Skip to main content

Community P2 Grants Program

EGLE provides matching grants to local and county governments, local health departments, municipalities, regional planning agencies, and non-profit organizations. Current opportunities will be listed on this page as well as past grants given for examples of the types of grants that may be available.

Contact

Devan Dodge
DodgeD1@Michigan.gov
517-275-0894

Community Pollution Prevention (P2) Grant Program Request for Proposals (RFP)

In fiscal year (FY) 2022, EGLE will provide matching grants to local and county governments, local health departments, municipalities, regional planning agencies, and non-profit organizations to meet the following objectives:

Objective 1: Develop a statewide food production and distribution food waste reduction roadmap to inform state and local decision makers of recommended policies and programs that encourage decarbonization through food waste reduction in the farming, food manufacturing, and grocery retail sectors in Michigan.

Objective 2: Develop a statewide toxics reduction roadmap to inform state and local decision makers of recommended policies and programs that encourage reduction in the use of toxic materials.

Roadmaps are a proven technique for providing strategic guidance for economic development efforts to accelerate innovation and commercial activity, and are a dynamic tool for setting priorities, allocating resources, aligning stakeholders, and focusing efforts. The current status of adoption and implementation of food waste reduction and toxics reduction efforts in Michigan is not known; the Sustainable Development Unit seeks to understand barriers to adopting and increase adoption of pollution prevention strategies for these two focus areas in Michigan.

Applications must be submitted electronically, in one PDF file to EGLE-P2Grant@Michigan.gov by April 25, 2022, 11:59PM

Application:

Deadline: April 25, 2022, 11:59PM

For questions about the Community P2 Grant Program please contact Devan Dodge at DodgeD1@Michigan.gov

Community P2 Projects

  • Evidence of pharmaceutical waste has been detected in groundwater and drinking water in the Great Lakes region. The technologies and equipment required to remove these compounds from drinking and waste water are expensive and are currently not widely deployed by communities. Successful drug collection programs will prevent pharmaceutical waste from being released into and accumulating in the environment and reduce the incidence of abuse of prescription drugs.

    The purpose of these grants is to increase public access to free, convenient, safe and environmentally optimal drug collection programs, and to foster the development of successful models and approaches that can be implemented in other areas of the state.

    2013 Awards

    • Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority $30,370.37
    • Resource Recovery and Recycling Authority of Southwest Oakland County (RRRASOC) $6,005.00
    • Superior Watershed Partnership $96,845.18
    • Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council $99,795.67

    2013 Project Results

    2012 Awards

    • Crawford County Commission on Aging $7,959.60
    • Great Lakes Clean Water Organization (GLCWO) $77,125.00
    • Ingham County Health Department $50,000.00
    • Kent County Department of Public Works $63,883.50
    • Macomb County Health Department $49,400.00

    2012 Project Results

  • Under this Community Pollution Prevention Grant, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is partnering with the Michigan Recycling Coalition to explore end-of-life management options for electronic waste, pharmaceuticals and plastic packaging. MDEQ has provided Community Pollution Prevention grant funding for MRC to facilitate dialogue and understanding about product stewardship as it relates to these waste materials. MRC will issue their findings in late 2013, we strongly encourage stakeholders to participate in these conversations so your position concerning product stewardship can be reflected in the final report.

    Below are links to information resources and progress and summary reports from the dialogue workshops facilitated by MRC as an opportunity for stakeholders to engage in dialogue about product stewardship.

    2011 Final Grant Report

    Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics

  • Communities and neighborhoods can improve infrastructure and operations and enable sustainable practices through land use plans, zoning and building codes, solid waste and water management programs, energy reduction programs, and through policies dealing with roads and public transportation. Communities and neighborhoods can lead, educate, and demonstrate the savings from waste reduction and energy efficiency, thereby encouraging businesses, institutions, and individuals to live more sustainably.

    The purpose of these grants is to increase cooperation between business, citizens, and local governments, and to foster the development of local models and approaches that drive pollution prevention and sustainable initiatives at the community level.

    The applicants receiving funding are as follows:

    • City of Ann Arbor; $50,000
    • Muskegon County; $50,000
    • Oakland County; $50,000
    • West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum; $49,960

    City of Ann Arbor, Michigan Green Communities, Final Report

    Muskegon County, Sustainability Office

    Oakland County, Woodward 5 Sustainability Partnership

    West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum, Tools and Resources Initiative

  • The purpose of this round of Community P2 grant was to foster the development of community based approaches that will effectively address climate and energy challenges in Michigan.

    This grant targeted the following climate actions:

    • Developing and implementing a "local climate action plan" to reduce GHG emissions and reduce energy consumption.
    • Adopting formal resolutions and ordinances that support energy and climate change initiatives.
    • Creating a community inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
    • Organizing or strengthening a citizen climate and/or energy task force for a municipality, county or region.
    • Supporting ongoing partnerships between neighborhoods/blocks and city government that will address climate and energy issues.
    • Improving infrastructure, operations and adopt climate-smart practices through land use plans, zoning and building codes.
    • Identifying opportunities for waste and energy savings in buildings, waste and water treatment processes and other local government operations including: transportation and roads;          handling of solid and hazardous waste; janitorial and food services; laundry operations; environment purchasing; electronic waste disposal; composting; heating and cooling; recycling;        energy and water usage; etc.
    • Developing sustainable land use guidelines for your community to address energy usage and climate change.

    The following municipalities received grant funding:

    • City of Ann Arbor; $50,000
    • City of Dearborn; $50,000
    • City of Hazel Park; $48,747
    • City of Southgate; $49,767
    • City of Ypsilanti; $48,033

     

    PROJECT RESULTS:

    Climate Action Plans, Final Reports and Strategy Libraries

    Ann Arbor Climate Action Plan

    Dearborn Climate Action Plan

    Hazel Park Climate Action Plan

    South Gate Climate Action Plan

    Ypsilanti Climate Action Plan

     

    Summary:

    Year: 2010 thru 2012

    Grant Type: Community P2

    Focus: Climate Action Planning

     

    Background:

    Local governments can play a key role in minimizing the risks of climate change and reducing its long-term costs. They can reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions by improving operations and developing sustainable land use guidelines for the community at large while minimizing the negative impacts of future climate change. Local governments can also improve infrastructure, operations, and enable climate-smart practices through land use plans, zoning and building codes, solid waste and water management programs, energy reduction programs, and through policies dealing with roads and public transportation. Local governments can lead, educate, and demonstrate the savings from energy efficiency and low-carbon energy, encouraging businesses, institutions, and individuals to move forward on climate change.

     

    Environmental Benefits:

    The development of climate action plans and strategies that can be used as models and templates by other Michigan cities and local governments across the State. Environmental benefits include the reduction in greenhouse gases, energy, waste and water.

  • Hospitals and healthcare facilities generate in excess of one percent of all the solid waste in the United States. In addition, hospitals are unique by comparison to other waste producing entities, because they generate such a diverse variety of wastes. A typical healthcare facility waste stream may be comprised of solid, hazardous, radioactive, biological, regulated medical, and other specialized chemical wastes that are ultimately discarded or released to the air, land or water. Another distinct feature of these facilities is the rate of waste generation calculated per hospital patient, which can typically exceed four times that of an average citizen.

    Implementing sustainable P2 strategies at healthcare facilities have been shown to yield major benefits, including significantly reducing cost and health and environmental risks.

    The hospitals receiving funding are as follows:

    • Covenant Medical Center; $24,000
    • Northern Michigan Regional Hospital; $20,000
    • Otsego Memorial Hospital; $13,655
    • War Memorial Hospital; $24,700

    PROJECT RESULTS:

    Summary:

    Year: 2009

    Grant Type: Community P2

    Focus: Handling of solid, hazardous and universal waste; janitorial and food services; laundry operations; handling of surgical and pharmaceutical wastes; electronic waste disposal; composting; heating and cooling; energy and water usage; and environmentally preferred purchasing.

    Background: The grant funds promoted the development of a P2 healthcare program. The intent of these programs was for healthcare facilities to implement one or more of the following P2 practices including: reduction of solid, hazardous, universal and medical waste and a method to measure and quantify the reductions; pharmaceutical waste collection programs with a system to document quantities of waste collected; implementation of an environment purchasing program documenting changes in purchasing practices; recycling program and a method to quantify the materials collected and recycled. Project funds supported staff time to promote program development and implementation.

    Environmental Benefits: Some combined environmental benefits and cost savings from these projects included a 4,680 gallon reduction in the use of chemical cleaners and strippers for floor maintenance by replacing them with more environmentally preferred cleaning technology. This also resulted in the conservation of 5,980 gallons/year of water. By purchasing and using reusable instead of disposable surgical gowns, one hospital realized a savings of $1,303/year and reduced their solid waste to landfill by 8,688 pounds. The replacement of conventional lighting with T-5 fixtures and bulbs resulted in one hospitals' estimated savings of $14,204/year in electrical energy use. This hospital also increased their recycling rate to 70% by collecting 21,840 pounds of glass, tin and plastic for recycling.

  • Schools are highly visible members of the community, and waste reduction provides the opportunity to set an example for the community.  Practicing waste reduction and P2 in schools teaches environmental responsibility. By emphasizing the importance of these approaches to their students, teachers can help instill habits that will be of value the rest of their lives.

    By reducing hazardous materials and wastes at the source, steps are being taken towards eliminating pollutants that would otherwise be released to the environment. Minimizing chemicals in school classrooms, facilities maintenance, and bus maintenance departments will reduce hazardous and toxic wastes; improve safety for students, teachers, and maintenance staff; and improve the environment.

    The communities receiving funding are as follows:

    • Ann Arbor Public Schools, Washtenaw County; $20,000
    • Blissfield Community Schools, Lenawee County; $15,200
    • Comstock Public Schools, Kalamazoo County; $18,000
    • Detroit Public Schools, Wayne County; $23,940
    • Fennville Public Schools, Allegan County; $15,000
    • Forest Hills Public Schools, Kent County; $20,000
    • Grand Rapids Public Schools, Kent County; $21,000
    • Hesperia Community Schools, Newaygo County; $11,000
    • Lansing School District, Ingham County; $24,000
    • North Star Academy, Marquette County; $22,980
    • Parchment School District, Kalamazoo County; $20,000
    • Brandywine Community Schools, Berrien County; $5,556
    • Bronson Community Schools, Branch County; $23,593
    • Clinton County Department of Waste Management, Clinton County; $24,000
    • Copper Country Intermediate School District, Houghton County; $18,328
    • Rochester Community Schools, Oakland County; $24,000
    • Romeo Community Schools, Macomb County; $24,000
    • St. Johns Public Schools, Clinton County; $24,000
    • Van Buren Public Schools, Van Buren County; $24,000
    • Wyandotte Public Schools, Wayne County; $23,920

    PROJECT RESULTS:

    Summary:

    Year: 2005 & 2006

    Grant Type: Community P2

    Focus: Removal, reduce the use and best management of toxic chemicals in schools.

    Background:
    The grants promoted the disposal of toxic chemicals already on-site, the reduction in usage through purchasing greener products and implementation of best management practices for chemicals that remain in use. Areas of the school reviewed included; class rooms such as arts, biology and chemistry; medical supplies; shop; janitorial; and maintenance of the grounds, buildings, and transportation.

    Project funds were used for staff time to inventory and develop best management practices for chemicals and/or the purchases of software to track their chemical usage. Best management practices include guidance on alternatives, purchasing, labeling, and storage. Alternatives include the use of non-toxic alternatives such as micro-laboratory methods in the classroom.

    Environmental Benefits:
    As a group, the schools disposed of about 23,000 pounds of toxic chemicals which included over 2,492 pounds of mercury, mercury compounds and mercury containing equipment, such as thermometers, thermostats, and blood pressure cuffs.

    The most significant environmental and health benefit from the program was achieved through the schools implementing practices that reduced the use and purchases of toxics. The removal and disposal of toxic chemicals helped to protect the current children and teachers from exposure. But by implementing purchases of non-toxic alternatives and reducing the use of toxic chemicals, these schools protected school children and teachers of future generations as well as increased safety and reduced costs for disposal and spill cleanups.