P2 Integration:Quantifying P2 with TRI and other Data Sources

Environmental Summit Baltimore May 21, 2008

David Sarokin EPA’s Pollution Prevention Division

2

P2 Integration Assessment P2 Integration a central tenet of national

policy

Assess status of P2 Integration Where it’s working well Where there is room for improvement What P2 has accomplished the past two

decades

3

The Role of InformationThe P2 Integration report looked

at a wide variety of data sources:What do they tell us about P2What do they not tell us about P2What can we learn about individual

programs and their impact on national goals

4

DATA SOURCES

TRI

Municipal Solid Wastes

Hazardous Wastes

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Pesticide Use

Fertilizer Use

GDP/PACE

P2 Information Disconnects? Goals

5

P2 Data in TRI

6

Essay Style P2 Reporting in TRIJerome Industries:

We purchased a wave soldering machine for use with No-Lead Solder. This is for product to be shipped to Europe that must comply with the RoHS rules. Eventually, we would like all customers to go Lead-free. When that happens, we will eliminate the old wave soldering machine which the tin/lead solder is used in. The lead-free machine is a better machine with much more process controls. If it wasn't for a few customers who do not want lead-free, we would be doing 100% of our soldering with the Lead-free machine.

7

P2 Data in TRI

8

But what does it mean? P2 activity has fallen sharply in the past 17 years?

-or-

P2 is still happening, but is under-reported?

-or-

TRI reporting requirements create the appearance of a falling trend?

9

States and P2 in TRI

MNVT

ID

NV

10

PACE Survey from Census Bureau

11

PACE – P2 is 17.4% of Total Costs

$4.7 trillion in shipments

$20.7 billion in PACE

12

Percent of P2 Reporting TRI & PACE

P2 in States -- TRI vs PACE

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

% of PACE Expenses for P2

% P

2 R

epro

tin

g i

n T

RI

CA

VTMN

NVUT

PACE-Census Bureau Survey: Pollution Abatement Cost & Expenditures

13

TRI: Total Wastes vs Releases & Transfers

15

20

25

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Billio

n lb

s

TRI Releases and Transfers

1.00

1.60

2.20

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Bil

lio

ns o

f P

ou

nd

s

Total Production Wastes Managed

14

TRI can be compared with other waste streams…Pesticides

15

…Municipal Solid Wastes

50

100

150

200

250

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Mill

ions

of t

ons

16

Wastes, Economic & Population Trends(1990-2005)

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

GDP up 38%

Population up 12.9% MSW up 15.8% Fertilizer up 12.2% GHG up 14.4% MSW/capita up 2.9% Pesticide use down 1.2% TRI TPWM down 1.9%*

Industrial GHG down 2.1%

SF6 (elec. industry) down 53%

* TRI-TPWM from 1992-2004

17

Mixed Signals on P2 Substantial industrial spending on P2, but

shrinking P2 reporting in TRI Impressive case study reductions, but hard

to find a P2 signal in national data Most waste generation trends are

increasing or flat-lining Some programs have no evidence of P2

activity

18

A Few Points to Think About Targets and Goals

Without P2 targets, it’s hard to know if we’re making appropriate progress

Information -- Consistency and Scaling Local-level and Program-level data should

mesh with national data Do we have the right info?

(e.g. No HW trends available)

Status of P2 If pollution prevention is playing a relatively

small role in national waste management, is that the path to a sustainable future?

19

Thank you.

David SarokinUSEPA Office of Pollution Prevention and ToxicsPollution Prevention DivisionWashington, DC 20460sarokin.david@epa.gov202-564-8852