[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: state programs for p2 planning?



I'll be the lone OEA rep at next weeks NPPR meeting (E2/P2 workgroup) but if anyone would like to meet on P2 Planning I'm all for it. I will bring the information back to Mark.
Reply individually, let me know your workgroup, and I'll track you down in the Albright Training Center.
Ken Brown
kenneth.brown@moea.state.mn.us
> ----------
> From: 	Kathy Barwick[SMTP:KBarwick@dtsc.ca.gov]
> Reply To: 	Kathy Barwick
> Sent: 	Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:33 PM
> To: 	Mark.Snyder@state.mn.us; TVINSON@tceq.state.tx.us
> Cc: 	Melinda.Dower@dep.state.nj.us; Alan Ingham; Kim Wilhelm; lhel461@ecy.wa.gov; p2tech@great-lakes.net
> Subject: 	RE: state programs for p2 planning?
> 
> I think this would be very interesting.  I or someone from my program would like to participate.  
> 
> Kathy Barwick
> Office of Pollution Prevention
>    and Technology Development
> (916) 323-9560
> fax (916) 327-4494
> 
> 
> 
> >>> "Thomas Vinson" <TVINSON@tceq.state.tx.us> 10/09/02 11:26AM >>>
> I think we should have a multi-state teleconference.  We could discuss various issues that arose as we implemented programs that required pollution prevention.  It seems a lot of states are evaluating their P2 programs and we could benefit from an exchange. 
> 
> Mark, do you have a list of people who responded to your inquiries?  We could use them to organize further thinking.  
> 
> I called a couple of people in Washington.  It was amazing how similar our experiences were.  We seem to have set almost identical priorities in terms of how we addressed issues.  for instance, both programs identified electronic reports as beneficial, and devoted significant resources to development of these systems.  We also discussed ways to get people who are compliant to actually undertake an activity ? recall from the NPPR white paper that the purpose of P2 Planning requirements was to PROMOTE the benefits of P2.  This seems to be a recurring theme I hear in our program and others.  How to make it more than paper.
> 
> There was more, but I don't want to put words in their mouths, so I will let them speak up for themselves.  They have a lot of interesting things to say, as we all do I am sure.    I think we will find a lot of independant evolution that produced amazingly similar outcomes.  
> 
> 
> 
> Tomas Vinson-Peng
> www.srwm.org 
> 
> Fax: 512/239-3165
> Phone: 512/239-3182
> 
> Engineering Specialist
> Texas Commission on Envrionmental Quality
> MC112
> PO Box 13087
> Austin, Tx 78711-3087
> tvinson@tnrcc.state.tx.us 
> 
> 
> Disclaimer:  Regulatory guidance  e-mails are provided to quickly get you an answer to legal requirements.  They are not a substitute for compliance with the regulation, but guidance based on the best information available to the staff of TNRCC at the time.
> 
> 
> >>> "Snyder, Mark" <mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us> 10/09/02 12:46PM >>>
> I did get a response from Melinda regarding my post, but haven't had a chance to get back to her to discuss this further.
> 
> Melinda can be reached at Melinda.Dower@dep.state.nj.us 
> 
> Mark
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Kathy Barwick[SMTP:KBarwick@dtsc.ca.gov] 
> > Sent: 	Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:42 PM
> > To: 	TVINSON@tceq.state.tx.us 
> > Cc: 	lhel461@ecy.wa.gov; Mark.Snyder@state.mn.us 
> > Subject: 	Re: state programs for p2 planning?
> > 
> > Lynn Helbrecht might have some info, or could possibly direct you to some information on result.  I'd be interested in knowing also.  Lynn's at (360)407-6760
> > 
> > I wonder if Mark had a chance to talk to Melinda Dower on this topic.  I'll be interested in the outcome.
> > 
> > Kathy Barwick
> > Office of Pollution Prevention
> >    and Technology Development
> > (916) 323-9560
> > fax (916) 327-4494
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >>> "Thomas Vinson" <TVINSON@tceq.state.tx.us> 10/08/02 07:47AM >>>
> > Does anyone know what happened when Washington allowed an EMS to be substituted for pollution prevention planning?  Did other states try similar things?> 
> > 
> > - What percentage of people switched to EMS programs?
> > - Did reductions continue, accelerate or level off?
> > - What types of companies opted for an EMS?  Did they tend to be larger corporations? Were they large quantity generators?
> > - 
> > 
> > Texas is passing a similar rule in January so we have a great deal of curiousity about this.
> > 
> > Tomas Vinson-Peng
> > www.srwm.org 
> > 
> > Fax: 512/239-3165
> > Phone: 512/239-3182
> > 
> > Engineering Specialist
> > Texas Commission on Envrionmental Quality
> > MC112
> > PO Box 13087
> > Austin, Tx 78711-3087
> > tvinson@tnrcc.state.tx.us 
> > 
> > 
> > Disclaimer:  Regulatory guidance  e-mails are provided to quickly get you an answer to legal requirements.  They are not a substitute for compliance with the regulation, but guidance based on the best information available to the staff of TNRCC at the time.
> > 
> > 
> > >>> "Kathy Barwick" <KBarwick@dtsc.ca.gov> 09/30/02 11:05AM >>>
> > The Washington Department of Ecology  looked at their program a few years back.  They came to the conclusion (among other things I don't remember) that an EMS alternative was appropriate.  You can see their guidance for this at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/971255hwtr.pdf 
> > 
> > Also, there is a white paper on facility p2 planning on NPPR's web site.  Beware, there's an error right up front, that's the number of states requiring planning (thanks Mark for finally settling the question. . . maybe I can get NPPR staff to correct the white paper!).  You can see the white paper at 
> > http://www.p2.org/inforesources/facil-pl.html 
> > It contains overviews of a number of state evaluations of their planning programs and a summary of them in the appendix to the white paper.  This was done in the 90's so things might have changed.  I'm anxious to see responses to your note, as we (CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control) run a hazardous waste-based source reduction planning program as well, since 1989, and wonder how we could improve it.
> > 
> > And, just to correct one thing, California's program doesn't include TRI.  It's strictly hazardous waste-related--although it does include hazardous waste that is pretreated prior to discharge to a potw, so we get the metal finishers etc. in our program as well.
> > 
> > 
> > Kathy Barwick
> > Office of Pollution Prevention
> >    and Technology Development
> > (916) 323-9560
> > fax (916) 327-4494
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > p2tech is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
> > http://www.great-lakes.net 
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net 
> > with the command 'unsubscribe p2tech' in the body of your message. No
> > quotes or subject line are required.
> > About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/p2tech/p2tech.info 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > 
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> p2tech is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
> http://www.great-lakes.net
> To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net
> with the command 'unsubscribe p2tech' in the body of your message. No
> quotes or subject line are required.
> About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/p2tech/p2tech.info
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
p2tech is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
http://www.great-lakes.net
To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net
with the command 'unsubscribe p2tech' in the body of your message. No
quotes or subject line are required.
About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/p2tech/p2tech.info
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *