DRAFT SOURCE REDUCTION PLANS: A PROPOSAL. Ken Geiser. Center for Environmental Management Tufts University. March, 1985

Transcription

1 c DRAFT SOURCE REDUCTION PLANS: A PROPOSAL Ken Geiser Center for Environmental Management Tufts University March, 1985

2 What Is a Source Reduction Plan? Source Reduction Plans could be an effective tool in reducing the amount and degree of hazard of toxic chemicals in society. A Source Reduction Plan is a document describing the means and timing by which corporations will reduce the risks of toxic chemicals in production. Source reduction is here defined in its broadest form to mean the reduction of toxic chemical risks not only at the point of waste, but throughout the production operations. Further, production is defined broadly to include all functions of an organization including maintenance, repair and source. The objective of source reduction is fundamentally the reduction in the risk of human exposure to toxic chemicals and, instrumentally, the reduction in use of toxic chemicals. Today, there is emerging a hierarchy of processes recommended for reducing toxic chemical exposure and toxic chemicals. These include a. chemical substitution (less hazardous chemicals substituted for more hazardous chemicals) b. chemical process changes (changes in prodcution that result in less chemical use or safer chemicals used)

3 C. improving production management (reducing spills, leaks, vaporization, etc. and reducing mixture errors and bad production runs) 1 d. product substitution (producing less toxic products or products that are less hazardous to produce) e. f. g. reclaiming, recycling and reusing chemicals point of production treatment and detoxification improving waste management (including improved storage, transport and on site disposal) Most all of these changes require a. increased awareness and attention about toxic chemi ca Is b. increased motivation to change existing patterns C. knowledge of potential options for change d. willingness to experiment and change e. resources to implement changes f. willingness to follow through, evaluate and learn from such changes All of these elements are advanced when corporations prepare Source Reduction Plans. A Source Reduction Plan then becomes a guide for raising the level of attention about toxic chemicals, increasing motivation to change, presenting alternatives, guiding decision making, advocating for resources and providing information to evaluate the consequences of changes.

4 How Would a Source Reduction Plan Work? Let s assume an ideal. The management of a metal plating shop decides to do a Source Reduction Plan. The management hires an industrial engineering firm to prepare a plan. The consultant first identifies all of the chemicals used in production, notes the most hazardous chemicals and rates them with priorities for attention. Next the consultant notes the most hazardous uses of the high risk chemicals and ranks those as well. The consultant then reviews technical or management options that would reduce the risks, beginning with the highest risk points and working down. Then the consultant finds examples of experience of other firms with these options or finds suppliers of equipment or services that would implement the options. Then the consultant prepares cost estimates for each option for each of the risk points selected. Then the consultant considers payback periods, liability reduction incentives, commercial or public financing and effects on product pricing, profits and investment attractiveness. Finally, the consultant, working with the management and workers, analyzes changes, prepared schedules and projects targets for future evaluation. As a final product, the consultant prepares a planning document, with schedules and projected risk reduction targets. Following this model, the Source Reduction Plan document would have as a minimum four elements.

5 a. a comprehensive inventory of all toxic and hazardous chemicals used in the plant b. a ranking of the chemicals as to priorities for source reduction C. a list of planned process changes that would reduce the risk associated with the highest priority chemicals d. a schedule and set of performance targets that would link process changes to reductions in volume or degree-of-hazard of process chemicals or waste This then would constitute a Source Reduction Plan. What Should Be the Role of the State? In the ideal world a responsible management concerned about toxic chemical liability would be currently trying to reduce toxic exposure and a plan would be a sound way to advance this. Here we can leave the world of ideals. Most managers have little incentive to expend corporate resources on activities that are costly, are risky, have other than short term benefits, are not also being done by competitors and'are not required by law. Even managers interested in reducing some chemical exposures may not think comprehensively, may focus on the

6 easy to reduce, but insignificant, risks, may not know about options and may have no way to assess benefits. Further, it is not corporations that are advancing the goal of lowered chemical risk. It is the public, acting through government, I that is pressing for safer workplaces and less chemical pollution. This public is not unjustifiably skeptical of corporate volunteerism. Source reduction must somehow make corporations accountable to the public. Further, it is only the government that is in an effective position to set rules equally for all firms and industries. There are also administrative reasons for government encouragement of Source Reduction Plans. Amendments to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act passed last year focused increased government attention on "waste minimization." The new regulations require that waste manifests certify that the volume and toxicity of the waste has been reduced to the maximum degree economically feasible and that the biennial waste generator reports indicate efforts to reduce waste volumes and the degree of success achieved by these efforts. Thus the government is already slowly creeping into a significant role in requiring source reduction planning. The public role in Source Reduction Plans could then be significant. Policy options include a. State mandated plans for all corporations. The state requires all chemical using corporations to prepare and submit Source Reduction Plans

7 b. State mandated plans for specific industry classifications. The state identifies the top twenty or so industries that use toxic chemicals and targets them C. State required plans as a condition of state action. The state could require plans from all corporations applying for grants or loans, or permits and licenses or exemptions and tax credits d. State urging corporations to prepare plans. State could provide training and education and moral persuasion. While any of these options might be considerec, the strongest and most effective policy option would be the first: state mandated plans for all chemical using corporations. Such a policy would be far-reaching and dramatic. It would serve to raise attention throughout the state and it would create a significant market for technical assistance. What Role for Technical Assistance? While the state should put itself squarely on line in demanding that corporations begin now to reduce toxic exposure risks, the state should as much as possible stay out of the technical

8 aspects of how firms go about this business. The state does not have the resources or skills to train corporate managers in new industrial processes. There are thousands of corporations in the state, most with highly specific conditions, resources and commitments. The state could never effectively service all of them. Yet the state does need a. to effectively monitor the preparation and implementation of Source Reduction Plans, and b. to guarantee that hundreds of small businesses get the technical help they need to stay in business, but meet the goals of source reduction A look at Massachusetts' recent experience with the "right to know" law suggests a model. Few who struggled to achieve passage of this law foresaw that it would create a small market for technical assistance into which innumerable consultant firms would leap. This experience suggests that mandating Source Reduction Plans would likely create a similar market. As a means of inducing innovation and the diffusion of innovations, this service industry has significant value, both to corporations and the state. For corporations there would be technical assistance services that could prepare Source Reduction Plans, help broker equipment and financing packages, oversee production changes and train employees in new processes. For the state there would be a pool of technical consultants who could be hired to review Source Reduction Plans filed by corporations, assess plans, service small firms and monitor

9 corporate progress in achieving the objectives of the plans. What Role for Local Communities? While fairness and effectiveness both dictate that the state should set the requirements and timetables for Source Reduction Plans, it does not follow that the state should be the primary agent for monitoring and compliance. After all, toxic exposure is a local event. Local communities have the most to gain from reducing the risk of chemical contamination. Local officials and community residents have much to learn and say about the kind of health and safety conditions that should exist within their municipalities. Local participation also builds a borader base of support for source reduction and provides for the development of a public constituency for this and further programs. Several options exist at the local level. Local Boards of Health, or fire companies or tax collectors, or hazardous waste coordinators or right to know coordinators, or special officially appointed committees could review Source Reduction Plans and periodically assess progress and compliance. There is probably a lot here to recommend special local Boards of Public Safety that unite hazardous waste coordination, right to know coordination, fire, police and civil defense functions. Such local Boards of Public Safety, while not

10 necessary to implement Source Reduction Plans, would be an attractive new local institution for coordinating and monitoring the health and safety environments of local communities. Nor should the voice of workers be neglected here. Employees of local firms often are intimately familiar with the current production processes in a firm. Workers often are filled with practical and inexpensive ideas about production improvements. Local workers and unions might play an important role in helping to develop Source Reduction Plans, to review and comment on plans and to monitor plans for compliance. Representatives of local unions might add depth and insight if also included on local Boards of Public Safety. What About Enforcement and Compliance? The preparation and filing of a Source Reduction Plan has much value in its own right. Attention would be raised and options explored. Public access to such plans would provide some incentive toward implementation, due to the perceived threat of embarrassing corporations in default of their plans. Yet, perhaps, there needs to be some "bigger stick." Corporations that fail to file plans of course should be penalized with some significant weight. Revoking corporate papers is always possible, but perhaps something more like fines or civil sanctions would do. Failure to

11 follow out a plan must, in fairness, be more judicial. Many factors could lead to failure to implement. If local communities are to monitor plans, there must also be local discretion and the right to negotiate and alter plans. The incentive at this point might be no more than a referral to state sanctions, such as loss of permits, licenses or access to public resources. An interesting planning experience in New Jersey offers a useful parallel here. In 1976 New Jersey passed legislation that mandated that all firms that purchased and used chemicals from a list of some 155 priority chemicals report to the state quantities purchased and exactly how those chemicals left the plant, either as product or waste. This simple chemical inventory ran for three years between 1978 and 1981, and covered all industries in the state. During that period compliance was extremely high. What Protections Do Corporations Have? It is always best to start by assuming that corporate managers will do their best to comply with social objectives. That they fail, and fail often, is a lesson worthy of learning anew each time. Yet corporations do need some protections against arbitrariness, excessive burden and, particularly, against losing competitive position. If local Boards of Public Safety or other agents are designated as monitors of compliance, then criteria need to be strict and limits

12 on local sanctions well marked. There also needs to be an effectie appeals process that settles disputes and relieves corporations of vindictiveness and harrassment at the local level. Further, there will need to be careful trade secret protections defined so that corporations may hide aspects of production that truly yield competitive advantage. Much of this was handled in the right to know legislation and lessons learned there would be helpful here. Another lesson learned from the right to know experience is the value to corporations of having effective advance notice and clear guidelines. Phasing in of mandates for Source Reduction Plans could be tied to size of firm or industrial classification. Targeting less than all firms at once would lead to learning lessons as the program develops and avoid the managerial and fiscal traumas of overwhelming either business or government. There is also no need to target all corporations equally. Some corporations employ significant amounts of toxic chemicals, while others may do little more than purchase janitorial supplies. Priority could be given to corporations defined by standard industrial category, by volume of hazardous waste produced or by use of particular priority chemicals. Those of particularly high priority could be targeted first or plans could be required of only certain of the priority classifications.

13 Source Reduction Plans in the Larger Context Source reduction planning does not solve the problems of new, safer technology development or the access to capital that firms may need to finance changes in production processes. But planning does raise consciousness and attention, does produce and communicate information and does provide the basis for more effective action. Source Reduction Plans are a tool for requiring the private sector to present its responsibility for guaranteeing a less risky work and community environment. But, such planning in the private sector must be coordinated with public sector planning as well. The aggregate of private Source Reduction Plans should provide an effective base for the development of state Toxic Substances Management Plans. The role of the state as regulator and motivator must be carefully coordinated with private plans to guarantee that transitions to less toxic production are fair and comprehensive and do not overly burden any single sectors or individuals. The state must therefore develop and follow its own plans -- something on the order of a Toxic Substances Management Plan. Nor should the state act independently of its own local districts. For local communities and local Boards of Public Safety to effectively monitor and encourage firms to comply with their own Source Reduction Plans, there will need to be local plans as well. The private Source Reduction Plans

14 f. I of all firms in a local city or town should easily become the basis for local Hazardous Materials Management Plans as well. Only with such careful coordination at both the state and local levels can source reduction be advanced as a benefit to industry, workers, residents and the larger state commonwealth.