REDUCTION/POLLUTION PREVENTION STRATEGIES?) Discussion Paper for Toxics Use Reduction Team 12/28/89. Mary Beth Powell

Transcription

1 WHAT'S N A NAME? (OR HOW DOES TOXCS USE REDUCTON DFFER FROM OTHER WASTE REDUCTON/POLLUTON PREVENTON STRATEGES?) Discussin Paper fr Txics Use Reductin Team 12/28/89 Mary Beth Pwell The cncept f preventing waste generatin as ppsed t treating and dispsing f it has been thrughly discussed, debated, studied, and dcumented fr nearly twenty years nw. n many cases, prvisins fr waste reductin have been incrprated int state and federal legislatin, generally at the urging f envirnmentalists as a way f reducing risks t health and the envirnment, but als by individuals wh fresaw ecnmic and ther benefits t be gained by ligitimizing the cncept. n sme cases, the implementatin f waste reductin plicies has truly resulted in a decrease in waste generatin achieved by a variety f means, including the fllwing generally accepted methds: waste treatment and recycling prduct r materials reuse imprved husekeeping material substitutin equipment redesign waste exchange 0 incineratin detxificatin Hwever, a marked increase in gds prductin during the last five decades and a heavy reliance upn the use f txic chemicals in the prductin prcess has created an even mre pressing prblem where reducinq waste is just ne f the bjectives f a pllutin preventin strategy. The literature in the area f waste reductin/pllutin preventin has presented a cnfusing picture as a number f different terms have surfaced, each attempting t describe mre cmpletely what anther term has nt included in its wrking definitin. As a result, waste generatrs, plicy makers, researchers, waste reductin activists and many thers have been given a "chinese menu" frm which t chse when they enter int discussin n the subject. The terms waste minimizatin, waste reductin, txics use reductin, pllutin preventin, waste avidance, waste generatin reuuctin, precycling, pllutin abatement, and surce reductin, just t

2 name a few, are ften used interchangeably and in many cases, inaccurately t describe waste reductin r waste preventin effrts. The difficulty with this prliferatin f terms lies in cnveying precisely what is meant by each term, tranlating that int public plicy and determining realistic mechanisms thrugh which a particular cncept can be implemented. The mst recent additin t the list f terms is txics use reductin. The txics use reductin cncept riginated frm the Massachusetts Public nterest Research Grup (MASSPRG) in 1988 and has becme the basis f at least tw pieces f state legislatin that have been ratified in Massachusetts and Oregn. Fur mre txics use reductin bills are pending in the states f ndiana, New Jersey, Califrnia and Minnesta. While skeptics may questin the validity and necessity f yet anther waste preventin strategy, txics use reductin supprters stand firm in their belief that the cncept is unique and very much needed if we are t cpe effectively with the increasing demands fr gds and services brught n by a rapidly grwing ppulatin in a highly technlgical age. Txics use reductin is tuted as an integrated, cmrehensive strategy that addresses the use f txics chemicals in ur sciety while reducing the risks t the envirnment and t cnsumer and wrker health withut shifting risks amng wrkers, cnsumers, and different envirnmental media. The txics use reductin apprach is cmprised f the fllwing cmpnents t achieve its gals: reprting and planning requirements technical and financial assistance institutinal cmmitment within gvernment restrictins f certain txics citizen invlvement txics emissins fee Hw is txics use reductin different frm the ther terms? s there a need t distinguish between them and shuld we even try? The answer t all f these questins is ltyes.ff t's imprtant t explre the relatinship in rder t demnstrate the weaknesses and shrtcmings f the ther strategies and t illustrate the benefits f the txics use reductin apprach. Fr the purpses f this discussin we have chsen t fcus upn fur f the nst cmmnly used terms; waste minimizatin, waste reductin, pllutin preventin, and surce reductin, and willocmpare each f them with the txics use reductin apprach.

3 One way t visi alize the difference is n a cntinum where each term is placed in its apprpriate lcatin in relatin t a generic prductin prcess : Prduct Prduct Prduct Final cnceptualizatin manufacture use dispsitin and design While this diagram depicts the relatinship between the terms, it is nly relevant fr hazardus substances use and waste generatin as ppsed t the generatin f nn-hazardus slid waste, particularly residential, pst cnsumer waste which des nt easily allw fr prcess cntrl. The fllwing table illustrates the similarities and the differences between txics use reductin and the ther terms by identifying distinguishing characteristics that either strengthen r weaken each strategy in cmparisin: Waste minimizatin Waste reductin Attributes Cncerned with vlume - and txicity reductin. Takes int cnsideratin prduct redesign and input substitutin Applies t bth haz. waste and slid waste Shrtcminqs Term applies t haz. waste nly Des nt take int cnsideratin the desisn f prduct * r txicity f substances used in manufacturing.

4 Txics use reductin Pllutin preventin Surce reductin Applies t wide range f txic r haz. chemicals withut the cnstraints f legal definitins Applies t bth haz. waste and slid waste. Stated intent includes natural resurce cnservatin Applies t hazardus waste nly ntent ges beynd vlume reductin cncerns. Als includes wrker, cnsumer, and envr. risk reductin Des include wrker and cnsumer health risks and ften results in the transfer f risks t ther envirnmental media t achieve regulatry cmpliance Addresses the prblem frm a preventin standpint by encuraging scrutinus material input practices The fllwing diagram may als help t illustrate the difference (and similarities in sme cases) between txics use reductin and sme f the ther cmmnly used waste reductin/waste preventin strategies. Venn Diaaram f T xics Use Reductin and Waste Minimizatin Definitins r 1, *. 1: kl reductin f ccupatinal expsure reductin f txic prducts. c p, *,, 0. *.*..,. ** -* surce reductin (including hardpipe recycling) recycling (nt including hardpipe) 7 1,,Txic Use Reductin shwn here within ' dashed line Waste Minimizatin t }--- shwn here within ' dashed line, e,. e, p * k * b # * _ -. (frm Nikki Ry, Massachusetts Department f Envirnmental Engineering, Octber 1987) Qua-lity and

5 n summary, txics use reductin is viewed as an answer t the cmplicated prblem f using chemicals and ther hazardus substances wisely and efficiently, taking int cnsideratin the lifecycle f gds prduced, the envirnmental cnsequences f their use and dispsal, and the risks t cnsumers and wrkers as a result f txic substance use. While existing state and federal legislatin has attempted t address all f these issues, albeit in a piecemeal apprach, there is n chesive, cmprehensive strategy fr accmplishing all the separate gals f these legislative effrts. Envirnmental and health-related prblems that ccur frm the use f txics are created because ur current regulatry and ecnmic systems d nt encurage a crdinated effrt, allw fr pllutin shifting, and in the lng run are nt helping us maintain a sustainable sciety. While the txics use reductin strategy is still yung as a cncept, the cmprehensiveness f its apprach is precisely what is needed t begin t change cnsumer and crprate attitudes in rder t address this mnumental prblem. Fr the cncept t be accepted it must first be understd. This paper has identified the terminlgy currently used t dente waste reductin and pllutin preventin effrts and has cntrasted thse terms t nt nly a newer term, but t a new way f thinking.