DOCSLIB.ORG

Reduce Costs Through a Pollution Prevention Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reduce Costs Through a Pollution Prevention Process Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Pollution Prevention Fact Sheet/September 1996 Case Study: Concrete Maker Reduces Water Use Company Fabcon, Incorporated: Savage, MN Product Precast, prestressed fabricated concrete panels Waste Used 3,000,000 gallons of water monthly; discharged 2,908,000 gallons monthly; landfilled 20,000 tons of concrete waste annually Change Replaced water-cooled pumps with air-cooled hydraulic pumps; Reduce Costs through recycle remaining water used; a Pollution Prevention recycle waste concrete Cost $11,765 for pumps; $225,000 for Process closed-loop water recycling system Savings/ $259,484 during the first year, and benefit $191,090 annually thereafter. Kept Many techniques which make the most efficient water use at 1991 levels, avoiding use of resources in your production process or a service charge of $68,394 business activity can be classified as pollution prevention. For businesses, most pollution MnTAP Source: University of Minnesota, Fall 1995 prevention techniques result in reduced costs and potentially, higher profits. From the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Pollution Prevention standpoint, pollution prevention offers Requirements of the 1995 increased environmental protection and better long-term compliance rates. Minnesota Environmental Improvement Act (Act) Applying preventive techniques to your business activities reduces energy, water or Overview of the Act other resource use. In addition, air, water and waste pollutants are minimized, reducing the On August 1, 1995 a four year environmental pilot capital or ongoing costs of reclamation, program began at the MPCA. This voluntary treatment, control and compliance with program encourages businesses and governments environmental regulations. to conduct environmental audits of facilities and correct problems they may discover. Pollution prevention requires informed choices. Either through major actions such as updating For those opting in, the pilot project requires equipment or changing production inputs, or businesses and government to report any through the numerous small choices employees violations they discover to the MPCA along make every day, large amounts of waste can be with a plan for correcting the violations. The prevented. intent of the program is to focus on the goal of achieving measurable environmental results, not 1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Pollution Prevention Fact Sheet/September 1996 on fines or other penalties. Except in the case ◊ a large stationary air emission source; an of very serious or repeat violations, penalties air emission source that emits 50 or more will not be assessed. tons per year of a specific air pollutant, or; ◊ an air emission source that emits 75 tons Pollution Prevention Requirements for or more per year of all air pollutants Major Facilities regulated by the MPCA. The Act requires different pollution prevention If you are unsure what category you are, contact activities depending on a facility’s size. the MPCA at the phone number at the end of this fact sheet. Minnesota law defines pollution prevention as the elimination or reduction of the use, generation, or release of a pollutant at the Case Study: Reducing Perc Use in Dry Cleaning source. This contrasts with simply trying to Company Cottage Cleaners: Forest Lake, MN control the pollutant at the end of a discharge pipe or stack. Process Dry cleaning Chemical Perchloroethylene (PCE or perc) Going this far back into a production or activity to eliminate waste ensures that the process Process Replaced an old transfer dry becomes more efficient. Pollution prevention change cleaning machine with a new and therefore reduces the cost of doing business more efficient dry-to-dry machine. while satisfying the environmental Cost $49,000 purchase cost for a new improvement mandate in the statutory dry-to-dry machine definition. Savings/ Perc use reduced from 455 gallons The Act requires a “major” facility to develop a benefit in 1990 to 38 gallons in 1992, pollution prevention plan and submit progress saving $2,246 (1992 dollars) reports to the MPCA. The pollution prevention annually; hazardous waste reduced plan is based largely on the process described from 375 gallons in 1990 to 240 later. The progress report encourages the gallons in 1992, saving $593 (1992 facility to review their plan’s progress every dollars) annually; complied with year, and lets the MPCA know how the facility perc regulatory requirements is doing, and where assistance can be provided. MnTAP Source: University of Minnesota, Winter 1994 A major facility is defined as: Contents of Pollution Prevention Plans and ◊ the largest type of industrial or municipal Progress Reports for Major Facilities wastewater discharge facility; ◊ a feedlot with 1,000 or more animal units; The Act requires major facilities to prepare ◊ a large quantity hazardous waste formal pollution prevention plans to participate generator; in the pilot program. The plans do not need to ◊ a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or be submitted to the MPCA. The plans should at disposal facility; a minimum include the following for all facility operations: 2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Pollution Prevention Fact Sheet/September 1996 (1) a policy statement stating upper (1) a summary of each pollution prevention management support for eliminating or objective established in the plan, and the reducing the generation or release of schedule for meeting each objective; pollutants; (2) a summary of progress made (if any) (2) a description of the types, sources, and during the past year toward meeting quantities of pollutants currently being each objective established in the plan generated or released, and of the including the quantity of each pollutant processes or activities involved; eliminated or reduced; (3) a description and an evaluation of the (3) a statement of the methods through effectiveness of current and past which elimination or reduction has been practices used to eliminate or reduce the achieved; generation or release of pollutants; (4) if necessary, an explanation of the (4) an assessment of technically and reasons objectives were not achieved economically feasible pollution during the previous year, identifying any prevention options available, including technological, economic, or other options such as changing raw materials, obstacles the facility faced; and operating techniques, equipment and (5) a legally-binding certification, signed technology, personnel training, and and dated by the facility manager and an other practices. The assessment may officer of the company attesting that a include a cost benefit analysis of the plan meeting the requirements of the law available options; has been prepared, and also attesting to (5) a statement of the pollution prevention the accuracy of the information in the objectives developed, based on the progress report. assessment in clause (4), and a schedule for achieving those objectives; Pollution Prevention Requirements for Non- (6) an explanation of the rationale for each Major Facilities pollution prevention objective established; Minor facilities do not need to develop a (7) a list of options that were considered not pollution prevention plan or submit a progress to be economically and technically report, but they are required to “examine” feasible; and pollution prevention opportunities. Minor (8) a legally-binding certification attesting facilities are encouraged to undertake the to the accuracy of the information in the program process outlined later in this fact sheet. plan, signed and dated by the facility manager and an officer of the company. Specifically, if you have examined any of the following options, you are eligible to participate Progress Reports in the program. To participate in the program, major facilities (1) A change in your processes to reduce the must also prepare and submit progress reports amount of raw materials needed. to the Emergency Response Commission every (2) A change in inventory control year. The progress reports may be drafted so procedures to only purchase what is they do not disclose proprietary information. needed and usable within a short period The progress reports should include the of time. following information at a minimum: 3 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Pollution Prevention Fact Sheet/September 1996 (3) A substitution of any raw material for a less hazardous or toxic one. A pollution prevention “program” will help (4) Institution of any housekeeping or fulfill the requirements of the Act. It can be management practices to reduce spills or informal or formal, detailed or general, rigorous wasting of raw materials. or relaxed, depending on the size of the (5) Improving or replacing machinery to company and its style. In general, a pollution make it more efficient. prevention program is an ongoing, (6) The formation of a source reduction comprehensive examination of the operations of team made up of representatives from a business or facility. The program goal is to various departments and organizational reduce direct and hidden operating costs by levels. minimizing all kinds of wastes associated with (7) Contacting a state or local group, such production or other business activity. as the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance or the An effective pollution prevention program can Minnesota Technical Assistance yield cost savings that will more than offset Program (MnTAP) to help you evaluate program development and implementation costs. your pollution prevention opportunities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollution Prevention
    Unit 4: Pollution Prevention TABLE OF CONTENTS UNIT SUMMARY 1 CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST 2 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 10 LESSON PLAN 10 LESSON 1: HOW TO PREVENT POLLUTION AT SCHOOL 11 LESSON 2: CLEAN AND GREEN 19 LESSON 3: PROMOTE POLLUTION PREVENTION AT SCHOOL! 25 MATERIALS NEEDED 26 Unit 4: Pollution Prevention Unit Summary This unit will show your green@school team how to ensure that your school is doing its best to prevent pollution on your school site. Students will learn ways to protect our shared air, water, and soil resources at school and at home. They will also evaluate your school’s practices around a number of potential sources of pollution. Actions 1. Become campus pollutant and chemical detectives—explore your Here are some actions you will take to classrooms, bathrooms, offices, janitorial closets, cupboards, the staff room, complete the green@school checklist and and even the cafeteria kitchen to find potential pollutants and chemicals. reduce your school’s environmental 2. Interview relevant school and district staff to find out what type of impact. products are purchased and how potential pollutants are disposed of or recycled. 3. Investigate existing indoor and outdoor cleaning practices, field management, and pest control methods at your school and evaluate safe practices and where there is room for improvement. 4. Improve existing or implement new pollution prevention practices at your school and/or recommend actions to your district. 5. Determine how well Boltage is working. Find out what alternative transportation practices are in place and how your school can further reduce vehicle emissions. Campaign Opportunities 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions
    Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions Policy HIGHLIGHTS Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions “OECD countries have struggled to adequately address diffuse water pollution. It is much easier to regulate large, point source industrial and municipal polluters than engage with a large number of farmers and other land-users where variable factors like climate, soil and politics come into play. But the cumulative effects of diffuse water pollution can be devastating for human well-being and ecosystem health. Ultimately, they can undermine sustainable economic growth. Many countries are trying innovative policy responses with some measure of success. However, these approaches need to be replicated, adapted and massively scaled-up if they are to have an effect.” Simon Upton – OECD Environment Director POLICY H I GH LI GHT S After decades of regulation and investment to reduce point source water pollution, OECD countries still face water quality challenges (e.g. eutrophication) from diffuse agricultural and urban sources of pollution, i.e. pollution from surface runoff, soil filtration and atmospheric deposition. The relative lack of progress reflects the complexities of controlling multiple pollutants from multiple sources, their high spatial and temporal variability, the associated transactions costs, and limited political acceptability of regulatory measures. The OECD report Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions (OECD, 2017) outlines the water quality challenges facing OECD countries today. It presents a range of policy instruments and innovative case studies of diffuse pollution control, and concludes with an integrated policy framework to tackle this challenge. An optimal approach will likely entail a mix of policy interventions reflecting the basic OECD principles of water quality management – pollution prevention, treatment at source, the polluter pays and the beneficiary pays principles, equity, and policy coherence.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleaner Production : Basic Principles and Development
    Michael Overcash 1 Cleaner Production : Basic Principles And Development Michael Overcash* *Pollution Prevention Research Center Chemical Engineering Department Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695-7905 Tel :919~515-2325, Fax : 919-515-3465, E-mail :[email protected] ABSTRACT : Cleaner production is of substantial importance in changing the environmental approach within advanced industrialized countries. The critical principles involve fund교 mental understanding of diverse industrial processes, adherence to the easiest techniques of a hierarchy for reducing wastes, and utilization of an underlying thought process to achieve pollution prevention successes that are both technically feasible and cost-effective. Chemical engineering has played a major and unique role in this environmental field. Improving the sustainability of cleaner production will rest on including this subject in the curriculum of university engineering. 1. INTRODUCTION began in U.S. industry and policy during the late 1970's. While examples of improved efficiency and No single dimension of environmental solutions has hence less waste had existed since the start of the captured the imagination of engineers, scientists, policy Industrial Revolution, the distinct explosion of successes -makers, and the public like pollution prevention. In the in pollution prevention did not occur until the 1980's. space of 10 years (1980-1990), the philosophical shift Fig. 1 is an approximate time line of this period [1,2]. and the record of accomplishment have made cleaner The early creation at the 3M Corporation of money production a fundamental means for environmental saving innovations that reduced chemical losses to air, management. This decade began with pollution prevent water, or land was widely publicized [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Guides to Pollution Prevention Municipal Pretreatment Programs EPA/625/R-93/006 October 1993
    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
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Pollution Prevention Annual Report 1 February 2021 Order No
    2020 Pollution Prevention Report Wastewater Department THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR COVER Order No. R2-2020-0024, NPDES No. CA0037702 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Order No. R2-2020-0024, NPDES No. CA0037702 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Order No. R2-2020-0024, NPDES No. CA0037702 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT PLANT AND SERVICE AREA .................................. 1 2. DISCUSSION OF CURRENT POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN .......................................... 3 3. SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN ................................................................... 3 4. TASKS TO MINIMIZE POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN ..................................................... 4 4.1 Copper Action Plan ......................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Cyanide Action Plan ....................................................................................................... 9 5. OUTREACH TO EMPLOYEES .......................................................................................... 11 5.1 Earth Day ...................................................................................................................... 11 5.2 Green Business Certification ........................................................................................ 11 5.3 Training ......................................................................................................................... 11 5.4 Tours of the Wastewater Treatment Plant ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Programs Related to Indoor Pollution by Chemicals
    Federal Programs Related to Indoor Pollution by Chemicals Linda-Jo Schierow Specialist in Environmental Policy David M. Bearden Specialist in Environmental Policy July 23, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42620 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Federal Programs Related to Indoor Pollution by Chemicals Summary “Toxic” drywall, formaldehyde emissions, mold, asbestos, lead-based paint, radon, PCBs in caulk, and many other indoor pollution problems have concerned federal policy makers and regulators during the last 30 years. Some problems have been resolved, others remain of concern, and new indoor pollution problems continually emerge. This report describes common indoor pollutants and health effects that have been linked to indoor pollution, federal statutes that have been used to address indoor pollution, key issues, and some general policy options for Congress. Indoor pollutants are chemicals that are potentially harmful to people and found in the habitable portions of buildings, including homes, schools, offices, factories, and other public gathering places. Some indoor pollutants, like lead or ozone, are also outdoor pollutants. Others, like formaldehyde or asbestos, are primarily indoor pollutants. Indoor pollutants may be natural (for example, carbon monoxide or radon) or synthetic (polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]), and may originate indoors or outdoors. They may be deliberately produced, naturally occurring, or inadvertent byproducts of human activities. For example, they may arise indoors as uncontrolled emissions from building materials, paints, or furnishings, from evaporation following the use of cleaning supplies or pesticides, or as a combustion byproduct as a result of heating or cooking. Some pollution that originates outdoors infiltrates through porous basements (e.g., radon) or is inadvertently brought into indoor spaces, perhaps through heating or air conditioning systems or in contaminated drinking water.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report 12/2021: the Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent
    EN 2021 121 Special Report The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU environmental policies and actions 2 Contents Paragraph Executive summary I-V Introduction 01-14 The origins of the Polluter Pays Principle 03-05 The PPP in the EU 06-14 Policy framework 06-09 EU funding 10-14 Audit scope and approach 15-18 Observations 19-68 The PPP underlies EU environmental legislation 19-41 The PPP applies to the most polluting installations but the cost of residual pollution to society remains high 20-25 Waste legislation reflects the PPP, but does not ensure polluters cover the full cost of pollution 26-31 Polluters do not bear the full costs of water pollution 32-38 No overall EU legislative framework to protect against soil pollution 39-41 The Commission’s action plan to improve the operation of the ELD did not achieve the expected results 42-62 Following the evaluation of the ELD, the Commission adopted an action plan to address the gaps identified 43-48 Key ELD concepts remain undefined 49-55 Some Member States require industrial companies to insure against environmental risks 56-62 The EU has financed environmental remediation projects 63-68 EU funds have been used to clean orphan pollution 65-66 EU funds were also used when national authorities failed to enforce environmental legislation and make the polluters pay 67 Lack of financial security to cover environmental liability increases the risk that costs are borne by taxpayers 68 3 Conclusions and recommendations 69-74 Annex Annex I – Sectors covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive Acronyms and abbreviations Glossary Replies of the Commission Audit team Timeline 4 Executive summary I The Polluter Pays Principle is one of the key principles underlying the European Union’s (EU) environmental policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollution Prevention Fact Sheet: Animal Waste Collection Page 1 Of
    Pollution Prevention: Animal Waste Collection Page 1 of 4 Pollution Prevention Fact Sheet: Animal Waste Collection download in WordPerfect format here Description Animal waste collection as a pollution source control involves using a combination of educational outreach and enforcement to encourage residents to clean up after their pets. The presence of pet waste in stormwater runoff has a number of implications for urban stream water quality with perhaps the greatest impact from fecal bacteria (for more information see Microbes in Urban Watersheds: Concentrations, Sources and Pathways, Article 17 in The Practice of Watershed Protection). According to recent research, non-human waste represents a significant source of bacterial contamination in urban watersheds. Genetic studies by Alderiso et al. (1996) and Trial et al. (1993) both concluded that 95 percent of the fecal coliform found in urban stormwater was of non-human origin. Bacterial source tracking studies in a watershed in the Seattle, Washington area also found that nearly 20% of the bacteria isolates that could be matched with host animals were matched with dogs. This bacteria can pose health risks to humans and other animals, and result in the spread of disease. It has been estimated that for watersheds of up to twenty-square miles draining to small coastal bays, two to three days of droppings from a population of about 100 dogs would contribute enough bacteria and nutrients to temporarily close a bay to swimming and shellfishing (US EPA, 1993). Pet waste can also be a factor in eutrophication of lakes. The release of nutrients from the decay of pet waste promotes weed and algae growth, limiting light penetration and the growth of aquatic vegetation.
    [Show full text]