GreenYes Digest V97 #245

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:07:17 -0500

GreenYes Digest Sat, 11 Oct 97 Volume 97 : Issue 245

Today's Topics:
Fwd: Small Business Innovation Research Grant Solicitation closes
FWD>Call-in day
Have Guts on Greenhouse
Participate in Dialogue With America
Wisconsin Fines

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:05:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Fwd: Small Business Innovation Research Grant Solicitation closes

Forwarded message:
To: (Multiple recipients of list)
Date: 97-10-09 17:37:06 EDT

Please excuse the formating, I lifted sections of the
solicitation from

Small Business Innovation Research - 1998 Program



ISSUE DATE: September 18, 1997

CLOSING DATE: November 18, 1997 *

* CAUTION - Late Submissions, Modifications and
Withdrawals: See Section V, Paragraph K

A. The Environmental Protection Agency invites small
business firms to submit research proposals
under this program solicitation entitled "Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) Program." The
SBIR program is a phased process uniform throughout the
Federal Government of soliciting
proposals and awarding funding agreements for research (R)
or research and development (R&D)
to meet stated agency needs or missions.

B. EPA is interested in research on advanced concepts in
scientific and engineering areas,
particularly where the research may serve as a base for
technological innovation. The proposed
research must address a single research topic of the
solicitation or an important segment of a
research topic. Only proposals addressing a single research
topic, and so indicated on the cover
sheet, will be reviewed. Multiple proposals from the same
offeror addressing different topics are
acceptable if they are not duplicates of the same research
principle modified to fit the topics. If such
duplicates are submitted, only one will be reviewed. Refer to
Sections III, IV, and VIII for
additional requirements.

The same proposal may not be submitted under more than
one topic. However, an organization may
submit separate proposals on different topics or different
proposals on the same topic under this
solicitation. Where similar research is discussed under more
than one topic, the offeror should
choose the topic whose description appears more relevant to
the proposer's research concept.
Offerors may respond to any of the topics or to specific
subtopics within them. Research may be
carried through the construction and evaluation of a
laboratory prototype.

SBIR - 1998 Program Solicitation Research TopicsProgram
Scope: The objective of this solicitation is to increase the
incentive and opportunity for
small firms to undertake cutting edge, high-risk, or long-term
research that has a high potential payoff
if the research is successful. Major technological innovations
often require high front-end risk
investment which effectively lowers the risk for follow-on
investors. Federal support of the front-end
research on new ideas, often the highest risk part of the
innovation process, may provide small
business sufficient incentive to pursue such research.
"Research" does not include large
demonstration projects, surveying, or the preparation of
materials or documents such as process
designs, instruction manuals, and related computer expert
systems, computer models and computer
aided design activities.

The proposed research must directly pertain to EPA's
environmental mission and must be responsive
to EPA program interests included in the topic descriptions
of this solicitation. The research should
be the basis for technological innovation resulting in new
commercial products, processes, or
services which benefit the public and promote the growth of
the small business. Proposals principally
for the development of proven concepts towards
commercialization or for market research should
not be submitted, since such efforts are not supported by
EPA and are considered the responsibility
of the private sector. Such proposals will be technically

The Agency's SBIR Program is concerned with pollution
prevention and control technologies
applicable to: drinking water treatment; toxic substances;
solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes; air
pollution emissions; and waste water effluents. Processes
involving anthropogenic radioactive
materials or the application of pesticides, fungicides, and
related agriculture materials such as
fertilizers are addressed by other Agencies and are not
included in this solicitation. Cost effective
technologies featuring conservation, reuse, recycle,
increased efficiencies, and pollution prevention
are of special interest. Specific focus areas in this
solicitation include:


Solid and liquid wastes appear in many forms, ranging from
municipal solid wastes, which may be incinerated or
disposed of
in conventional landfills, to hazardous solid and liquid
industrial wastes which may require special disposal to
aquifer or air contamination. Contaminated sediments now
to be the main source of toxic contaminants in many bays,
and rivers. Innovative approaches to address these problems
needed in areas such as the following:Improved treatment
and disposal of solid and/or liquid
hazardous wastes or sediments, including
detoxification, solidification, chemical treatment,
neutralization, or otherwise fixing organic waste
prior to storage in landfills.
Innovative methods for the operation and control of
high temperature waste combustion incinerators which
lead to reduced contaminant release through air,
water, or residual ash streams.
Advanced hazardous waste destruction techniques using
cost-effective thermal, physical, and chemical
Recovery processes which may enable the economic
recovery of valuable components from solid and
hazardous waste streams which may then be sold and/or
recycled off site.
Innovative new uses for post-consumer waste materials
from municipal or industrial sources, particularly for
materials of which large amounts are not being
recycled presently (plastics, paper, etc.), to reduce
landfill and disposal costs.
Innovative ways to increase the cost-effectiveness of
solid waste and recyclables collection, such as
development of technologies to process recyclables
during collection.
Innovative ways of preventing or treating/detoxifying
wastes which may be banned from land disposal,
particularly, those containing highly toxic or
persistent constituents
An improved technique for the rapid removal of the
paint from a variety of architectural surfaces. The
system should soften and/or loosen the paint film and
physically strip it from the surface to comply with
the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) cleanliness
standards. The method should minimize the generation
of small dust or fume particles while capturing the
paint film as it is removed. It should be four or
five times faster than existing techniques and avoid
the use of toxic and or hazardous chemicals,
especially volatile organic compounds. The system
must produce a surface that can be repainted or
include an inexpensive refinishing step to permit

Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention means "source reduction" as defined
under the Pollution Prevention Act. The
Pollution Prevention Act defines "source reduction" to mean
any practice which: (1) reduces the
amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant
entering any waste stream or otherwise
released into the environment (including fugitive emissions)
prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal;
and (2) reduces the hazards to public health and the
environment associated with the release of such
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The term includes:
equipment or technology modifications,
process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign
of products, and substitution of raw
materials. Practices which reduce large amounts of
non-hazardous wastes will also be considered
under this category. While improvements in housekeeping,
maintenance, training or inventory control
may result in pollution prevention, these activities are outside
the scope of EPA's SBIR program.

Under the Pollution Prevention Act, recycling, energy
recovery, treatment and disposal are not
included within the definition of pollution prevention. Some
practices commonly described as
"in-process recycling" may qualify as pollution prevention.
However, recycling is not considered
waste reduction if waste exits a process, exists as a
separate entity, undergoes significant handling,
and is transported from the waste generation location to
another production site (perhaps another
part of a large plant) for reuse, or to an offsite commercial
recycling facility or waste exchange. If a
proposal identifies Topic J, POLLUTION PREVENTION, but
the work is in fact Treatment or
Recycling belonging under Topic G, Treatment and Recycling
of Solid Waste, Hazardous Wastes
and Sediments, the proposal will be rejected as

While pollution prevention approaches are also appropriate
for the agricultural and energy sectors,
proposals in these areas should be sent to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
Department of Energy SBIR programs respectively. We are
particularly interested in proposals that
address the six industry sectors under the EPA Common
Sense Initiative (CSI): metal finishing,
petroleum refining, automotive assembly, printing,
electronics, and iron and steel.

Examples of areas of interest include research opportunities
for innovation in pollution prevention
using the following approaches:
Closed loop processes including: (1) new, preferably
simple, no or low emission chrome
plating techniques and (2) new refrigeration or
air-conditioning techniques which reduce total
greenhouse gas emissions.

In-Process Recycling: Potential wastes or their
components can be reused within existing

New no or low emission chlorinated solvent vapor
degreasing systems for metal plating

Process Technology and Equipment: Significant changes
in the basic technology and
equipment of production, including modernization,
modification, or better control of process

Process Inputs: Changes in raw materials, either to
different materials (e.g., water instead of
organic solvents) or materials with different specifications
(e.g., lower levels of contaminants).

Novel cost-effective separation methods which result in
highly effective separation of useful
material from other components in a process stream.

Development of new bulk materials and coatings with long
life that have reduced
environmental impact in manufacture or use.

Improved sensor and multivariate control of manufacturing
equipment and systems to reduce
waste or emissions. Advancements in intelligent controls.

Changes in the composition of end products that allow
fundamental changes in the
manufacturing process or in the use of raw materials.

Alternative synthetic pathways: The use of (1)
catalysis/biocatalysts; (2) natural processes
such as photochemistry and biomimetic synthesis; (3)
alternate feedstocks which are more
innocuous and renewable (e.g. biomass, solar energy).

Alternative reaction conditions: The use of solvents which
have a reduced impact on human
health and the environment. The use of increasing
selectivity and reducing wastes and

Development of new chemicals including new surface
coatings which are: less toxic than
current alternatives or inherently safer regarding accident


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:24:13 -0700
From: (Neighborhood Energy Consortium)
Subject: FWD>Call-in day

>Mail-System-Version: ClickMail 1.1.2
>Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:47:47 -0700
>To: "Barney Popkin" <>,
> "Harvey Ruvin"
> <>,
> "Linda Maio" <>,
> "Joanie Matranga" <>,
> "Dennis Minks" <>, "Lee Morris" <>,
> "Nancy Newell"
> <>,
> "Margaret Pageler"
> <>,
> "Craig Perkins"
> <>,
> "Shirley Scott"
> <>,
> "Fred Sissine" <>,
> "Lucinda "
> Smith" <>,"
> "Deb Sachs" <>,
> "Adam Saling" <>,
> "Don Ward"
> <>,
> "Mary T'Kach" <>,
> "Mary Tucker"
> <>
>From: "Abby Young" <>
>Subject: FWD>Call-in day
>Importance: Low
>Internet Mail FWD>Call-in day
>ENCLOSURE: A file arrived with this message. It is enclosed in the next
>message with this subject.
> Following is a call-in flyer for the national call-in day on October
> 15th. The date was moved from what we originally stated due to the
> holiday and need for an extra day to remind people to call. Please
> get this out to as many folks as you can and generate those calls!!!
> He needs to hear from the public that cutting global warming pollution is
>top priority to get him to stand up to the polluters.
> Join in a National Call-In Day October 15th, 1997
> White House Comment Line (202) 456-1111 and dial 0 for operator.
>Say "I support early action to stop climate change and significantly
>global warming pollution. Our first target should be 2005."
> Policymakers in the Administration who especially need to be
> convinced that the US should take a strong position:
> Larry Summers, Deputy Treasury Secretary (202) 622-1080
> Gene Sperling, Chair, National Economic Council (202) 456-5353
> Let these policymakers know:
>-- Climate change is real: scientists agree it has already begun.
> We do not believe industry claims to the contrary.
>--We can protect the environment and have a strong economy.
> Industry always overestimates the cost.
>--The United States must take significant early action to fight global
>Our first target should be 2005.
>[Message ID: -1335716619]
>[Internet header:]


Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:10:26 +0900
From: (Hop)
Subject: Have Guts on Greenhouse

Dear Mr Gore,

Have some guts and propose a worthwhile Greenhouse gas reduction target for
the US - otherwise you risk the reputation of all US citizens who may
forever in the future by regarded by the world community as environmental

In your own words:

"The time has long since come to take more political risks ... by proposing
tougher more effective solutions and fighting hard for their enactment."

Please reply with a target that earns you the respect I'm sure you desire.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Hopper.


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:36:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Participate in Dialogue With America

Greetings from the Steel Recycling Institute!

As environmental professionals with Internet access, we enjoy the benefits of
forums, such as this mailing list, to discuss programs and developments
within our industry.

In fact, we would appreciate your input on a program that we are currently
hosting on our website. The program is called Dialogue With America and is
designed to educate consumers about the benefits of recycling.

Each month a new question will be posted on our site along with an e-mail
with the answer. I'd like to ask you, as online environmental professionals,
to give it a try and give us any input you feel is appropriate.

To access the Dialogue, start at the Steel Recycling Institute homepage
( and click on the banner ad. Everything else
should be self explanatory from there.

Thank you in advance!

Jom Woods
Communications Services Coordinator
Steel Recycling Institute


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:42:11 +0000
From: "wink" <>
Subject: unsubscribe



Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:02:38 -0400
From: Michele Raymond <>
Subject: Wisconsin Fines

This is from the October SRLU, but I added the big picture for a release.
This is a public release--you may forward.


Wisconsin Newspapers Fined for Failing Recycled Content Mandate

Wisconsin has become the first state to enforce its recycled content
mandate on newsprint -- it has assessed fees on 24 newspapers and printers
for falling a few points short of using 35% recycled fibers, according to

Of the 48 publishers affected by the 1992 law, 13 attempted but were denied
exceptions; 24 have been assessed "fees." The fees range from $38 to $13,
670, assessed on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the state's largest
newspaper. Wisconsin's recycled content mandate for newsprint started at
10% in 1992, and racheted up incrementally to 45% by 2000.

A total of 12 states have recycled content mandates on newsprint, 13 more
have voluntary agreements, according to SRLU state surveys. With recycled
content averaging 25% nationwide, publishers have been hard-pressed to meet
state goals, some of which will require 40% by 1998 (Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Missouri have such mandatory goals.)

Most state laws have so many exemptions for "availability" and "price" that
the laws have little teeth, says SRLU Publisher Michele Raymond.

Rather than mete out fines, Connecticut, Maryland and North Carolina have
amended their recycled content laws to either give more time or allow
newspaper credit for their own internal recycling programs.

Newsprint mills, many of which are located in Canada, are finding it
difficult to justify any new recycled newsprint capacity because the whole
market for newsprint is flat, explained recycled paper consultant Bill
Moore of Moore and Associates, Atlanta GA.

Newspapers have become more efficient, reducing their unsold inventories.
Moreover, the Internet has had an impact on demand for hard-copy papers,
Raymond says.

These woes don't mean much to local governments. Newspapers are the
largest single category of material collected in residential recycling
programs. After recycling, Americans still trashed 4.38 million tons of old
newsprint (ONP) in 1996.
Despite the content mandates, the market for ONP went down to 0 - $25/ton
in 1996 before moving up to $20-40/ ton this year. Local recycling managers
are still unhappy with markets for their current ONP collections.

Raymond is Editor/Publisher of the newsletters State Recycling Laws Update
and Recycling Laws International. The bi-monthly publications track
recycling legislation in all 50 states and 34 countries. Her company,
Raymond Communications Inc., is holding its second international Take it
Back! Conference Nov. 17-18 in Alexandria VA

Information: 301/345-4237 Fax 301/345-4768 E-Mail

THE WEB SITE HAS BEEN UPDATED -- we've added an international CALENDAR of
meetings for your convenience. -- MR


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #245