leeds, UK WHIRL Project Working Paper 2 Preliminary results of research for discussion and comment Prepared for WHIRL project workshop on ‘Water Supply & Sanitation and Watershed Development: positive and negative interactions’, Andhra Pradesh, India, 5-14 May 2001 This project is supported by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) through the Infrastructure and Urban Development Division’s Knowledge and Research programme. Project R7804 ‘Integrating drinking water needs in watershed projects’ 1 INTRODUCTION This working paper was prepared as a contribution to a joint Indian, South African and UK research project on Water, Households and Rural Livelihoods (WHIRL). The objectives of the paper are to identify approaches to improve access of the poor to secure, safe and sustainable water supplies in areas of water scarcity, and to identify some of the key challenges to the more effective management of water resources in these areas. It is targeted at organisations responsible for the delivery of water supply and sanitation (WSS) services and management of land and water resources in developing countries. It aims to promote discussion and dialogue between the research partners and these organisations. The paper is produced at a time of major changes to approaches to the management of water resources in general and the delivery of WSS services in particular, throughout the developing world. The limitations of traditional approaches based on supply provision have been recognised in many places, and the principles of integrated water resources management developed (IWRM).
  • WHO Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Links to Health: Facts and Figures

    WHO Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Links to Health: Facts and Figures

    Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Links to Health FACTS AND FIGURES - *updated March 2004 "Water and Sanitation is one of the primary drivers of public health. I often refer to it as “Health 101”, which means that once we can secure access to clean water and to adequate sanitation facilities for all people, irrespective of the difference in their living conditions, a huge battle against all kinds of diseases will be won." Dr LEE Jong-wook, Director-General, World Health Organization. Diarrhoea - 1.8 million people die every year from diarrhoeal Intestinal helminths (Ascariasis, Trichuriasis, diseases (including cholera); 90% are children under 5, Hookworm disease) mostly in developing countries. - 133 million people suffer from high intensity - 88% of diarrhoeal disease is attributed to unsafe intestinal helminth infections, which often leads to water supply, inadequate sanitation and hygiene. severe consequences such as cognitive impairment, - Improved water supply reduces diarrhoea morbidity massive dysentery, or anaemia. by 21%. - These diseases cause around 9400 deaths every year. - Improved sanitation reduces diarrhoea morbidity by - Access to safe water and sanitation facilities and 37.5%. better hygiene practice can reduce morbidity from - The simple act of washing hands at critical times can ascariasis by 29% and hookworm by 4%. reduce the number of diarrhoeal cases by up to 35%. - Additional improvement of drinking-water quality, Japanese encephalitis such as point of use disinfection, would lead to a - 20% of clinical cases of Japanese encephalitis die, reduction of diarrhoea episodes of 45%. and 35% suffer permanent brain damage. - Improved management for irrigation of water Malaria resources reduces transmission of disease, in South, - 1.2 million people die of malaria each year, 90% of South East, and East Asia.
  • Zambia's Community-Led Total Sanitation Program

    Zambia's Community-Led Total Sanitation Program

    CLA CASE ANALYSIS: DEEP DIVE Zambia’s Community-Led Total Sanitation Program Disclaimer: This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by the LEARN mechanism out of the USAID Office of Learning, Evaluation and Research (LER) in the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL). LEARN is managed by Dexis Consulting Group. COVER PHOTO: Zambian girl leaves latrine. (Source: Akros) Photo credit: Andrew Prinsen DEEP DIVE SUMMARY INFORMATION Sector WASH Type of Intervention Community-Led Total Sanitation Program (CLTS), supplemented by a Mobile-to-Web (M2W) application and close collaboration with traditional leaders Country/Region Zambia / Southern Africa Size & Scope Akros, funded by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and in partnership with UNICEF and the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ), implemented the M2W monitoring component of a Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) program in Zambia as part of the Zambian Sanitation and Health Program (ZSHP), beginning with a few pilot districts, then expanding to all rural counties. Funded Activities In partnership with UNICEF and the Zambian government, Akros developed a Mobile-to-Web (M2W) application using the open-source District Health Information System 2 (DHIS2) software that allowed real-time monitoring of latrine construction and sanitation improvements at the community level across 68 rural districts in Zambia. Akros subsequently also developed a “Chief App,” an Android-based widget that enabled key visualizations to be shared with traditional leaders. The app allowed chiefs and their headmen/women to have access to the data from the wards in their chiefdom as well as the surrounding chiefdoms to help traditional leaders track sanitation progress in their areas.
  • Industrial Waste Exchange by Ashley Sapyta, Mike Marcus, and Jonathan Locklair

    Industrial Waste Exchange by Ashley Sapyta, Mike Marcus, and Jonathan Locklair

    Industrial Waste Exchange by Ashley Sapyta, Mike Marcus, and Jonathan Locklair TE S GE A AN WCH EX E AST W ANGE EXCH Industrial Waste Exchange Help in Getting to Sustainable Operations This primer helps companies find the right industrial waste exchange in order to achieve corporate sustainability goals. em • The Magazine for Environmental Managers • A&WMA • March 2017 Industrial Waste Exchange by Ashley Sapyta, Mike Marcus, and Jonathan Locklair The drive to achieve corporate sustainability goals can leave offering to match waste producers with material purchasers. an industrial facility searching for alternatives to disposal of Wastes with easily-monetized intrinsic values began to be wastes from their production process. Ideally, manufacturing segregated into a recycling market. processes could be adjusted to eliminate the waste stream. However, when not possible to reduce, the next greenest waste The Internet brought major changes to the waste exchange alternative is reuse (see Figure 1). For more than four decades, market. As the waste exchanges moved from paper catalogs industrial waste exchanges have provided a mechanism for to online databases, wastes were exchanged more efficiently. connecting facilities that generate waste with other companies There was an initial increase of waste exchanges in the local that can beneficially use that material (the industrial application markets. Because recycling consumes energy and raw materials of the old saw… one person’s trash is another’s treasure). and produces waste residues itself, recycling is typically not During these 40-plus years, waste exchanges have changed as green as reuse but is often more profitable. The Internet in size and in service and utilized the latest technologies to facilitated the strengthening of the recycling network to the stay applicable to current market needs.
  • National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007

    National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007

    National Air Quality STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2007 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable process chlorine-free paper with 100% post-consumer fiber using vegetable-oil-based ink. National Air Quality STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Assessment Division Research Triangle Park, North Carolina EPA-454/R-08-006 November 2008 Table of Contents Highlights ... 1 Air Pollution ... 4 Six Common Pollutants ... 10 Ground-Level Ozone ... 14 Particle Pollution ... 19 Lead ... 26 Nitrogen Dioxide ... 27 Carbon Monoxide ... 27 Sulfur Dioxide ... 27 Toxic Air Pollutants ... 28 Atmospheric Deposition ... 32 Visibility in Scenic Areas ... 34 Climate Change and Air Quality ... 36 International Transport of Air Pollution ... 38 Terminology ... 40 Web Sites ... 41 HIGHLIGHTS This summary report highlights EPA’s most recent ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Ground- evaluation of the status and trends in our nation’s air level ozone and particle pollution still present quality. challenges in many areas of the country. LEVELS OF SIX COMMON POLLUTANTS • Though PM2.5 concentrations were higher in 2007 CONTINUE TO DECLINE than in 2006, partly due to weather conditions, annual PM2.5 concentrations were nine percent • Cleaner cars, industries, and consumer products lower in 2007 than in 2001. have contributed to cleaner air for much of the U.S. • 8-hour ozone concentrations were fi ve percent • Since 1990, nationwide air quality for six air lower in 2007 than in 2001. Ozone levels did not pollutants for which there are national standards improve in much of the East until 2002, after has improved signifi cantly.
  • Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

    Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

    July 2018 About Water, Sanitation and UNICEF The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Hygiene (WASH) works in more than 190 countries and territories to put children first. UNICEF WASH and Children has helped save more Globally, 2.3 billion people lack access to basic children’s lives than sanitation services and 844 million people lack any other humanitarian organization, by providing access to clean drinking water. The lack of health care and immuni­ these basic necessities isn’t just inconvenient zations, safe water and — it’s lethal. sanitation, nutrition, education, emergency relief Over 800 children die every day — about 1 and more. UNICEF USA supports UNICEF’s work every 2 minutes — from diarrhea due to unsafe through fundraising, drinking water, poor sanitation, or poor advocacy and education in hygiene. Suffering and death from diseases the United States. Together, like pneumonia, trachoma, scabies, skin we are working toward the and eye infections, cholera and dysentery day when no children die from preventable causes could be prevented by scaling up access and every child has a safe to adequate water supply and sanitation and healthy childhood. facilities and eliminating open defecation. For more information, visit unicefusa.org. Ensuring access to water and sanitation in UNICEF has helped schools can also help reduce the number of increase school children who miss out on their education — enrollment in Malawi through the provision especially girls. Scaling up access to WASH of safe drinking water. also supports efforts to protect vulnerable © UNICEF/UN040976/RICH children from violence, exploitation and abuse, since women and girls bear the heaviest Today, UNICEF has WASH programs in 113 burden in water collection, often undertaking countries to promote the survival, protection long, unsafe journeys to collect water.
  • Measuring Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Through Industrial Symbiosis

    Measuring Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Through Industrial Symbiosis

    Measuring Waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling through Industrial Symbiosis C. Visvanathan Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand 01 Outline of indicator Reference and background reading material Antonio, L.C., Kojima, M., Phechpakdee, P. 2009, Synthesis on Industrial Waste Information Exchange Program (Chapter 11). Most industrial operations are linear processes in which raw materials are processed into products, 3R Policies for Southeast and East Asia. Kojima, M., Damanhuri, E. (eds). ERIA Research Project Report 2008 No.6-1 with waste as a by-product. However, waste is also generated at the time of raw material extraction, Aquatech Environment, Economics, and Information, 1997, A Benchmark of Current Cleaner Production Practices. Prepared during processing, and ultimately at the end-of-life stage of a product. To minimise, reutilise or for Cleaner Industries Section, Environment Protection Group Environment Australia Aschner, A. 2004, Planning for Sustainability through Cleaner Production. PhD Thesis-The University of New South Wales recycle waste at each stage, industrial operations can be reconfigured though industrial symbiosis School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering. (IS), in which waste produced from one industry is reutilised by another as a raw material. Industrial Ashton, W., Luque, A., Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2002, Best Practices in Cleaner Production Promotion and Implementation for Smaller Enterprises. Prepared for Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF), Interamerican Development Bank (IADB), Washington D.C: symbiosis supports resource efficiency in two ways: Cleaner Production (application of techniques USA and technologies, and management strategies that reduce the waste generated from industrial Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism South Africa, and DANIDA, 2005, National Waste Management Strategy Implementation South Africa-Review of Industrial Waste Exchange.
  • Toronto Long Term Waste Management Strategy

    Toronto Long Term Waste Management Strategy

    T O R O N T O LONG TERM WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY GUIDING PRINCIPLES TORONTO’S Reduce the amount of waste we generate WASTE STRATEGY Reuse what we can Recycle and recover the remaining resources to reinvest back into the economy Waste management in a large city like Toronto is a complex task. The Waste Strategy was Embrace a user-friendly waste developed over two years and is supported by extensive research, management system guidance from key stakeholders, and a comprehensive public consultation and engagement Balance community, the environment, and program. The Waste Strategy, which was approved by financial sustainability City Council in July 2016, recommends waste reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery and residual disposal policies and Ensure a safe, clean, beautiful and healthy programs. city for the future Diversion of TARGETS 70% waste by 2026 This equals approximately 200,000 additional tonnes being diverted from the AND GOALS landfill by 2026. The Waste Strategy includes an aspirational goal to work towards a Circular Economy and Zero Waste future. The Waste Strategy recommends waste reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery and residual disposal policies and programs that are environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, and cost-effective. This comprehensive strategy will guide WORKING TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS The Waste Strategy aims to achieve these goals with the waste management in Toronto for the next rollout of several new programs supported with promotion and education, and in combination with an enhanced approach . to enforcement of existing programs, services and by-laws. Wast(ED) – Community Education Speaker Event 2016 2026 2036 2046 2056 2066 April 29, 2015 HOW WE LISTENED 40+ Events & You spoke, we listened.
  • Facility Sanitation

    Facility Sanitation

    DESCHUTES COUNTY ADULT JAIL CD-4-1 L. Shane Nelson, Sheriff Jail Operations Approved by: February 16, 2016 FACILITY SANITATION POLICY. It is the policy of the Deschutes County Adult Jail (DCAJ) and Work Center (WC) to maintain a safe, professional, clean, sanitary, and pest-free work and living environment. PURPOSE. The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines which outline general sanitation requirements and set forth the provisions for facility cleaning and a sanitation plan. It also describes inmate responsibilities for helping to maintain a clean and sanitary facility. OREGON JAIL STANDARDS. A-206 Maintaining Inspection Reports from Outside Entities B-306 Shower and Clothing Exchange H-108 Vermin Infested or Washable Biohazards H-109 Equipping Living Areas H-110 Hot and Cold Running Water H-201 Sanitation Plan H-202 Inmates Sanitation Responsibilities H-206 Internal Inspections H-207 Documentation of Sanitation and Maintenance REFERENCES. ORS 169.076, Standards for Local Correctional Facilities ORS 654, Oregon Safe Employment Act Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 437, Division 2, (29 CFR 1910), Subdivision J: General Environmental Controls, §1910.141 Sanitation DEFINITIONS. Direct Supervision. When an inmate is within sight and sound of a corrections deputy who is responsible for overseeing the inmate. PROCEDURES. SECTION A: GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING A-1. DCAJ and WC will have a cleaning schedule for all areas. However, corrections staff must respond to and act on immediate needs for cleaning or sanitation. Supersedes: October 24, 2012 Review date: February 2018 Total number of pages: 6 1 DCAJ CD-4-1 February 16, 2016 A-2. The programs deputy assigned to facility sanitation will supervise cleaning and sanitation each shift.
  • Chapter 7 Pollution Prevention

    Chapter 7 Pollution Prevention

    This guidance is not a regulatory document and should be considered only informational and supplementary to the MPCA permits (such as the construction storm water general permit or MS4 permit) and local regulations. CHAPTER 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 7.00 POLLUTION PREVENTION..............................................................................................7.00-1 7.01 Nonstructural Practices: PLAN DEVELOPMENT.....................................................7.01-1 7.02 Nonstructural Practices: EMPLOYEE TRAINING....................................................7.02-1 7.03 Nonstructural Practices: INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................7.03-1 7.04 Nonstructural Practices: MONITORING AND EVALUATION ...............................7.04-1 7.20 GENERAL PRACTICES.....................................................................................................7.20-1 7.22 General Practices: SPILL PLANS...............................................................................7.22-1 7.23 General Practices: LITTER CONTROL .....................................................................7.23-1 7.24 General Practices: LAWN MANAGEMENT.............................................................7.24-1 7.25 General Practices: DUST CONTROL ........................................................................7.25-1 7.26 General Practices: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL...................................7.26-1 7.27 General Practices: STREET SWEEPING...................................................................7.27-1
  • WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality : Selected Pollutants

    WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality : Selected Pollutants

    WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: This book presents WHO guidelines for the protection of pub- lic health from risks due to a number of chemicals commonly present in indoor air. The substances considered in this review, i.e. benzene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, naphthalene, nitrogen dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (especially benzo[a]pyrene), radon, trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethyl- ene, have indoor sources, are known in respect of their hazard- ousness to health and are often found indoors in concentrations of health concern. The guidelines are targeted at public health professionals involved in preventing health risks of environmen- SELECTED CHEMICALS SELECTED tal exposures, as well as specialists and authorities involved in the design and use of buildings, indoor materials and products. POLLUTANTS They provide a scientific basis for legally enforceable standards. World Health Organization Regional Offi ce for Europe Scherfi gsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Tel.: +45 39 17 17 17. Fax: +45 39 17 18 18 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.euro.who.int WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants The WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn Office, WHO Regional Office for Europe coordinated the development of these WHO guidelines. Keywords AIR POLLUTION, INDOOR - prevention and control AIR POLLUTANTS - adverse effects ORGANIC CHEMICALS ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE - adverse effects GUIDELINES ISBN 978 92 890 0213 4 Address requests for publications of the WHO Regional Office for Europe to: Publications WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information, or for per- mission to quote or translate, on the Regional Office web site (http://www.euro.who.int/pubrequest).
  • An Ounce of Pollution Prevention Is Worth Over 167 Billion* Pounds of Cure: a Decade of Pollution Prevention Results 1990

    An Ounce of Pollution Prevention Is Worth Over 167 Billion* Pounds of Cure: a Decade of Pollution Prevention Results 1990

    2418_historyfinal.qxd 2/3/03 4:38 PM Page 1 January 2003 National Pollution Prevention Roundtable An Ounce of Pollution Prevention is Worth Over 167 Billion* Pounds of Cure: A Decade of Pollution Prevention Results 1990 - 2000 2418_historyfinal.qxd 2/3/03 4:38 PM Page 2 January 28, 2003 Acknowledgements NPPR would like to thank EPA’s John Cross, Acting Produced by the National Pollution Prevention Division Director for U.S. EPA’s Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR) with funding provided by Division, Cindy McComas, Director - Minnesota the United States Environmental Protection Technical Assistance Program (MNTAP) and Ken Agency’s Office of Prevention Pesticides and Zarker, NPPR Board Chair (Texas Commission on Toxics’ Pollution Prevention Division and NPPR. Environmental Quality), for all of their support and input into this seminal document. NPPR hopes that this paper becomes the starting point as well as launching pad for further work measuring pollution prevention successes across the country and globally. This report was researched and prepared by: Steven Spektor, NPPR staff Natalie Roy, NPPR Executive Director P2 Results Advisory Group Co-Advisory Chair Cindy McComas (MNTAP) Co-Advisory Chair Ken Zarker (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) Melinda Dower, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP Terri Goldberg, Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) Tom Natan, National Environmental Trust (NET) On the cover: The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, The number in the report’s title, 167 billion pounds, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is the largest includes the data from the air, water, waste, combined membership organization in the United States and electricity column of Table 1.4.