Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste: for Pollution Prevention and Industrial Efficiency

September 1986

NTIS order #PB87-139622 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste: For Pollution Prevention and Industrial Efficiency, OTA-ITE-317 (Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1986).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-600571

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 —

Foreword

Americans are very concerned about hazardous waste. Opinion polls consistently show that the public worries more about hazardous waste than about any other environmental issue. We are constantly reminded of the loss of drinking water supplies from toxic waste contamination, the growing number of hazardous waste sites that must be cleaned up at great expense and with great difficulty, and that we must stop using land disposal for untreated wastes that remain harmful indefinitely, OTA’S first report on hazardous waste in 1983, Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, was used by Congress to examine the environmental problems and high long-term costs of land disposal practices and the benefits and availability of alternative waste treatment technologies. Congress made substantial use of that analysis in its 1984 amendments to the Resource Conserva- tion and Recovery Act. In 1985 OTA’S second hazardous waste report, Superfund Strategy examined the U.S. program to cleanup uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The report was an effort to shed new light on the scope of the problem and showed how–for environmental and economic reasons–permanently effective cleanup techniques based on waste treatment can replace leaving or redisposing Superfund wastes in the ground. The report also informed the public and assisted Congress in its deliberations on reauthorizing the Superfund program. Currently OTA is completing a study of Wastes in Marine Environments, including incineration in the open ocean. Now Congress is turning its attention to preventing hazardous waste problems by cutting down on the generation of hazardous waste at its source through innovative engineering and management. The following committees requested the OTA study on waste reduction: Senate Labor and Human Resources, House Energy and Commerce, House Science and Technology, and House Small Business. But while everyone agrees in a philosophical sense that waste reduction is good, there is confusion about definitions and methods and, thus, about what is feasible, Serious Re- duction of Hazardous Waste examines what is meant by hazardous waste, waste reduction, and even waste reduction technology, The report explores the meaning and consequences of giving primacy to waste reduction over waste management, and puts waste reduction squarely into the context of industrial production and efficiency, recognizing the current constraints of the American economy. The range of policy options examined is intended to assist what surely will be an extensive policy debate—similar in extent and importance to the energy efficiency debates of the past 15 years, A broad range of perspectives and a great deal of information on waste reduction were obtained from the advisory panel, several workshop groups, respondents to a survey, and many others who provided information and assistance. OTA thanks them for their time and cooperation. Their participation, however, does not necessarily represent endorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bears sole responsibility. &#. Af-4a--

68JOHN H, GIBBONS Director

. . . Ill Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste Advisory Panel

Frank L. Parker, Chairman Vanderbilt University Sandy Bihn James Lester Administrator for the City of Oregon, Ohio Colorado State University Lisa Bunin Cindy McComas Greenpeace Minnesota Technical Assistance Program Joseph Chu James Miller General Motors Corp. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management Henry S. Cole Clean Water Action Project/National Marian Mudar Campaign Against Toxic Hazards New York State Environmental Facilities Corp. Peter S. Daley Chemical Waste Management, Inc. M.L. (Mort) Mullins Monsanto Corp. Dennis Drolet Norchem, Inc. James W. Patterson Illinois Institute of Technology Harry Fatkin polaroid Corp. David Roe Environmental Defense Fund Ken Geiser Tufts University David Sarokin INFORM Phil D. Horelick Allied Metal Finishing Corp. Russell H, Susag 3M Susan Johnnie Hewlett Packard Corp.

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by’ the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. iv —

OTA Project Staff–Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Audrey Buyrn, Manager Industry, Technology, and Employment Program

Joel S. Hirschhorn, Project Director

Kirsten Oldenburg, Assistant Project Director

Martha Finnemore, Research Analyst

Edna Thompson, Administrative Assistant

Joyce Wills, Secretary

Elinor Horwitz, Editor

Contractors

David A. Allen Gary A. Davis Hampshire Research Associates Michael Model] OTA Workshop–Large Business Perspectives on Hazardous Waste Reduction

Jerry Berger Jerry B. Martin Shell Oil Dow Chemical Elliott Berkihiser Nick Odom The Boeing Co. Springs Industries, Inc. Dick Constable E.E. Sale SunCo. Exxon Chemical Americas Gary Crouth Norman Sealander Alcoa Northrop Corp. David Gordon Thomas Sliva Dow Corning General Electric Khristine L. Hall Donald Smith IBM Polaroid Corp. Edward J. Hessler Steve Song The Upjohn Co. General Motors Corp. Susan Johnnie Anthony Spinola Hewlett Packard Corp. U.S. Steel Corp. Andy Lampert Russell H. Susag Diamond Shamrock Chemical 3M Martin B, MacInnis GTE Products Corp. OTA Workshop–Small and Medium-Sized Business Perspectives on Hazardous Waste Reduction

David Anzures Paul Hoffman California Technical Plating Garden Way, Inc. California New York Peter Bohlmann Phil Horelick Nordic Ware Allied Metal Finishing Minneapolis Maryland Harry DeSoi Jim Hornburg Pioneer Metal Finishing The Dexter Corp. New Jersey New York Dennis Drolet John McInerny Norchem Cambridge Plating Illinois Massachusetts Rudolph C. Gabel George McRae Sybron Corp. Stanadyne, Inc. New York North Carolina Robert Hall Cort G. Platt ESAB North America, Inc. Precious Metals Platers Colorado Minnesota Richard C. Herring Russell Smith The Gloucester Co. Salsbury Laboratories Massachusetts Iowa

vii OTA Workshop–State Activities in Waste Reduction

William C. Arble Cindy McComas Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program Minnesota Technical Assistance Program Susan Boyle George Miller New Jersey Hazardous Waste Commission University of Louisville Kentucky Robert M. Confer New Jersey Department of Environmental Marian Mudar Protection New York Environmental Facilities Corp. Lee Dane Ruth Neff Massachusetts Department of Tennessee Safe Growth Team Environmental Management Roger N. Schecter Frederick L. Doll North Carolina Pollution Prevention Pays Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Program Information Center William M. Sloan A.J. Englande Maryland Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Tulane University Board Louisiana Benjamin Smith Joseph M. Flynn Tennessee Safe Growth Team Connecticut Department of Economic Jim Solyst Development National Governor’s Association Rebecca Fricke (consultant) T. Michael Taimi Tennessee Department of Economic & Kentucky Department for Environmental Community Development Protection Gary E. Hunt North Carolina Pollution Prevention Pays Clifton J. Van Guilder Program New York Department of Environmental Conservation Bob Laughlin Ontario Research Foundation Valerie Wickstrom Canada Kentucky Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet Linda Little Governor’s Waste Management Board Harry Williams North Carolina Indiana Department of Environmental Management Kate Quigley Lynch Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Tom Yates Service Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management Tom Lynch New York Department of Environmental Conservation Suzanne Mager Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering

. . . Vlll Acknowledgments

OTA thanks the following people who took time to provide assistance or extensive information or to review this report: Richard C. Bird Robert B. Pojasek Massachusetts Department of Chas. T. Main, Inc. Environmental Quality Engineering Margaret Rogers Lee Dane The Society of the Plastics Industry Massachusetts Department of Roger N. Schecter Environmental Management North Carolina Pollution Prevention Pays Dana Duxbury Program Tufts University Stuart H. Vaughn B.M. McDuff Ford Motor Co. DSH Association Contents

Chapter Page l. Summary and Introduction ...... 3

20 Policy Options ...... 45

3. Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ...... 77

4. Data and Information for Waste Reduction ...... 113

5.Waste Reduction in the Federal Government...... 145

6. State Activities in Waste Reduction...... 197

Appendix Page A.The OTA Industry Survey ...... 227

B.Waste Reduction: An International Perspective ...... 238

Index ...... 245 Chapter 1 Summary and Introduction Contents

Page Summary ...... O...... O...... $...... 3 Background ...... 5 Objectives of This Study ...... 6 Prevention and Control of Pollution: The Primacy of Waste Reduction . . . . 7 What is Waste Reduction? ...... 8 What is Hazardous Waste? ...... 10 Public and Private Roles...... 11 The Primacy Issue...... 16 The Case for the Primacy ofWaste Reduction ...... 17 The International Dimension ...... 19 Issues and Findings ...... 20 policy options ...... , . . 0 ...... 37 Option I: Maintain Current, Limited Voluntary Program ...... 38 Option II: Change and Expand Existing Program ...... 39 Option III: ANew Highly Visible Waste Reduction Program ...... 39

● Comparison of policy Options ...... 4)

Tables Table No. Page l-1. 1984 Amendments to RCRA on Waste Minimization: Problems in the Statute, Regulations, and Implementation ...... 15 l-2. Industry Use of Waste Reduction Methods ...... 28 l-3. State Programs With Waste Reduction Activities ...... 35

Figure Figure No. Page l-1. Current Regulations: An Economic Incentive for Waste Reduction . . . . 8

Boxes Box No. Page l-A. Problems With Definitions of Waste Reduction and Similar Terms.... 9 l-B. Waste Generation From Production and Use of Trichloroethylene . . . . 12 I-C. Ways Companies Can Promote Waste Reduction ...... 13 l-D.The Measurementof Waste Reduction ...... 23 l-E. Possible Process Technology Change for Reductionof Hazardous Wastewater From Manufacture of Acrylonitrile ...... 29 1-F. Problems in Assessing the Costs and Benefits ofWaste Reduction . . . . 31 l-G. The North Carolina State Program...... 36 . Chapter 1 Summary and Introduction

SUMMARY

Waste reduction is an economically sensible ment. At the same time, industry can lower response to what many people see as a hazard- waste management and regulatory compliance ous waste crisis. Several thousand pounds of costs, liabilities, and risks. hazardous waste are generated annually for Although there are many environmental and every person in the Nation. Many thousands economic benefits to waste reduction, over 99 of people have lost their drinking water because percent of Federal and State environmental of contamination by toxic waste. Across the spending is devoted to controlling pollution af- country there are thousands of sites contami- ter waste is generated. Less than 1 percent is nated by hazardous waste that require billions spent to reduce the generation of waste. The of dollars for cleanup. An increasing number current level of national spending for pollution of lawsuits are being brought by people who control is about $7o billion. Two-thirds of this claim to have suffered adverse health effects is spent by industry. Since many hazardous sub- from living near toxic waste sites. Also the num- stances are not yet regulated, annual expendi- ber of lawsuits being instituted by the govern- tures will, in all likelihood, continue to increase. ment is mounting rapidly. These suits claim that certain waste generators have not complied OTA finds that reducing waste to prevent pol- with regulations and that generators who have lution from being generated at its source is now used waste management facilities now on the a practical way to complement this costly pol- Superfund list must pay for cleanups. lution control regulatory system, Because of sporadic and uneven enforcement, the current Waste reduction is critical to the prevention regulatory system weakens the incentive to re- of future hazardous waste problems. By reduc- duce waste. Waste reduction, no matter how ing the generation of waste, industry can use far it is taken, cannot eliminate all wastes, but materials more efficiently and achieve more it can help to lower costs for environmental pro- certain protection for health and the environ- tection as regulations continue to expand.

Definitions Used in This Report Waste Reduction: Hazardous Waste: In-plant practices that reduce, avoid, or All nonproduct hazardous outputs from an eliminate the generation of hazardous waste industrial operation into all environmental so as to reduce risks to health and environ- media, even though they may be within per- ment. Actions taken away from the waste mitted or licensed limits. This is much broad- generating activity, including waste recycling er than the legal definition of hazardous solid or treatment of wastes after they are generat- waste in the Resource Conservation and Re- ed, are not considered waste reduction. Also, covery Act, its amendments, and subsequent an action that merely concentrates the hazard- regulations. Hazardous refers to harm to hu- ous content of a waste to reduce waste volume man heaIth or the environment and is broader or dilutes it to reduce degree of hazard is not than the term “toxic, ” For example, wastes considered waste reduction, This definition that are hazardous because of their corrosiv- es meant to be consistent with the goal of pre- ity, flammability, explosiveness, or infectious- venting the generation of waste at its source ness are not normally considered toxic. rather than controlling, treating, or managing waste after its generation.

3 4 . Serjo”s Reduction of /-/~ardo”s waste

Current pollution control methods often do to comply with regulations, obtain regulatory little more than move waste around. For exam- permits, or site waste management facilities, ple: air and water pollution control devices typi- Some companies are even beginning to sell new cally generate solid, hazardous waste that goes products and services that help others to re- to landfills and too often leaches from there into duce waste. groundwater. Many hazardous wastes, such as Waste reduction succeeds when it is part of most toxic air emissions, are not yet regulated, the everyday consciousness of all workers and and regulatory standards for permissible emis- managers involved with production—where the sions legally sanction the generation of some waste reduction opportunities are—rather than wastes. Thus, OTA finds that establishing a when it is a job only of those responsible for comprehensive, multimedia approach to reduc- complying with environmental regulations. A ing wastes going into the air, land, and water few people with end-of-pipe, pollution control is essential. jobs are not in a position to reduce waste by OTA finds that there is no common defini- themselves; such efforts must involve upstream tion of waste reduction; there are few or no data workers and facilities. on the extent of industrial waste reduction; There are five approaches that industry can waste reduction is usually measured incor- take to reduce hazardous waste: 1) change the rectly; and the information that the government raw materials of production, 2) change produc- collects on waste generation is not useful for tion technology and equipment, 3) improve pro- waste reduction, If waste reduction is defined duction operations and procedures, 4) recycle to include waste treatment, companies will nat- waste within the plant, and 5) redesign or refor- urally pay more attention to treatment, which mulate end-products, Among the opportunities is a familiar activity, than to the reduction of that exist for common processes and wastes are: waste, Problems of definition and lack of in- 1) using mechanical techniques rather than formation should be addressed and ongoing toxic organic solvents to clean metal surfaces, waste reduction efforts should be documented 2) using water-based raw materials instead of by government, even if decisions to reduce waste materials based on organic solvents, and 3) remain at the discretion of individual companies. changing plant practices to generate less haz- Despite some claims to the contrary, indus- ardous wastewater. try has not taken advantage of all effective waste So far government has not required waste re- reduction opportunities that are available. Re- duction. OTA finds that it would be extraor- ducing waste involves more than buying a black dinarily difficult for government to set and en- box, reading the directions, and plugging it in. force waste reduction standards for a myriad Even a simple step toward waste reduction can of industrial processes. The impact on indus- seem difficult to a company with few techni- try, particularly on troubled manufacturing sec- cal resources and no obvious place to go for tors, could be substantial. Alternatively, the guidance. Reducing waste in an industrial proc- United States could move to an economically ess requires intimate knowledge of all aspects sensible environmental protection strategy based of that specific production process, in contrast on both poZZution controZ (waste management) to waste treatment, which is essentially an add- and pollution prevention (waste reduction) with on to the end of the process. There are also clear the Federal Government providing leadership pressures to reduce waste tomorrow, rather and assistance in the following ways. than today. The attention and resources given to required pollution control activities limit the First, through policy development, education, amount of thought, time, and money that indus- and oversight, Congress could help industry and try can devote to waste reduction. Some U.S. the Nation profit from seeing waste reduction companies, however, have verified the fact that not as some unique technology, but as a field waste reduction pays for itself relatively quickly, ready for innovative engineering and manage- especially when compared to the time needed ment. These opportunities are embedded in Ch. 1—Summary and Introduction ● 5 — every part of the industrial production system. ship and assistance rather than on prescripti~’e There is no way to predetermine the amount requirements is likely to be the most effective, of waste reduction that is possible; its techni- For example, Congress could: 1) create an Of- cal and economic feasibility depend on the fice of lh’aste Reduction with an Assistant Ad- characteristics, circumstances, and goals of ministrator within EPA, 2) create a grants pro- specific waste generators. Success in reducing gram to develop generic or wide] y t ransferable waste depends on the ability of organizations technical support for waste reduction, 3) through to modernize, innovate, and cut costs, thereby new comprehensive waste reduction Ie,gisIation increasing profits and reducing long-term lia- require detailed reporting by industry on past bilities. Thus waste reduction could be used as waste reduction actions and pIans for future a measure of performance as energy efficienc y efforts, 4) reward and facilitate waste reduc- and productivity often are. tion by offering industry concessions from existing pollution control regulatory requirements, Second, there are a number of possible legis- or 5) create and use independent State Waste lative actions that could clarify the definition Reduction Boards to implement programs. Set- of waste reduction, spur better collection of in- ting a national waste reduction goal of perhaps formation on waste reduction, and encourage 10 percent annually could help convert the long waste generators to devote more attention to the stated importance of waste reduction into a true subject. If the Federal public policy goal is rapid priority and reduce annual en~rironmental spend- and comprehensive hazardous waste reduction, ing substantially, ultimately by billions of dollars. then a strategy based on government leader-

BACKGROUND

Currently, American environmental protec- wide-scale implementation. Although current tion efforts emphasize control and cleanup of costs for pollution control serve as an indirect pollution by hazardous substances after they incentive for waste reduction, it is not certain are generated and no longer serve a produc- that: I) an incentive exists for all firms, or for tive function. Virtually all industries, whether the most appropriate people or departments high technology, smokestack, or small shops, within a company; 2) all or most waste genera- generate hazardous waste. The cost of control- tors have the technical and economic resources ling that waste totals many billions of dollars to respond to that incentive; s) the incentive is annually. Usually, hazardous industrial wastes are not destroyed by pollution control meth- —— ods, Rather, they are put into the land, water, Waste Reduction and National Policy or air where they disperse and migrate. The “The Congress hereby declares it to be the result is that pollution control for one environ- national policy of the United States that, ~rher- mental medium can mean that waste is trans- ever feasible, the generation of hazardous ferred to another medium. waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expe- As the costs of administering environmental ditiously as possible. Waste ne~ertheless gen- programs and the costs of compliance mount, erated should be treated, stored, or disposed the economic and environmental benefits of re- of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the en~ironment .“ ducing the generation of hazardous waste at its source have become more compelling, But From the Resource Conservation and Z/ecot~- it is exactly these regulatory requirements and er~~ Act, as amended by the U.S. Congress in the costs of complying with them that both en- November 1984. This policy statement is sup- courage some waste reduction and make it dif- ported by waste minimization provisions also ficult for industry to give waste reduction the added to the act. priority and resources it deserves for near-term 6 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste consistently supported by congressional and is subordinated to other measures of the effi- regulatory actions; or 4) that waste reduction ciency of industrial operations, such as labor will be the response. productivity and energy consumption, In practice, waste reduction is frequently sub- As a result, waste reduction, which saves ordinated to pollution control, even though re- money for industry and protects the environ- ducing waste can be the most effective way to ment, is being implemented in an uneven and prevent environmental risk. The domination largely undocumented fashion. Assessing the of pollution control over waste reduction is not economics of waste reduction poses problems. new; it has occurred over many years and it For some people a major focus on waste reduc- will not be reversed overnight. tion raises concerns that it might, through the costs of implementation, contribute to what is Federal law says that waste reduction is the called the “deindustrialization” of America. preferred anti-pollution method; but govern- However, those who have implemented waste ment actions often send a different—or ambig- reduction effectively generally see it as a way uous—message to waste generators. to improve profitability and competitiveness. Federal and State actions, however, are not If waste reduction were to be carefully pro- the sole determinants of how much waste is moted and become more widespread—and vir- reduced, Frequently, inadequate information tually everyone believes this is possible—en- makes it difficult for waste generators to as- vironmental and economic benefits would sess the benefits of a one-time, near-term in- increase. Statistical documentation of the vestment for waste reduction versus repeated amount of waste reduction that has already spending and ongoing liabilities over the long occurred nationwide and a summary of its re- term for waste management, Pollution control sults would almost certainly remove the uncer- measures are more familiar and thus more certainty that some representatives of industry and tain. Uncertainty also arises because waste re- government have about the near-term feasibil- duction, as a measure of materials productivity, ity of waste reduction.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY The purpose of this study is to provide Con- waste reduction has been and is likely to gress with a concise base of information and be implemented by industry, To what ex- analysis to assist it in ensuring implementation tent is technology itself rather than infor- of its declared national policy of reducing the mation and resources a barrier to waste generation of hazardous waste. More specifi- reduction? In what ways are waste reduc- cally, OTA defined the following study ob- tion decisions dependent on the unique cir- jectives. cumstances of a specific company or industry? Can the amount of feasible waste 1. To explore the context for concern about reduction be estimated? How much can re- waste reduction, What is the significance search increase the feasible amount of of reducing the generation of all hazard- waste reduction? (Note that only the pol- ous industrial waste rather than only those icy aspects of this report deal solely with regulated as solid, hazardous waste under industrial waste generation, but all other the Resource Conservation and Recovery discussions apply to nonindustrial waste Act (RCRA)? Why is waste reduction im- reduction as well,) portant? An initial task in this exploration was to adopt precise definitions of “haz- 3. To analyze Federal programs that directly ardous waste” and “waste reduction. ” or indirectly affect industrial waste reduc- 2. To examine the technological nature of tion, 1s the Federal Government playing waste reduction and the extent to which a significant positive or negative role in as- Ch. l—Summary and Introduction . 7

suring that waste reduction becomes more plement current national waste reduction commonly adopted by American industry? policy without causing harm to American 4. To examine State programs that have been industry. Is there a need for Federal ini- established to reduce industrial waste. tiatives and, if so, what are they? What are What is the extent and effect of State pro- the advantages and disadvantages of im- grams? Do State programs remove the need plementing waste reduction? for Federal initiatives? 5, To define and analyze a broad range ofpol- icy options that might help the Nation im-

PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION: THE PRIMACY OF WASTE REDUCTION

The national debate on the environment is duced pollution control operating costs; for beginning to move away from traditional dis- reduced manufacturing costs; and for retained cussions about how to make pollution control sales of products that might have been taken regulations effective, A more fundamental ques- off the market as environmentally unacceptable, z tion is now being posed: How can pollution pre- Reduction—applied to a broad universe of vention be used to complement pollution con- emissions, discharges, and wastes—is the best trol? Some years ago, Dr. Joseph T. Ling of 3M means of achieving pollution prevention. How- articulated the case for pollution prevention: ever, developing a complementary environ- Pollution controls solve no problem; they mental protection strategy, based on waste re- only alter the problem, shifting it from one duction, represents a major shift in thinking. form to another, contrary to this immutable Because we now have an entrenched pollution law of nature: the form of matter may be control culture, this shift would be a substan- changed, but matter does not disappear . . . II]t tial challenge for industry and government. But is apparent that conventional controls, at some no matter how strongly waste reduction is im- point, create more pollution than they remove plemented, pollution control regulations will al- and consume resources out of proportion to ways be needed for wastes that cannot be or have the benefits derived . . . What emerges is an environmental paradox. It takes resources to not yet been reduced. remove pollution; pollution removal generates The traditional emphasis on pollution con- residue; it takes more resources to dispose of trol and the prevalent viewpoint that substan- this residue and disposal of residue also pro- tial waste reduction is a long-term goal, not a duces pollution.’ realizable short-term strategy, constrain the More recently, 3M summed up its unrelenting consideration of alternatives by waste genera- pollution prevention efforts since 1975: tors. (Paradoxically, the claim is also heard that all waste reducing measures that can be taken The combined total of almost 1,900 projects have been taken; i.e., that waste reduction is has resulted in eliminating annually the dis- a used-up strategy.) One inhibiting factor is con- charge of almost 110,000 tons of air pollutants, cern about risking product quality by tinker- over 13,000 tons of water pollutants, and over 260,000 tons of sludge of which over 18,000 ing with or changing processes solely for the tons are hazardous—along with the prevention purpose of reducing waste. of approximately 1.6 billion gallons of waste- For companies and industries that are ex- water. Cost savings to 3M total more than $292 panding production, waste reduction is an ob- million. These costs are for pollution control facilities that did not have to be built; for re- vious way to offset the economic and environmental costs of managing increasing amounts 1 \l ichael G. Rojston, Pollution l)ret’ention Pa~’s (N’ew York: ——2 Pergarnon f’ress, 1979), p. xi. For a full articulation of the pollu- M. D. Keen igsberger, 3 M, paper presented at Governor Con- ! ion pre~ent ion strategy’, this book is considered the seminal work. ference on Pollution Pretmtion Pa~s, ~ashvil]e, ‘rN, March 1986. 8 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste of wastes. Waste reduction also addresses con- example, by redefining hazardous waste, or by cerns about the economic inefficiency of in- cutting regulations and/or limiting their en- creasing pollution control regulations; that is, forcement—or generators can reduce wastes. spending more and more for smaller incre- The latter approach is clearly more desirable; ments in environmental protection. Whatever waste reduction has already been demonstrated their environmental benefits, experience shows to have the capability—for some waste genera- that the development and implementation of tors—of turning the spending curve down as pollution control regulations takes considerable regulations continue to increase. effort, time, and money on the part of industry But decreasing environmental spending na- and government. tionwide through waste reduction can occur Figure 1-1 illustrates how steadily increasing only if Federal statutes and regulations were environmental regulations have been paralleled to unequivocally establish the primacy of waste by a growth in environmental spending by the reduction (that is, of pollution prevention) over Nation. There are many factors that determine waste management. From the generator’s per- the extent of national spending to protect the spective, waste reduction is an alternative that environment, including how much waste is reduces the costs of regulatory compliance and generated, exactly what the regulations call for, that reduces the potential for enormous costs and how these regulations are enforced. But of later litigation. From the government’s view- it is also apparent that over the past 14 years point, waste reduction does not sacrifice the the simple size of the body of Federal regula- integrity or environmental protection goals of tions has been a fairly reliable proxy for the pollution control regulations. Asserting the pri- many substantive factors that determine spend- macy and economic importance of waste reducing. Over that period spending has been about tion does not necessarily mean that government $10 million for every page of Federal environ- must then prescribe and regulate the amount mental statute and regulation. In 1985$70 bil- of waste reduction generators must accomplish. lion was spent nationally and there were 7,OOO Nor does it imply that waste reduction can ever pages of Federal environmental statutes and eliminate all wastes or the need for all pollu- regulations. Two solutions present themselves tion control regulations. The meaning, case for, for reducing national spending on the environ- and implications of the primacy of waste re- ment: government can change regulations—for duction are discussed below.

What Is Waste Reduction? Figure 1-1 .—Current Regulations: An Economic Incentive for Waste Reduction The term waste reduction means different things to different people. Arriving at a defini- ‘“~ tion of waste reduction is not a trivial pursuit. $70 - One study of waste reduction pointed out that National $60 - c..,,, ------*- I Al the “difficulties and differences in definition $50 - . . . themselves constitute one of the factors affecting industry’s decisions about the gener- $40 - ation of hazardous waste. ”s The definition of -,””” (J $30 - .’”-” Pages of waste reduction also affects the design, imple- Federal 3,000 ~ mentation, and effectiveness of government $20 “ / Regulations 2,000 5 1 actions. “’~””o Box 1-A summarizes the problems that arise 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1985 from several characteristics of commonly used Year definitions of waste reduction and similar SOURCES L.B Cahill, The Weston Way, Winter/Spring 1986 p. 26; and US Department of Commerce and Management Information Services, 3Nat iona I Research Coun(; i], Reducing Hazardous 11’aste (gen- 1985 eration (Washington, IX: Nat ional Academ\’ Press, 1985), 1). 9. C/l 1 —Summary and /ntroduc(/on ● 9

Box I-A.—Problems With Definitions of Waste Reduction and Similar Terms ProbIem #1 Several terms currently are used to describe preferred methods of dealing with hazardous waste. These terms include: waste reduction waste prevention waste minimization waste avoidance waste abatement waste elimination source reduction No standard definitions exist for any of these terms. Each is defined differently by each user.

Problem #Z Definitions include pollution control activities as well as pollution prevention activities. Among these are: . out-of-process recycling; ● offsite recycling; c onsite or offsite treatment, such as incineration; and c weight or volume reduction with a corresponding increase in concentration of hazardous content. The distinction between preventing waste from being generated and controlling waste after it is generated is blurred when pollution control actions are included in the definition of waste reduction and similar terms. Consequently: c the primacy of pollution prevention is eroded, “ generators are not encouraged to consider pollution preventing activities because pollution control options are given equal standing, ● risks t. health and the environment from transport and handling of waste are not explicitly weighed, and ● measurements of reduction of waste generation are obscured by including the results of pollution control. Problem #3 Definitions do not apply to all hazardous wastes. Most definitions apply reduction only to some combination of the following: ● RCRA-regulated wastes (wastes regulated under Clean Water and Clean Air are excluded); c toxic wastes (hazardous, but nontoxic wastes are excluded); or ● regulated wastes (hazardous, nonregulated wastes such as most toxic air emissions are excluded).

terms. The most serious problem is that an} A number of defi nit ions of ~t’asto rc(lu(:t ifjl~ (Iefinit ion that includes waste management, in- useci b}’ States and in stu(] ics i II(;] u(~e al 1 [t” ii st (! (; 1 LI (~ i n~ itraste treatment and recycling a Ltrajr recycling or waste treat mcnt o r 1)() t h. 170 r (!x- from the production site, will probabl} divert ii m pie, it is widely assumed t h a t F’c(! c ra 1 st; ] t - a t tent i o n away from the goal of waste red uc - utes and regulations use the term [t’:]si(; n]ini- t ion. The broadly accepted goal of minimizing mizatjon to include, along \\’it h t~’aste red u ~: t i [~ r). the amount of hazardous waste put into the land pr(;f[?rrcd Llastc management act il’it ies that r(!- should not obscure the even more fundamental (]uce the amount of ~~rastc to he land d is~)osc(l. goal of reducing the generation of hazardous Thus, the Federal statute and regulations th;lt waste. allolf gcncrat (Irs to use t heir o~ln definition tllso 10 . serious Reduction of Hazardous waste allow them to comply by improving waste man- Some difficulties in interpretation still occur, agement; there is no clear message that waste particularly in relation to waste recycling. reduction is preferred, or that it should be con- When recycling is environmentally acceptable sidered first. If waste reduction does indeed and is an integral part of the waste generating have primacy, then it must be defined and used industrial process or operation OTA considers in a way that allows no misunderstanding of it waste reduction. An example is a closed-loop what either waste reduction or primacy means. application which returns (potential) waste as Otherwise, better waste management could eas- it is generated for reuse within the process. To ily sap resources that might go to waste reduc- the extent that in-process recycling prevents tion. Preferred waste management measures transfer of hazardous material into the envi- can and should stand on their own merits, rather ronment, it is waste reduction. than being considered apart of waste reduction. But recycling is not considered waste reduc- OTA has adopted a definition that addresses tion if waste exits a process, exists as a sepa- these shortcomings and is technically sound, rate entity, undergoes significant handling, and consistent with the current congressional state- is transported from the waste generating loca- ment of national policy, and useful for discuss- tion to another production site (perhaps a part ing policy options. It aZso reflects the impor- of a large plant) for reuse, or to an offsite com- tance for public policy development of defining mercial recycling facility or waste exchange. waste reduction in a way that is consistent with This distinction does not mean that such waste the concept ofpollution prevention. OTA’S def- management is unacceptable, unreasonable, or inition is: improper, On the contrary, as will be discussed in detail later, offsite recycling is a preferred Waste reduction refers to in-plant prac- waste management alternative, There can be tices that reduce, avoid, or eliminate the valid reasons why such a waste management generation of hazardous waste so as to re- method is technically or economically justified duce risks to health and environment. for a specific industrial operation, such as for The focus, therefore, is on what occurs at the many generators of small quantities of hazard- source of generation. The goal of waste reduc- ous waste. tion is to alter current practice and to design But even recycling facilities pose risks, RCRA future industrial processes and operations in regulation of such facilities are to some extent a way that will reduce the degree of hazard of a disincentive for recycling, This issue has re- waste and the amount to be managed, con- ceived considerable attention. The distinction trolled, and regulated. A recent study con- made here between in-process recycling that cluded: “[i]n-plant options are probably the is a part of the waste generating activity and most effective and economical means of man- all other types of recycling may be a practical aging hazardous wastes. ”A way to resolve that issue. If in-process recycling The OTA definition addresses “what,” were regulated, that would indeed serve as a “where, ” and “by whom” questions without disincentive for its use; current RCRA regula- specifying “how” waste reduction is to be car- tions may or may not cover in-process recycling ried out. An important consequence of this def- depending on how they are interpreted (see ch. inition is that various means of reducing waste, 5). which are applied af’ter the waste is generated outside of the location where waste is generated, are characterized as a form of waste man- What Is Hazardous Waste? agement. Although toxic wastes are of major concern qMichael R, Overcash, Techniques for Industrial Pollution Pre- today, there is no reason why the concept of ~ention (Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc., 1986), p. 2. waste reduction must be restricted to toxics. Ch. l—Summary and Introduction “ 11

OTA’S definition of hazardous waste in this re- OTA has concluded that a comprehensive, port is: multimedia (air, water, land) definition for hazardous waste is necessary. The two chief rea- Hazardous waste refers to all nonproduct sons for this conclusion are: 1) to avoid creat- hazardous outputs from an industrial oper- ing opportunities for shifting waste from one ation into all environmental media, even environmental medium to another possibly un- though they may be within permitted or regulated or less regulated medium, such as has licensed limits. happened for some wastes that are land dis- This definition is much broader than that of posed rather than being discharged into water- hazardous waste under RCRA and is also more ways; and 2) to include wastes that are not inclusive than the term hazardous substances, currently regulated, such as most toxic air emis- as used in the Federal Superfund program. sions. If the term hazardous waste is defined Thus, this report covers abroad universe of haz- or applied narrowly, waste reduction measures ardous substances and pollutants (toxic and can be ineffective.6 The situation regarding conventional) that industry generates, dis- trichloroethylene (box l-B) is a vivid, but not charges, and emits routinely or accidentally.5 necessarily typical, example of a widely used It is OTA’S position that all hazardous wastes product almost all of which emerges from in- are amenable to waste reduction although the dustrial processes as an unregulated hazard- exact circumstances of a generator may not sup- ous waste. If only a RCRA definition is given port reducing a particular waste. No technical to hazardous waste, nearly 90 percent of tri- case can be made for the notion that some wastes chloroethylene waste that goes into the air and can be reduced and others cannot. water will not be covered. A very different example is cadmium waste. In this instance 80 Current environmental statutes, programs, percent of the waste is land disposed and reg- and regulations may not cover all hazardous ulated under RCRA, 12 percent is emitted into waste. Many wastes are covered by only some 7 the air, and 8 percent goes into surface water. of the current regulations that separately control or manage disposal practices for the land, air, and water. For instance, RCRA hazardous Public and Private Roles wastes include toxic, ignitable, corrosive, and Historically, Federal policy has not directly reactive substances. The Clean Air Act serves promoted waste reduction as a method of envi- as the basis for regulating both criteria pollut- ronmental protection. The extent of State gov- ants (such as ozone, particulate, sulfur oxides, ernment efforts on waste reduction dwarfs Fed- carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead) eral ones, even though, as will be discussed and hazardous air pollutants (often referred to later, State efforts are also limited. However, as air toxic s), Discharges into the Nation’s Federal regulatory programs have provided waters are covered by the Clean Water Act and some indirect economic incentives for waste controlled by regulating both conventional (bio- reduction by increasing the cost of compliance chemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, to- with waste management regulations as well as tal suspended solids, oil/grease, and pH) and increasing insurance costs and costs of clean- toxic or priority pollutants. (The various statutory and regulatory definitions of the preced- ‘It is, of course, better to have some ~~”a stc reduct i(] n than none, ing terms are given in chapter 5.) Yet when reduction is limited, important and erl\ir[)llnl(;ntiillj threaten ing wastes may recei~’e no attention. For example, SW ith regard to the concept of hazardous, ’ the following def- DU [’ont, ~vhich has initiated a major \\aste reduction ~)rogram inition of a hazardous material adopted by the California De- and has already achieved considerable success, d cws not in [1 u dP partment of Health Ser\ices is useful: a substance or combina- air emissions and waste~l’aters discharged through permitted tion of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, out falls; and non- RCRA wastes are not always included. [ 11’aste or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either: Reduction: The Ongoing Saga, proceedings of a ‘rufts CJni~rer- 1 ) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality sity Center for Environmental Nlanagernent conference, \Voocis or an increase in serious i reversible, or incapacitating re\’ersi- Hole, hlA, June 1986. ] ble, illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard 7L’. S. En\’i ronrnental Protect ion Agencj”, ‘‘Cadmium Cuota m i- to human health or environment when improperly’ treated, stored, nation of the fZn\’ironment: An Assessment of Nlationu’ide Risk, ” transported or disposed of or otherwise managed. February 1985. 72 . serious Reduction of Hazardous waste

Box l-B.—Waste Generation From Production and Use of Trichloroethylene Type of Material.-Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a volatile halogenated organic chemical used widely as a solvent. It is known to be toxic to the liver and nervous system and is now considered a probable human carcinogen. Production.-In 1983,65,700 metric tons were produced by two companies; one plant is in Texas, the other in Louisiana. Only about 100 tons (0.2 percent) were emitted to the atmosphere from production itself and only another 39 metric tons from the distribution network. Production has been decreasing since it peaked at 277,000 metric tons in 1970. This has been occurring, in part, because of the substitution of other solvents, such as methyl chloroform and perchloroethylene, which themselves may pose hazards. Uses and Waste Generation.—About 90 percent of TCE used becomes a hazardous waste. In 1983, 85 percent (56,000 metric tons) of all TCE produced was used as a solvent for cleaning and decreasing operations in many thousands of plants nationwide; 52,600 metric tons were emitted to the atmosphere (94 percent). The second major use is in manufacture of polyvinylchloride (PVC); of the 6,500 metric tons used in this way about 130 metric tons (2 percent) are emitted to the atmosphere, with almost all of it consumed in the chemical reaction. Essentially all of remaining usage is assumed to be emitted to the atmosphere. Waste Management Media Transfer. —Release of TCE into the environment (for 1978) has been estimated to be: 86 percent into the air, 12 percent into the land, and 2 percent into water. Much of what goes into the land and water can volatilize. From volatilization of industrial aqueous discharges sent to publicly owned treatment works (POTWS) roughly 1,400 metric tons were released to the atmosphere in 1983; this is about 10 times the amount of waste from production and distribution of TCE. An EPA analysis of wastes to POTWS indicates that two-thirds of the input TCE (1,729 metric tons) is emitted into the air, 5 percent goes into surface water, 5 percent goes into sludge, and 23 percent is destroyed by biodegradation. Other than by natural degradation in the atmosphere, only about 0.7 percent of TCE waste is destroyed through treatment. Presence at Superfund Sites.–Found by EPA to be the most frequently occurring substance overall (at 179 of 546 sites); number one for groundwater, third in surface water, and fifth in the air. Regulation. —Although TCE as a waste exists predominantly as an air pollutant, EPA has only recently given notice of intent to list TCE as a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (March 1986). TCE is regulated under RCRA as a solid, hazardous waste and is considered a hazardous substance under CERCLA (Superfund). As one of 126 priority toxic pollutants, TCE is also regulated under the C1ean Water Act. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Recommended Maximum Containment Level is zero in drinking water, and the Maximum Contaminant Level (enforceable standard) in drinking water is 0.005 mg/1. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the 8 hour time weighted average exposure limit for a 40 hour week is 100 pprn, with an acceptable ceiling concentration of 200 ppm.

SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Survey of Trichloroethylene Emission Sources.” ]uly 1985; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “lnlermedia Priority Pollutant Guidance Document: Chlorinated Solvents,” October 1984; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report (o Congress on h Ois[ htirgt, of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, February 1986.

i ng u~) t~~i~ fvaste sites. These indirect incen- on indirect incentives, the government pre- t i~es ha~’e been particularl~’ effectit’c for some sumes that a company is motivated to imple- w’asie ~enerators./ and for some ~~rastes. ment waste reduction techniques and that it has the technical and economic ~esources to do so. [However, this effectiveness is weakened by poor and uneven enforcement of regulatory In the private sector, suc(:cssful ~tast c rcfl(lt:- [)ro~rams and by rnarkedl} different levels of t ion eff’orts hai’e gene ra]l}r t)een a (Jonsct]uI?l~( :() re~ulat ion for specific ~vastes. By relying solely of’ at tem~)ts to increase the effic icn(:~ ()[’ i n( I (1 S- Ch. l—Summary and /introduction ● 13 trial operations. Waste represents inefficiency and it is indisputable that industry reduces some Box l-C.-Ways Companies Can Promote hazardous waste, since to reduce waste is to con- Waste Reduction serve materials that may be scarce, strategic, ● Conduct a waste reduction audit to provide or expensive. Most commonly, waste reduction information about: 1) types, amounts, and has been a byproduct, not a focus, of altered level of hazard of wastes generated; 2) sources industrial processes since waste management of those wastes within the production oper- costs have rarely been so high as to suggest ation; and 3) feasible reduction techniques alternatives. At some point, continued efforts for those wastes. to improt’e the yield of industrial processes by ● Revise accounting methods so that both short- maximizing product output relati~~e to input of and long-term costs of managing wastes, in- raki materials will not appear economically cluding liabilities, are charged to the depart- attract ive because the amounts of product in- ments and individuals responsible for the creases ~~~ill be small, processes and operations that generate the waste. Yet reducing waste generation may, in its own right, be significant today because of ris- ● Involve all employees in waste reduction ing waste management costs, anticipated long- planning and implementation. Waste reduc- term liabilities, and environmental risks. But tion must be seen as the responsibility of these may not be factored into decisions made all workers and managers involved in production, rather than just the responsibility by generators, especially if the focus is on prod- of those who deal with pollution control and uct yield rather than on waste reduction. Ac- compliance. counting methods that do not assign the full ● short- and long-term costs of waste generation Motivate employees and focus attention on to production profit centers can further obscure waste reduction by setting goals and re- the economic considerations that should be warding employees’ suggestions that lead to successful waste reduction. Special edu- available to decisionmakers if wise choices are cation and training can help all types of to be made. C)TA believes that although some employees identify waste reduction oppor- success has been achieved for waste reduction tunities at all levels of operation and pro- by American industry, more can be accom- duction. plished and that waste reduction represents a ● primary, economically viable means of hazard- Transfer knowledge throughout the company so that waste reducing techniques im- ous waste control (see box l-C). plemented in one part of the company can Waste reduction has traditionally been the benefit all divisions and plants. This is par- prerogative of industry and even now indus- ticularly important in large companies. try and government generally see it as a volun- Newsletters and company meetings can be helpful tools for disseminating information tar~ practice. However, consider the following about waste reduction opportunities. policy statement that was added to RCRA in 1 984: ● Seek technical assistance from outside sources. This may be particularly useful for The (;ongress hereby declares it to be the smaller companies with limited technical national polic}r of the U nitcd States that, \~her- resources. Sources of outside assistance in- e~’er feasible, the gcnerat ion of haza r(lous clude State programs, universities, and ;~’aste is to be reduced or elirn inatd as cxpe- professional consultants, ditiouslyr as possible. The second sentence of this statement (;on- (: 1 U(l(!s t hat: This policy statement implies that waste re- \l’aste ne~’erthelcss generated shoul(] be duction has primacy over waste management. t reat(!(l. stor(xl, or disposed of’ so as to mini- The lack of a direct mention of economic fea- 111 i Z(; t ho ]) 1’OS(; 11 t H 11(] fUt[11’(? t h 1’(};1 t t () ]111 IIlii 11 sibility or practicality makes the statement espe- h(!alth iin(l tll[! [: Il\’i I”OIlllloIlt” . cialljr strong. But policy is not clear, because 14 ● serious Reduction of H~ardous waste

the RCRA statutory term waste minimization worker exposure to toxic chemicals, fewer is interpreted by many people to give equal foot- transportation accidents involving hazardous ing to preferred waste management. It is not substances, and fewer hazardous consumer entirely clear whether this government policy products, Increasing numbers of successful ex- states that a decision to use a preferred form amples of waste reduction yielding net cost sav- of waste management should occur only after ings and more competitive operations support a thorough exploration of the feasibility y of waste the argument that waste reduction promotes in- reduction. dustrial revitalization and economic growth. For all these reasons ample justification, go- A summary of the problems associated with ing well beyond environmental imperatives, those 1984 RCRA Amendments that deal with can be cited for a strong Federal role in waste waste reduction and minimization, the regula- reduction. (Although discussions of public roles tions based on these amendments, and their im- usually focus on Federal and State government, plementation by EPA and the States is given it should be noted that local governments are in table 1-1, For the most part, the 1984 con- increasingly encouraging more waste reduction gressional action does not alter the voluntary by local companies.) character of industrial waste reduction. Its significance is that it has raised the level of im- In the private sector, the interests and actions portance of waste reduction in the eyes of in- of several groups must be considered: dustry decisionmakers. A major policy issue 1. the insurance industry may require plans facing the Federal Government is whether it and commitments for waste reduction as should become directly involved in stimulating a condition for obtaining pollution liabil- or even requiring waste reduction. ity insurance, which is now difficult and It is important to be aware, however, of ways costly to obtain; in which government actions could be harm- 2. financial institutions may use waste reduc- ful to U.S. industry. For example, some types tion plans and performance as criteria to of mandatory waste reduction regulations with judge the merits of borrowers; if they view enforced penalties for noncompliance could investments for waste reduction in the harm international competitiveness for some same way as they view traditional invest- industries and products because they are too in- ments for expansion and modernization, flexible, are inattentive to site-specific con- then waste reduction efforts will be aided; straints, or ignore capital investment needs. 3. some environmental organizations and High costs for implementation not born by com- public interest groups are now making petitors and standards applied equally across waste reduction a high-priority issue and U.S. industry could have grave consequences are educating the public about its impor- for troubled manufacturing sectors. tance as well as trying to influence government and industry decisions and pro- On the positive side, over 80 percent of 99 grams; and small, medium, and large companies surveyed 4, various organizations offer seminars, short by OTA8 believe that employment would either courses, and conferences, which bring at- increase or not be affected by stepped-up but tention to waste reduction and transfer tech- not necessarily mandated waste reduction ef- nical information to people in industry. forts. Increasing waste reduction also will help reduce the presence of toxic chemicals every- Although it has not been possible for this where, an environmental benefit that is often study to examine in detail the potential impact cited. Waste reduction would result in lower of these embryonic private sector efforts, it is evident that they are destined to play an im- 8Here and in similar subsequent statements about industry’s viewpoints, reference is being made to the results of an OTA portant role in stimulating industrial waste re- survey of industry people directly involved with waste manage- duction nationwide. The role of the news me- ment and reduction (see app. A). dia is less certain. There is already evidence Ch. l—Surnrnary and /introduction ● 15

Table 1-1 .–1984 Amendments to RCRA on Waste Minimization (WM): Problems in the Statute, Regulations, and Implementation Implementation The statute Regulations By EPA By States 1. Policy and administration Primacy of waste reduction made National policy was not EPA views WM as minor States not responsible for clear by strong national po/Icy restated in preamble. component of land disposal implementation until outlining a two-tier approach: bans. Little oversight of authorized. pollution prevention (waste implementation by EPA HO; no reduction) and pollution control WM budget commitment. EPA (preferred waste management assumes States are handling practices) to minimize risk. No implementation of regulations economic test to limit activities. even though EPA IS required to do so until States are authorized. 2. Definitions and measurement Ambiguous phrasing in Primacy of waste reduction EPA did not supplement States use different implementation sections. eroded by ambiguous phrasing statutofy/regul atory language definitions, with focus usually carried over into regulations. by issuing broad guidelines as on preferred waste WM can be interpreted as either: to what constitutes WM or management to reduce need 1) reducing the generation of Waste minimization, waste how it should be measured. for land disposal facilities. waste (prevention), or 2) reducing reduction, waste management waste that is generated (control). are not defined; results in high Other actions/statements by This definition erodes primacy of uncertainty among regulators EPA imply WM is any activity waste reduction and causes and generators as to what that will reduce wastes before uncertainty in measurement. constitutes WM. or after generated. Economtc/technological limits placed on required WM activities: “economically practical” waste reduction and “practical available” waste management. 3. Required actions /rnp/errrentation sections mandate 1) Manifest certification three actions: 1) WM certification Only generators who ship No leadership from EPA States generally picked up use on manifests, 2) WM activities/ wastes off site must sign WM of new manifest with WM results statement added to certification statement on new certification or adopted biennial report, and 3) annual WM manifest form. language for own manifest, statement by generators managing wastes onsite, 2) Biennial reDort Each action as written includes Only generators who ship Reports covering waste Most States collected what waste reduction and preferred wastes off site (subset of generation in 1985 due March information assumed required. waste management components; Nation’s total generation) 1, 1966, Little guidance given A few asked generators to however, primacy of waste required to report WM to generators/States on what supply supplemental reduction over preferred waste activities in biennial reporting. constitutes a WM program. information management not clear. No reporting guidelines issued Form required only narrative Information remains at State with regulations. statement. Results: 1) no data Having WM program in place is level; EPA did not request likely to be collected, or 2) no submission of WM information not a required activity for biennial consistency in reporting. Little report ing. in required biennial report followup evaluation will be summary, possible on effectiveness of reguiat ions. 3) Permit condition Generators who treat, store, Lack of definition/guidelines WM condition of permit dispose of wastes onsite has created variability among primarily handled by EPA subject to TSDF permits. regions. Regions/generators regions rather than States, Permits now require annual unsure about what constitutes statement on WM program to a WM program statement. be placed in operating file onsite. No details required. 4. Enforcement Enforcement not mandated. EPA stated in preamble to No apparent enforcement Enforcement activities Generators allowed to determine regulations that would attempt underway. unknown, activities that constitute WM. enforcement only of manifest Minimum enforcement would certification, require visits to generators and TSDFS to ascertain if manifest WM statement signed or operating record contains annual WM program information, Since generators determine activities, compliance would not Indicate if waste reduction has occurred. SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986 76 . serious Reduction of H~ardous waste that waste reduction is not deemed as newswor- fact that its definition has not been made clear thy as the more visual aspects of pollution con- poses a serious problem. trol, particularly its failures. For example, com- Ironically, the goal of reducing the use of land panies that have won honors for successful disposal detracts from the goal of reducing waste reduction have received little, if any, waste. If waste reduction is defined to include news coverage—unlike those that have polluted waste treatment, then attention is diverted away the environment. The company that is not gen- from true waste reduction. The goal of waste erating waste provides scant fodder for report- reduction subsumes the goal of reducing land ers and few photographic opportunities for disposal, but the goal of reducing land disposal cameramen. does not mean that the alternative chosen will What does all this mean in terms of congres- be waste reduction. sional action? With regard to industry, common EPA and State agencies spend at most about sense suggests that massive reduction of waste $4 million annually on activities related to waste is not possible overnight. But available infor- reduction. This is less than 0.1 percent of total mation supports the view that eventually large- government spending on pollution control pro- scale waste reduction will be possible techni- grams. The Department of Defense, however, cally and economically, Supportive private sec- has committed larger sums of money for waste tor efforts, which are just now being initiated, minimization, but they define it to include are likely to promote more waste reduction by waste treatment (see ch. 5). industry, Commitment to the national policy goal and well-informed planning for its imple- Industry probably spends significant sums mentation can be assisted by Federal leadership. on waste reduction—possibly a much greater But how much waste reduction is possible? Ex- percentage of its environmental spending than actly how much has been going on? What are the government allots, although these figures its economic and environmental benefits? These cannot be determined. Waste reduction tends important questions cannot now be answered to lose out to waste management in the press with detailed, reliable data. Nor is it possible of immediate concerns, such as siting waste to quantitatively calculate the positive and neg- management facilities, developing alternatives ative impacts of certain government actions on to land disposal, and determining safe levels specific wastes or industrial waste generators. of emissions. Little recognition is given to the These limitations do not necessarily rule out fact that effective waste reduction methods can Federal leadership, but they do favor some t ypes lessen these needs, Pollution control is often of government action over others. perceived as being the safer choice because the technologies of waste management are more fa- The Primacy Issue miliar than those of waste reduction and there is no risk of impairing product quality. In actu- For the Environmental Protection Agency ality, there is no such risk with many ways of (EPA), industry, and environmentalists, waste reducing waste. reduction has consistently appeared as the ideal Some waste generators say that they have re- waste management option—the concept is uni- duced their wastes as far as is feasible; others versally embraced even though the option is not believe that waste reduction makes sense only vigorously implemented. Even though EPA ac- in the longer term. Waste reduction is often seen knowledged that waste reduction should be as a long-term ideal rather than as an immedi- given top priority in 1976,9 this theoretical pri- ate and practical route for industry and govern- ority has not been matched either by action or ment to pursue. This appears to be primarily by resources. Now that the implementation of a consequence of resource commitment to and waste reduction is receiving more attention, the familiarity with pollution control rather than ’41 CFR 35050, Aug. 18, 1976. to technical constraints. Ch. l—Summary and /introduction . 17

Many industry actions have some potential treatment—i. e., its benefits approach those of for promoting or hindering waste reduction, waste reduction, Both offsite recycling and ef- but these are rarely examined explicitly. Waste fective waste treatment are preferred waste reduction is seldom seen as a criterion to meas- management options, but both pose more risks ure job performance or performance in meeting than waste reduction because waste is handled, government environmental protection require- stored, and transported. The possibility of mis- ments, developing production technologies, and management or failure of technology cannot setting research agendas. Offering rewards and be disregarded. Accidents can occur at both incentives for workers and managers who find recycling and waste treatment facilities. About ways to reduce waste can be an especially im- 10 percent of the Superfund sites on the cur- portant strategy. rent National Priorities List are these types of facilities. Goals for waste reduction could be established just as, for example, people target a certain an- The limited data available indicate that most nual increase in the gross national product or RCRA hazardous waste is still land disposed— in productivity, Goals could help maintain in- by one estimate for 1983, 68 percent was de- terest in reducing waste. Some companies re- posited in or on the Iandll—and available data port involvement in goal-setting,lo but for the for the past several years do not yet show a ma- most part, there has been little use of the tech- jor shift away from land disposal. Less than 2 nique of setting target figures for waste reduc- percent of RCRA regulated waste is inciner- tion at the plant, company, industry, or national ated, and not much more is permanently treated level. in other ways or recycled. Sometimes data for a company or an industry show a drop in land The Case for the Primacy of Waste Reduction disposed waste, but this may be due to declining production. Why should waste reduction be given primacy over waste management by industry? Ex- Often what is called treatment of waste is sim- cluding the factors of transport and storage, ply removal and transfer, For example, evapo- waste management can be divided into three ration ponds and air stripping columns used categories: 1) recycling or reuse away from the for treating liquid wastes purposefully put vola- source of waste generation; 2) treatment or con- tile toxic chemicals into the air, and adsorp- version, which physically destroys or chemi- tion materials used to remove toxic chemicals cally detoxifies or otherwise renders waste per- from liquids or gases are generally land dis- manently harmless; and 3) disposal, which puts posed. Statistics for industrial hazardous pol- waste into the air, water, or land. Environ- lutants in waste streams sent to publicly owned mental regulation has not necessarily required water treatment plants indicate that only about the first two preferable options and has often 50 percent are permanently altered; the rest re- led inadvertently to very ineffective disposal main hazardous and are released into the air which has caused problems so severe as to have as volatile emissions, discharged into surface necessitated repeated redisposal, However, if waters, or put into the land as sludge, where a treatment permanently renders all or most hazardous substances can migrate into ground- waste harmless, then it is effective waste water.lz There are concerns about emissions of unregulated toxic chemicals resulting from l~s[)me Compa n i(;s have said that they do not use numerical incineration; according to EPA more than half goals, mhi]e others indicate that they may use them. For example, s I’VI has said that it reduced J>otential hazardous waste gem eration by 50 perc(:nt i n the past 10 sears and that it hoped to 1’ [ I .S. Congress, (congressional Budget (lffice, Hazardous re~]ea t that i n t h e next s jea rs. (:he\ron Chemical Co. has said tl’a.ste ,~lanagcment: Recent (:hanges and Policj A/ternati~c.s that ~pcclfic. waste re(luct ion ,goal~ are set hy ea(’h of its plant ~, (tl’ashington, 1)(;: U.S. Government Printing Office, Nla) 1985). [Ltrastc Reduction: ‘1’he ( ‘nfold Storj , proceedin~s of a ljeagut) I z [;, S, F: rl~,i r. n ment al Prote(: t io n Agenf; }r, Report to ~’[)IIgI’(~.s’.$ of J1’omen ~roters (conference. \lroo(]s Hole, NIA, jL1ne 1985, ] on the Discbarge of Hazardous L$rastes to Pub]iclsr O\~,IIed 7“rc,j t- [)Ll Pent has also announced that it is preparing a goal for 1990, ment i!’ork. s, E PA/530 -S\l’-86-OO4 (\$rash ington, DC: Office 01 ‘l’ho [)epart merrt of Defense is [)re~]aring waste reduction goals. Jf’ater RegLl]ations and Standards. Fehruar’j’ 1986), I), 7-6, 18 . Serjous Reductjon of Hazardous waste of hazardous waste incinerators in 1981 used charges are entering the environment. For ex- no air pollution control systems at all.13 ample, an EPA study found that over 3,OOO tons of toxic metals were entering the Chesapeake The widespread potential for cross-media Bay annually from industries in Maryland and transfer in waste management and treatment Virginia. Many believe that cumulative dis- is an important reason for giving primacy to charges of hazardous waste have played a role waste reduction. Two examples illustrate how in the declining marine life of the Bay. (For ex- existing environmental programs can lead to ample, even while environmental regulations cross-media transfers of pollutants: escalated, commercial catches of striped bass 1. Air pollution and water pollution control fell from 6 million pounds in 1970 to 600,000 or treatment techniques produce hazard- pounds in 1983. Oyster harvests have dropped ous solid waste such as baghouse dusts and by two-thirds in the last 20 years. )14 sludges that include toxic metals, often in In sum, to an unacceptable degree, hazard- very large quantities. At one major com- ous waste management involves disposal or dis- mercial hazardous waste landfill these persal of waste into the environment. Some of types of wastes accounted for 25 percent this pollution may not be too troublesome. For of its receipts in 1984. At a major petro- example, the atmosphere or the ocean may be leum refinery, fully 60 percent of all the able to assimilate fairly large quantities of some hazardous wastes come from required air substances without causing harm to the envi- and water pollution control devices. ronment or to human health. But much of this 2. Solid waste surface impoundments, land- disposal or dispersal into air and water is fills, water treatment units, and some clean- known to pose severe environmental threats. ups of contaminated groundwater and soil Many land disposal practices, which have been release unregulated toxic air emissions. An proven harmful, illustrate this point. In many EPA study found the Northeast Philadel- other cases, the long-range effects of disposal phia Sewage Treatment Plant to be the and dispersal practices can only be classified largest single source of air toxics in the en- as unknown. Effective waste treatment is often tire metropolitan area, greater than such expensive, which is why most wastes are not major industrial facilities as refineries and treated effectively, Even when new technology chemical plants. makes lower costs possible, firms offering these Another reason for giving primacy to waste technologies often encounter market entry reduction is that the current regulatory system problems that limit the availability of these sanctions the generation of certain amounts of methods, For example, there is a host of tech- waste, and these can accumulate to environ- nical, economic, and institutional explanations mentally unacceptable levels when postpollu- for the fact that recycling is not used more tion control discharges from many generators widely, Waste disposal, which generally has the enter the environment. Regulatory permits lowest direct cost, should be permitted only given to a generator for specific wastes are not when the user is able to demonstrate that waste necessarily based on standards, but rather on disposal will accomplish environmental pro- what is technically feasible for the generator. tection and that no costs will be shifted to other Nor is there necessarily effective enforcement parties. But at present waste generators often of the limits imposed by permits. Moreover, cer- only have to deal with the immediate costs of tain kinds of wastes, such as toxic chemicals, land disposal, and government still sanctions are not necessarily covered by permits geared its use for many wastes rather than limiting it to conventional pollutants. The result is that to the residues of treatment, which will always large amounts of legal and illegal waste dis- require land disposal.

131z. Timothy Oppelt, “Hazardous Waste Destruction, ” llnv~- ronrnental Science and Technolog.v, vol. 20, No. 4, April 1986, lq’’’rhe Poisoning of Chesapeake Bay, ” The Washington Post, pp. 312-318. June 1, 1986, p. 1. Ch. l—Summary and /introduction ● 19

The most important reason why waste reduc- least costly and does not require other manage- tion should be the first option of generators is ment options, such as detoxification or volume because all waste treatment and recycling fa- reduction .16 cilities pose some environmental risk and thus If waste reduction has primacy, then: 1) its require effective regulation. The most certain possibilities should always be thoroughly ex- means of preventing environmental risk is plored before waste management is used, and through waste reduction. Waste reduction is 2) the allocation of public and private resources also preferable to most waste management should reflect its priority. As will be discussed practices because it can lead to lower direct later with regard to technology, the fact is that costs and higher indirect benefits. As a recent significant waste reduction is underway and report by the French Government said: “Avoid- experience in the United States and elsewhere ing the creation of pollution seems to be the indicates that waste reduction is a near-term best way to fight against it, technically and eco- practical option, even though it is not possible nomically, “15 Similarly, analysts in the U.S. to estimate accurately the upper limit of how waste management industry studying alterna- much is technically and economically feasible. tives to land disposal of hazardous waste recently concluded: Obviously, the most preferred is the prevention of generation. This option usually is the

15 N1 i(; haf; l R, ol,[;r(; ilsh, ‘rec.hnjques for lndustria/ Pollution [’r(?- 16R. ]. sc h Ocnherger and hl. H. [:orh i n * “-I’echnologies for Ilaz- ~’cntion (Chelsea, N1 I: I,e\\is Pub] ishers, Inc., 1986), p. 29. Baswl a rdous ilrwite Reduct ion—A .State of the Art Re\”ie\!’, paper ~)r[:- on Nlin istere df; 1‘ Ent’ironnernent, I.f?s Techniquf?s ProJJres clans sented at ‘1’h i rd H a zarcious Waste N1 a n age ment (:() n fc r(; n(: [:, l’lndustric Frijnf;aise, translated I)\’ Nlichelle 1,. L)eHertogh. Philadelphia, PA, June 1985.

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION

Have other nations also come to the conclu- Denmark, The Netherlands, and Austria) have sion that waste reduction is important? The de- exercised more leadership in waste reduction gree of interest in waste reduction among gov- and have devoted more money to waste reduc- ernments in other industrialized nations varies tion than the United States. While the develop- (see app. B]. Some governments have taken lit- ment of governmental programs to promote tle or no action. The United Kingdom, for ex- waste reduction dates from the early 1980s in ample, has decided to concentrate its efforts the United States, these West European coun- on ensuring adequate waste management, while tries have been supporting the concept of “low- Japan has concentrated on promoting reuse or and non-waste technologies” (or “clean tech- recycling technologies. Other governments are nologies”) since the 1970s. As is the case here, just beginning to take action. Canada has, until there are no data from European countries on recently, left waste reduction up to its Provinces. which to base an assessment of waste reduc- Ontario, for example, has initiated substantial tion, so it is impossible to know if government waste reduction efforts. This situation is likely activity has resulted in higher levels of reduc- to change, however; the Canadian Federal Gov- tion there than here. Differences in definitions ernment will be holding a major policy plan- for hazardous waste and waste reduction also ning meeting in October 1986 to outline a plan hamper comparisons both between Europe and for coordinated Federal and Provincial action the United States and among European nations. on waste reduction. However, it is important to note that European nations have generally not established as ex- Most European governments (e.g., France, the tensive environmental regulatory programs as Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Norway, has the United States. This absence of a pollu- ZO ● serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste tion control culture may have helped to facili- tored the costs of waste disposal into their tate interest and investment by Europeans in manufacturing processes, Today, an economi- waste reduction. cal and environmentally acceptable plan for waste management may well make Du Pent the The experiences of these governments in pro- low-cost producer–and hold the key to the moting waste reduction among their industries success or failure of many of our businesses.17 may be instructive to U.S. policy makers. Euro- pean governments have focused on assistance To the extent that Europe’s lead in waste re- to and cooperation with waste generators as duction results in more efficient processes and well as on government and industrial planning increased productivity among European industries, U.S. firms in similar industrial sectors for waste reduction. This is consistent with may be placed in an inferior competitive posi- their nonregulatory approach to environmental protection. tion. In addition, to the extent that a profitable worldwide market for waste reducing technol- West European experiences may also present ogies and techniques opens up in the coming a challenge to the United States because waste decade, U.S. firms may find it difficult to sell reduction has been used as a tool to improve their waste reduction expertise to industrial industrial efficiency, growth, and international operations here and overseas if Europeans are competitiveness and not solely for environ- offering a wider variet y of better techniques that mental protection. Some U.S. firms have also have been tested over a longer period of time. taken this position. For example, a Du Pent executive has said:

Waste reduction can also give us a leg up 1 TPaul A. Chubb, Wasteljne, Spring 1986. ‘1’h is pub] ication is competitively. In the past, few companies fac- DU Pent’s new waste reduction newsletter.

ISSUES AND FINDINGS

To summarize the material in subsequent have been generated without waste re- chapters, OTA has defined eight issues which duction, No current public database on are ‘presented here together with OTA’S find- waste generation is coupled with infor- ings and brief explanatory discussions. mation on production output and no significant amounts of disaggregated (i. e., SUMMARY ISSUE 1: plant- and process-specific) waste re- 1s waste reduction measured cor- duction data are in the public domain. rectly in common practice? Waste generation information is thus likely to be misleading about waste re- OTA Finding: duction. Some companies do measure waste reduction correctly. They determine how Discussion the generation of a specific waste from a process has changed over time by ref- A major problem in analyzing waste reduc- erence to a unit production output. It tion is deciding exactly how it should be meas- is even more useful to determine how ured and described. Waste reduction is far more specific hazardous substances within difficult to document with meaningful data than the waste have changed, again on a unit it is to talk about in general terms, Most of the production basis. For a new process or limited data on waste generation available to product, the levels of waste generation policy analysts are too aggregated over proc- that occur with waste reduction meas- esses, plants, companies, and sometimes indus- ures should be compared to what would tries to prove or disprove that any given degree Ch. l—Summary and /introduction . 21 of waste reduction is taking place. Moreover, pany level) is that over time industrial activity the national database on the generation of haz- changes, product mix changes, and environ- ardous waste is in very poor condition. Ten mental regulatory requirements (which deter- years after RCRA was enacted, the data on mine what is counted as a waste) change; all waste generation are generally accepted to be three factors strongly affect waste generation incomplete, out of date, unreliable, and sadly figures. Increasing economic activity and pro- lacking in detail. EPA itself has recently said duction might mask waste reduction. Alterna- that: “vital data and analytical techniques are tively, aggregated waste generation data which still lacking. ”la Only a few States have infor- show a decline over time may result from a mation that is more useful than that in the na- recession or from treatments that change waste tional database. volume, such as dewatering and waste stream separation, without any reduction in toxicity For hazardous wastes not regulated by RCRA, or level of hazard. If one major industrial plant the situation is no better. The most obvious maintains a very high volume aqueous waste problem is that of toxic air emissions; there is stream this can greatly affect aggregated data no reliable database for the range of toxic chem- for an industry segment on a State or even na- icals being released in large quantities into the tional basis.zo Although they may greatly reduce atmosphere.lg As to water, there has been no waste management costs to the generator, ac- systematic nationwide collection of data on the tions that reduce waste volume by concentrat- actual (rather than permitted) levels of dis- ing the hazardous content of a waste or that charges for the full range of wastes, nor has reduce hazard level by diluting the hazardous there been a tally of permitted levels. content are not considered waste reduction in In other words, the current pollution control this report. regulatory program has not given the Federal A good measure of waste reduction might be Government the sort of extensive data that will on a process basis, such as the amount of waste chart exactly what wastes are coming out of per hour of electroplating; an even better meas- every industrial operation. It is not at all clear ure may be based on production, such as the that even plant operators usually have this in- amount of waste produced per pound of chem- formation. ical or per computer. Indeed, several compa- Because almost everyone in the regulatory nies have said that putting waste generation on agencies and industry has been preoccupied a production output basis is how they measure with pollution control, the focus has been on waste reduction. zl amounts of waste generated. When interest shifts to waste reduction, however, statistics 20 For example, data ok~er a q-year period for 324 chemical i)lants incf icate that solid hazardo Lls ~i.aste dec reasecf from 3.3 million on the absolute amounts of waste generated do tons in 1981 to 1.3 million tons in 1984, and hazardous u’aste- not suffice. The problem in examining any water de(; reased from 207.8 million tons in 1981 to 175.2 m il - waste generation data (national, State, or com- Iion tons in 1984. Some of this decline in waste generation is undoubtedly a result of waste reduction. Ho\i’e\’er, concentra- — tion of hazardous substances, changes in production Ie\rels. and 1 ~[;~ ~~. N 1, ~at ~, [] i rc(;tor, h4~n~~ernent and Organ izat ion Di - other factors may also contribute to the changes. [Chemical Nlam \Is ion, I T .S. [tn~i ronmental IJrotectiorr Agen(; y, memorandum ufactu rers Association, “ResLl]ts of the 1984 CNIA Ilazardous on “Reorganization of the of fi[;e of Solid Waste, ” to Howar(l Waste Sur\’ey, ” January 198(j, ] \l, hl[~~sner. }l~~istant Administrator, May 7, 1986, attachment 1. ZY ~~’aste Redu~tjoll- The L ‘ntojd .!tor~, ~)ro(:et; d i ngs of:] I.e~gu~ Igf.’or ~)~a 1lI1)I[; , i o a n un usuall} (;andid E 1lA document, the qual- of Women t~oters conference, Woods Hole, NIA, June 1985. But It} of t Ilt; Nat Ion air toxics emissions data was d iscusse(l. C;om- no detailed waste reduction data on a production output has is nlent~ included: ‘‘ the emissions data base for air toxics is are given, although Mensa nto Co. noted: ‘‘Ah ~ol ut e total \t’a ste quit [’ [)t)c)r “ “’I’here are presentl} no continuing and com- generation volume decreased only 1.7 ~)erceot from 19B2 [o!]r prt’hensi l(; F’(~ci(;ra I (mi~sion inientor}’ data bases maintaine(l ‘base )ear’ ] through 1984. L1 n it generation, however (pounds of on ,] 1 r toxi(,s. ‘1’tl(;r(; a Ix; no regula rl~ up(late(l, Lom [)utcrize(l, emis- w’astclpounds of prod Llction), decreased 19.7 percent!’ ‘rb is il - s i{ ) n 1 n 1’(; n t () .r~ S.}” S t [:nl \ . “ “r[’h~: e~ist in~ air tt)x ics emissions ]Ll\trates ho~~” important it is to pLlt waste reduction On a ])ro- sum nlCI ri(;~ (:[)me from {i hodge])o(lge of [i PA re])orts, art iclf; s, (i u(; t io n 011 t [)( I t basis. There were other exam pies, i n a n swer to [;! [,. [’1’onl I ,ah r[>, (jf f i(, e of ;\i r Qual itf’ Plan n In: and Sta n(far(is, a question on ho~i’ waste re(iuction is defined. Exxon Chern ica] ( ,S. I;n\lrorl mental I)r[)tf;(,tion Agen(;}’, “(;htir;)(,t[:rixatlon of A rneri(as said: ‘‘Also use an inclex of tons of waste d it’ided bj’ .l~(i ilat)lf> N’iit Iont$i(l(! Alr “1’ok I(.\ E;ml\\ion\ I)ata, ” June 13, 1984, I ton> of pro(iu(:t prodll(:e(~ for comparison on a }f;ar to year ba- (corrtinued on next page) 22 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Consider data from the Sanford, North Caro- There is one more critical problem in the lina, plating operation of Stanadyne, Inc. From measurement of waste reduction, even when 1983 to 1985 waste sludge decreased from using the approach just discussed. In the above 115,000 pounds to 110,000 pounds, just over example, there was an implicit assumption that 4 percent. But production hours had increased the chemical nature of the waste did not change. from 2,380 to 4,550. Waste generation in terms If a waste is not totally eliminated, however, of production output dropped from 48.3 pounds actions taken to reduce waste may also change per hour to 24.2 pounds per hour, almost a 50- the chemical composition and the concentra- percent decrease. This is the correct measure tions of the components of the waste. There- of waste reduction. Even if waste generation fore, examining changes in just the amount of had increased 30 percent to 150,000 pounds in waste generated relative to production may not 1985, there still would have been 32-percent real reveal whether there has been a change in the waste reduction. In other words, the correct degree of hazard of the waste. Without a de- measure of waste reduction provides a remark- crease in the degree of hazard of the waste, the ably good indication of the level of efficient use action is not considered waste reduction. For of materials in industrial operations. example, as mentioned previously, large aqueous waste streams are generated by the chemi- One problem with this method is that putting cal industry; some actions can reduce the water waste reduction on a production output basis content but not the amount of hazardous sub- raises concerns in companies about revealing stances in the waste. Dewatering of a sludge information they consider confidential. How- is another example of reducing the volume and ever, it is not necessary to report actual produc- concentrating the hazardous content of a waste. tion data. All that is necessary is to give the fi- Neither case should be considered waste re- nal waste reduction percentage based on waste duction, generation and production data, not based solely on changes in the absolute amounts of waste Some waste reduction actions, such as chang- generated. ing process technology, may reduce some hazardous components but increase others or in- Disaggregated waste percentage data can troduce new ones. Unless the basic chemistry then be pooled to obtain weighted (in terms of of a waste has remained constant, waste reduc- relative amounts of waste) waste reduction tion data may not accurately indicate what has averages over a number of processes or opera- occurred. zz Several questions need to be an- tions, or even plants of a company, or compa- swered in order to flag suspect or meaningless nies of an industry (see box l-D). This kind of waste reduction data: Has the waste reduction averaging, or pooling, gives a true measure of resulted from an action that concentrated haz- waste reduction and avoids proprietary prob- ardous content? Has the waste reduction re- lems. The key is to come up with disaggregated sulted from an action that changed the chemis- percent waste reduction figures that are clearly try of the waste? Has the waste reduction understood to be derived from production- resulted from some unknown activity? Unless based waste generation data; without the pro- a negative answer can be given to these ques- duction base there can be no valid measure of tions with certainty, the bare waste reduction waste reduction. data (on a production output basis] may not accurately reflect what OTA defines as true waste (continued from previous page) reduction. To go much beyond asking these sis. This index properly considers growth via new products or additional production. This index is similar to commonly used simple questions would, however, require con- energy indexes. ” Du Pent said: “Amount reduced per ton of siderable analytical effort. product–i.e., waste could increase in pounds, but still be reduced as a fraction of production. ” Olin Corp. said: “Reduction in quan- zzrrhis is also the Case if a ‘‘dry weight’ of an aqueous m’aste tity of waste generated per unit of product produced. ” Amoco is used, While changes in dry ~veight a~’oid the problem of report- Chemicals Corp. said: “ . . waste reduction is . . a decrease ing changes in water content only, they do not necessarily re- in the amount of waste requiring disposal per unit of product \’eal changes in the hazardous (;ontent of the non aqueous por- produced. ” tion of the waste. .

Ch. l—Summary and Introduction ● 23 —

Box I-D.—The Measurement of Waste Reduction Case #l; Waste reduction for a specific waste generating industrial processor operation for which a production output can be identified and there is no change in the chemical makeup of the waste. Percent Waste Reduction = WR = [(A - B)/A] X 100 where, A= amount of waste generated in the previous year/production output B = amount of new waste generated in the previous year/production output) Example calculation, given that: in year chemical produced waste generated 1984 500,000 pounds 50,000 pounds 1985 600,000 pounds 40,000 pounds then, A= 50,000/500,000 = 0.1 B = 40,000/600,000 = 0.07 and WR = [(0.1 - 0.07)/0.1] X 100 = 30 percent waste reduction Thus, waste was reduced by 30 percent on a production output basis from 1984 to 1985 while chemical production increased 100,000 pounds (20 percent). If waste generated in 1985 had been 55,OOO pounds (i.e., an absolute increase of 10 percent in amount of waste generated), then on a production output basis there would still have been waste reduction since: A = 0.1 B = 55,000/600,000 = 0.09 and WR = [(0.1 - 0.09)/0.1] X 100 = 10 percent waste reduction

Case x2: Waste reduction for a plant with more than one waste generating process or operation. Overall Percent Waste Reduction = WRtotal = (M1/Mtot)WRl + (M2/Mtot)WR2 + (M3/Mtot)WR3 + . . . (Mn/Mtot)WRn where, Mn = amount of waste from nth (first, second, third, . . . nth) waste generating process or operation Mtot = total amount of waste generated in plant operations WRn = percent waste reduction from the nth waste generating process or operation

Case x3: Waste reduction for a company with more than one waste generating plant or an industry with more than one waste generating company would be calculated as above, with the weighted percent waste reduction figures for the plants or companies and Mtot for the company or industry.

The best way to measure waste reduction is chemistry of their wastes, which may be highIy to determine the changes in the absolute complex and vary over time. The current reg- amounts of hazardous components. This is con- ulatory system has, for the most part, done 1 it- s iderably more expensive than obtaining data tle to differentiate hazard levels among the on changes in the total amounts of waste. With- Inan}’ hundreds of common hazardous sub- out guidance on the relative degrees of hazard stances. Therefore, if the government is to en- of specific hazardous substances, waste gener- courage effect i~’c \\Taste reduction, it may h a\Te a to rs c OU1 d face burdensome analytical costs to assist generators in selecting the most haz- for periodic measurements of the complete ardous components of w’astes for measurement 24 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste and reduction. The National Research Coun- a monumental government effort could com- cil stated: pile systematic and reliable data on waste reduction for American industry. The experience To encourage waste reduction practices, the with the RCRA waste generation data system committee recommends modification to the regulatory definitions to include the degree of shows that it would be remarkably difficult for hazard.zs government to gather and analyze accurate and timely data from a very large number of com- If the government does not establish a means panies and for an even larger number of proc- to differentiate among hazardous substances, esses and waste streams. Even reliable data then using changes in the amount of waste on would not reveal what actions, out of a broad a production output basis in combination with range of possibilities, a specifi”c industrial oper- flagging data that should be excluded is the best ation might reasonably undertake to reduce compromise. This method would also be a sub- waste, because so much of what is technically stantial improvement over the current practice and economically feasible is site-specific. of making measurements of waste generation that are uncorrected for changes in production The costs and benefits of overcoming these output. obstacles are difficult to assess but are probably substantial. Nevertheless, this uncertainty SUMMARY ISSUE 2: and the time it would take to put together ex- Is the absence of solid information tensive data on waste reduction do little to resolve current questions, which must be ad- on waste reduction a barrier to gov- dressed in formulating policy recommenda- ernment and industry’s ability to tions. Should government pursue some direct take initiatives to step up waste re- approach for spurring waste reduction in the duction? near term? Or should it wait and give the system a chance to respond to current indirect in- OTA Finding: centives (which are working to some extent)? Rather than delaying waste reduction while more data are collected, the de- SUMMARY ISSUE 3: velopment of better information can be Can industry implement waste re- made part of waste reduction programs. An information gap does not have to be duction while remaining in compli- a barrier to waste reduction initiatives ance with pollution control regu- by government and industry, but initia- lations? tives should emphasize the need for acquiring better information to document OTA Finding: their effectiveness and progress. Even Environmental protection argues for if the government were to take no fur- simultaneous efforts toward reduction ther action, there would still be a criti- and control. But practical limits to in- cal need to obtain information on the dustrial resources suggest that many national waste reduction effort. waste generators may need regulatory flexibility and technical assistance to Discussion permit a smooth transition from pollution control to waste reduction. Opinions about the current state of waste reduction—how much is possible, and whether Discussion further government action is needed—are based almost entirely on perceptions, anecdotes, and The current state of waste reduction in in- examples rather than on systematic data. Only dustry raises a number of issues for industry —-. - — -- - itself, for government, and for other individ- Z3pJ:it it)ndl Research c~un[:i], Rd[icjxlg Hazardous waSfe (kIl- uals or organizations interested in examining eration [Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985), p. 31, waste reduction. In industry, as in government, Ch. 1—Summary and Introduction ● 25 — waste reduction has generally been a part of cussed in chapter 3, waste generators will un- existing pollution control efforts. Companies avoidably face an investment-uncertainty hurdle with major waste reduction programs, however, as they proceed with waste reduction. often shift waste reduction to the production arena. The historical linkage of waste reduction to pollution control may be one of the ob- SUMMARY ISSUE 4: stacles faced by government and industry in their attempts to promote widespread waste re- Has U.S. industry reduced the duct ion. generation of hazardous waste to the greatest degree possible? For examp]e, Federal regulatory programs in themselves are sometimes counterproductive OTA Finding: or inattentive to waste reduction; they are Waste reduction is a dynamic opportu- mostly driven by available, proven pollution nity contingent on a host of changing control technology rather than by health and technical, economic, human, and insti- environmental considerations. This means that tutional factors. Thus, substantially certain levels of waste generation are approved more waste reduction is feasible and by regulations. The result, therefore, is that end- more will become feasible. Setting a na- of-pipe regulatory programs legally allow the tional voluntary waste reduction goal generation of hazardous waste and do not di- of perhaps 10 percent annually for 5 rectl~~ stimulate waste reduction. Of course, the years could be useful. pollution control approach does offer environmental protection. Waste reduction, however, Discussion offers more, and the government’s approach to environmental protection has kept attention and Some companies believe that there are few resources from being directed towards waste re- if any remaining waste reduction opportuni- duction. ties. In particular, some larger companies feel that they have accomplished all the waste re- Telling industry to comply with pollution duction that they can. Many of industry’s state- cent rol regulations and simultaneously reduce ments about waste reduction are reminiscent waste ignores practical limits to industrial re- of 197o’s statements about industrial energy sources, Regulatory compliance is expensive. conservation. What this means is that, to a signi- F’or many companies, capital investments for ficant extent, waste reduction may be blocked pollution control and the costs of regulatory compliance can foreclose any but the simplest by individual attitudes based on limited information and experience, rather than on lack of efforts at waste reduction, even though successful waste reduction will very quickly reduce effective technology. regulatory compliance and waste management ● Are managers, design engineers, research- costs. The difficulty for a generator, then, is to ers, and plant engineers and workers fa- continue to invest and spend on regulatory com- miliar with all the technical means to re- pliance and improved waste management while duce waste? at the same time investing and spending on ● Have they examined all waste reduction waste reduction. It seems like a Catch-22 situa- opportunities? Does their organization re- tion. The answer may be not to force a choice ~~ard waste reduction efforts? between waste reduction and pollution control. ● Have they been able to see the economic If flexibility can be introduced into the current value of a waste in terms of its worth as regulat orjr s~’stem and if’ assistance for waste m’asted raw material and its costs as a pol- reduction is offered, switching emphasis o~’er lutant to be managed and as a potential lia- to wraste reduction can be facilitated. But while bil it}’? the transition is being made, environmental ● Do environmental engineers who are trained protection must be maintained. As will be disin and preoccupied with end-of-pipe man- 26 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

agement consider front-end changes? Are 1983 to 1984.24 Naturally, not every waste gener- they technically equipped to recognize ator would be able to match figures such as waste reduction opportunities throughout these, If a national goal were to be set, it should a process? not be as a regulatory requirement, but as a way Are traditional mass or material balance to stimulate interested and informed support for calculations, which some companies per- implementing waste reduction. form to describe inputs and outputs, sen- It is difficult to know, however, how far pub- sitive enough to reveal small amounts of licized waste reduction success stories can be waste that may be of great economic and environmental significance? extrapolated. Companies that are not pursuing waste reduction goals normally remain silent. Do companies consider reducing all wastes, Some companies do not agree with this optimis- including those that are unregulated or are currently released into the environment tic view of waste reduction possibilities because they feel that limitations are posed by their site according to the limits imposed by a or their history. However, most people work- permit? ing in the field are optimistic about the poten- While no generalization is correct for all com- tial for waste reduction. A recent major study panies, OTA finds that for the most part the of waste reduction in 29 organic chemical answer to all the above questions is “no. ” The plants is significant,zs Some of its findings were: conclusion is that there are substantial oppor- .,. despite the kinds of benefits companies tunities for waste reduction, even though it is could reap from waste reduction, and despite not possible to give numbers for specific wastes all the talk about the critical importance of this and industries. The challenge is to persuade and strategy by those in and outside the industry, assist most American waste generators to do waste reduction initiatives were actually af- what a few companies have already discovered fecting only a tiny fraction of the total wastes is in their own economic self-interest. generated by our 29 plants. It is our belief that virtually every facility generating wastes in the Rather than attempting to forecast future form of air emissions, wastewaters and solids amounts of waste reduction, which cannot be has substantial and beneficial opportunities to done with accuracy because of the nearly un- pursue waste reduction at the source.28 bounded methods of implementation and because of site-specific limitations, it might be Another study of waste reduction made the more useful to focus on a voluntary waste re- same point: duction goal. Government could set, for exam- . . . most of the industrial efforts in the nation ple, a goal of perhaps 10 percent annually over are currently in the initial phase in the devel- 5 years for plants, companies, and the Nation opment and implementation of hazardous as a whole. This level of activity appears feasi- waste reduction programs. Significant oppor- ble, based on reports of recent successful efforts. tunities exist to reduce the generation of haz- For example, a survey asked various large com- ardous waste . . . 27 panies whether, after accounting for produc- A Du Pent official recently said: tion changes, waste generation had decreased from 1984 to 1985. The answers are impressive. we will see considerable reductions in the The percentage reductions reported are: Rohm percentage of waste generated per pound of & Haas, 10 percent; Exxon Chemical Americas, z~l~’~sff~ Re(/[JCfjofl-7’}le OIlgOI’Ilg Saga, proceedings of a Tufts 10 percent; olin, 34 percent from 1981 to 1985; Uni\wrsity Center for Environmental hldnagement conference, Woods Ilole, NfA, June 1986. Du Pent, 50 percent and 35 percent for two di- ZS]];II, id Sarokirl, et a],, Cutting Chen];c;a] [~’;~.$te.s ( ~f?w’ }’Ork: visions; 3M, 50 percent over 1975 to 1985; and INFORM, 1985). two companies, which did not put data on a z“tlavid Sarokin, “Waste Reduction in the Organic Chemical production output basis, indicated that gener- Industry, ” paper presented at (lo~ernment Institutes’ l+aziird- ous and Solid Waste Minimization Conference, Llay 1986. ation dropped: IBM reported a drop of 17 per- ~TNat ional Research (Uolln(:il, Reducing HaZardOUS ~~’aStC Cell- cent; Hewlett Packard, 16 percent for the years er~tiun [M’ashington, DC: National Aca(lemy l>ress, 1985], p, 5. —

Ch. l—Summary and Introduction ● 27

product produced, just as we have seen reduc- nological means to reduce waste are imbedded tions in the consumption of energy over the in all aspects of the production system. There- last ten years.28 fore, the phrase waste reduction technology, Finally, a senior EPA official recently said: although it is convenient to use, can lead to con- “Principally, I agree that not enough waste re- fusion. Five classes of waste reduction are iden- duction is going on at present. ”2g The Depart- tified in this study: ment of Defense is establishing goals for large 1. recycling of a [potential] waste or part of amounts of waste reduction. it at the site of its generation; 2. improvements in process technology and SUMMARY ISSUE 5: equipment that alter the primary source of Do technological limitations pose waste generation; a major obstacle to waste reduction? 3. improvements in plant operations (e. g., better housekeeping, improved materials han- OTA Finding: dling and equipment maintenance, better The phrase waste reduction technology monitoring and automation of process is misleading. It is more useful to think equipment, and improved waste tracking of waste reduction in terms of a wide or mass balances); range of latent technological opportu- 4, substituting raw materials that introduce nities that exist throughout the produc- fewer hazardous substances or smaller tion system. These opportunities can be quantities of such substances into the pro- taken advantage of with a spectrum of duction process; and technical means that vary greatly in 5. redesign or reformulation of end products. technical complexity, cost, and effectiveness. The technical and economic These options are given in order of decreas- feasibility of waste reduction has meaning use as reported by the 99 companies in- ing only in the context of and from the cluded in OTA’S industry survey. Table I-2 sum- perspective of a specific industrial plant marizes an analysis of major published case operation. While some means of waste examples of waste reduction in terms of the dis- reduction are transferable from one site tribution of these five approaches over indus- to another, it cannot be assumed that trial categories (also included is a class that in- what works at one place will be both cludes measures deemed waste management technically and economically feasible by OTA). The pattern of usage is the same as at another. However, there are some that derived from the survey. In-process recy- waste reduction opportunities that are cling is the method closest to pollution control, broadly applicable because they employ which may make it the easiest option to recog- commonly used materials and are effec- nize and implement. But there are important tive for commonly used processes. limits to recycling, mostly of an economic nature. Moreover, many times there are other Discussion waste reduction measures possible that offer greater benefits. OTA has concluded that waste reduction should be viewed as a criterion to assess almost Contrary to what is sometimes said because any industrial process and operation rather of concerns about product quality, improve- than as a unique type of technology, machine, ments in process technology and equipment ap- or even field of expertise (see ch. 3). The tech- pear to be a practical means to waste reduction. — Such improvements are very important because ‘“j, i{o~~ard ‘1’od(i, “tl’astt; Re[lu[:ti(]n Industry (;hallongc,’” often an entire waste stream can be eliminated. [)a~)f!r giiwn at IJindhcrgh Sjmposium on [ln~ironmcrlt an(l Tfx:}l- The literature of case studies and examples of nolog~’, orland[), 1:1,, F’f;hruarJ 1 !)tl(i. N(: h rl Stol)}l [Jr j, [ )[~ggf;( t, ~p[;e[; h g II ~;n a t h’ [’~v J crsc\’ 1 n ~t it llt(! successful waste reduction reveal that, contrary of ‘1’w. h n[)l{)~t ~~m~)o~iu m, 1l’(;s/f: F!f’clr]f (ion; Ho~i ‘l;c) Afakf’ It to what is often assumed, this approach is often Hap~)t’11 , Nlor. 1.2, 1 $lH(i. possible without significant capital investment. . . Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Table 1“2.—lndustry Use of Waste Reduction Methods — . — Wa~~e reduction methods In-process Plant Process technology Process End Waste Slcs Industry recycling operations and equipment inputs products management Totals 10 Metal mining . . . — — — — 1 1 14 Nonmetallic mining except fuel 1 — . . — 1 16 Heavy construction . . . — — 1 — — 1 20 Food and food processing . 6 2 — — 5 13 22 Textile mill produces ... . 6 — 4 1 — 1 12 24 Lumber and wood products 5 — — — — 5 26 Paper and allied products. 5 1 4 2 — 1 13 27 Printing and publishing . . 3 — 1 — 1 5 28 Chemicals and allied products 30 16 37 6 2 14 105 29 Petroleum and coal products . 3 1 . 1 5 31 Leather and leather products . 3 — 3 1 — 7 32 Stone, clay, and glass products. 4 8 — — — 12 33 Primary metal industries ... 12 — 11 — — 7 30 34 Fabricated metal products . . . . . 23 7 14 5 1 8 58 35 Machinery, except electrical. . . 1 3 4 — — 4 12 36 Electrical and electronic equipment . . 4 — 2 1 — 2 9 37 Transportation equipment . 1 5 1 — — 7 38 Instruments and related products. ., ...... 1 2 — 1 A 39 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries . 2 — — . 2 49 Electric, gas, and sanitary services . . . — 1 — — — 10 11 76 Miscellaneous repair services — — 1 — — — 1 - Totals ...... 110 30 % 19 3 - -- ‘-- ’56 - 314 SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, compiled from D Huisingh, et al , Proven Profits From Po//uf/on Prevent/on (Washington DC: The Institute for Local Self. Rellance, 19&5); Cornpend/urn on Low and Non-waste Technologies (Geneva, Switzerland: United Nat Ions Economic Commission for Europe, 1981-84) four VOIS , M. Overcash, Techniques for Industrial Pollution Prevent/on (Chelsea, M I Lewis Publishers, Inc , 1988) Ortglnally assembled and developed as Les Techniques Propres clans /’/rrdustrie Franca/se (Paris. The Ministre Du L’Envlronnement, 1982), U S Department of Defense, Environmental Leadership Project, Industnal Processes To Reduce Generation of Hazardous Waste at DOD Faci//t/es, Phase 2 Report Evaluation of 18 Case Studies, prepared by CH2M Hill (T Hlgglns), July 1985, D Sarokln, et al , Cuff/rig Chemical Wastes (New York INFORM, 1985); and Federal Minister for Research and Technology (DFVLR), Enwronmenfa/ Profecflon Techrro/og/es (Cologne, West Germany DFVLR. December 1984) (Note that this last volume documents ongoina research rather than industrial appllcat!on of technologies )

As waste reduction is increasingly pursued by the most difficult to accomplish. This is prob- a generator this may change, but most U.S. ef- ably the only one of the five classes for which forts have not yet reached that point. The use- there is not evidence of significant generic fulness of this method depends, however, on waste reduction opportunities. the type of industry. Mature industries that use continuous processes are likely to have few op- Generic opportunities are based on commonly portunities for changes in process technology, used processes or materials and thus are the but they may still have waste reduction oppor- major means of promoting waste reduction tunities in the other categories. Box 1-E illus- through intensive information transfer and trates one possible means of reducing hazardous technical assistance. Examples include: re- wastewater from the manufacture of acryloni- placement of organic solvent raw materials trile by changing process technology. In terms with water-based ones, in-plant recycling of or- of weight, all hazardous wastewaters consti- ganic solvents, changes in process technology tute the single largest kind of hazardous waste. and operations to reduce hazardous wastewater generation, and changing material re- Improvements in plant operations can be ac- moval techniques from chemical to mechani- complished by every waste generator, typically cal systems. with little testing or capital investment. Oppor- tunities for raw material changes may not be From the perspective of the plant operator, present everywhere, but substantial waste re- waste reduction efforts that require significant duction has been accomplished this way. Clearly, capital and human resources will always face end product changes by a waste generator are competition from expenditures related to pol- Ch l—Summary and Introduction ● 29

Box l-E.—Possible Process Technology Change for Reduction of Hazardous Wastewater From Manufacture of Acrylonitrih In 1985 acrylonitrile ranked 38th in the list of the top 50 chemicals made in the United States, ranked l%h out of the 26 organics on the list, and had the highest annual growth rate of the organics during 1975 to 1985 with an average of 6.8 percent. Production in 1985 was 2.35 billion pounds (1.1 million metric tons).1 For each metric ton of acrylonitrile product manufactured, 400 metric tons of cooling water are used.z For every gallon of cooling tower water circulated, a small fraction called blowdown is discarded to remove the buildup of slime and solids which accumulate during recirculation. This blowdown contains toxic chemicals used as bactericide and fungicides and is a hazardous waste. A typical blowdown ratio is about 0.5 percent of the circulation rate. For the 400 metric tons of cooling water used per ton of product, 2 metric tons of wastewater are generated. About 2.2 million metric tons of cooling wastewater is generated annually. A closed-loop coolant refrigeration system could be used in place of cooling with water. After the coolant was used to cool the process, it would be compressed to a higher temperature and pressure and then passed through a radiator that would reject the heat to the environment. The operating costs for cooling would be from $17 to $60 per metric ton of products The costs for managing the traditional cooling wastewater, if the injection well costs are from $0.05 to $0.10 per gallon, are $26 to $52 per metric ton of product. There is a clear potential for saving perhaps $2o per ton of product if closed-loop, efficient refrigeration is used instead of conventional water coding. For a 100,000 ton per year plant this means a saving of about $2 million annually. Assuming that the capital costs of the refrigeration system might be $5o million (at most about 10 percent of the original capital costs of the plant), then payback would occur in a few years.

Whernical & Ihgineering News, Apr. 21, 1986. aHydrocmfxm Processing, May 1977, p. 171. The data are based on the Montedison-UOP process which differs from the more widely used SOH1O process primarily because of a different catalyst. However, similar water use and wastewater generation can be assumed for both. The operating costs of this refrigeration cycle can be estimated making the following assumptions: 1) cooling water temperature rise of IZO F, 2) coefficient of performance ranges from 2 to 7, and 3) energy costs are $6.(M per kilowatt-hour.

Iution control requirements and from tradi- SUMMARY ISSUE 6: [ ional corporate uses of resources to maintain If waste reduction is so site-specific, or improve competitiveness and profitability. would Federal initiatives pose risks Thus, it becomes important to understand that and problems for U.S. industry? there is a spectrum of technical means to carry out waste reduction and these vary greatly in OTA Finding: lechnica] complexity, cost, and effectiveness. There are well-founded technical and Not all plant personnel will necessarily have economic reasons for industry, particu- the technical ability or motivation to examine larly troubled manufacturing sectors, to all waste reduction options or to carry them have concerns about government initia- out. Nor should it be assumed that plant per- tives that might be inflexible. Some son nel are aware of the benefits or need for rc- initiatives might not be sensitive to alter- duc ing waste, Senior management must give natives to waste reduction and the lim- priority to waste reduction, but this is far from ited capabilities of some companies or the only requirement, plants within companies to reduce waste. 30 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

On the other hand, Federal actions It is also difficult to generalize about meth- would have to exert enough pressure on ods that will be cost-effective, economically fea- waste generators to bring about serious sible, or profitable at a particular site. In gen- evaluations of the technical and eco- eral, making quantitative estimates regarding nomic aspects of waste reduction op- waste reduction is difficult. There are many fac- portunities at their sites. tors on the cost and benefit sides of the equa- tion that are bound to vary substantially from Discussion one generator or waste to another (see box 1- F). Yet being able to predict the economic fea- It is difficult to generalize—strictly from a sibility y or practicality y of an action at a specific waste reduction standpoint—about what can industrial site is critical to those who are about be done technically within a specific plant oper- to take action to reduce waste, A great deal de- ation at a particular time. Equipment, physi- pends on the economic circumstances and in- cal layout, control instrumentation, raw mate- ternal evaluation criteria of a company or a spe- rials, product specifications, and volume of cific plant. Not all companies will apply strict output may vary significantly from plant to financial criteria, such as a minimum return plant, even for plants making the same prod- on investment, in order to carry out waste re- uct. All of these and probably other factors will duction, but some will. For some, only the more affect the applicability and difficulty of any immediate costs and benefits of waste reduc- waste reduction approach. Different amounts tion seem important, but other companies fac- of R&D, testing, capital investment, and time tor in uncertain, potentially large long-term lia- may be required for different plants. The ef- bilities of pollution control, There are also many fectiveness of a given approach to waste reduc- potential but uncertain benefits that may come tion will vary among plants, although they use from waste reduction. Taking waste reduction the same process technology or produce the seriously may trigger substantial, innovative same product. In one operation a given ap- changes in manufacturing technology. A new proach may eliminate an entire waste stream; focus on waste reduction offers an opportunity in another operation it might not. to reappraise and modernize plant process technology. All too often economic factors are used Many large companies that are able to man- prematurely to dismiss serious consideration age their hazardous wastes onsite prefer waste treatment to waste reduction, particularly if of waste reduction. Thus, while government actions need to be flexible, they also need to ex- they are treating wastes rather than using land disposal. From such an industrial perspective, ert enough pressure on waste generators to ensure that they take action to evaluate thoroughly environmental protection is served by pollu- the technical and economic aspects of waste tion control and waste management methods reduction measures. that are allowable under the law and that reduce the use of land disposal. Indeed, many in The site-specific character of waste reduc- industry believe that waste treatment is just as tion also raises the issue of possible negative valuable a means of achieving pollution pre- effects of government initiatives that might not vention as is waste reduction. (On the basis of be sufficiently flexible. For example, the more the thermodynamic principle of steady entropy mature an industrial technology in a plant and increase, however, it is more efficient to pre- the older the plant is, the more costly any but vent pollution before waste is created and given the simplest forms of waste reduction are likely a chance to disperse.) Capital and technical re- to be. It is often very difficult for existing in- quirements for waste reduction may be rejected dustrial operations to make capital-intensive because so much investment has been made changes in basic technology and processes for for pollution control. For all these reasons, the waste reduction; the situation can be entirely flexibility of Federal initiatives is of concern different when new operations are being de- to industry. signed. However, as noted earlier, considerable —

Ch. l—Summary and Introduction ● 31

Box I-F.—Problems in Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Waste Reduction

Costs Will Vary Information.—It is often necessary to spend money on a waste reduction audit, for example, to get detailed information about wastes. These costs can be high for operations that generate many different kinds of waste from a multitude of processes and for firms that change their product mix frequently. For smaller firms with fewer resources these costs may be a significant obstacle. Although an audit may be avoided at the simplest stages of waste reduction, as more complex waste reduction is pursued, it will likely have to be done. It is also necessary to spend money to get information about waste reduction methods. Testing and R&D.—Sometimes testing and even formal R&D are necessary to: 1) assess the technical and economic feasibility of specific waste reduction measures, and 2) identify risks to product quality posed by some waste reduction measures. These costs are likely to grow as a waste generator moves toward more complex methods to reduce waste. Capital Investment.— Implementation often involves virtually no capital, but sometimes—and perhaps increasingly so as waste reduction is pursued—significant capital investment maybe necessary. Operations and Production.—Implementation may involve some operating and maintenance costs that should not be ignored. Training.—Spending on training for workers may be required so that they can implement and work effectively with new waste reducing processes. Management.— Identification of waste reduction opportunities and effective implementation may require spending on management systems, including better accounting of costs, measurement of waste reduction, and administering reward and incentive programs for workers.

Benefits Are Often Uncertain Avoided Waste Management.— Savings of all sorts must be assessed, including: 1) direct savings on handling, storage, transport, and treatment or disposal (even if wastes are managed onsite); and 2) indirect savings on the costs of regulatory compliance, legal advice, insurance, and managerial time. Basing estimates of direct savings on current costs maybe misleading because waste management costs continue to rise substantially. Estimates of both direct and indirect savings may also be difficult to make because they require anticipating future regulatory actions and their effect on waste management costs and practices. Accounting systems that do not impose waste management costs on specific waste generating activities bias decisions against waste reduction. Avoided Liabilities.—Assessment of these is necessary, but can be very uncertain. For example, future cleanup costs for contaminated sites and future costs for victim compensation or regulatory noncompliance may be difficult to estimate. A company may have no records on which to base these costs and may not use probabilistic estimates, or may use high discount rates to minimize the effect of long-term costs—both of which bias decisions against waste reduction. If large liabilities exist because of past practices, it may be reasoned that waste reduction to reduce additional liabilities may be insignificant. Unless liability costs are imposed on a specific waste generating activity, decisions may be biased against waste reduction. Reduction in Raw Material Use.—Often there is a cost saving that is significant over time. Indirect Economic Benefits.—These may be substantial, but hard to assess. They include: improvements in materials, labor, or energy productivity that reduce operating costs; reductions in costs associated with the presence of hazardous materials such as for worker exposures; more effective use of managers’ time; the value of waste reduction in marketing, public relations, and financial trans- actions. If these benefits are not accounted for, decisions may be biased against waste reduction. 32 . serjo”~ Reduction of Hazardous waste

waste reduction is being accomplished with- ● there is no standard way to meas- out significant capital investment. ure waste reduction, and s there is no consensus or policy that Many American manufacturing industries articulates the position that waste are having major competitive problems marked reduction should apply to all regu- by plant closings, employment cutbacks, and lated and unregulated hazardous loss of market share to imports. These indus- waste and all environmental media, tries may face major financial and human resource limitations to waste reduction. A shift Discussion away from a voluntary waste reduction approach is likely to be viewed apprehensively by trou- There is a fundamental antipathy in indus- bled industries, which already cite the heavy try toward government involvement in the front costs of coping with existing pollution control end of production, where waste reduction must programs. Also, areas with high and persistent take place, and there is a strong belief that the unemployment are likely to worry about any- voluntary approach to waste reduction is the thing that could further burden their surviving proper one. However, any waste management industries. For such companies, assistance and facility—onsite as well as commercial, treat- regulatory flexibility may be key. ment as well as disposal—poses environmental risks and requires effective government regu- SUMMARY ISSUE 7: lation and enforcement. Therefore, some be- Should the Federal Government lieve that government ought to require waste move from a mostly voluntary ap- reduction just as it requires pollution control measures. proach to waste reduction to a more prescriptive approach? As long as waste reduction is a voluntary effort by industry, the site-specific character of OTA Finding: waste reduction can be handled by the individ- A choice cannot be made between a ual waste generator. But if government were to voluntary and a prescriptive approach require waste reduction, it would face major on the basis of good, quantitative data difficulties in determining what is technically because such data do not exist. More- and economically feasible or practical for a spe- over, there are other, less extreme, op- cific industrial operation. Hence, the wisdom tions open to government that might be of involving government in production is a crit- effective, such as persuasion, assistance, ical issue, made all the more difficult to resolve offering incentives, and providing in- by the substantial uncertainty about how much formation. Qualitatively, it is possible waste reduction is possible or feasible for in- to conclude that action short of a pre- dustry in general and for specific operations scriptive approach could markedly in- in particular, There is also some uncertainty crease the pace and scope of waste about how willing industry is to examine and reduction. OTA has reached this con- use the full range of options available to imple- clusion based on the following: ment waste reduction. As a spokesman from the Chrysler Corp. said: ● the government has done little to draw attention to waste reduction . . . the economics that have prevailed consid- but has imposed substantial regu- ered only the ‘front door’ costs without regard latory requirements for pollution to ‘back door’ costs, These factors . . . have not control which themselves limit re- caused a sufficient concern to drive new tech- sources for waste reduction, nology with the overall cost viewpoint to prod- ● there is no generally accepted def- uct in and waste out.so inition of waste reduction that clearly distinguishes it from waste man- 30~’aste Reductjon— The Untold StorLy, proceedings of a I.eague agement, of Women Voters conference. Woods Hole, MA, June 1985. Ch. l—Summary and Introduction ● 33

Whether it be for environmental or economic SUMMARY ISSUE 8: reasons, does waste reduction have primacy in Does the existence of State programs most of LJ. S. industry”? A recent study asked a remove the need for Federal initia- similar question and concluded: tives? Do State programs offer clues The present status (1982-86) is that a major for Federal initiatives? [! ffort in waste minimization [waste reduction as defi n cd here and offs i te rc[;}’c 1 i rig], across OTA Finding: (1 i~’erse (categories of industr}’ has not been un- Current State programs are not substan- (ic rt a ke n. 31 tially increasing waste reduction nation- Many in industry want to reduce wastes, but wide. States are primarily concerned do not know how to start or do not know how with avoiding land disposal and, as a to move beyond the simplest measures. Others result, State programs promote preferred believe that they have accomplished all the waste management more than waste re- waste reduction that they can and that if more duction. States have found it practical opportunities present themselves they will re- to take a nonregulatory approach to pro- spond in any way that is feasible. But it is not mote waste reduction, Because of low clear what definition they are using for waste funding and limited staffing, few at- reduction; whether they are talkin~ about not tempts have been or will be made to generating waste to begin with or whether they measure the effectiveness of State pro- are talking simply about avoiding land disposal, grams. Although States have led the It is also not clear whether they are consider- Federal Government in actively promoting the reduction of all hazardous wastes or ing waste reduction, a parallel Federal only those regulated under RCRA. Often indus- effort is needed to raise waste reduction try sees waste reduction as something that must to a stature comparable to that of pollu- take its own course, that will be accomplished tion control. when its time arrives. This attitude alone is a large barrier to waste reduction. Discussion Too often, the bare suggestion of Federal ac- A small number of States have shown con- tion to directly promote more waste reduction, siderable initiative and leadership in moving is interpreted as advocating waste reduction by into waste reduction. oz Those in State programs regulation. But OTA finds that the design, im- are enthusiastic but resources are limited (to plementation, and enforcement of a prescrip- no more than I percent of overall environ- tive regulatory approach are not technically fea- mental protection spending). State programs sible because of the multitude of diverse, often often deal primarily with waste management, site-specific waste generating processes. As dis- not the reduction of waste at its source, even cussed in chapter 2, there are a number of other though the term waste reduction may be used. options for Federal action that could be ef- States have not given much attention to non- fective. RCRA wastes and multimedia issues in their programs, and they tend to concentrate on the waste problems of small business. 34 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

OTA finds that 10 States have waste reduc- a means of alleviating the need for siting waste tion programs in place that: 1) establish an orga- management facilities and for assuring the pub- nization responsible for promoting waste re- lic that only truly necessary facilities will be duction, and 2) have moved beyond planning sited. There are indications that some siting to implementation of their waste reduction pro- programs are now taking a positive view of gram (see table l-s and ch. 6). The North Caro- waste reduction rather than seeing it as a threat, lina program (see box l-G) is the most com- Overall, the pressure associated with siting dif- prehensive and the most focused on waste ficulties has probably played a positive, indirect reduction. It is unique among State programs role in stimulating interest in waste reduction because of its multimedia perspective. by industry and the public. Understandably, States pay most attention to Most States promote waste reduction by fo- local concerns and, therefore, to actions aimed cusing on information transfer and technical at: 1) discouraging or minimizing land disposal assistance, Most activity is directed at small of hazardous waste, a major public issue at the businesses although they may be responsible State level; and 2) encouraging the use of waste for only a fraction of hazardous wastes gener- exchanges and offsite waste recycling as posi- ated. Few attempts have been made or systems tive alternatives to land disposal, particularly developed to document the effects State pro- for smaller companies. Waste reduction is not grams have had on waste reduction, This lack always perceived as a viable alternative for of attention to measuring effectiveness is un- small businesses or as an immediate solution derstandable, given the recent startup of pro- to a pressing issue. grams and their limited resources. Moreover, State programs are but one of a number of fac- The land disposal of hazardous wastes is an tors affecting waste reduction plans and ac- example of a pollution control method that has tions. In OTA’S survey of industry about 10 often failed in the past. States have been spend- percent overall (about 17 percent for small coming considerable resources to resolve this emo- panies and 6 percent for large firms) indicated tional, politically charged issue. One recent that State programs had affected their waste publication for State officials cautioned: reduction efforts. Any state legislator must realize, however, that whether or not the sites are developed, The limited promotion of waste reduction at the waste will be disposed of—legally or other- the State level reflects constraints on waste re- w ise.33 duction nationwide. Clearly there is no broad consensus yet at either the State or Federal level No consideration was given in that report to on the primacy and near-term feasibility of the potential contribution waste reduction waste reduction. Waste reduction is not yet per- might make towards solving this problem. sA ceived as being on a par with or as necessary Waste reduction is often viewed as less impor- as existing regulatory programs. Those admin- tant and urgent than siting and as represent- istering pollution control programs often feel ing a diversion of resources. The uncertainty uneasy about the prospect of government shift- that waste reduction introduces can cloud the ing priority and resources to waste reduction. market’s need for new waste management fa- Waste reduction is viewed by some as anti- cilities, But, waste reduction can be viewed as business, chiefly because of its perceived potential for thwarting waste management siting 33J. Ward Wright, hfanaging Hazardoos Wastes, The Council attempts or leading to burdensome regulations. of State Governments, 1986, p. 61. These problems result from the fact that most ‘qWaste r(;duction is not singled out for attention in the Na- tional Governor’s Association, “Policy Positions 1985 -86.” One people see waste reduction solely as an alter- component of waste reduction is briefly acknowledged within native environmental solution and not as a the polic}’ section on siting: “[substitution of nonhazardous chem- broadly applicable means of improving indus- icals, incineration, and new treatment technologies can all contribute to decreasing the need for disposal capacity” [emphasis trial efficiency and encouraging industrial added]. growth. So far, few people view waste reduc- Ch. l—Summary and Introduction ● 35

Table l-3.—State Programs With Waste Reduction Activities ...... State: waste reauc[lon Program name and/or Annual as percent coordinating body Program components budget a of activities Notes California: Waste Reduction Unit Research grants $1.5 million <25 $1 million of funds used for (Alternative Technology & Policy Technical assistance grants Development Section of Department of Health Services) Connecticut: Office of Small Business Technical assistance $50,000 <10 Lost $10,000 in funding for Services Loans 1986-87 (Department of Economic Development) Georgia: b Hazardous Waste On-Site Technical assistance $220,000 10-15 Primarily compliance Consultation Program assistance to SQGS (Georgia Tech Research Institute) Illinois: Hazardous Waste Research & Research $1,3 million 10 Most of funds for research on Information Center Technical assistance hazardous waste problems Minnesota: Minnesota Waste Management M nTAP $235,000 25 Also has summer engineering Board Research grants student intern program Governor’s Award New York: Industrial Materials Recycling Technical assistance $494,000 <25 — Act Program Industrial financing (NY State Environmental Facilities Agency) North Carolina: Pollution Prevention Pays Technical assistance $590000b >50 Multimedia focus Challenge grants North Carolina Board of Science Researc-h a~d Education and Technology grants Governor’s Waste Management Governor’s Award Board North Carolina Technical Financial assistance Development Authority Pennsylvania: PennTAB Technical assistance $150,000C <50 2 of 12 staff handle (operated by Penn State environmental assistance University; funded by Department of Commerce) Tennessee: Safe Growth Cabinet Council Governor’s Award $1,8 millionb >25 $1.7 million of funds for Department of Economic and Technical assistance University of Tennessee Community Development research program Center for Industrial Service Hazardous Waste (University of Tennessee) Extension Service Waste Management, Research & Engineering research Education Institute (University and development, of Tennessee) policy research Wisconsin: Bureau of Solid Waste Information outreach $850,000 <25 Only about $150,000 will be Research grants available in fiscal 1986-87 Tax exemptions — al g85.86 unless otherwise I nd[cated bEpA Source of some/all funds cEstlmate based on staffing level for environmental assistance SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986 36 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Box I-G.—The North Carolina State Program North Carolina’s Pollution Prevention Pays Program is unique in that it is a multimedia program that addresses toxic materials, water and air quality, and solid and hazardous wastes. It focuses largely, but not exclusively, on waste reduction. The program’s current annual budget totals $590,000 and contains both State and Federal funds. The original idea for the program in North Carolina came from local environmentalists and was proposed as an alternative to land disposal of hazardous wastes. A number of State officials who recognized the need for a multimedia approach then played” key roles in the development of the program and the building of consensus among members of the State legislature, State regulatory officials, industry, and other environmentalists. Despite wide support for the program, expansion of its role in the near future is constrained by overall budget concerns of the State. Any budget increases that are available for environmental issues will go to the regulatory programs. The program considers an increase in its technical assistance staff-to allow for more onsite consultations—its most critical need. So far, the program has documented the number of firms it has assisted and the types of projects that have ensued. It has developed one of the largest libraries and published the best bibliography on waste reduction and recycling. It is not known yet, however, whether the program’s activities have contributed to a reduced need for land disposal facilities or improved the environmental condition of the State. Technical Assistance.–In its first year of operation in 1985, technical assistance was conducted primarily by dealing with telephone calls. Five onsite visits were managed in the last half of 1985, and the program hopes to average one a month in 1986. An information clearinghouse has been developed that includes a library of relevant literature and the capability to conduct data searches through a variety of databanks. An in-house database is now being developed that will include literature, case studies, contacts, and program publications. outreach consists of presentations by the program staff to trade associations, professional organizations, citizen groups, universities, and industry workshops. Research and Education.–Through Research and Education Grants funded through the North Carolina Science and Technology Board, the program promotes research projecta and develops educational tools. Research grants were first awarded to 13 university projects in 1984; grants were awarded in 1985 for 11 projects. A third round of 15 awards were made in 1986. Of these 15 projects, 11 deal with waste reduction. Financial Assistance.-The program’s ability to provide financial assistance comes primarily from its Challenge Grants. They are given to small businesses and communities far the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling projects that are transferable to other firms or communities in North Carolina. Funding totals about $100,000 each year and is provided by the State and an EPA grant. The maximum for a ChaIlenge Grant award is $5,000, and the amount awarded must be matched by the awardee. The money cannot be used for operating or capital costs or detailed engineering design. Sixteen projects were awarded in 1985 and 13 in 1986. Of the recent group, nine are waste reduction projects. Ch. l—Summary and Introduction w 37 tion as contributing to safe and publicly accept- benefits of was e reduction become better unable industrial development. Many more peo- derstood, ple may do so as the economic and industrial

POLICY OPTIONS

The major obstacles to increased waste reduc- There are significant, broadly perceived prob- tion are institutional and behavioral rather lems with the current pollution control regula- than technical. Economic considerations are tory program, and remedies to improve envi- not an intrinsic impediment to waste reduction; ronmental protection are often directed toward rather, there are hurdles or barriers to overcome making the regulatory program more effective. before short- and long-term economic benefits Developing more comprehensive regulations can be realized by waste generators. For ex- or instituting stronger enforcement are the most ample, 3M has concluded: commonly voiced suggestions, and both are sound approaches. But the current regulatory The initial investment for a pollution prevention project may be higher in some cases system can be strengthened and waste reduc- than the cost of installing conventional pollution can be pursued. The choice should not be tion removal equipment. However, the annual seen as one between pollution control and operating and maintenance cost of the removal waste reduction. For those who see a hazard- equipment will almost always make the total ous waste crisis as a major environmental is- cost of this technology higher than the total sue,sG waste reduction is increasingly accepted cost of preventing pollution at the source .35 to be the most important part of the solution. This does not mean that all waste reduction But effective pollution control regulations will measures are economically equal. On the con- always be necessary. trary, as a waste generator increasingly imple- Almost all of the Federal environmental stat- ments waste reduction and moves away from utes have offered some opportunities to pursue simple approaches, capital costs and the un- a waste reduction strategy (see ch. 5), but these certainty about effectiveness may increase. opportunities have not often been taken. No Some government policies, therefore, will be environmental protection strategy based on pol- more effective for generators who are just be- lution prevention has been developed within ginning to reduce waste, while others are more the larger pollution control framework. Pollu- important for sustaining long-term waste re- tion control continues to be the attractive route duction. because people in industry and the regulatory agencies believe that end-of-pipe techniques are Of paramount importance is how people and organizations perceive the need for waste re- easier and more practical to apply than waste duction, how they evaluate a full range of meth- reduction, and when pollution problems were ods for its implementation, how they make a first identified this was probably the case. Now, decision to proceed, and how they are rewarded. however, prevention is more effective than Considering that there has been no major pub- control. lic debate on Federal waste reduction policy, There are many opinions voiced about waste it is not surprising that there is not yet a con- reduction, but one fact is incontrovertible: pub- sensus on what the congressional role might lic policy on the issue, which is in its earliest– be in stimulating greater levels of waste re- and perhaps most critical—stage of develop- duct ion. ?e~~~~l~l 1{ ( )~) i n ion ~1(]11s h:) kf~ [;ons i St f?n t 1 \’ r[:~ea If?(i 1’(?1’}’ St r’() ng a n d ~t’ i (iesp rca(i ( (Jn( crns aho II t haz;i rd ous wastf?. For cxa m pl~!, ] n NI a } 1 98{i, t h(: 1 1‘i r-r i 5 I’(J11 ,i n [I () u n (:{J{ 1 t hat 92 pf;r(:{:rl t c) f t hc Anl[’r](.d II 1)111)1 i( ( ()]lsi(lcr htl~ar(io(l> tia~tf; (1 is~)(wll n wri[)[]~ (:on(, f;rll. 38 ● Serjo”s Reduction of Hazardous Waste ment, cannot rest for reinforcement on a body OTA has not examined all possible policy op- of detailed information. Straightforward big tions. Three major options have been formu- picture questions about waste reduction can- lated and are briefly summarized below. (See not at this time be answered quantitatively or ch. 2 for the detailed policy analysis.) Some ac- even semiquantitatively, Answers to questions tions from each option might be combined as such as “How much waste reduction has in- they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The dustry accomplished on its own?” can now only choice of the thl ee strategically different op- be answered with subjective impressions or tions has been made to clarify for Congress the with examples that sound significant but may range of distinctly different choices that can be atypical, There is more talk about waste re- be considered. Regardless of what course Con- duction by those who are not responsible for gress pursue!,, waste reduction must be unam- implementation than there is by those in indus- biguously defined so that industrial efforts are try, and industry people should be the source channeled away from traditional waste man- of detailed information. However, the lack of agement to true waste reduction. detailed information does not prevent our drawing certain important conclusions on the basis Policy Option 1: Maintain Current, Limited of logic, common sense, and qualitative information. Voluntary Program It is also difficult to evaluate the costs of cer- Under this option, no new Federal waste retain types of policy actions because of the vir- duction initiative would be taken, with the ex- tually innumerable technical ways to reduce ception of making some effort to obtain relia- waste. For example, direct economic incentives ble information on the current extent and pace or financial assistance, if offered, might be used of waste reduction. For the most part, this op- by nearly all industries for a host of actions de- tion is a market driven approach. The premise spite the fact that these actions vary remarka- is that what the Federal Government is now do- bly in their waste reduction intensity. It is not ing is sufficient to allow the marketplace to oper- obvious what criteria could be used to limit ac- ate efficiently. Primarily, this means letting the cess to direct government assistance, and some indirect economic incentive of the pollution con- limitations would have to be set, as for any Fed- trol regulatory system function. eral financial support program, This option is not a true no action option be- Relatively low cost, unintrusive government cause it requires strong congressional oversight actions based on persuasion, assistance, incen- of existing environmental programs. It is un- tives, and education seem the best route to pur- disputed that a well-enforced pollution control sue at this time. Both State and foreign waste regulatory system acts as an important incen- reduction programs appear to have adopted this tive for some waste reduction efforts when middle course between a totally voluntary ap- waste reduction is chiefly a voluntary effort by proach and a prescriptive regulatory one. Con- industry, Moreover, congressional oversight—if sidering the limited Federal leadership to date, linked to waste reduction—could catalyze wide- it can be argued that almost anything the gov- spread public scrutiny and lobbying that might ernment does to foster waste reduction should make the marketplace move vigorously toward be viewed as potentially effective, Certain kinds waste reduction. (The public can play this role, of Federal actions, however, that require large of course, with either of the other two options spending or put industry at risk may have dif- as well. ) Another limited action by Congress ficulty receiving broad support at this time, All or EPA that would be necessary for this option this may change, however, If an informed pub- is collecting reliable, systematic data on the ex- lic, greatly concerned about hazardous waste, tent of waste reduction that is now taking place becomes convinced that industry is lagging in nationwide. Consistent with the basic charac- reducing waste, then it will call for more pre- ter of this option, however, information gather- scriptive and costly Federal initiatives. ing would be achieved through a study rather Ch. l—Summary and Introduction w 39 — than through comprehensive collection of data icy approaches. Most of what the government from all or most waste generators. now does relative to hazardous waste falls under the stick rather than carrot approach; the The chief advantage of this option is that it following possible actions reflect this choice: imposes no new major costs on government or industry. Harmful impacts on troubled indus- 1. modify and strengthen the existing RCRA tries are not likely to occur as companies would waste minimization reporting and plan- decide individually what waste reduction meth- ning requirements, ods to implement. Its chief weakness is that rely- 2. adopt similar reporting and planning re- ing on the indirect incentive of rising waste quirements for the other major environ- management and regulatory compliance costs mental programs, can be ineffective. Companies may not have 3. use waste reduction impact analysis for the technical and economic resources to re- regulatory actions, spond to the incentive, and if they do respond 4. initiate a periodic chemical survey of in- it may not be with waste reduction efforts. In dustry, addition, the incentive may not apply to com- 5, mandate amounts of waste reduction in panies where those costs are small relative to wastes and processes to be achieved by in- overall production costs. Various congressional dustry, and regulatory actions may reduce or confuse 6. tax all wastes and possibly offer rebates for the perceived incentive by, for example, pro- those who have reduced wastes substan- moting pollution control rather than waste re- tially or who will do so, duction. In general, gauging the likelihood that 7, establish a waste reduction R&D program the marketplace will respond to indirect incen- in EPA, and tives is a complex matter. There is substantial 8. change government procurement policies inertia in the existing system. In theory the mar- to fa~ili{ate waste reduction. ketplace may be responding, but in practice that The chief strength of this option is that it response can be slow and uneven. Moreover, would provide strong government action that this option would not address the deficiencies would shift waste reduction from a voluntary and limits of the existing national waste reduc- effort to something closer to what now exists tion effort with regard to multimedia coverage. for pollution control. Its chief weakness is that, For example, non-RCRA and unregulated haz- based on historical experience, it is likely to ardous wastes may not receive major attention be ineffective in achieving rapid and compre- by waste generators, who are accustomed to hensive waste reduction by using the existing, defining hazardous wastes only as the govern- predominantly pollution control system. Also, ment has defined them under RCRA. harmful economic impacts on U.S. industries This option is attractive to those who want might result from overly burdensome or inflex- to maintain the voluntary approach to waste re- ible requirements. duction and initiate the least possible amount This option is most attractive to those who of government activity until there is more evi- want to move faster with government require- dence of insufficient waste reduction. ments for waste reduction than the voluntary approach permits, but who want to do so with- Policy Option 11: Change and Expand out establishing major new programs. Existing Programs

A number of actions are possible that could Policy Option 111: A New Highly Visible affect, either directly or indirectly, the extent Waste Reduction Program and pace of waste reduction in industry. The actions included in this option can build on ex- The fundamental criterion for this option is isting, familiar government programs and pol- the primacy of waste reduction (as defined in 4(7 . Serjous Reductjon of H~ardous Waste this report) over pollution control. Exercising stitutional change would be necessary, and this this option would be tantamount to establish- raises problems about implementation. ing a new waste reduction ethic for American This option is most attractive to those who society. Another premise of this option is that want to see waste reduction given strong Fed- existing environmental statutes and programs eral support and a very high priority—and who will not do the job as proven by the unsuccess- also would like to see Federal policy imple- ful attempts to include pollution prevention in mented as much as possible at the State level. pollution control programs. This option emphasizes Federal assistance and direct incentives to spur rather than require more waste reduc- Comparison of Policy Options tion. But certain Federal requirements would necessarily be placed on generators. The goal There is a need to clarify national policy on would be to elevate waste reduction to a level waste reduction, including the matter of its comparable to that of pollution control. While primacy over waste treatment and disposal, as few new responsibilities would be added to ex- part of any congressional debate on various isting EPA programs, several new programs waste reduction policy options. Attention to the would be created to give unambiguous and un- problems of defining and measuring waste re- equivocal Federal support and commitment to duction is also critically needed, no matter the primacy of waste reduction over waste man- which course Congress pursues. Federal initia- agement. Possible actions under this option are: tives on waste reduction could, for example, be ineffective if a definition of waste reduction in- 1, establish a grants program to fund a vari- cludes waste treatment. ety of activities that support industrial waste reduction, such as technical assis- If the Federal public policy goal is rapid and tance and generic R&D (funding would not comprehensive hazardous waste reduction, be available for specific waste reduction then the option most likely to attain that goal efforts by individual companies); without harm to American industry is Policy 2, enact new waste reduction legislation Option III. This option strikes a middle course based on the multimedia concept, with ex- between a voluntary approach with minimal panded Federal reporting and planning re- Federal involvement (Policy Option I) and a quirements for industry; more traditional, prescriptive, regulatory one 3, establish reporting requirements on waste (Policy Option II). Policy Option III explicitly reduction for financial reports to the Secu- recognizes the significant effects on waste re- rities and Exchange Commission; duction of other public and private efforts (i.e., 4, create a new EPA Office of Waste Reduc- State and local programs and those of insur- tion with an Assistant Administrator; ance and financial companies and environ- 5, allow regulatory concessions, i.e., trading mental groups). off certain limited pollution control regu- This conclusion hinges, in part, on the ob- latory requirements for waste reduction servation that current data inadequacies make achievements; and it difficult to justify, design, and enforce a more 6, create inde~endent State Waste Reduction prescriptive Federal approach at this time. Cer- Boards to implement many of the new Fed- tain actions contained in Policy Option II could eral initiatives, be combined with some or all of the actions The chief strength of this option is that it in Policy Option III without changing the basic would stimulate and assist rapid, multimedia, character of Policy Option III. These include: comprehensive waste reduction. This option waste reduction impact analysis for regulatory depends on Federal leadership in the forms of actions, a periodic chemical survey of indus- institutional attention, assistance, and educa- try, a waste reduction R&D program within tional efforts, rather than on regulatory require- EPA, and changing Federal procurement pol- ments. Its major disadvantage is that more in- icies to facilitate waste reduction. Even if Pol- Ch. l—Summary and /introduction ● 41 icy option I I I were implemented, in whole or plicitly address the issue of comprehensiveness in part, information eventually obtained might (i.e., multimedia coverage). Nor does it address set the stage for later adoption of Policy Op- the possibility of Federal activities that could tion 11. help generators overcome their site-specific im- pediments to waste reduction. The statement It is not yet clear, however, whether the above asks for expeditious waste reduction, but it does goal is the current Federal public policy goal. so from the perspective of the generator within Other options may therefore merit serious con- a voluntary system. Consequently, there is a sideration, either now or in the future. While critical need for a full policy debate on waste the current statement of national policy, as reduction before specific actions are taken. given earlier, is an important affirmation of the importance of waste reduction, it does not ex- .

Chapter 2 Policy Options Contents

Page The Existing Federal Effort ...... , . . . ., *,, ...... 45 Waste Minimization Under RCRA ● ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ 45 Current EPA Plans ...... ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ☛ ✎ ✎✌ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ☛ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎✌ ✎ ✎ ✎✎☛✎✌✌✎✌✌ 47 Congressional Policy Options ...... Policy Option I: Maintain the Cument Limited Voluntary Program ...... 49 Policy Option II: Change and Expand Existing Programs ...... 52 Policy Option III: A New Highly Visible Waste Reduction Program . . . . . 58 Comparative Analysis of Policy Options ...... 71

Tables Table No. 2-I. Interaction of Regulatory Agemy and State Board: Regulatory Concessions...... : ...... ,,*.*.,..,..,.. 71 2-2. Comparative Evaluation of Polky Options ...... ,***,,,.,,...*,, 72 Chapter 2 Policy Options

— —.- - - ——— —— . . ———- — — THE EXISTING FEDERAL EFFORT

Waste Minimization Under RCRA mation confidential, particularly about their processes.1 The 1984 waste minimization amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act A summary of the problems with the RCRA (RCRA) deal explicitly with waste reduction. amendments that deal with waste minimiza- In addition to their significance as the first mation and waste reduction, the statute and regu- jor congressional policy statement on waste relations and their implementation by the Envi- duction, they have had some notable positive ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the effects. Congress did not direct industry to States, is given in table 1-1 in chapter 1, Com- carry out waste reduction. It requires that compared to other aspects of the RCRA 1984 amend- panies report what they are currently doing and ments, waste reduction has received relatively what they are planning to do towards that goal. low priority. There is very little guidance to in- The result has been a more effective voluntary dustry in the RCRA amendments as to what program than previously existed, with govern- is the most desirable type of waste reduction, ment requirements purposely kept unintrusive. in terms of environmental benefits, and there Although Congress has imposed only minimal is no provision for governmental assistance. self-reporting and self-enforcing regulatory re- Moreover, it is generally believed that the RCRA quirements, the amendments have unquestion- requirements apply narrowly to hazardous ably given more importance and visibility to solid wastes as defined by RCRA and not to waste reduction, the full range of hazardous substances and pollutants that are currently unregulated or that Some opportunities to achieve environmental are regulated by other environmental statutes protection through waste reduction were cre- and programs. On the basis of EPA actions to ated within earlier environmental statutes, such date, there is little reason to believe any other as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, interpretation has been made. but the end-of-pipe pollution control approach became dominant. This history suggests that A common misconception is that the solid, attempts to foster waste reduction as part of hazardous wastes covered by RCRA–roughly existing pollution control programs might not 250 million tons of these are generated an- be effective (see ch. 5). nuallyz—represent most industrial hazardous

I For example, in a recent pub] ic at ion on (?nk’i rcl n m enta 1 audit- About 40 percent of companies surveyed by ing (funded by EPA) the following appears: “ . . . the auditor needs OTA (see app. A) say that they have initiated to be careful in how the information collected is rt?corded to a~roid revealing information on production and nlall~lft](;t~lr’illg new waste reduction programs as a result of processes.” [The Environmental Law Institute, ” An Introduc- the 1984 legislation. Others appear to have a tion to Environmental Auditing, ” 1985. ] Although there is in- wait-and-see attitude. There is some reluctance creasing interest in audits for waste reduction, it must be enl- phasized that most current auditing is aim(?d tit regulat(~r~ on the part of industry to provide detailed data compliance and that people doing this job ma~’ not be quali i ied on their waste reduction efforts, even among to examine production operations for waste redu(.t ion ~]urpose~. those that publicize their successes. It is com- ‘This figure for RCRA waste is wideljr used beca Llsr 1} I)A, OTA, and the Congressional Budget (lffice ha~e obtained ]t through monly believed that certain types of detailed different techniques: hoit’ei’er, a so rxrey of ahout 50 perc[?nt o! information might be used in some way by the Chemical Manufacturers Association’s member ch(?mi(:al government to set required amounts of waste companies for 1984 indicated that 278.5 million tons of hazardous waste were generated by them alone, ICbemical Manufac- reduction. Also, because of concerns about turers Association, “Results of the 1984 CMA Hazardous Waste competitors, many companies keep some infor- Survey,” January 1986.]

45 46 ● Serjous Reductjon of Hazardous Waste

waste. One attempt by EPA to summarize emis- shift away from land disposal may take place sions of air toxics nationwide resulted in an within the framework of pollution control, spe- admittedly uncertain total of over 4 million tons cifically waste treatment, unless waste reduc- annually for 86 chemicals;s another EPA study tion is unambiguously given primacy over treat- estimated emissions of volatile organic comment and also given a clear definition that is pounds to be 19 million tons annually.q A re- consistent with this primacy, As noted earlier, cent study on waste reduction in the chemical this is not meant to imply that this report deems industry found that: waste treatment undesirable. The issue is whether Despite the common assumption that solid the statute’s intent is to require that waste re- waste generation far exceeds discharges to air duction be examined fully prior to choosing and water, hazardous chemical wastes were waste treatment, found to be generated in roughly equal The statutory and regulatory term waste mini- amounts as air emissions, wastewater dis- mization can be misinterpreted and confused charges, and as solid wastes. s with waste reduction. It is a term that is more Taking into account the lack of certainty of inclusive than waste reduction because it is the RCRA data and rough attempts by EPA to often believed to give equal status to offsite re- calculate other wastes, it is still fair to estimate cycling and waste treatment alternatives to land that for every person in the Nation well over disposal. Are generators expected to reduce a ton of hazardous waste is being generated an- their RCRA hazardous waste, their wastes cov- nually. ered by other environmental programs, and their unregulated wastes? Unless Congress While quantities by themselves do not deter- gives further attention to waste reduction’s mine environmental risk, they do indicate that primacy and definition, the answer to these there is a significant potential for problems, de- questions may be “where is it written? ’’—or, pending on local exposure conditions. In some more succinctly —’’n”. ” cases there may be danger of global problems related to atmospheric effects, Moreover, a na- Other aspects of the 1984 amendments, par- tional waste reduction program that does not ticularly the limits they set on land disposal, deal with cutting down on pollutants specified can be viewed as adjuncts to the direct attempt under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts would made in the amendments to stimulate waste re- not be effective because some wastes might then duction; but it is too early to know how EPA be legally shifted to the air and the water. will implement this intent. (Indeed, early signs are that EPA’s approach is unlikely to be accept- Another characteristic of the RCRA statute able to Congress and environmental groups.) and regulations is the ambiguous tension it sets It is impossible even to guess what the quanti- up between waste reduction (prevention) and tative impact of the amendments will be. More- preferred waste management (control). The over, current Federal data collection systems statute seems to give primacy to waste reduc- will not be able to measure a waste reduction tion in its policy statement, but a main focus effect. of the RCRA 1984 amendments is on alternatives to land disposal, and later sections of the To sum up, the congressional attempt to deal statute and subsequent regulations give empha- directly with waste reduction has retained the sis to the use of waste treatment, The desired voluntary approach and has had positive im- .—-— .— pacts by focusing more attention on waste re- qTom Lahre, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, duction. However, no actions have yet been U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Characterization of Available Nationwide Air Toxics Emissions Data,” June 13, 1984. taken to give waste reduction the institutional 4U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality support and visibility of pollution control pro- Planning and Standards, “Control Techniques for Volatile Or- grams. Since no information is being collected ganic Compound Emissions From Stationary Sources, ” draft, July 1985. or evaluated on how the voluntary approach 5David J. Sarokin, et al., Cutting Chemical W’astes (New York: works, some effort is probably required for this INFORM, 1985), p, 27. purpose. Because of limited government re- Ch. 2—Po/icy Options . 47 quirements and the absence of information- alternative (to land disposal) technologies pro- gathering programs, the amount of comprehen- gram. Waste minimization, defined to include sive waste reduction at the plant level is un- recycling but not waste treatment, has the low- certain and largely undocumented; nor is it est level of funding in this program, showing clear that everything that is being done leads a proposed increase from 2.5 percent ($235,000) to environmental risk reduction. It is not pos- in fiscal year 1986 to a possible 4.1 percent sible to know whether examples and case stud- ($440,000) in fiscal year 1989.g ies of waste reduction are representative of in- Recent comments by one of EPA’s Regional dustry practice. In other words, while there is Administrators are also significant. With regard some solid information on specific cases of to the problems that impede waste reduction— waste reduction, there is no data on the extent regulatory loopholes, availability of low cost of waste reduction nationwide. Companies sur- waste disposal, sporadic regulatory oversight, veyed by OTA beIieve publicized waste reduction efforts may be overstatements. The con- and fragmented and incomplete information— he said, cern appears to be that reports of successes imply too much about the broad applicability each one of them is being, or has been, ad- of waste reduction. Poor and limited informa- d~essed over the last two years by several Fed- tion fosters such skepticism. eral and State initiatives and, most notably, by the ’84 amendments. Current EPA Plans With regard to the need to take further action, he said: The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) at EPA is formulating a short-term (2 to 4 years) and a I don’t think there’s any shortage of indirect long-term (5 to 10 years) strategy.g The plan- incentives to reducing waste at the source . . . ning document is highly critical of the RCRA there are direct regulations as well. The ques- program, but waste minimization appears only tion seems to be whether these efforts will be in the long-term strategy. EPA says: “Waste enough. It’s easy to see why more direct regulation of waste production seems an especially minimization represents the long-run solution attractive option. The truth is we don’t know to many of [our] current problems and should if the current scenario of indirect regulation, be a major component of our long-run strategy.” including new components now in the works, No distinction is made between waste minimi- will be enough to reduce waste output to ac- zation and waste reduction. A recent fiscal year ceptable levels. I honestly believe it will.l ” 1987 draft priority list for all of EPA’s activities makes no explicit mention of waste mini- This view is shared by ORD: mizatiordreduction in any of the four priorities Even without EPA regulations on waste listed under hazardous waste.7 minimization, there is considerable economic EPA’s Office of Research and Development OU .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research (ORD) has described hazardous wastelSuper- and Development, memorandum “Alternative Tm;hnology Re- fund issues for research for its 1988 budget review (Step 2), ” from Alfred W. Lindsey to the Hazardous Waste quest.a Waste minimization, or waste reduction, Research Subcommittee (J. Denit and H. Quinn), June 16, 1986. does not appear among the 14 areas identified. EPA’s Science Advisory Board, in reviewing this research plan, recommended that funding for waste minimization efforts be However, waste minimization does appear as increased and that ORD expand the program to include e\’alua - one of six major areas in ORD’S plans for its tions in the area of process changes and material substitutions (i.e., waste reduction). The board said that “true waste minimization” should begin to reduce or eliminate the generation of ‘U. S. Environmental Protection .Agency, office of Solid Waste, hazardous wastes in the first place through such steps. [U.S. Envi- *hazardous Waste Implementation Strategy, ’ draft, 1986. ronmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, “Review ‘inside Et”. PA. t4Jeekl~’ Report, L)ec. 6, 1985, of the Alternative Technologies Research Program, ” report of 6 U. S. Environmental Prote(; tion Agency, Offi(; e of Resea r(; h the Environmental Engineering Committee, July 1986. J and Development, memorandum from the Hazardous Waste/ lochristopher J. Daggett, speech given at Ilraste Reduction: HOL$r Superfund Research Committee (Meg Kelly and John Skinner) To Make 1( Happen symposium, New Jersey Institute of Tech- to Donald J. Ehreth and J. Winston Porter, Apr. 23, 1986. nology, Mar, 12, 1986, 48 . Serjous Reduction of Hazardous Waste

incentive for industry to minimize, reuse, or though this is inconsistent with the concept that recycle hazardous wastes .11 it is the first option to consider in dealing with At roughly the same time, however, the Of- hazardous waste. Waste minimizationlreduc- fice of Solid Waste, which implements RCRA, tion is the responsibility of EPA’s Treatment said: Technology Section (one of six sections), which is within the Waste Treatment Branch (one of . . . the current regulatory structure is complex three branches), which is within the Waste and does not provide sufficient incentives for Management Division (one of five offices and better waste management.lz divisions) of the Office of Solid Waste (one of If there are insufficient incentives for better three major components) headed by the Assis- waste management, there are certainly insuffi- tant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emer- cient incentives for waste reduction. gency Response. In a description of OSW’s new organization, 32 functions of the Waste Man- Even after the recent reorganization of OSW, agement Division are given. The only reference waste minimization/reduction was given no sig- to waste minimizatiordreduction is found in the nificant status within EPA’s organization, al- description of the last [s2nd) function. OTA concludes that there is no indication that “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, memorandum, EPA is planning to give waste reduction major “Alternative “l’echnology Review (Step 2), ” op. cit. attention in the near term. Organizationally as IZcary M. Katz, Director, Management and organization Di- vision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, memorandum well as ideologically, the status of waste reduc- on “Reorganization of the Office of Solid Waste, ” to Howard tion at EPA is consistent with the subject’s his- hl, Messner, Assistant Administrator, May 7, 1986. torical subordination to pollution control.

CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OPTIONS

The major obstacles to increased waste re- zations perceive the need for waste reduction, duction appear to be more institutional and be- how they define waste reduction, how they havioral than technological. There is no intrin- evaluate a full range of technical ways to re- sic economic disadvantage to waste reduction. duce waste, and how they decide to implement As an executive of Du Pent said: their decisions. Reduced waste will inevitably lead to lower Based on findings from its analyses, surveys, cost for products, and thus, a higher standard and workshops, OTA agrees with other studies of living for all Americans. . . , It will not be and perceptions that much more waste reduc- the law, per se, that will fuel waste minimization is technically and economically feasible. tion efforts, but rather the basic economics of But because waste reduction is an ongoing ac- good waste management.ls tivity which is responsive to many conditions There are, however, economic hurdles or bar- in industry and to government actions, it is not riers that often must be overcome before short- at all clear what the congressional role is or and long-term economic benefits can be real- might be in attaining greater levels of waste re- ized. As is explained in chapter 3, the status duction nationwide. Many people look to waste of our basic science and technical development reduction as a solution to what they fear is a does not appear to be a major limiting factor hazardous waste crisis in this country, but for most waste reduction activities. What is of others emphasize changing the current regu- greater importance is how people and organi- latory program within the pollution control framework (e.g., better enforcement and more regulations). Still others fear that the crisis may 13J. Howard Todd, “Waste Reduction. . . Industry’s Challenge,” paper presented at Lindbergh Symposium on Environment and be defined away, if, for example, EPA redefines Technology, Orlando, FL, February 1986. hazardous waste so as to greatly reduce the uni- Ch. 2—Po/I’cy Options ● 49 verse of materials regulated. In the roster of po- condition for promoting more waste reduction tential problems the possibility of a new and under Option I, therefore, would be to imple- poor definition of waste reduction ranks high. ment and enforce existing pollution control regulatory programs vigorously. Congressional OTA has structured the congressional pol- oversight would be critical. Industry says that icy possibilities by defining three major options: there are two important driving forces for waste Option I: Maintain Current Program. Cur- reduction: 1) Congress’ direction to EPA to en- rent, Iimited voluntary program is main- courage the use of land disposal alternatives, tained. which would drive up waste management costs; Option II: Improve Existing Programs. Ex- and 2) Superfund’s requirements that increase isting regulatory structure is changed and costs to generators for the cleanup of toxic expanded. waste sites. Yet there is uncertainty about legis- Option III: New Strategy. A new, highly lative changes and implementation of statutes visible waste reduction program is ini- concerning these critical factors. tiated. Effort is badly needed to gather better infor- These three different options have been made mation on current waste reduction. In Option to help Congress clarify the distinctly differ- 1, this imperative could take the form of a study ent choices it has, including the first option of rather than of comprehensive reporting of data not taking any new’ action, However, certain by all or most waste generators. specific activities listed for Options II and III The following arguments support the posi- might be transferred from Option 11 to 111 or tion that Congress not take any further major vice versa or be eliminated. The three options action on waste reduction: have been defined to concentrate the discussion on major strategic choices for Congress, It is too early to conclude that the existing rather than to provide a blueprint for exactly program is either ineffective or too limited how each of the action options (II and III) could in scope. be carried out. There are an increasing number of statements and examples from companies testi- Each of the options is discussed below. A fying to their interest in and successful im- comparative anal ysis follows to clarify the ad- plementation of waste reduction programs. vantages and disadvantages of each option and All the circumstances that are limiting the to show how each option is compatible with use of land disposal will continue to in- a major policy objective. crease the cost of all waste management options and provide more incentives for Policy Option 1: Maintain the Current waste reduction, Limited Voluntary Program The continuing effort to clean up uncontrolled hazardous waste sites under the The premise behind this option is that it may Superfund program and by the States and be unnecessary for the Federal Government to industry will increase apprehension about go beyond the 1984 RCRA reporting require- costly liabilities associated with waste gen- ments on waste minimization in order to stim- eration and management and, hence, moti- ulate waste reduction. This option can he vate more companies to emphasize imple- thought of as a market-driven approach, Al- mentation of waste reduction. though no new major action, such as establish- There is every reason to believe that the ing requirements for waste reduction or offer- successful efforts of industry will be mul- ing direct incentives and assistance, would be tiplied many times as effective techniques taken, this option is not a no action option. and expertise are transferred more broadly First, a strong case can be made about the within companies and industries. imperaiitre to maintain a well-enforced pollu- In many large, decentralized corporations tion control regulatory system. An im~]ortant the waste reduction policies and programs 50 ● serious Reduction of #azardous Waste

established by senior management are just three major concerns about whether Option I beginning to be implemented at the plant would result in comprehensive waste re- level. duction. ● There are signs that companies, including First, a fundamental disadvantage of this op- some waste generators, will find it profitable to develop and sell proven waste reduction is that there is no assurance that the in- tion technologies to others and to provide direct incentive of the cost of waste manage- assistance to waste generators, A parallel ment and compliance with regulations does case can be drawn here to what has oc- indeed work to promote waste reduction. The curred in the energy conservation area, existence of an indirect incentive does not guar- ● Increasingly, companies will find it profita- antee that it will lead to the desired effect. ble to sell new or reformulated raw mate- There is no reason to believe that all or most rials and products which result in waste generators have the technical and economic re- reduction in the industrial operations of sources to respond effectively even if they per- their clients. ceive the incentive. Actions that require capi- ● Existing and new State and local waste re- tal investment may be difficult to take, even duction efforts and such related activities though eventually the economic payback will as waste-end taxes and chemical surveys be substantial. Relying on the marketplace to will have increasing positive effects, par- operate efficiently clouds significant noneco- ticularly for smaller companies. nomic factors, such as uncertainty as to whether ● The implementation of existing environ- the companies have the technical personnel and mental regulatory programs may promote information to reduce waste. Nor is it certain waste reduction. that there will be organizational priorities ● General Federal budget circumstances as which favor waste reduction over competing well as problems in many manufacturing economically advantageous options. industries do not favor initiating a major new Federal program which would cost Whether there is an incentive depends on the government and industry significant sums, economics of a generator’s business; for some c There are signs that insurance companies generators the costs of waste management and and financial institutions may provide in- regulatory compliance are not a large enough centives for more attention to waste re- fraction of their costs to warrant attention to duction. or investment in waste reduction, Poor enforcement, low regulatory compliance, and regula- Some people believe, for all or many of these tory loopholes may also lower incentives for reasons, that no further major congressional reducing certain wastes. action is necessary for dealing with waste re- Various congressional and regulatory actions duction. (These same reasons may also be used to support Federal actions that are not of a reinforce pollution control options rather than prescriptive nature, as in Option III.) Others waste reduction and can send confusing mes- look to the future and argue that the environ- sages to waste generators, Significant numbers mental benefits of widespread and substantial of companies still have a wait-and-see attitude, waste reduction are more certain and poten- Second, a major problem with the current ef- tially larger than those that will accrue from fort is that waste reduction actions are not likely the pollution control approach and conclude, to be multimedia in character. Reduction car- on this basis alone, that the government should ried out in the current voluntary framework be directly supportive of waste reduction. Given under RCRA might overlook wastes that are the past record of regulatory ineffectiveness of considerable environmental importance; this and uncertainty, they believe that a more dedi- is especially true of toxic air emissions. The cated waste reduction effort by the Federal Gov- piecemeal development of environmental pro- ernment is necessary, Specifically, there are grams and the lack of multimedia integration, Ch. 2—Policy Options ● 51 moreover, have in some instances resulted in many companies may not meet these re- cross-media transfer; that is, what is deemed quirements. a successful environmental program can in- The lack of a database or an attempt to cre- volve the shifting of waste from one medium ate one means that the government and the to another, less regulated environmental me- public may never know whether the cur- dium. It does not result in destruction of waste. rent approach is successful. Regulatory requirements for pollution con- Third, those who are critical of this option trol are likely to continue to increase, mak- also note that it is impossible to know if waste ing it difficult for companies to divert re- reduction activities now in effect have concen- sources to waste reduction in order to trated on the most hazardous wastes since Fed- respond to the indirect incentive of rising eral regulatory programs have done little to dis- waste management and regulatory compli- tinguish degrees of hazard among wastes and ance costs. pollutants. (See OTA’S Technologies and Man- agement Strategies for Hazardous Waste Con- It is sometimes suggested that no new major troZ, 1983. ) Recognition of the fact that current Federal initiative is necessary because some regulatory programs have many loopholes, States have already established nonregulatory move slowly, and are deficient in enforcement waste minimization efforts which include may also misdirect waste reduction efforts. In waste reduction. These initiatives originated, the absence of Federal guidance, waste reduc- for the most part, prior to 1984 and the begin- tion may result in no, or very limited, environ- ning of limited Federal action under RCRA. mental protection. It is often difficult to evalu- However, none of the State programs are well ate reports of waste reduction success stories funded, all are relatively new, and their effec- in terms of environmental protection. tiveness in terms of waste reduction cannot be More specifically, Option I maybe rendered assessed (see ch. 6). Many of the State programs ineffective because of the following aspects of do not focus on waste reduction. For these rea- current Federal effort: sons, current or planned State waste reduction programs, which may be quite successful in The narrow approach of the current waste dealing with State goals, are unlikely to have minimization requirements with regard to a substantial effect on waste reduction nation- what wastes are covered inevitably means wide. Yet the State programs are undoubtedly that many harmful wastes are not going effective to some extent, and they do provide to be addressed. Wastes not subject to re- useful information on how a Federal effort duction could be increasingly generated might be structured. and might be put into the environment because of cross-media transfers. Perhaps the most difficult choice for Con- The lack of clarity with regard to the pri- gress is whether to take any further action in macy of waste reduction is likely to mean the near future on the waste reduction issue. that many companies will elect instead to The key uncertainty about maintaining the cur- use waste management approaches. rent program and relying on the marketplace Because of the lack of guidance to indus- to operate efficiently has to do with the pace try as to what the term waste reduction of waste reduction and the extent to which it really means and what it is designed to ac- is comprehensive with regard to wastes and in- complish, much of the waste reduction that dustries. Those who favor not taking any new is technically feasible may not occur and Federal action may be correct in believing that that which does take place may result in uZtimate]y—perhaps in some decades—the level less environmental risk reduction than is of waste reduction might be the same with or feasible. without further specifically targeted govern- The lack of enforcement of existing pol- ment action. However, even if this view is cor- lution control requirements means that rect, Federal action to spur waste reduction 52 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste could matter in the near term; more effective These activities can be implemented singly environmental protection achieved at an earlier or in any combination, and some could be trans- time has environmental and probably economic ferred to Option III. benefits. OTA concludes that if rapid and comprehensive hazardous waste reduction is the Modify and Strengthen the Existing Federal public policy goal, then this option is RCRA Requirements not likely to be effective. The current statute is ambiguous and Con- gress could clarify legislatively that, in the hierarchy of options available to industry, that Policy Option 11: Change and Expand of not generating hazardous waste in the first Existing Programs place should rank highest. Congress could also In defining this option OTA has assembled provide a clear definition of waste reduction. There is also a need to address problems in a number of possible actions which might be taken by Congress. They share one important EPA’s regulations, their implementation, a:ld characteristic: they alter or expand the current enforcement which result in a weakening of pollution control regulatory framework but they the indirect incentive to reduce waste; this do not change its character. This option has could be accomplished through congressional been designed to suggest ways that Congress oversight. could build on the existing environmental stat- Another type of action would be to require utes and programs and the traditional means RCRA waste generators and those who need of achieving environmental goals. The assump- permits for treatment, storage, and disposal tion behind this option is that to reduce more facilities to demonstrate their commitment to waste the current system has to be modified. waste reduction. First, regulations could be There are many actions that could either di- established for the submission of detailed waste rectly or indirectly affect the extent and pace reduction reports including data which dem- of waste reduction in industry. OTA has fo- onstrated the extent of waste reduction carried cused on several major activities for this option: out and plans to which the company is com- 1. modify and strengthen the existing RCRA mitted, including specific goals against which waste minimization reporting and plan- progress will be measured. Criteria for evalu- ning requirements, ating waste reduction plans could be estab- 2. adopt similar reporting and planning re- lished by Congress legislatively. For example, quirements for the other major environ- generators could be required to provide tech- mental programs, nical justification for choosing specific wastes 3. use waste reduction impact analysis for for reduction from among those generated, to regulatory actions, give a schedule of the actions to be taken to re- 4. initiate a periodic chemical survey of in- duce or eliminate these wastes, and to submit dustry, a long-term schedule that establishes when 5. mandate amounts of waste reduction to be other wastes will be addressed. (See ch. 3 for achieved by industry, a more detailed discussion of the considerations 6. tax all wastes and possibly offer rebates for appropriate for such a plan.) those who plan to reduce wastes substan- Another possibility would be to require that tially or have done so, waste reduction plans by generators be certi- 7. have EPA do waste reduction R&D, and fied by professional engineers analogous to the 8, change government procurement policies. way certified public accountants give profes- (Unlike the above, this last action is not re- sional certification to financial reports. This lated to the current environmental regula- would address the problem of implementation tory system. ) that arises in regulatory agencies where not Ch. 2—Policy Options ● 53 enough people of the appropriate kind would of waste that can be generated. Another com- be available to evaluate such plans. Environ- plexity would be that waste reduction, defined mental engineers and consultants are not nec- broadly, would include many wastes not cur- essarily the best equipped people to deal with rently being regulated under the air and water the production process in which waste reduc- programs. Some might argue that if the gov- tion opportunities exist. Perhaps displaced or ernment is unable to set safe limits for a spe- retired engineers with experience in manufac- cific waste in the environment, it has no basis turing might be given special training to ob- for deciding that a waste must be reduced be- tain certification as waste reduction auditors. cause of the hazards it presents. If this dilemma arose, there might be pressure to limit waste Second, the submission of waste reduction reduction mandated under the Clean Air and reports and planning information could be Clean Water Acts to those wastes for which made a condition for obtaining new or renewed limits have been set for discharge into the envi- RCRA permits. This would increase the need ronment, to expedite review of such plans. Requiring reporting and planning for waste Third, fines and penalties similar to those reduction under the air and water programs now levied in cases of noncompliance with poses substantially greater, but not necessarily major RCRA regulations could be applied to insurmountable, legislative challenges than waste reduction planning and information re- would be the case under the RCRA program. quirements. Moreover, concerns would be likely to arise The advantage of this action is that it estab- about the implementation of waste reduction lishes Federal waste reduction regulations requirements under the air and water pro- within the RCRA framework and moves from grams. There have been substantial delays in the largely voluntary state that now exists to a number of areas, particularly in the regula- a required, focused waste reduction activity. tion of toxic air emissions and the establishment of pretreatment standards for discharges The chief disadvantage is that past experi- to water treatment plants. Adding waste reduc- ence indicates that EPA and the States would tion requirements might divert attention away have limited ability to analyze and assemble the from pollution control needs. The experience information collected and to enforce the re- so far under the RCRA program suggests that quirements. waste reduction might have a relatively low pri- Require Waste Reduction Reporting and Planning ority in any existing program at EPA. in the Air and Water Regulatory Programs Waste Reduction Impact Analysis Similar to the above three regulatory requirements and actions that might take place within An important way to promote waste reduc- the context of RCRA, Congress could introduce tion would be to require that any proposed reg- reporting and planning requirements in the pro- ulatory action by EPA be accompanied by anal- grams established under the Clean Air and ysis of its potential impacts on waste reduction. Clean Water Acts. However, these programs Such analysis would be similar to what is now differ in many respects from the RCRA pro- done, for example, for the economic impact of gram. For example, the air and water programs regulatory actions on industry. There are sev- generally allow hazardous waste to be released eral reasons for believing that such a measure into the environment within certain set limits. would be effective. First, it is clear that regula- Consequently, to require companies to cut back tory programs have a substantial effect on ac- on the generation of what are now legally al- tual and future waste management costs and lowed releases is likely to be construed as a liabilities and that this influences some deci- much more radical measure than action under sions about waste reduction. Second, there is RCRA, which does not regulate the amounts no reason to believe that current regulatory ac- 54 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste tions are seen or evaluated from the perspec- some, particularly environmentalists, who feel tive of waste reduction. that the information that would be obtained from such a national survey: 1) is critical to an For example, an action under RCRA that effective environmental protection program, 2) maintained the viability of lower cost waste will inevitably be needed by industry to com- management options such as landfills, or one ply with pollution control and waste reduction under Superfund that reduced the scope or requirements, and 3) will provide facts that the magnitude of waste generators’ liabilities, public has a right to know. Several States, in- would reasonably be expected to reduce the cluding New Jersey, New York, and Maryland, motivation for waste reduction. Other types of are conducting or have conducted chemical actions can have even more direct effects, such surveys, but there has been no long-standing as determining that some wastes become reg- program, Existing surveys have not been de- ulated or that others become delisted. signed to measure waste reduction, and because Just performing such analyses would focus data are not obtained on a process and produc- attention on waste reduction and might flag action output basis they are not able to do so. tions whose benefits are too limited to offset State chemical survey programs have intrin- a significantly negative impact on waste reduc- sic problems. A recent report made the follow- tion. The fact that such impact analysis might ing comments about New York’s Industrial be possible to perform only qualitatively would Chemical Survey, which was initiated in 1983: not necessarily reduce its usefulness. This is the type of measure that affirms the priority While the Survey is an invaluable source, the of waste reduction. public still cannot obtain information which a company has classified as a trade secret or A Federal Chemical Survey which it claims will impair present or imminent contract awards or labor negotiations. This would be a program that would require Outdated information is another complication an industrial plant to report all of its waste gen- since only those industries needing a permit eration, emissions, and discharges for a broad or renewal from DEC to discharge hazardous range of hazardous substances into all environ- substances or to dispose of solid wastes have mental media. It could either be an addition to submit updated chemical inventories—and to or an alternative to expanded reporting re- then sometimes at intervals of three to five quirements discussed previously in the context years. While most of the State’s larger con-~panies have responded, thousands of companies of current environmental programs and would still have never replied.ls include unregulated hazardous substances as well as those now regulated under one or more Chemical surveys are viewed negatively by environmental statutes. industry as a tool for targeting, promoting, and measuring waste reduction. Often industry is Such a chemical survey would be a form of concerned that dissemination of multimedia in- mass balance analysis which details process information about their waste outputs, perhaps puts and the known or anticipated outputs of in conjunction with information on toxic chem- hazardous chemicals for a specific plant in ical raw material use, will expose proprietary terms, for example, of tons per year. However, information about its operations. For example, the link to waste reduction is indirect unless such information can reveal to competitors a data are obtained for specific processes and the firm’s production rate and inferences can be data put on a production output basis. made about details of its process, Especially A Federal chemical survey has already refor smaller companies, there are also concerns ceived attention within the framework of con- about the time, money, and expertise required gressional reauthorization of the Superfund to accumulate data for what maybe enormous program.lQ It has been given a high priority by numbers of hazardous chemicals. Many indus- IAAS this report was going to press, Congress had finished its conference committee deliberations on new Superfund legisla- IsRobert Abrams, Attorney General of New York, “Toxic Chem- tion, Details of the final bill, however, were not available in time ical Accidents in New York State: The Risk of Another Bhopal, ” to discuss their relevance here. January 1986, p, 13. Ch. 2—Po/icy Options ● 55 trial operations make a number of products at Mandatory Amounts of Waste Reduction different times, and in such circumstances put- The government has often set acceptable ting together complete information poses par- levels for discharges into the environment, In ticular burdens. Another difficulty arises from the same fashion Congress could create a reg- the level of sensitivity demanded. For exam- ulatory requirement, either as part of RCRA ple, a company may know how much of a chem- and the other major environmental statutes or ical it releases in terms of tons or pounds but through new legislation, which would mandate not necessarily in terms of lesser amounts. Get- specific levels of waste reduction over a speci- ting such information, which may or may not fied amount of time. This could be done on an be significant environmentally, could be costly. industry or waste basis. Waste generated per It would be difficult to expect companies to con- unit of production could be set by performance form to a precisely specified level of sensitiv- standards for industrial processes or through ity in measuring use and output of hundreds best practice or best technology requirements. of chemicals. (See ch. 5 for a discussion of how this approach An inventory approach would only benefit is used in current regulatory programs. ) This waste reduction in a direct fashion if: 1) it was is the way waste reduction has been regulated comprehensive with regard to substances (in- in Austria, for example. cluding those created during the industrial operation) and environmental media, and 2) it This approach would rest on the govern- asked for data for processes within a plant and ment’s ability to determine the amount of waste put the data on a production output basis. It reduction possible or what the best industry would be very difficult to enforce and it would practice is for an enormous range of industrial take resources to collect, analyze, and report activities and an even greater number of waste the data for all industrial pollutants nationwide. streams. As will be discussed later, because It might be possible to alleviate administrative there are so many ways to reduce waste—from problems by starting out with a survey of se- changing feedstocks to changing the end prod- lected industries. uct—this type of effort is more demanding than efforts required under existing environmental Information obtained from a standard chem- programs which set specific limits for what ical survey has many potential uses, such as comes out at the end of the pipe. Moreover, any worker protection, emergency response, and such standards might become outdated; even pollution control regulations, and because of setting standards could act as a disincentive this there has been considerable interest in the to greater levels of waste reduction that might approach. But as with any information that be feasible for some generators. leads to greater awareness of the generation of hazardous waste, it may lead to increased A prescriptive approach to waste reduction efforts by industry to control pollution and its appears attractive to some, and EPA was di- effects rather than to prevent pollution. A clas- rected by Congress in the 1984 RCRA Amend- sic example is that instead of cutting levels of ments to study such an option. (Companies sur- toxic chemicals in the workplace—perhaps veyed by OTA say that a mandatory approach even below regulatory limits—companies may would be ineffective in promoting more waste act on information about toxic levels by giving reduction.) It is, however, possible to contend workers masks and breathing devices or by in- that such a system might indeed result in more stalling sophisticated alarm systems that warn waste reduction than does a voluntary program. of unsafe levels of contamination. If the chief advantage of this approach is that Survey data could also be used to enforce it would step up waste reduction, its chief dis- compliance with government standards on safe advantages are major and not easily solved levels of waste outputs and could help estab- problems of design, implementation, and en- lish which chemicals should be targeted for re- forcement. Lack of flexibility might harm trou- search, standard-setting, and waste reduction. bled manufacturing industries. There are so

62-636 c - 86 - 3 : 01, 3 56 . Serjous Reduction of Hazardous W2K3tf3 many technical approaches to waste reduction of devoting substantial resources to develop- and they are so much a part of the fundamen- ing mandatory waste reduction levels, softer tal aspects of production technology that set- targets could be used. In this way the burden ting levels of required waste reduction would of proof and effort would be shifted to the waste be a formidable task for government. The diver- generator, and considering the site-specific na- sity in American industry has already con- ture of waste reduction, this is not unreasona- founded traditional end-of-pipe regulatory pro- ble. However, targets set by the government grams, and problems would be compounded might also serve as disincentives, discourag- many times in a mandatory waste reduction ing plants from carrying out as much waste re- regulatory approach for production acti~rities duction as they could. Yet, because zero waste within plant operations. The information regeneration is unrealistic for most situations, quirements for setting federally mandated some finite, defensible target for waste reduc- waste reduction levels would be so great that tion would have to be set by the government. it would take years of data collection and ar\al- Setting too high a target for reduction would ysis before such an effort could begin. In the mean that industry and government would be meantime, there would be considerable uncer- constantly dealing with requests for noncom- tainty in industry, which could act as a disin- pliance or delay; a target that was too low would centive to continued voluntary waste reduction. mean that waste reduction which could occur EPA has had major difficulties over many years might not. If targets—in contrast to goals, which in establishing comprehensive and reliable are discussed later—became just a different databases on waste generation, and for pur- form of government required waste reduction, poses of mandating waste reduction very little these problems would probably constitute nearly of this existing data would be of help. as significant a disadvantage as those for specific prescriptive levels set by regulation. In order to deal with the problem of acquiring enormous amounts of technical information, Taxing Waste proponents of this approach suggest incremental implementation. Administrative prob- An action which has gained a great deal of lems might be circumvented to some extent by support in recent years is that of imposing a using a prescriptive approach only for some tax on the generation of hazardous waste. This particularly hazardous and widespread wastes approach received considerable congressional initially or for some industries or major indus- attention during the debate on the reauthori- trial processes. Later, with more experience, zation of the Superfund program. It has proven the prescriptive approach could be applied to to be a very contentious issue. In a previous either more waste or more industries. However, study, OTA examined waste-end taxeslB and it is likely that there would be considerable de- this subject will not be reviewed herein detail. bate over the selection of any waste or indus- In looking at such taxes as imposed by over 20 try as the first in a mandatory program. The States and at various proposals for Superfund chemical survey action discussed previously for RCRA defined waste, it is clear that taxes would not necessarily reduce the information have been set at too low a level to have a signif- burden for establishing required levels of waste icant impact on waste reduction decisions, es- reduction, unless the survey obtained process pecially in comparison to waste management specific data. costs born by industry. Most taxes on wastes are less than 10 percent of waste management One way around many of these difficulties costs. Although OTA has had a more positive would be for the government to establish waste view, there has been considerable opposition reduction targets for specific processes or to the waste-end tax approach for Superfund, wastes with a provision allowing generators to offer justification for noncompliance based on 18u. s. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Superfund technical or economic circumstances or to of- Strateg~, OTA-ITE-252 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- fer a schedule for meeting the target. Instead ing Office, April 1985). Ch. 2—Policy Options ● 57

on the grounds of administrative problems or ing the reliability of information for waste re- a lack of equity (i. e., only some current waste duction developed by EPA or any government generators who had responsibility for causing agency with strictly end-of-pipe experience. Superfund sites are to be taxed). Another ob- Government personnel are not likely to have jection has been the harm such a tax might the detailed information and experience re- cause to some industries facing stiff foreign quired on the vast range of industrial produc- competition. All these issues and the need to tion practices. have a relatively high tax rate if it is to affect To overcome these problems, a formal EPA waste reduction decisions suggest that the tax- waste reduction technology program could: 1) ing approach would face stiff opposition from fund research by industry, with a focus on generators. topics of a generic nature so that there could Finally, a way to make a waste-end tax par- be broad application of successful results in ticularly useful for promoting waste reduction other companies and industries (e. g., substitu- (rather than just as a means to raise revenues) tion of other substances or less toxic forms of is to consider the use of tax rebates or credits widely used production inputs such as paints, associated with specific waste reduction activ- inks, dyes, and solvents); 2) support university ities. The idea would be to offer an incentive programs that not only research technologies, to carry out waste reduction. Major problems but also help educate and train people about would probably arise associated with demands waste reduction; 3) support technical assistance for incentives or rewards retroactively from programs at universities or those run by trade companies that had already carried out waste associations; and 4) support technical informa- reduction. Other disputes would center on in- tion clearinghouses in States or regions. equities that would inevitably arise because of the substantially different capabilities of com- Change Government Procurement Policies panies and industries to carry out waste re- For some companies and industries the Fed- duction. eral Government is a major customer and be- Waste Reduction Research and Development cause of this they have special problems in altering inputs or processes for waste reduction EPA’s Office of Research and Development purposes. There are cases in which government (ORD) could establish a program to assist gener- specifications, especially in the Department of ators in developing waste reduction technol- Defense, rigidly restrict a manufacturer’s free- ogy. Indeed, if a mandatory approach was pur- dom to change either a process or a product sued, ORD would be expected to develop the in any way and others where more flexibility technical information base for establishing regis allowed. For example, the government can ulations. However, ORD has faced continuing require cadmium electroplating on a product; problems with regard to budgets. As already but such a process will generate cadmium waste noted, the diversity of waste reduction ap- which is hazardous. Sometimes, the plating proaches, industries, and waste streams implies process is specified. But, in other cases cad- a large R&D effort. Existing ORD staff would mium waste can be eliminated or reduced by not have the necessary range of expertise and either changing the process or by using an alter- experience. Unless substantial new funding native metal plating, which might lead to in- was provided, concerns would be raised that creased costs. If the government were to initi- current pollution control efforts, which many ate a major program on waste reduction, many believe to be underfunded and slow, might be in industry could find it difficult to meet that harmed. But R&D on waste reduction might government goal because of the restrictive na- not, in fact, turn out to be better funded or car- ture of these government procurement policies. ried out more quickly than are current pro- Moreover, Federal agencies themselves are grams. Lastly, many sophisticated or cynical waste generators and they are now beginning people in industry might have trouble accept- to examine waste reduction. Government agen- 58 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

cies would have to make difficult judgments well as a new environmental protection strat- about the acceptability of cost increases asso- egy. The program that would result would be ciated with achieving waste reduction goals and based on pollution prevention and would com- they would not necessarily see direct benefits. plement the current pollution control system, One way to work expeditiously within the cur- although few new responsibilities would be rent procurement system might be to use waste added to existing EPA programs, One premise reduction waivers whereby a company could underlying this option is that attempting to use succinctly present its case for changing some existing environmental statutes and programs procurement specification on a waste reduc- is not the optimal approach, as evidenced by tion basis. The burden would be on the com- the history of attempts to include waste reduc- pany to demonstrate that there would be no ef- tion as part of pollution control programs (see fect on the performance of the product and also ch, 5). Therefore, this option entails substan- that the benefit would be an environmentally tial institutional change and raises more con- significant level of waste reduction. Because cern about implementation than does Option II. most major government agencies have substan- Federal assistance and provision of direct in- tial environmental staffs, it would not be overly centives to spur rather than require more waste difficult to have in-house experts evaluate these reduction would be essential aspects of these waiver requests, new efforts. However, a case can be made that Overall Evaluation there should be some components of this option that place stringent Federal requirements The preceding discussion has covered the ad- on waste generators. (This does not have to vantages and disadvantages of the various pro- mean that generators are required to reduce posed actions included under Option II. But wastes by certain amounts. ) A further consid- what are the advantages and disadvantages of eration is that public policy relating to U.S. in- the option as a whole? If the Federal public pol- dustry must address enormous diversity. Com- icy goal is to achieve rapid and comprehensive panies are at vastly different stages of waste hazardous waste reduction, then this option is reduction and face markedly different obsta- not likely to be effective for one basic reason. cles to maximizing waste reduction. This op- The historic evidence is persuasive that all pre- tion speaks to the need for policy diversit y and vious attempts to use our existing, pollution con- flexibility. Specifically, six actions are dis- trol environmental statutes and programs for cussed in this option. They are to: waste reduction purposes have not been success- 1. establish a grants program, ful. Moreover, not only are the prospects for 2. initiate new waste reduction legislation success unlikely, but the potential for negative with expanded Federal reporting and plan- effects resulting from inflexibility and high ning requirements for industry, costs, especially for troubled manufacturing 3. establish reporting requirements for finan- sectors, are significant. Those who favor this cial reports, option, however, may propose that a more fo- 4. set up a new Office of Waste Reduction cused effort to use the current system for facil- in EPA with an Assistant Administrator, itating waste reduction might be effective or 5. set up regulatory concessions for compli- that some of the specific actions considered ance, and might be effective without adopting the others. 6. establish and empower State Waste Reduc- tion Boards. Policy Option Ill: A New Highly Visible Waste Reduction Program These actions can be implemented singly or in various combinations. Some could be trans- This option emphasizes Federal support for ferred to Option 11, The last action in this op- the primacy of waste reduction over treatment tion requires a brief explanation at this point. or disposal. Implementation of this option The State Waste Reduction Boards suggested would create a new waste reduction ethic as by OTA would make the States the primary au- Ch. 2—Policy Options ● 59 thorities in implementing a national waste re- There is also a problem that results from the duction program without necessarily displac- fact that there are so many ways to reduce ing current State efforts or imposing Federal waste. A waste generator could obtain fund- interests on them (see ch, 6). The two chief argu- ing, pursue several different approaches to re- ments for promoting State involvement are: 1) duce a given waste, and then adopt the one that the enormous diversity of waste reduction op- produced the best results. Moreover, govern- portunities and problems in industry might best ment actions to provide direct financial help be dealt with by giving government closest to typically focus on capital investments, and this industries the major responsibility; and 2) the skews actions towards equipment purchases need to be sensitive to past and current prob- even though other measures may be appropri- lems at EPA in implementing its large number ate and available. These factors, coupled with of complex programs. The State Waste Reduc- the very large number of potential applicants, tion Boards, as will be discussed, could be a would mean that large sums of Federal money means of creating a government institution to would be needed for any direct economic assis- advocate waste reduction and provide a bal- tance program for generators. ance to State pollution control regulatory agen- For all these reasons, OTA has not consid- cies. Other activities in Option III could, how- ered feasible a number of traditional economic ever, be implemented without creating State incentives, such as tax credits, deductions, re- Waste Reduction Boards. bates, and exemptions, or direct financing One other preliminary point needs discus- though grants, loans, and loan guarantees. sion. This option does not include any form of These would not be practical economically or direct financial assistance to waste generators politically at this time. This might change if bet- to implement waste reduction. The main argu- ter information supported such efforts and ment against direct assistance is that waste re- spending. As has happened in the past with duction is tied closely to production operations. some government financing programs, direct Therefore, if requests for direct financial assis- support for waste reduction could mushroom tance were to be considered, it would be diffi- beyond any anticipated levels. If limited sums cult to determine how much spending was to were made available, the government would be used for waste reduction independent of, have great difficulty in selecting the companies for example, modernization of a plant or proc- to receive assistance, especially since the gov- ess. This basic problem has been recognized ernment has so little information on waste gen- by some States, including Washington. A re- eration and reduction on which to base assess- port from the State’s Department of Ecology ments of applicants’ proposals. Perhaps at some says: time in the future a strong case might be made for direct financial assistance to waste genera- Because waste reduction is so intimate to each manufacturing process, it will be very dif- tors if it became clear that major waste reduc- ficult to determine what portion of the cost tion would not occur without it, but that case of a process change is attributable to waste re- cannot be made now. duction and what portion is due to a company’s need to fulfill a new production need A Grants Program or marketing strategy, or to achieve lower production costs, This uncertainty would make In the past, environmental grants programs such an incentive program difficult to admin- have for the most part given money to State or ister and suggests that its cost-effectiveness local government agencies. The program sug- would be low. 17 gested here would instead fund nonregulatory efforts to motivate and assist the private sector broadly in carrying out waste reduction efforts expeditiously. The purpose of this program would not be to provide direct financial support for specific waste reduction efforts ben- 60 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

eficial only to a particular waste generator. In- numbers of other generators and the results stead, its primary goal would be to help build of the grant-supported work were to be knowledge, institutional support, and the de- made public. livery system so that waste generators could ● Grants would be available for industry or more easily and more effectively meet national business organizations and educational in- goals of increasing the pace and scope of waste stitutions to establish programs or materi- reduction, The types of efforts funded could als to train and assist industry personnel be of importance for larger companies, which in complying with waste reduction report- generate most of the Nation’s waste, as well ing and planning requirements and in pre- as for smaller companies. It is incorrect to con- paring requests for regulatory concessions clude that all large companies have the re- as discussed below. sources to devote to these efforts or that they c Grants could be used to create programs would choose to use significant parts of their to train and certify environmental auditors, resources for this purpose. This is particularly who could play a major role in assisting true of companies in troubled manufacturing industry to identify and implement waste sectors. reduction audits, plans, and programs. There are a number of purposes for which For the reasons given previously, the grants grants could be used: program would not offer financial assistance to companies for their direct waste reduction ● Grants could be made to nonprofit organi- costs (except as noted above for new generic zations to establish free or low cost tech- technology development), but it would help im- nical assistance and technical information prove their tools for such an effort. A limited transfer programs dedicated to industrial Federal grants program based on the multiplier waste reduction efforts. Several States do effect of broadly applicable efforts might be this already and some trade associations advantageous, A grants program implements and educational institutions could also be- the concept of using a positive, directly sup- come involved through such a grants portive alternative to regulations. Providing program. ● technical support to many companies might of- Grants could be offered to trade associa- fer benefits far in excess of the cost to the gov- tions, business organizations, and educa- ernment, substantially reducing the Nation’s tional institutions to develop and make generation of hazardous waste. available to workers—from shop floor to researchers to managers—training mate- The chief disadvantage is the possibility of rials for in-plant use that would bring at- ineffective spending. The success of such a pro- tention to and encourage waste reduction. gram will be closely related to the amount of ● Grants would be available to any organiza- funding provided and what is funded. While tion for R&D, pilot tests, and demonstra- it is not possible to know beforehand how ef- tion tests if their proposed project aimed fective such a grants program would be, it may to obtain new waste reduction technology be a type of effort worth trying at this early or new waste reduction applications of ex- stage of waste reduction implementation. A isting technology, yield lower costs, or ex- long-term commitment will be necessary, how- pand opportunities for waste reduction ever, if a grants program is to spur in-depth, activities. These results would have to be dedicated efforts which can be applied broadly broadly applicable to industry segments or to industry. A reasonable compromise between generic types of processes, wastes, or ma- the uncertain effectiveness of such a program terials, An example would be substitution and the need to offer funding beyond a 1- or of water for organic solvents in widely used 2-year period could be for Congress to author- industrial processes, Assistance could be ize funding for a 5-year program. For example, provided to a waste generator as long as spending about $5o million (at a minimum) an- the project had applicability to significant nually for a 5-year grants program would be —

Ch. 2–Policy Options ● 61 approximately equal to the cost of cleaning up with regard to effectiveness and the likelihood 25 or fewer sites under the Superfund program of promoting innovative responses.lB When it (some 3 percent of National Priority List sites). comes to planning and reporting requirements Put another way, American society spends over for waste reduction, stringency is provided by $7o billion annually to regulate, control, and setting up a comprehensive, multimedia defi- clean up environmental pollution; spending less nition of hazardous waste and by requiring than one-tenth of z percent of that sum to aid quantitative information (in contrast to current pollution prevention does not appear extravagant. waste minimization RCRA requirements) and specific commitments. Concerns are likely to be raised if the responsibility for selecting projects for funding un- In terms of the congressional legislative proc- der such a grants program were given to EPA. ess, new legislation might avoid the problem The chief reason for this is that EPA does not of differing definitions inherent in different have the relevant experience for administering environmental statutes considered at different such activities. As will be discussed later, State times by a number of congressional commit- boards could select projects for funding and tees. New legislation also may be necessary be- also act as the agents to receive and distribute cause the following questions are likely to be Federal funds for encouraging waste reduction raised if current environmental statutes and activities. Sums could be given by EPA to States programs are used for a major waste reduction on some formula basis. Congress may also wish thrust: to consider giving preference to those requests ● In the context of the air and water pro- for grants that offer cost-sharing, or even to re- grams, does waste reduction appl~ to wastes quire cost-sharing. With the likely exception of for which the government has not estab- the technical assistanceltechnical information lished health effects, safe exposure limits, function, not all of the above activities would or environmental risks? That is, if the case necessarily be carried out in all States. Many cannot be made to set regulatory standards activities would yield results that could be trans- for these wastes, can it be made for reduc- ferred to other States. ing these wastes? ● Does waste reduction apply below levels New Waste Reduction Legislation set by current regulation as acceptable for Consistent with the definition of waste reduc- discharge into the environment? tion used in this study, Congress could consider ● In the context of RCRA, does waste reduc- new legislation dedicated solely to waste reduction cover unregulated waste? tion. Such legislation could address the problems of definition and measurement that have New legislation could establish the require- already been discussed. It could establish na- ments for multimedia waste reduction wit hout tional waste reduction goals, Through such undercutting the jurisdiction of existing pollu- legislation, industry could be required to: 1) pro- tion control statutes and programs. vide detailed information on past waste reduction efforts on a plant, chemical, and process or product basis, including their environmental l’3An important conclusion from a revie~t’ Of the ell\’i rOIl Inelltal impacts; and 2) provide detailed plans and sched- regulatory programs was that “the stringenc} of regulation is ules for future waste reduction with an empha- a n important determinant of the degree of t e(: hnolo~ical innw vation. ” [Nicholas A. Ashford, et al, “( ~si118 Regulation ‘[’o sis on environmental risk reduction. While Change the Market for Innovation, ” Har~ard L’r]~ir(JrlIr]f?x]tal I,a ~i these would be regulatory requirements, they Re\ir~~’, to]. 9, 1985, pp. 41 9-466, ] Technological lnno~’atlon )s are not the same as setting waste reduction e~en more important for waste reduction than for pollution corl - standards or requiring a certain level of waste t rol, because for th~? former there arc more side benefits for the entire production system. I nno~’ation for pollution control may reduction. Nevertheless, this sort of stringent lo~~er costs and reduce pollution, but is not likely to ha~e su(h Federal requirement brings up important issues broad effects. 62 . Serjo”s Reducfjon of H~ardo”s Waste

Reporting and planning requirements would cellence. Either by statute or by guidance un- include: der EPA, acceptable ways of calculating waste reduction could be established (see ch. 4), data on the amounts of specific wastes generated and their disposition—including all The chief advantage of new legislation is that wastes, emissions, and discharges of haz- it would establish an environmental protection ardous substances and not just RCRA de- strategy based on waste reduction parallel to fined wastes—to delineate which are being existing strategies for end-of-pipe waste man- rendered permanently harmless through agement. Moreover, it would help sharpen the effective treatment and which are being distinction between waste reduction and effec- disposed or dispersed; tive waste treatment on the one hand and dis- quantitative descriptions on a plant and posal and dispersal on the other. It could cover waste (or product or waste generating ac- wastes not currently covered by statute or reg- tivity) basis to substantiate past waste re- ulations. It would make it much more difficult duction; for a purported waste reduction effort to con- periodic detailed plans to reduce all wastes, sist of cross-media transfers. Since a definition even those that are being treated, including should be used that states that waste reduction quantitative estimates for specific wastes must involve reduction in environmental risk, over specific intervals; and it might be necessary to classify wastes accord- assessments of the environmental effective- ing to their degree of hazard, If so, this could ness of waste reduction efforts; these could be done either in the legislation or by directing be prepared by outside, certified profes- EPA to establish such a classification, The avail- sional engineers or firms specializing in ability of such information would provide guid- environmental auditing. ance to industry in establishing priorities, Guid- ance could also be given about site-specific Congress could establish generic criteria for factors that affect exposures to hazardous sub- compliance on reporting. For example, com- stances. It could assist industry in assessing ex- pliance might be recognized only when an in- posure levels and, hence, environmental risks. dustrial operation provided: detailed and quantitative descriptions of waste generation on a A major concern about implemention is de- production output basis, timely responses to ciding how the reports and plans would be han- requirements, attention to all of its hazardous dled. It would seem apparent that they should waste outputs, attention to multimedia analy- be received by appropriate regulatory agencies, sis of waste outputs, attention to degree of haz- with EPA as the obvious choice, but the his- ard of the wastes, and analyses of environ- tory of EPA in establishing national databases mental risk reductions already achieved or to and information transfer systems has not been be achieved at the site. good, Thus, it may be attractive to have State agencies play a major role (see section on State A new waste reduction statute could also Waste Reduction Boards) or, as will be dis- establish a national waste reduction goal (see cussed below, to change the organization of ch. 3), A goal of, for example, 10 percent an- EPA. As only a few States have been more effi- nual waste reduction for 5 years might be help- cient than EPA in establishing databases, a new, ful in focusing attention on waste reduction and dedicated EPA effort might be the most effec- its implementation. It could serve as a guidepost tive action. to, albeit approximately, evaluate the progress of all waste reduction efforts, whether at the Reporting Requirements for Financial Statements plant, company, industry, or State level, How- ever, using such a goal might inhibit a higher If Congress decides that waste reduction is level of waste reduction. And yet a company of paramount importance, a case could be made might see the establishment of a national goal for requiring public corporations to report on as an opportunity for it to demonstrate its ex- their waste reduction to the Securities and Ch. 2—Po/icy Options . 63

Exchange Commission (SEC). Such reporting public by competitors might encourage even would take place in the standard SEC 10K nonpublic companies to respond. Further, with reports required of corporations and used in such a requirement in force, lending institu- drawing up an annual report to shareholders tions would probably expect nonpublic com- or a prospectus for a new securities offering. panies as well as public corporations to pro- This requirement could inspire management vide this information. In any case, it is likely to give a great deal of attention to waste reduc- that only a small fraction of the Nation’s haz- tion efforts and their outcomes. Just as waste ardous waste is generated by nonpublic com- reduction can be seen as a criterion to assess panies. production technology and environmental pro- There would, of course, be concerns about tection programs, it can also contribute to the length and detail required for any such assessing the financial well-being of a company. reporting, but the formal reporting of waste re- From the traditional perspective of the SEC, duction efforts discussed earlier could gener- therefore, the issue would be whether informa- ate the information for this action. The govern- tion on waste reduction fits into the SEC con- ment would have to establish clear, standard cept of “material facts” which a reasonable in- definitions for waste reduction, including what vestor would want to know. wastes are covered, what constitutes waste re- OTA finds that a case can be made in this duction, how it is measured, and what infor- regard. Waste reduction information consti- mation can be kept confidential. New waste re- tutes material facts of importance to investors duction legislation, if it was enacted, might because there are several links between waste require only summary information. One pro- reduction and the financial condition of a com- vision might be that any company could sim- pany. The more effective waste reduction meas- ply state that it was not a generator of hazard- ures a company accomplishes, the 1ower its lia- ous waste and, in that case, it would not have bilities for all forms of waste management will to report anything. Another variation would be be. This includes cleanup liabilities, criminal to exempt from a waste reduction reporting re- liabilities, and third-party lawsuits under Super- quirement any company that spent less than fund and RCRA, liabilities associated with a certain fraction of its income on waste man- transportation accidents and worker exposures, agement. and costs for regulatory compliance in the fu- Either by statute or through SEC rulemaking, ture, including possible litigation costs. The fol- companies could be directed to calculate waste lowing comments by an executive of Du Pent reduction by using specified procedures. For are pertinent: example, waste reduction should be assessed The challenge to reduce the amount of waste on a production output basis, as discussed in generated is directed by the society in which chapters I and 4. The following facts might be we operate and by our stockholders . . . Stock- required of a waste generator in its annual SEC holders benefit through reduced production report: costs and a reduction of future liabilities. These increase both short and long term prof- ● information for the past 5 years on total its.19 waste generated in tons, perhaps in terms of some base year’s production (analogous A disadvantage of this approach is that non- to using constant dollars rather than cur- public corporations would not be directly af- rent dollars) or, alternatively, information fected, as they do not have to comply with SEC on annual spending on waste management requirements. On the other hand, knowing that for the past 5 years; waste reduction information may be required ● information for the past 5 years on total for future actions if the company decides to go companywide waste reduction, given as a public and that such information is being made percentage; and ● a narrative description of the company’s leH ~t%,~ r(] ‘r~dd, ()~). c: it. waste reduction program, including any 64 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

unusual circumstances that account for its grams significantly. On the other hand, there results and its outlook for future waste re- are valid concerns about increasing the organi- duction. zational complexity and responsibilities of EPA. But, if waste reduction efforts are suc- Finally, this approach might be more effec- cessful, then ultimately less government inter- tive if there was a national goal set for waste vention will be necessary since there will be reduction. In this way investors could assess fewer generators and waste management facil- the company’s performance relative to the na- ities and less waste to regulate. tional’ goal. Regulatory Concessions*” A New Office of Waste Reduction in EPA A regulatory concession would economically Congress could create an Office of Waste Re- reward a company that is committed to accom- duction within EPA, directed by an Assistant plishing an environmentally significant amount Administrator for Waste Reduction. If waste of waste reduction. It acts as an incentive for reduction is as important environmentally as compliance with national waste reduction pol- virtually everyone who addresses environmen- icy goals and regulatory requirements. It works tal issues says it is, then arguably its importance also as a way to introduce a degree of regula- should be reflected in the organization of the tory flexibility into the current system and this Nation’s EPA. As discussed previously, under could facilitate a smooth transition from pol- the current organization it is unlikely that waste lution control to waste reduction. Essentially, reduction could be given high priority. If a it would be a way to alleviate the economic bur- waste reduction office were placed within a dens imposed on waste generators who must program office, such as the Office of Solid simultaneously spend money to comply with Waste, it would be difficult to establish a multi- existing regulations and make investments for media waste reduction effort. Moreover, pro- waste reduction. Investments for waste reduc- gram offices now appear overburdened with tion may make less economic sense if invest- their pollution control efforts. ments have already been made for pollution control. This approach becomes more impor- The implementation of the previous actions tant as a company moves from the simplest to might be efficiently handled by an entirely new the more costly waste reduction measures (see EPA office if it had sufficient resources and ch. 3) and has economic obstacles to overcome were given high priority by EPA’s management. before net, long-term savings can be realized Such an office would be responsible for imple- through avoiding repeated compliance costs menting legislation dealing solely with waste and liabilities. reduction, such as a grants program. It could also play a major role in promoting the devel- Regulatory concessions to the waste genera- opment and use of waste reduction technology tor could include for example: by collecting and analyzing reports and plans c environmental permits valid for longer in order to establish an effective national data- times or deferred while a waste reduction base on waste reduction. It would also be re- —.—— sponsible for providing oversight to State ef- ZOThiS concept is different from emissions trading or a mar- ketable permit system; in these, a waste generator can buy a forts funded through EPA. credit from someone else and apply it to his own activities and compliance. OTA has not considered this an effective approach Finally, concerns that waste reduction efforts for waste reduction, mainly because it is likely to remove the might divert attention from current pollution motivation for waste reduction for many generators—either be- control programs could be allayed if there were cause they might be able to buy someone else’s reduction, or because they might not be able to sell a reduction. Moreover, a separate waste reduction office in EPA. Also, this approach is subtly predicated on the government setting because current spending on waste reduction some level of waste reduction, beyond which a company would is such a small fraction of the EPA’s spending— have something in excess to sell, and the difficulty of setting such levels has already been discussed. Finally, EPA’s attempt some 0.1 percent—even major increases in the to use emissions trading under the Clean Air Act has not been waste reduction area need not affect other pro- especially successful. Ch. 2—Policy Options ● 65

effort was being implemented on a waste duction goals rather than to avoid or stretch covered by a permit; out compliance with existing pollution control ● special designations that would enable a regulations. plant or company to request priority sta- Offering concessions for waste reduction tus in dealings with environmental agen- might appear to remove the current indirect cies and programs; incentive of conforming to costly pollution con- ● specific exemptions, variances, or delist- trol regulations. But this presupposes that a spe- ings offset by the environmental benefits cific waste generator who is faced with cur- of the waste reduction in cases in which rent or anticipated costs of pollution control these concessions can be justified quantita- regulatory compliance can also fund waste re- tively by the company (analogous to the duction efforts. Thus, it is important to recog- bubble and emissions trading concepts nize that regulatory concessions would not re- under the Clean Air Act); move the current indirect regulatory economic ● special consideration for exemption from incentive for waste reduction, but rather pro- regulation to firms with RCRA hazardous vide assistance in making a prudent response, waste treatment facilities for certain in- The fundamental problem with relying on an plant recycling or recovery operations; and indirect incentive is that, as discussed previ- ● longer times granted for the storage of haz- ously, there is no assurance that it will call forth ardous waste without a RCRA permit if the desired response from most waste genera- need is sufficiently substantiated. tors. The approach of offering concessions is It is important to provide assurances that used in Japan to achieve flexibility and eco- such concessions depend on a strong case be- nomic efficiency in regulatory programs; some ing made that a company’s successful waste of the rewards derive from its regulatory pro- reduction efforts will result in an overall net gram’s requirements and are determined by a im~rovernent in environmental protection. local agency .21 Waste reduction should be seen as an alterna- In principle this approach has already been tive to pollution control regulations, one that offers more environmental protection in the used by Congress (see ch. 5). For example, the long term. Another way to examine this approach Clean Water Act was changed in 1977 to allow is in terms of systematic environmental risk a generator to obtain an extension on a compliance date by: management involving a multimedia view of waste and long-term view of beneficial effects. . . . replacing existing production capacity with an innovative production process which The idea of regulatory concessions may will result in an effluent reduction signifi- sound more novel than it really is. Within cur- cantly greater than that required by the limi- rent regulatory programs there are areas of discretionary power which are used to assist in- 2tThe concept of using regulator}’ conc:essio os falls into the broad area of adapting and impro\i& tb(? L’. S. approa(:b to en\ri- dustry. Most often this occurs when economic ronmental protection. A recent stud}’ has n(~te(l: hardship is given as the reason why a company I-I. S. firms have spent more in []orsu it {If (,[l\]r{lr~rllt;r~t,il goals cannot be in full and timely compliance with than have firms in other nations, and envl ru n men la] re~ola - tion has had a slightly more ncgatlt[~ effe(,t (In th[> [ I S w onom}, regulations. Here, concessions would not be than on the other three nations [(;anada. ]apan, \l’tl\t (;errnany ] given because a company has trouble comply- IA]lthough u S. standards are general]} 1[’s~ ~tringen! than those of )apan, environmental regulation apj)cars to hil\’(’ hdd d ing with existing regulations. Instead, a com- more dramatic impact on the U.S. economy t h,ir) I n \,i [)a n “[’h u ~, pany would be rewarded for pursuing a new the standards set b} the regulator’ process m i~ht he le+~ irnl)[)r- tant than the manner in which they are carrl~ld out [ [ I S (;(]r]- and effective environmental protection strat- gress, Congressional 13udg[~t Office, En Lironmenta/ Regulation egy. Therefore, an important indirect benefit and F,’conon IIc h’ffi{;ieoc~ , hlarch 1985. ] of using the regulatory concession approach It should he noted that the study was based on analysis of data might be to allow a tightening up of current through 1982, The increasing attention being given b~’ environmental programs to toxic chemicals, tberefore, was not }’et full!’ pollution control regulations. The point is to reflected. Regulatory reform to mitigate harmful impacts of reg- encourage companies to implement waste re- ulations on U.S. industr~. may ha~’e increasing importance. 66 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

tation otherwise applicable to such facility and for superior performance by a company, Par- moves toward the national goal of eliminat- ticipating companies, which so far are few, ing the discharge of all pollutants . . . ‘Z are exempted from OSHA programmed inspec- This waste reduction opportunity has not tions and are promised expedited action on var- been used very much, perhaps partly because iance applications. The OSHA programs are the statute provided the same opportunity for explicit attempts to promote a more coopera- use of innovative pollution control technology. tive approach between government and indus- Pollution control has been the standard choice trial firms and to enhance worker health and in industry. safety. But this approach has had its critics, who are concerned about regulatory concessions The concept of regulatory concessions as and the diversion of government resources used here does not necessarily call for innova- away from routine regulatory activities. tive technology but rather includes all measures that reduce waste, even if they are not innova- EPA has expressed concern about the lack tive in the usual sense of the word. This is im- of flexibility in RCRA. The RCRA program has portant because placing a requirement for inno- recognized its limitations in dealing with spe- vative technology has probably been another cific site conditions: “Despite the complexity, reason why regulatory innovation waivers (also the RCRA program allows little flexibility for in the Clean Air Act) have not been particu- the important characteristics of a particular fa- larly successful, even for pollution control.23 cility. ” While it is correct that there is always Concessions for waste reduction would place some discretionary power for EPA to exercise no burden on the generator to demonstrate any- within its regulatory programs, these are not thing but: 1) a good-faith effort to reduce waste now effective: by any means chosen by the generator; Z) that, What flexibility exists through waivers and most importantly, there will be a net, overall exemptions is often cumbersome and time- environmental benefit; and 3) that within an consuming to obtain. Furthermore, because agreed-upon time the project has succeeded in EPA and those regulated believe that waivers its objective. Emphasis would be on the fact or exemptions will rarely, if ever, be granted, that the government is prepared to forego short- they do not use them.zA term, often uncertain benefits for significant, There are two scientific principles that form long-term, permanent reductions in environ- the basis for believing that regulatory conces- mental and health risks. sions for waste reduction can make environ- Another example of the use of regulatory con- mental sense. First, wastes vary remarkably in cessions is in the area of worker health and their degree of hazard. Health effects can vary safety. In 1982 OSHA created three programs substantially. They can be acute or chronic; that recognize the achievements of companies they can be temporary, or they can be long term. that are leaders in providing health and safety For some of these effects no curative measures benefits to their employees and that provide ad- are available, but others are easily treated. Sec- ditional opportunities for OSHA/employer con- ond, threats to health and the environment from sultation and cooperation. Recognition is given the generation of any waste depend on site-specific conditions that determine the transport —. .—— zZFederal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 301(k). and fate of the waste in the environment and ZsNicholas A. Ashford, et al., op. cit. This analysis of the failures consequently the extent of exposure to the of the innovation waiver efforts concluded that: waste, Both of these factors form the basis for Assigning exclusive authority over the administration of innova- risk management and risk assessment and have tion waivers to an office in a position to accord higher priority and greater attention to the program would promote use of the posed great difficulties for the existing envi- waivers and prevent misuse . a specially designated group, ronmental regulatory programs. To a large ex- trained to interact with industry . . should administer the program. Use of boards, as will discussed later, is consistent with this con- Z4U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Hazardous Waste clusion. Implementation Strategy, ” op. cit. —

Ch. 2—Po/icy Options ● 67

tent, they have been side-stepped and current pany’s perspective, there is a net economic gain programs do not significantly account for these if its reduction to virtually zero output of the considerations (although lately EPA has been currently unregulated toxic air emission can considering reforms and programs that would be offset by saving the greater costs of operat- address these risk-related factors). Therefore, ing and renovating the water treatment plant. because current pollution control regulations Eliminating the air pollution can be more sig- do not effectively account for degree of hazard nificant environmentally than allowing more of the waste and site-specific risk conditions, waste to go into the river. The company could regulatory concessions for waste reduction do go through a costly, lengthy process to get a not necessarily sacrifice environmental protec- permanent waiver from the requirement to treat tion. If waste reduction focuses on the most the water, but it would prefer a quicker deci- hazardous wastes and regulatory concessions sion hinging on the environmental benefits of on the least hazardous ones, then a net envi- the proposed waste reduction. ronmental benefit results. Example 3.—A small electroplating shop can Examples of Concessions .—Examining hypotheti- see a way to greatly reduce its generation of cal regulatory concessions for waste reduction a high-hazard liquid waste which is put into may be instructive. the sewer, but it requires capital spending to Example I.—A chemical plant generates a change its process to accommodate a new raw large quantity of toxic air emissions which will material. It could save enough money to offset soon become regulated (by the State and then the new spending within about a year—if it EPA). It could proceed with investing in a pol- were allowed to accumulate the RCRA waste lution control system to reduce the air emis- sludge from its water treatment for more than sions to expected legal limits, which would cre- 90 days without a permit. The company would ate a fairly large amount of sludge for land save money because it would not have to pay disposal, Alternatively, it could pursue a change a high premium to a waste management firm in its process technology which would elimi- to collect small amounts of waste. The environ- nate almost all of the toxic air emissions but mental benefits gained by eliminating the waste would take 2 years longer than the pollution that now goes into the sewer are greater than control approach. The company would rather the benefits lost by allowing a longer period for make the process change because of other ben- storage of drummed waste. efits but only if it can get the regulatory agency’s Example 4.—A agreement that it will not have to meet the air medium-sized chemical spe- long history of emission requirements over the period during cialties manufacturer has had a which it is implementing the process technol- noncompliance and violations. Despite penalties the situation does not improve. The com- ogy change. pany knows how to stretch out enforcement ExampZe Z.—Reduction can be accomplished and seems to accept financial penalties as part for a very hazardous waste which, because it of doing business, It rarely seems to take ac- is being discharged in large amounts into the tions which would permanently solve problems air, also poses risk to a nearby population cen- such as frequent excessive discharges of pol- ter downwind from the plant. The company’s lutants into a nearby waterway. The company large chemical manufacturing plant also spends knows how to exert its influence as a major lo- considerable sums on a water treatment plant cal employer. It has learned that regulatory non- that will soon require capital spending for ma- compliance is not likely to bring a fatal blow jor renovation. It must reduce levels of certain to its operation. As a result of the new waste low-hazard pollutants in order to meet regu- reduction reporting and planning require- latory requirements before the water is dis- ments, the company is able to pinpoint several charged into a waterway where dilution would changes in its production process that could be substantial and where there is no down- greatly reduce its aqueous hazardous waste stream use for drinking water. From the com- stream. It says it is willing to commit a signifi- 68 . s~rjo”~ Reduction of H~ardo”~ Waste

cant amount of capital to make the changes ● Over time there have been many com- (much more than it was paying in penalties), promises in the structure of regulations in but only if a number of outstanding enforce- which environmental benefits have been ment actions are dropped. It argues that its vio- sacrificed to avoid undesirable economic lations are chiefly a consequence of the poor impacts on industry. design and condition of the treatment plant and No matter how a benefits program is de- that there are no immediate, substantial environmental effects. It says it will give a detailed signed, some companies or plants will not be able to justify new waste reduction efforts eco- plan, certified by an outside expert, of its pro- nomically. For example, total costs of regu- posed waste reduction program. This example latory compliance may be too low relative to illustrates the difficulty in assessing a trade-off corporate profits for concessions to offset in- when the long-term environmental ben~fit~ are the central concern, vestments in waste reduction. Only a small additional amount of waste reduction maybe pos- Costs and Benefits. —In assessing the merits of sible using regulatory concessions over that granting regulatory concessions and acknowl- without them. But as control regulations drive edging that they do not necessarily imply a loss up waste management costs and as waste re- of environmental protection, it is critical to deal duction costs increase and more capital- with the regulatory system as it now exists and intensive efforts are required (see ch. 3), regu- not to regard it as an ideal, theoretical program. latory concessions may become increasingly The current situation has a number of defi- attractive, The somewhat negative experience ciencies: with innovation waivers, mentioned earlier, suggest ways to make concessions for waste 0 Environmental regulations are not complied with at a high rate and penalties for reduction more successful. For example, such noncompliance may not be effective de- a program would have to be well publicized, terrents. be open to new and long-standing waste gener- ● Much compliance is self-certified and in- ators, have clear guidance from the responsi- accurate, rather than being based on gov- ble government agency, be free of delays, and ernment monitoring of environmental per- have a fail-soft approach in case the waste re- formance. duction attempt fails. This means that the reg- ● Regulations are not necessarily related to ulatory agency granting the concession “ , . . environmental benefits because of loop- should adopt a sensible enforcement posture holes and technical inadequacies or be- that does not unduly penalize the firm. To pre- cause of a lack of health-based standards vent possible abuse, however, the agency should strictly monitor progress , . . “ZE or inapplicable exposure and risk conditions for a specific site. A disadvantage of regulatory concessions is ● Different regulatory programs provide that there will be some opposition to changing different levels of environmental protec- a familiar system of control regulations that has tion in terms of risk reduction or exposure developed over several decades, For example, to specific chemicals. industry has developed adaptive skills and strat- ● Many pollution control efforts have, to a egies for acting within its legal opportunities large degree, become dependent on the lim- to reduce what it perceives to be unnecessary, its of available pollution control technol- ineffective, or overly costly environmental reg- ogy. There are relatively few incentives to ulations. This is consistent with the American push technological development to achieve adversarial and balancing-of-opposing-forces greater environmental benefits. approaches to conflict resolution. There will ● Many aspects of regulatory requirements be opposition to a waste prevention approach are procedural and serve bureaucratic or that shifts the focus to the internal operations administrative needs, rather than serving to increase environmental protection. ZsAshford, et al,, op. Cit. Ch. 2—Policy Options ● 69 of industrial activities, even though it might of- become more intensively involved in establish- fer greater environmental benefits—without im- ing a waste reduction ethic. posing economic burdens, Similarly, organized One purpose of suggested activities such as environmental groups have also developed ca- establishing State boards is to give greater iden- pabilities for representing their interests within tity and visibility to waste reduction and to sep- the current pollution control framework. They arate it from the dominant pollution control cul- too are bound to have some anxiety about a loss ture. An alternative way of doing this is to create of effectiveness if prevention is also used as a a separate entity within an existing institution, means to achieve environmental protection. as in the previously discussed action of creat- These reservations are also likely to be felt in ing an Office of Waste Reduction within EPA. government regulatory agencies. While this could also be done within existing State Waste Reduction Boards State agencies, there is some risk that the prevailing emphasis on pollution control might One way to implement a Federal waste re- make such an approach ineffective. duction program, if one is deemed necessary, Autonomous boards could be open advocates might be through the voluntary establishment of waste reduction and could: of State Waste Reduction Boards. Boards could provide a means for public participation, dis- ● bring visibility and independent institu- burse Federal grant monies to support waste tional support to waste reduction; reduction, review generator reports and plans, ● promote implementation by those closest and make recommendations on requests for to plant operations and minimize Federal regulatory concessions for complying with Fed- bureaucratic involvement and expense; eral waste reduction reporting and planning ● promote a direct incentive, nonregulatory requirements, approach and move away from a traditional prescriptive approach enforced by penal- Why create another government organiza- ties; and tion? The best reason is to demonstrate institu- ● turn towards consensus building among tional commitment to waste reduction. Citizen affected parties and away from resolving boards have been created for pollution control disputes through confrontation and litiga- and the siting of waste management facilities tion.25 in a number of States, but none have yet been set up for waste reduction. A second reason The establishment of boards would not nec- is that OTA industry survey found some essarily bring about conflict with present State preference for having the States play the ma- regulatory or waste reduction efforts, although jor role in such a program. The preference was opposition from existing regulatory agencies particularly common among smaIler compa- could arise. (See the discussion below on how nies, This approach might be appealing to the boards might function relative to regulatory general public and to environmentalists if they agencies.) Would all or most States choose to were assured that they could be sufficiently in- have such boards? Not necessarily, but consid- volved. ering the number of States that have, for example, established siting boards, waste-end Boards or similarly structured commissions taxes, and waste reduction programs, those are more widely used at the State than at the States in which the largest amounts of hazard- Federal level. Waste reduction boards at the ous waste are generated might choose to give State implementation level might be effective in assuring that the Federal waste reduction ZeFO~ ~x~mple, the previously cited analysis Of innovation effort, now directed by a part of the existing waivers addressed the problem of deciding exactly what regula- EPA system, does not become submerged with- tory benefit to grant: “One solution would be a flexible delay in or overpowered by concurrent pollution con- period [for noncompliance] to be determined through negotia- tion between an innovating firm and an EPA technical review trol activities. If boards were established at the panel. ” IAshford, et al., op. cit. ] The idea here is that the board State level on a national basis, the public could could serve the same type of function. 7(J ● Serious Reduction of H~ardous Waste

such political and visible support to waste re- As indicated above, the boards could do more duction. Much would depend, however, on the than administer and disburse Federal grant level of commitment of State legislative bodies funds; they could complement the decisions of and governors’ offices. If a Federal grants pro- existing environmental regulatory agencies gram previously discussed were to be given to about regulatory concessions. It is this sug- such boards for implementation, there would gested role of boards that is bound to be of con- be a clear incentive for their establishment. cern. The interactions of the boards and regulatory agencies are summarized in table 2-1. The Particularly because of concerns that regula- key functions of the boards could be: 1) to evalu- tory concessions might be undesirable environ- ate the environmental benefits of an industry’s mentally, such boards would need to maintain waste reduction efforts in relation to a similar a high degree of independence and credibility evaluation by regulatory agencies of the envi- based on broad representation. Board members ronmental costs of requested regulatory con- should include representatives from State envi- cessions, and 2) to make a public recommenda- ronmental regulatory agencies, industry, trade tion to the regulatory agency on whether to and business associations, environmental groups, grant the concession, Boards, therefore, could community associations, labor groups, educa- serve to analyze, mediate, and resolve con- tional institutions, local government officials, flicts between industry and regulatory agencies and the general public. It might be beneficial (which may be State or EPA). As is the case if a certain percentage of the board were peo- with regulatory agencies, these boards would ple with technical backgrounds in order to as- be meant to safeguard environmental protec- sure credibility. There are some State entities, tion, but the boards would be the advocates of generally siting or hazard waste management waste reduction while the regulatory agencies boards, which sometimes include waste reduc- are primarily advocates of pollution control. tion as one of their concerns, that have such mixed representation and have been quite suc- It is clear that there are significant implemen- cessful in balancing diverse viewpoints. In tation issues to be addressed. For instance, it these boards primacy is not usually given to is likely that a grants program could be imple- waste reduction. The lack of reliable informa- mented and industry’s reporting efforts started tion about waste reduction means that priority before mechanisms were put in place for mak- is given to waste management, ing the difficult decisions about regulatory concessions. A valid concern about conces- In order to ensure consistency nationwide, sions would be how to find the technical re- Congress might consider having EPA Regional sources to evaluate proposals from industry Administrators serve as members of boards properly and expeditiously. One action that within their jurisdictions. But considering the would help avoid creating a large bureaucracy site-specific character of waste reduction, na- might be to have professional and perhaps cer- tional consistency is less of an issue than it is tified engineers and consultants prepare key with, for example, the implementation of a pol- parts of both industrial plans for waste reduc- lution control regulation. If it is deemed essen- tion and proposals for regulatory concessions, tial to maintain consistency nationwide, how- including the assessment of environmental ben- ever, Congress could specify key features of the efits. Indeed, because of the recent upsurge in boards’ structure. environmental audits for compliance purposes, there is a growing interest in using certified Federal funding for operation of the boards environmental auditors as certified public ac- and for grants they might administer could be countants have been used for financial records. apportioned on some formula basis as part of The use of specialized third parties hired be- a budget authorization to EPA; such a formula cause of their qualifications in a particular area basis has been used in grants programs to States can be an effective substitute for increasing gov- under existing environmental programs. ernment staffs. Ch. 2—Po/icy Options . 71

Table 2-1 .—Interaction of Regulatory Agency and State Board: Regulatory Concessions

Government regulatory agency State Waste Reduction Board 1. Receives waste generator’s required 1, Same. reports and plans. 2. Receives requests from industry for 2. Same. regulatory concessions including fully detailed support documentation. 3. Makes initial determination that 3. (Board has no complementary role at regulatory concession is within legal this step.) powers of the agency to grant, and if positive, proceeds. 4, Prepares report on any loss in - 4, Receives regulatory agency’s report on environmental protection for environmental impact of concession. concession. Goes to Board. 5. Receives report on environmental t 5. Prepares report on environmental benefits of waste reduction prepared benefits of waste reduction. Goes to by Board. regulatory agency, 6. Receives recommendations from Board + 6. Makes recommendation on concession on granting or denial of regulatory to regulatory agency. concession. 7. Issues decision on regulatory concession. SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

Overall Evaluation government leadership that focuses on education, assistance, and persuasion and on un- As noted in the discussion of Option II, after swervingly granting institutional priority and the pros and cons of various specific actions backing to the effort. This option also implicitly have been discussed, the probable result of the acknowledges the significant influence of other overall strategy merits attention. If the Federal public and private efforts (e.g., State and local public policy goal is rapid and comprehensive programs, insurance and financial companies, hazardous waste reduction, then Option III is and environmental groups). These other efforts likely to be the most effective. The chief reasons do not, however, diminish the need for Fed- for this statement are: 1) that the limitations to eral leadership. They do suggest that a middle rapid and comprehensive waste reduction are course between the current voluntary approach not fundamentally technical or economic, and and a traditional regulatory one is likely to be 2) that waste reduction is not something indus- the most efficient and effective at this time. The try finds intrinsically unsound, To a large ex- reasons in the discussion of Policy Option I for tent, achieving this goal means getting out of not pursuing a major Federal initiative also sup- a rut; shaking our historic belief that environ- port the middle course. If the private sector ef- is mental protection best achieved through forts in combination with Option III did not end-of-pipe, pollution control techniques. OTA prove effective, then a more traditional regu- finds that rapid and comprehensive waste re- latory approach would be justified and could duction may be attainable with a minimum of be pursued. prescriptive requirements and a maximum of

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF POLICY OPTIONS

The three policy options can be put into per- The following are useful criteria: spective in two ways. First, criteria can be set up to evaluate them. Second, we can ask who 1. Environmental Benefit: The relative poten- finds each option attractive and why. tial of each option to reach a higher level of 72 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

environmental protection (than currently tion I gets the best overall rating and Option achieved) by hastening widespread, com- III the next best, They differ in all four criteria. prehensive, multimedia waste reduction. The chief strength of Option I is the low prob- relative difficulties that each op- 2. Costs: The ability of adverse effects, because no new action would face because of constraints on tions are taken. Its chief flaw is the low prob- Federal spending and on raising revenues ability of significant environmental benefits through new forms of taxes or fees. Costs because it does not address weaknesses in the of implementation for industry and gov- current approach, such as a lack of multime- ernment must also be considered. dia coverage, When only environmental bene- 3. Ease of Implementation: The relative fit is considered, this option gets the Zowest administrative and enforcement problems rating. and delays, and uncertainties about effectiveness, These difficulties result from add- The chief strength of Option III is that it offers ing new tasks to existing, already burdened a combination of only moderately adverse ef- environmental regulatory programs or from fects with the highest rating for environmental creating new programs and institutions. benefit. This highest rating derives mostly from 4. Adverse Impact on Industry: The relative the positive effects the grants program, new potential of each option to directly or in- multimedia legislation (to which waste gener- directly harm U.S. industries, particularly ators would have to conform in their required older, mature, and troubled ones. plans), and a new Office of Waste Reduction in EPA. The more speculative benefits of other While the first criterion is positive in nature, actions, such as regulatory concessions and the other three deal with the negative attributes State boards, were not taken into consideration. of the three options. Although more detailed The chief weakness of this option is that it re- criteria are possible, these four capture most quires implementation of new initiatives. of the concerns and issues surrounding the choices facing Congress. Nevertheless, it is pos- The chief weaknesses of Option II are: sible for OTA to offer only rough, qualitative— ● its potential for causing negative impacts and inescapably somewhat subjective—evalua- on some U.S. industries, because of the tions for each of the three options. It is OTA’S difficulties in using current environmental belief that no reliable data exist to perform regulatory programs for comprehensive quantitative analyses of the costs, benefits, and waste reduction; impacts of various policy options for waste re- ● the difficulties of setting a mandatory level duction. Because a number of actions within for waste reduction; options can be eliminated or transferred among ● the likelihood of high costs for implemen- options, it is even more difficult to make a quan- tation of a chemical survey, and perhaps titative evaluation. for enforcing a tax on wastes; and A summary evaluation using the four criteria ● its moderate potential for achieving envi- is given in table 2-2. As shown in the table, Op- ronmental be-nefits, chiefly because-of the

Table 2-2.—Comparative Evaluation of Policy Options

Policy optionsa I II Ill Improve No action existing programs New strategy Environmental benefit ...... Low Moderate High costs ...... None Moderate Moderate Ease of implementation ...... High Low Low Adverse impact on industry ...... Low High Moderate asee text for descriptions of options and specific actions included SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1966 Ch. 2—Po/icy Options ● 73

uncertainty of success in accomplishing duction than is possible under the voluntary multimedia waste reduction within the cur- approach, perhaps by mandating levels of re- rent environmental programs. duction while maintaining existing regulatory programs. This option is likely to be favored Finally, a general perspective is given for each by some environmental interests and some of the three options. The questions asked are: State officials. I) what is attractive about the option, and 2) what constituency would value that feature? Option Ill: New Strategy Option 1: Maintain Current Program This option is most attractive to those who This option is most attractive to those who want strong Federal Government support for want: 1) to maintain the voluntary approach waste reduction but to have it implemented as to waste reduction unless it is clearly docu- much as possible at the State level. They want mented to be ineffective; and 2) to keep new waste reduction to have very high priority, vis- actions on waste reduction by Congress and ible government commitment, and independent EPA to a minimum, until they can be better sup- statutory standing as part of developing a new ported by reliable information indicating that strategy for environmental protection, This op- the progress of waste reduction is slow because tion has no clear constituency because this ap- of current legislation and regulations, This op- proach has not yet been considered or openly tion is likely to be favored by some companies. debated. It is likely to appeal to those who find the current voluntary approach unacceptable Option 11: Improve Regulatory Programs but who have concerns about traditional prescriptive approaches and about EPA’s ability This option is most attractive to those who to tackIe waste reduction along with its existing want government to move faster with waste re- responsibilities and under its current mandates, Chapter 3

Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions Page Introduction...... 77 The Spectrum ofApproaches ...... 78 Five Broad Approaches to Waste Reduction ...... 78 Selection and Implementation ofWaste Reduction Approaches ...... 83 The Investment-Uncertainty Barrier ...... 84 Ilhstrations ofWaste Reduction ...... 85 A Growing Literature ...... 85 Generic Waste Reduction Opportunities ...... 87 The Limits of Examples ...... 91 Industry Decisionmaking About Waste Reduction...... g2 Conducting aWaste Reduction Audit ...... 92 Constraints and Incentives Affecting Waste Reduction Decisions ...... 94 How Much Waste Reduction Impossible...... 103 Why People Ask This Question ..,...... ,...... 103 Why Forecasts are Uncertain...... 103 Limited Expertise Problem ...... 104 Facility Siting Bias...... 104 Diffusion of and Access to Waste Reduction Technology ...... ,.....104 Competition l?rom Waste Management Alternatives ...... ,..105 Review occurrent Forecasts ...... 106 Conclusions ...... ,, .,.....0 ...... 109

Tables Table No. Page 3-1. Waste Reduction Case Studies ...... 86 3-2. Some Commercial Sources of Solvent Recovery Equipment...... 88 3-3. 1Potential for Waste Reduction Opportunities Across Different Industry Types. ....,...... 95 3-4. State Information Related to Waste Reduction ...... 107

Boxes Box Vo. Page 3-A, Waste Reduction by In-Process Recycling: Countercurrent Rinsing and Recycling of Caustic Soda From Thread Mercerization ...... 79 3-B. Waste Reduction Through Process Technology and Equipment Changes: Plastic Media Paint Stripping ...... 80 3-C. Waste Reduction Through Changes in Plant Operations: More Efficient Materials Handling ...... 81 3-D. Waste Reduction Through Changes in Process Inputs: Substitution of Water-Based Inks for Organic Solvent*Based Inks imprinting...... 82 3-E, Why Companies Fear Adverse Affection Product Quality Resulting From Waste Reduction...... 83 3-F. Possibilities for Reduction of Hazardous Waste From Manufacture of Acrylonitrile ...... +...... 90 Chapter 3 Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions

INTRODUCTION

The goals of this chapter are to discuss fac- fore, encompass a vast array of techniques and tors affecting the use of technology for waste actions that are useful and beneficial in ways reduction and to examine the scope, diversity, that frequently go beyond waste reduction. and applicability of waste reduction practices. Waste reduction can be thought of as a criterion to assess almost any industrial production tech- No attempt is made to give a comprehensive nology rather than as a unique technology, a description of proven or potentially effective machine, or even a field of expertise. waste reduction methods for different industries, processes, or wastes. Not only are there Two major implications arise from this con- many thousands of industrial processes and clusion. First, the selection of waste reduction wastes, but there are also important plant- technology requires a great deal of knowledge specific constraints of both a technical and eco- about the specific waste generating situation. nomic nature to waste reduction. Examples of This expertise has little to do with pollution con- successful waste reduction methods, are in- trol technology but everything to do with pro- structive, but technologies that are effective in duction processes, plant operations, and end one case may not be applicable for reduction products. The worker on the plant floor, the of other hazardous wastes. manager of the plant, the design engineer, the It is important to see waste reduction as part laboratory researcher, the purchasing agent, of the broader picture of industrial product and and everybody else who has a hand in produc- process improvement, modernization, innovation can see or explore opportunities to reduce tion, and expansion, not simply as a means to waste—if they have been made aware of the environmental protection. Waste reduction is need to do so. Waste reduction techniques run more accurately thought of as being related to, the spectrum from simple changes in day-to- dependent on, and a contributing cause of all day operations to wholesale redesign of proc- those steps that a ~ompany takes to remain com- ess technology or end product. Therefore, even petitive and profitable. It is just as sensible to though waste reduction is generally seen solely ask whether, and to what degree a company re- as an environmental protection activity, it is d uces hazardous waste as it is to ask how much not. Waste reduction serves environmental pro- R&D, energy conservation, or productivity im- tection goals, but it is fundamentally an improvement the company carries out, what its provement in production with beneficial effects accomplishments have been, and how these fac- that may be widespread. tors affect competitiveness and profitability. People outside of industry who are interested The phrase waste reduction technology in it- in waste reduction and have experience in the self can be misleading; the phrase deals more environmental area may take a narrow view with a goal of technology than with its techni- of waste reduction; frequently they neither have cal content. Some actions taken toward this goal familiarity with front-end industrial production may be related solely to waste reduction, but technologies and techniques, nor with their lim- most will be intimately related to production itations and opportunities. Conversely, produc- technologies, activities, or materials which have tion people may not have paid much attention some capability for reducing waste without that to the environmental developments that have being their primary function—that of making motivated the call for waste reduction. There- a profitable product that satisfies customer re- fore, making waste reduction a goal, motivating quirements. Waste reduction methods, there- and rewarding behavior that reduces waste, and

77 78 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste setting up an organizational structure that en- cussed in detail elsewhere) often related to tech- courages thorough examination of waste reduc- nology use and assessment are not easily under- tion opportunities are just as important as se- taken for waste reduction. These include: 1) lecting or designing waste reduction hardware. forecasting, even approximately, how much waste reduction is technically feasible for the Second, whenever something is done for the Nation, industries, or a specific operation; and purpose of waste reduction, there are likely to Z) suggesting how the government might re- be other consequences; these maybe just as sig- quire companies to achieve a given level of nificant, if not more so, than waste reduction waste reduction, itself. For example, worker productivity may increase as a result of one waste reduction ac- On the other hand, when the production con- tion; product quality might decrease as a re- text and purpose of waste reduction are under- sult of another action, For each plant, there are stood, it becomes clear that there are numer- costs, benefits, and site-specific constraints to ous opportunities to reduce waste. How much waste reduction which cannot be completely waste reduction is achievable depends both on predicted from experiences at other plants. The how much attention is given to it and on the feasibility of waste reduction is embedded in amount of waste reduction technology that ex- the entire production system in which it must ists. Human factors, organizational structure take place. of companies and government policies all have critical roles in waste reduction decisions. Suc- What all this means is that waste reduction cess in reducing waste begins with human per- activities are very open-ended and very diffi- ceptions of need and requires an examination cult to describe or assess comprehensively. A of a myriad of opportunities. further implication is that certain activities (dis-

THE SPECTRUM OF APPROACHES

Five Broad Approaches to Waste Reduction (see box 3-A). This approach is more applicable to liquid waste streams than to solids, Developing a scheme to group the technical sludges, or gases. Recycling as a means of waste approachs to waste reduction is important be- reduction is an integral part of the production cause the range is so great, There are several process.’ For example, at a Du Pent plant mak- ways to do this. OTA has chosen a scheme that ing Freon, hydrochloric acid waste was elimi- emphasizes opportunities and approaches for nated by installing a $16 million conversion unit waste reduction rather than types of industries to change anhydrous hydrogen chloride into or wastes, Five broad approaches that are appli- chlorine, which is recycled back into the proc- cable to almost all industrial operations have ess, and hydrogen, which is used as a fuel in been used,’ The following list gives these ap- the plants Carrier Air Conditioning Co. collects proaches in order of decreasing importance to the respondents to OTA’S industry survey (see —.—— _.—— app. A). ZThis should not be interpreted too narrowly. In some cases, such as a plant that produces a chemical, recycling a waste or its component is physically a part of the operation; that is, pipes Approach 1: In-Process Recycling can move waste from one end of the plant to a point near the front end in a closed-loop system. However, in other cases such Potential wastes, or their components, can as paint stripping or vehicle maintenance, recycling of a sol- be returned for reuse within existing operations vent or motor oil may take place within the same building, at a separate recycling unit, with the recycled material moved peri- ‘For example, the five approaches can be applied to farming odically for use elsewhere within the building, just as a purchased and mining. Pesticide runoff can be reduced by using a biologi- new raw material would be. cal rather than a chemical method of pest control. Changing min- sThe examples cited in this chapter come from a number of ing operations can prevent leachate from polluting nearby sur- recent reports, conference proceedings, and books referenced face water. elsewhere in this report. Ch, 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 79 —

Major limitations to in-process recycling Box 3-A.—Waste Reduction by In-Process include:

Recycling: Countercurrent Rinsing and ● Recycling of Caustic Soda From possible significant differences between Thread Mercerization recycled and virgin materials and the in- ability to use waste that maybe chemically In the late 1970s, a French textile company different than the raw materials, found that it could reduce the amount of caus- ● highly fluctuating market prices for virgin tic soda discharged in wastewater by altering raw materials, its rinsing process following mercerization to ● permit recycling of the soda. (In mercerization, the greater applicability to continuous vs. thread is immersed in a caustic soda bath con- batch processes, taining a wetting agent.) The company’s origi- ● amounts that are too small to justify invest- nal technology followed mercerization by rins- ment for new equipment, and ing the thread in three water baths that were ● the need in some cases to perform costly discharged after use. The waste reducing tech- steps to separate components before some nology replaces these baths with a stream of of the waste can be recycled. running water, Soda gradually concentrates in the rinse water until it is efficient and cost- Although in many cases in-process recycling effective to employ an evaporator that will ele- does not require substantial testing and devel- vate the soda concentration sufficiently to al- opment or capital investment, in other cases low the soda to be recycled back into the merit does. This waste reduction option is most cerizing process, along with the wetting agent closely related to pollution control, which in it contains. part explains its wide use (see below). The new technology reduces both the volume and the amount of hazardous waste gen- Approach 2: Process Technology and Equipment erated, per unit product. In the old method, 360 kilograms (kg) of soda in 80 cubic meters Significant changes in the basic technology (m3) of wastewater were created as waste for and equipment of production, including mod- each ton of thread mercerized. With the new 3 ernization, modification, or better control of technique, only 100 kg of soda in 13 m of process equipment may result in reduction of water are generated. The new process required waste (see box 3-B). Such reduction may also investments of 1,430,000 French francs, 330,000 come about through major changes in technol- francs more than the old process, but is cheaper to operate: 1,320 francshon of thread ogy (e. g., adopting a different way of making mercerized using the new process versus 2,OOO a commodity chemical or refining a metal-bear- francs/ton using the old process. The waste ing ore may reduce a company’s waste). For reducing process requires less energy (15.7 example, 3M replaced a chemical process to gigajoules (GJ)/ton of thread vs. 19.5 GJ/ton un- clean flexible metal electronic circuits with a der the old method) and less raw materials strictly mechanical process. Professor Ray- (only 170 kg of pure soda and 3.5 kg of wet- mond young of the university of Wisconsin ting agent are required per ton of thread as (Madison) has invented a new pulp-making opposed to 43o kg soda and 8.5 kg wetting process that does not use sulfites and has no agent required for the old process.) It also resources of air or water pollution; it is in the quires fewer man-hours to operate. pilot-testing stage, Lancy International de- SOURCE: United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe, Compendium on Low- and Non-Waste Technology signed a new process for Elkhart Products Inc. (Geneva, Switzerland: 1981), monograph #26. to remove oxide and passivate (render the surfaces chemically inactive) pipe fittings by using nonhazardous solutions instead of a cyanide a 1](1 rec}rc les the overspray i n its painting ope r- dip and a chromic acid dip, Amoco Chemicals a t ions. Diversified Printing Corp. and Donnel- Corp. modified a manufacturing process and Ic} Printing Co, recover and use 86 and 87 per- reduced its ignitable and oily wastes by 60 to (:ent respccti~’cl~’ of the organic sol~~ents in inks, 70 percent. 80 . serious Reduction of /-/~ardo”s waste

Box 3-B.—Waste Reduction Through Process Technology and Equipment Changes: Piastic Media Paint Stripping

Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, has developed an alternative technology for stripping paint from aircraft and ground support equipment. Paint is conventionally stripped from aircraft and ground support equipment with a solvent, typically an acidic methylene chloride solution, followed by scraping, washing [contaminating thousands of gallons of water), hand sanding, and buffing. Chemical stripping is expensive and time-consuming, releases noxious fumes into the workplace, and generates large amounts of hazardous waste. The alternative removes paint with modified conventiomd sandblasting equipment using recoverable plastic beads in lieu of sand. Waste from this process is only pulverized paint; the beads mixed with the paint dust are easily recovered for reuse in the process. The plastic media technology has some limitations. It does not strip rain erosion coating, can damage soft cadmium coating and windows, and care must be exercised in stripping carbon composite, fiberglass, and lightweight aluminum surfaces, However, these were considered minor limitations by Hill AFB. Mechanical stripping technology may be transferred to a wide variety of operations that currently clean and remove paint from metal objects with solvents. Summary of resulting changes (for stripping one F-4 aircraft): Chemical stripping Plastic media Waste generation: Hazardous solid ...... 9,767 lb sludge 320 lb dry waste Wastewater ...... 200,000 gal o Waste management costs: Hazardous solid (all trucked to California, cost $200/ton) ...... $ 967 $ 32 Wastewater treatment ...... $1,485 Investment ...... unknown $647,38~a Manhours required ...... 341 39 Raw materials cost ...... $5,422 $ 346 Energy costs ...... $ 231 $ 127

aFor stripping hanger: payback ia joat over 1 month baaarl on operation cod savings. SOURCE: DOD Environmental Leadership Project, Induatrhd Processes to Reduce Canersfion of Haaardous Waste at DOD Facilities, Phase 2 Report: Evaluation of 18 Case Studies, prepared by CH2MHill (T.E. Higgins), July 198!% pp. 3-29 to 3-48.

Major changes often require substantial tech- more nearly optimal and therefore reduced the nological development and perhaps capital in- amount of drying agent input material required vestment. It may be easier to make them when by 37 percent.q redesigning an entire process or designing a new plant or operation rather than as a modifi- Approach 3: Plant Operations cation to a part of an operating system. Better plant management or housekeeping However, equipment and technology changes can significantly reduce waste (see box 3-C). do not necessarily require a major process over- Examples of operation changes include: haul, Dow Chemical reduced both waste and ● improvements in ancillary plant operations costs in a crude-product drying system when such as better predictive and preventive it installed a computer and on-stream analyzer maintenance; to adjust the concentration drying agent in the flow, previously, sampling and lab analysis of the flow was done six times daily and a drying 4Ryan L)elca mbre, [low’ Chemical, “Dow Chemical Hazard- ous Waste M inimizat ion and 1 ncineration, ’ paper presented at agent was added by hand. The new automated a League of Women Voters conference, Lt’aste Reduction: The system is able to keep the ratio of drying agent Onguing Sfiga, INoods Hol[?, MA. June 4-6, 1986. Ch. 3— Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 81

Box 3-C.—Waste Reduction Through Changes in Plant Operations: More Efficient Materials Handling

Since 1982 Borden Chemical Co.’s Fremont, California, plant has reduced organics in its wastewater by 93 percent through four separate changes in its handling of phenol and urea resins, as follows: 1. Borden altered its method of cleaning the filters which remove large particles of resinous material as the resin product is loaded into tank cars. They began collecting the rinsewater instead of sending it down the floor drains and into the company’s onsite wastewater treatment plant. This rinsewater can be reused as an input in the next batch of phenolic resin. 2. When loading urea resin, they began reversing the loading pump at the end of each load so that resin on the filters would be sucked back into the storage tank and would not be rinsed out as waste. 3. The company revised rinsing procedures for reactor vessels between batches. Previously, 11,000 to 15,000 gallon chambers had been cleaned by filling them with water, heating and stirring the water to remove resin residues, and then draining the rinsewater into the plant’s wastewater. The plant now uses a two-step process. A small, first rinse of 100 gallons of water removes most of the residue from the containers. Then a second, full-volume rinse is used to complete cleaning. The first 100 gallons of rinsewater is reused as input material for a later batch of resin. Water from the second rinse is discharged as wastewater but has a lower phenol concentration than the previous volume of wastewater. 4. Procedures for transferring phenol from tank cars to storage tanks have been altered. Formerly, when the hose used to transfer the phenol from car to tank was disconnected, a small amount of phenol dripped down the drain—enough to cause problems given the strict regulatory limitation for phenol. Now, the hose is flushed with a few gallons of water to rinse the last bit of phenol into the storage tank. In addition to greatly reducing wastewater volumes, these changes have eliminated most of the hazardous solid wastes generated by the resin manufacturing processes because the company was able to discontinue use of the onsite evaporation pond to treat these wastewaters.

SOURCE: David Sarokin, et al., Cutting Chemical Wastes (New York: INFORM, 1985), pp. 97-102.

Q better handling of materials to reduce fu- For example, the Stanadyne Co. ’s metal plat- gitive emissions, leaks, and spills; ing operation reduced waste by int reducing a c changes in methods of cleaning equipment pause into the machine that mo~~es parts in and to avoid use of hazardous materials; out of tanks; this allowed dragout solution to ● better monitoring of process equipment for drip back into the process tank rather than pol- corrosion, vibration, and leaks; lute the rinsing tank. Exxon Chemical Americas ● more automation of processing; installed floating roofs over its tanks of vola- ● separation of waste streams to facilitate in- tile solvents, greatly reducing waste emissions. process recycling; Daly-Herring Co. replaced its single baghouse ● use of covers on tanks and other actions system with two separate systems for two pro- to reduce vapor losses; and duction lines of different pesticides so waste ● more use of sensing devices to detect and dust from each could be returned t o I)ro(iu(:- prevent nonroutine releases of wastes, tion. As these examples sho~i’, there are man} 82 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste simple, low-tech opportunities to reduce waste by examining plant operations. Often only parts Box 3-D.—Waste Reduction Through of waste streams are reduced, but implemen- Changes in Process Inputs: Substitution of tation is typically quick and inexpensive. Moti- Water-Based Inks for Organic Solvent-Based vated workers are the key to finding and ex- Inks in Printing ploiting these opportunities. In 1986 Cleo Wrap, the world’s largest producer of Christmas gift wrapping paper, com- Approach 4: Process Inputs pleted its conversion from organic solvent- based inks to water-based printing inks in all Changes in raw materials, either to different its operations. Organic solvent-based inks re- materials (e. g., water instead of organic sol- quired organic solvents for cleaning presses; vents) or materials with different specifications water-based cleaning solutions and soap will (e.g., lower levels of contaminants) may reduce now do the job. Because Cleo Wrap is so large waste. For example, Scovill, Inc., replaced the and manufactures such a variety of color de- solvent 1-1-1 trichloroethane with a water solu- signs, ink changes and press cleanups are fre- ble cleaner for decreasing applications. Riker quent and the amount of organic solvent be- Laboratories replaced organic solvents used to ing used was substantial. In 1984, the last year prepare coated medicine tablets with a water- of the 6-year phase-in of the water-based inks, Cleo Wrap was reporting 133,555 kilograms based solvent and also used different spray of ignitable hazardous waste. Annual hazard- equipment. Pilot studies have also shown that ous waste disposal costs were $35,000. Cleo process input changes may be used to reduce Wrap now plans to seek status as a small quan- wastes in mining. Nontoxic reagents have been tity generator. substituted for cyanide compounds in the proc- This substitution has had several benefits. essing of copper ores; similarly, alkalinity of It has made it possible for Cleo Wrap to re- processing reagents can be maintained by using move all eight of their underground storage reagents less toxic than ammonia, for exam- tanks, to eliminate all above ground solvent ple lime.5 storage, to reduce or eliminate fire hazards, to seek lower fire insurance premiums, to elim- Frequently, changing raw materials is asso- inate their ignitable hazardous waste holding ciated with making changes in process tech- area, and to eliminate their hazardous waste nology and equipment or in the composition disposal costs. of the end product. In box 3-D is an example This raw materials substitution required changing printing inks. of Cleo Wrap, a rela- some equipment changes and retraining of tively large company, made a major commit- employees to work with the water-based tech- ment over several years, developing a family nology because printing sequencing and dry- of new inks and changing printing equipment ing techniques are very different. The change to accept the new inks. Smaller companies may also required Cleo Wrap to persuade their ink be dependent on their vendors for changes in suppliers to develop a fill range of water-based raw materials, and vendors may not be able to ink colors that did not exist when the company make changes for waste reduction purposes un- undertook the change in 1978. less large waste generators help them develop SOURCE: Award presented at Governor’s Conference on Pollu- these new products. When the waste generation Prevention Pays, Nashville, TN, Mar. 4-6, 1986. tors are their own raw materials suppliers, changes are much easier. Approach 5: End Products Changes in the design, composition, or specifications of end products that allow fundamen- 5( 1,s, E nk, i ro II ment~ I Prot cction Agenc}., Report to L’on,gres.s: tal changes in the manufacturing process or in 11’astes from the .Extractiun and Ben.eficiation of .Lfetallic Ores, the use of raw materials can directly lead to Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, O\wrhurden from [ ~ranium Afining, and Oil S’hale, EPA/530-StV-85-033 (Wash i ngt on, D(1: Of’ f’i(’e of waste reduction. For example, 3M reformulated Solid Waste, I)cc. 31, 1985], p. 3-5. a product to use a nonhazardous organic ma- Ch, 3— Technology and Waste Reduction Dec/sions ● 83

Selection and Implementation of Box 3-E.—Why Companies Fear Adverse Waste Reduction Approaches Affects on Product Quality Resulting From Waste Reduction The tendency for industry to concentrate on in-process recycling and plant operations can Monsanto reformulated a specialized indus- be explained in several ways. First, recycling trial adhesive so that hazardous particulate and plant operation changes are add-ens. They remained in the product, thus eliminating the need to use and dispose of filters and partic- are similar to end-of-pipe techniques that engin- ulate as waste. However, the company then eers use to achieve conventional pollution con- had to convince its customers that the partic- trol goals. Thus, while these actions are part ulate matter formerly removed by the filters of production, they do not tend to involl’e major could remain in the product without affect- changes in process technology and equipment. ing its adhesive qualities. From the time the Second, recycling and plant operation company researchers came up with the idea of reformulating the product, z years of effort changes are also often the least expensive op- by Monsanto’s Research and Marketing Divi- tion, rarely requiring large capital investment sions was required before the reluctance of and usually bringing immediate returns. Al- the purchaser to accept a different product though recycling can be costly to set up, the was overcome and the change could be made. benefits of using the recycled material are relati~ely certain and easy to calculate. For exam- SOURCE: David Sarokln. et al., Cutting Chemical Wastes (New York: I.NFORM, 1985), p 89 ple, the consequences of using a recycled material instead of a virgin material can be figured out in a straightforward way, such as b~~ making trial runs with the recycled material to terial instead of a metal allo~’ in its manufac- check the processing parameters and product t ure, thus eliminating a specific cadmium-con- quality. taining hazardous waste. Third, these approaches are easy for engi- ‘1’his ap]]roach is difficult because of con- neers and plant workers at all levels to identify st raints imposed on the product by the cus- and are relatively easy to implement. They are tomer orb} performance specifications (see box also unlikely to disrupt plant operations and 3-E). Implementation may require significant risk product quality and, therefore, require lit- and costl}’ changes i n the production tech nol- tle attention from senior management. In fact, og~ or the ra~~r materials. For these reasons, this because these approaches are so simple, man- is the most difficult waste reduction approach agement may not track them. And because they to use. are easy to implement, they are difficult to doc- A variation on this approach was used by ument and unlikely to be emphasized in the L)oI\r Chemical when it changed the way it pack- literature. In sum, changing plant operations aged a product. A wettable powder insecticide, and in-process recycling usually poses little risk ~~~idel~’ used in the landscape maintenance and because neither the company’s product nor its horticulture business, was originally sold in 2- processes are significantly affected. pound metal cans which had to be decontami- Changing process technology, raw materials, nated prior to disposal, thereby creating a haz- and end products may require intensive engi- a rdous t~’aste. Dow now packages the product neering efforts and even R&D, may pose pos- in q-ounce \\’ater soluable packages which dis- sible risks for product quality and customer solt~e i~’hen the product is mixed ~~~ith water acceptance, and eventually may call for signif- for use.6 icant capital investment. Moreover, the effectiveness of these changes in terms of waste reduction may not be easily predictable. Most environmental engineers or plant operating 84 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

engineers have neither the training and exper- ature (see discussion later in this chapter) often tise nor the authority to implement such ac- provides economic data on costs and savings, tions. Nor are these opportunities apparent to which are virtually always very favorable and plant workers. To implement these kinds of illustrate a wide variety of ways in which waste changes, engineers and scientists who have reduction measures can provide high return on been concerned solely with industrial processes relatively small amounts of capital. While such and technology or with product development opportunities may not be available to all com- and design have to be given new responsibili- panies at all times, it is clear that a large amount ties and have to be educated and motivated to of waste reduction is possible and has been un- implement change for—but not restricted to— dertaken by companies without large amounts waste reduction. Company management has to of capital and with high returns on investment. become involved, either directing the attention of such people to waste reduction, making it This is true now, when most companies are a major criterion for success of company R&D in the early stages of waste reduction. How- efforts, or getting outside technical assistance ever, as interest in or pressure for waste reduc- to implement waste reducing changes. Older tion increases, a firm will exhaust the obvious, plants and mature industries are especially simple, cheap, and quickly implemented ways likely to have significant problems and face high of achieving this goal. The amounts of capital costs for waste reduction actions of this kind which must be invested to achieve further waste that involve significant changes in technology, reduction may increase. At the same time, cer- major equipment, and raw materials. tainty about the return on those investments is likely to decrease. Additional waste reduction Why, then, are process technology and equip- efforts will increasingly require changing the ment changes ranked second, both by indus- fundamentals of processes and product design tries in the OTA survey and in the literature? in new and untried ways. These more complex In spite of the difficulties and risks, waste re- measures are dependent on intimate knowledge ducing process and equipment changes are of specific, often unique, details of the plant’s sound economic investments for many com- technology, operations, and products. Compa- panies and can improve both their efficiency nies therefore cannot rely on outside informa- and profitability. Both the OTA survey and the tion and the experience of others but must take literature sampled extend across a broad cross- the risks of experimentation and implementa- section of industry, representing many indus- tion themselves. try types, not just the mature industries which can find process changes difficult. The popular- For most generators, a combination of greater ity of process changes indicates strongly that resource requirements and greater uncertainty serious, front-end waste reduction is possible about payoff become barriers to further waste in a wide variety of industries. reduction at some point. However, determining when this point has been reached may be a mat- The Investment-Uncertainty Barrier ter of perception and opinion. When someone says his company “can’t do any more waste The fact that waste reducing process and reduction,” he maybe thinking of waste man- equipment changes are frequently sound eco- agement approaches, or he may mean the com- nomic investments is indicated by the results pany has exhausted the obvious, simple, and of OTA’S industry survey and by economic data cheap techniques to reduce waste. To go fur- in the literature, OTA asked respondents in 99 ther would require more time and money, and companies to rank nine types of obstacles to willingness to invest despite uncertainty about waste reduction as to whether they were “usu- the waste reduction outcome. Moreover, some ally, “ “occasionally,” or “rarely” a problem in firms have trouble not only in implementing their operation (see app. A). Capital costs were basic production technology advances but even ranked as only an “occasional” obstacle. Waste in finding information about technical ap- reduction investment documented in the liter- proaches. In such cases, lack of attention to Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 85 waste reduction may be a symptom of a larger as stated earlier, such opportunities are fewer, problem, in mature industries. Older, troubled manufacturing industries, in In some sense, the evolution from simple and particular, may encounter the investment- cheap to complex and costly means to achieve uncertainty barrier early on. For many smaller waste reduction may be happening in the Na- companies with few technical resources and tion as a whole. This is a speculative statement with difficulties in raising capital, this barrier because not every industrial plant is starting may be virtually insuperable. To overcome the waste reduction at the same time or proceed- investment-uncertainty barrier and pursue ing at the same pace. However, because we what might be the most effective means of waste have had a voluntary approach to waste reduc- reduction, industry may need strong motivation, industrial efforts probably have concen- tion, either from within (e. g., greater tangible trated on the easiest approaches to waste re- management support) or from outside (e. g., duction, although some firms have progressed direct government assistance). further. Many firms may not have had enough time yet to implement fully even the easiest As will be discussed later, it is extremely dif- forms of waste reduction, much less to consider ficult to estimate waste even approximately re- or examine more costly approaches. Govern- duction potential. Hence, whether a plant-spe- ment policies and programs have not yet paid c ific barrier can be reasonably overcome or much attention to waste reduction, informa- whether some true upper limit to waste reduction and technology transfer are in early stages, tion has been reached—based on exploration and many industries are still just beginning to of all approaches—is very difficult to resolve. undertake waste reduction as an end in itself. It is difficult for the company’s management Nor has waste reduction become a major issue and even more difficult for someone on the out- for the public. This state of affairs underlines side, On the other hand, the evolution of most an important fact: waste reduction’s subor- product ion operations based on such objectives dinate position to pollution control and to the as modernization, innovation, and new prod- more traditional imperatives of the production uct development will provide a number of system has resulted in suboptimal levels of added opportunities for waste reduction. But, waste reduction.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF WASTE REDUCTION

A Growing Literature tail to give a thorough understanding of why Waste reduction is discussed in a rapidly ex- and how waste reduc~ion was carried o-ut. Often it is not clear what waste has been reduced, panding literature from the United States and how much it was reduced, by what method it several European nations. Most publications was reduced, or what the costs and benefits present case study examples of successful waste were. Second, the number of cases reported in reduction to illustrate its feasibility. The liter- the literature is limited; the same examples ap- ature does make a case for waste reduction— pear over and over again. Third, comparisons both for its desirability and for its feasibility– but it is probably not very useful to other com- between examples from one published source and another are difficult to make because there panies in their waste reduction efforts nor is are no generally accepted definitions of wastes it of much help to those outside of industry in or reduction. Many examples deal with non- assessing the transferability and limitations of hazardous wastes, particularly in European the techniques discussed. documents; in other cases only a RCRA defini- There are several reasons for the lack of use- tion of hazardous waste is used; ignoring wastes fulness. First, few accounts go into enough de- in air and water. Similarly, waste reduction 86 ● Serjous Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Table 3-1 .—Waste Reduction Case Studies

Waste reduction methods In-process Plant Process technology Process End Waste management Sources recycling operations and equipment inputs products methods Totals a ...... 19 16 11 5 0 22 74 b ...... 36 0 24 7 0 15 82 c ...... 36 0 17 2 0 10 65 d ...... 10 4 6 2 0 4 26 e ...... 6 10 18 2 2 1 39 f ...... 3 0 20 1 1 3 28 Totals...... 110 30 96 19 3 56 314 SOURCES Office of Technology Assessment, compiled from: a D Huisingh, et al., Proven Profit from Pollution Prevent/on (Washington, DC The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1985); b. Compendium on Low and Non-waste Technologies (Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 1981-84), four volumes, c. M. Overcash, Techniques for /rrdustria/ Pollution Prevention (Chelsea, Ml’ Lewis Publishers, Inc , 1988). Originally assembled and developed as /-es Tectr- rriques Propres clans /’/ndustde Francaise (Parts’ The Ministre Du L’Environnement, 1982); d. Department of Defense, Environmental Leadership Project, Industrial Processes to Reduce Generation of f+a?ardous Waste at DOD Facilities, Phase 2 Report: Evaluation of 18 Case Studies, prepared by CH2MHill (T E. Higgins), July 1985, e. D Sarokin, et al., Cutting Cfremica/ Wastes (New York: INFORM, 1985), and f Federal Minister for Research and Technology (DFVLR), Environrnerrta/ Protect/on Technologies (Cologne, West Germany DFVLR, December 1984). (Note that this last volume documents ongoing research rather than industrial application of technologies.) definitions often include what is actually waste popularity of this approach among industries management. Examples of waste reduction in surveyed by OTA.g the literature may also include simple volume reduction (e. g., dewatering of a sludge) with no The distribution of approaches in the litera- reduction of hazardous content, ture is similar to the ranking of approaches by companies surveyed by OTA. In-process recy- In order to gain some insight into the litera- cling and technology lequipment changes are ture, OTA analyzed six references which of- by far the most common method of reducing fered the most detailed and useful accounts of wastes, followed by plant operations or house- hazardous waste reduction. Table 3-1 shows the keeping changes. Input substitutions are rare; distribution of case studies in these six docu- end-product reformulations are by far the least ments across the five different waste reduction common method of reducing waste. As dis- approaches available to industry, Table 1-2 in cussed above, the recycling and operations chapter 1 shows the distribution of these same changes have an add-on character which makes cases across Standard Industrial Category them relatively easy to implement with little (SIC).7 Of the 314 examples included in the six risk, Process and equipment changes are usu- sources which dealt with a broad category of ally more difficult and risky to implement, but hazardous waste,a 110 of them described in- the potential payoff for such changes in terms process recycling measures, 96 describe proc- of increased efficiency and reduced costs can ess and equipment changes, 30 describe oper- be very large, The frequency with which such ations changes and 19 describe input substitu- changes are documented in the literature indi- tions. Only 3 of the 314 cases were end-product cates that major front-end waste reduction ac- reformulations, which is consistent with the un- tions are both possible and profitable for a very wide range of industries,

The distribution of cases across SICS illustrates the wide range gIt is worth noting that even these three are not particularly of industries that have become involved in waste reduction. How- good examples of waste reduction by end product reformula- ever, the distribution should not be taken as any conclusive dem- tion. The two INFORM examples both involve eliminating filtra- onstration of waste reduction activity or lack thereof in any par- tion of a hazardous particulate from an adhesive so that it is ticular industry. Three of the the six compendia focus on only passed on in the product—a change of questionable overall envi- a few or even just one (1 NFORM) SIC category and therefore ronmental benefit. The other example in the German compen- make no attempt to be representative. dium—an investigation into possible substitution of aluminum %50me examples in the literature deal with waste heat and with for cadmium in electroplating—is a piece of R&D done in a univer- nonhazardous wastes, for example from food processing. These sity research institute, not an example of successful waste re- were not included in OTA’S tally. duction in industry. Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 87

Generic Waste Reduction Opportunities ties here, although in some industrial processes development work will be necessary, includ- Another way to illustrate waste reduction oping major or minor changes in plant equipment. portunities is by examining those that apply to common hazardous wastes or industrial oper- Organic solvents can also be replaced by ma- ations. While it is correct that there are impor- terials other than water to reduce waste. For tant site-specific constraints to waste reduction, example, Merck, Sharp & Dohme has been suc- many successful practices, which generally cessful in replacing some organic solvents with have paid for themselves within a period of inexpensive inorganic acids and bases in phar- month’s to a few years, can be adopted by a maceuticals manufacture. They report that the broad range of companies and industries, Dis- substitute process has eliminated 300,000 gal- cussions of several of these practices follow, lons of methanol and 300,000 gallons of hex- ane a year in the manufacture of one product. Replacement of Organic Solvents This and other manufacturing changes reduced the company’s generation of chemical wastes There are a number of successful examples by 5(J percent over 4 years. Recycling of 2.6 mil- of companies that have cut their costs and lion pounds a year of methylene chloride meant hazardous waste problems by changing from a per pound savings of 24 cents for raw mate- materials that contain large amounts of organic rial costs and 35 cents for incineration. solvent,lo such as inks, to ones based with water. There are also a number of examples of switches In-Process Solvent Recovery from pure organic solvents to water-based cleaning agents. This approach competes in Solvent recovery falls within the definition popularity with in-process recycling of organic of waste reduction in this report as long as the solvents, which is also widely applicable and recovery equipment is used in conjunction with on the rise, but the substitution approach is a process equipment or within the waste gener- better example of waste reduction. ating activity area. In-process solvent recovery is widely used as an alternative to replacement Material substitution can eliminate, not just of organic solvents to reduce waste generation. reduce, a particular waste stream and can also It is attractive because, like end-of-pipe pollu- eliminate other problems, such as contamination control measures, it requires little change tion from leaking underground storage tanks in existing processes. The widespread commer- and worker exposure to the original solvent. cial availability of solvent recovery equipment However, problems with product quality may is another attractive feature. Availability of result; for example, a great deal of develop- equipment suitable for very small operations, ment was necessary before water-based paints particularly batch operations, may make in- achieved levels of color quality and durability process recovery of solvents financially prefer- similar to the solvent-based paints they re- able to raw materials substitution for such placed, By now there has been a record of so firms, but for most companies the relative eco- many successes in this type of substitution that nomic advantages of in-process recovery are a broad shift on the part of suppliers from or- less clear. ganic solvents to water-based products for industry is likely, although organic solvents will Commercially available solvent recovery continue to be considered essential or prefer- equipment for in-plant use is summarized in able in certain applications. This shift will espe- table 3-2. The functioning of each of these cially benefit smaller firms that can buy the new pieces of equipment is based on one or more products and cut their waste generation, There of the following methods: appear to be many waste reduction opportuni- c Carbon adsorption of solvent, subsequent lo~rxarli(; sol~[;nts in(;lu(if; methan{)l, hexanc, toluf:ne, meth\l- removal of the solvent by steam, and sepa- enc chloride, Freons, xylenc, chloroform, isopropanol, acetoni- ration of the solvent for reuse in the oper- tri]c, tri(:hloro(;ttl~l(;n[;,” and rnan~ other cr)mp[)IIn(l\, ation. This process works best with sol-

62-636 () - 86 - 4 : 01, 3 88 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Table 3-2.—Some Commercial Sources of Solvent Recovery Equipmenta

Carbon adsorption: Distillation/condensation (continued): AMCEC Corp. (Oak Brook, /L): Custom designed and pack- Pope Scientific, Inc. (Menomonee, VW): Uses a vacuum dis- aged systems. A new process reduces resorption stream tillation process. Capacity of up to 200 gal/day. requirements from the conventional 3 or 4 lb steam/lb of Sauk Va//ey Equipment Co. (Rock Fa//s, /L): Can distill 15 solvent to 2 lb steam/lb of solvent recovered, or less. gal/shift at a cost of 4 to 10 cents/gal. Dedert Corp. (0/ympia Fie/ds, /L): Equipment and systems Progressive Recovery, Inc. (Co/urnbia, /L): Distills all common feature new technology to reduce energy consumption to solvents up to a boiling point of 5000 F with vacuum assist less than 1 lb of steam/lb of solvent recovered for large- at a cost of 5 to 8 cents/gal. scale operations. Investment recovered quickly, often in pbr /ndustries (West Baby/on, NY): Two portable batch sizes less than 24 months. (5 and 14 gal) recycle 90 percent of solvent (acceptable feed Hoyt Manufacturing Corp. (Westport, MA): Can recover 85 to includes paint thinners, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated 95 percent of solvent with payback in less than 1 year. solvents) automatically in a few hours. No pressure valve; Met-Pro Corp. (Systems Division, Harleysville, PA): Either costs less than 5 cents/gal. Special additive allows sludge granular or fiber carbon used. reclamation and production of low-cost rubberized under- Ray So/v, /nc. (Piscataway, NJ): Regeneration of carbon coating or gravel guard. achieved by purging the adsorber with an inert gas in new Scrubbers, other methods, or operating principle not known: system. This can reduce cost by 50 percent and energy re- Cai/cote (f3erea, OH): Scrubber uses a proprietary high boil- quirements by 35 percent over conventional systems. ing point organic liquid that is regenerated and recycled. Steam resorption system offers recovery efficiencies of Stripper column has a fractionation section and a con- 99 percent. denser. Process is continuous. Vara /nternationa/, /nc, (1/ero Beac/?, ~L.): Uses pelletized car- Tri-mer Corp. (Owosso, M/): A wet scrubber system for vari- bon bed and automatically controlled systems. ous types of industrial sources which can be combined with Distiiiation/condensation: other devices, such as a distillatiordconden sation device, Edwards Engineering Corp. (Pompton Plains, NJ): System for solvent recovery. based on direct condensation by refrigeration. Vapors are Detrex Chemica/ /ndustries (South fie/d, M/): Modular approach passed over cold condensing surfaces where solvent which can be used with most chlorinated and fluorinated vapors condense and are collected as a liquid and returned solvents. Many systems have paybacks of less than 1 year. to product storage. Venus Products, /nc. (Kent, WA): Systems can recover95 per- Finish Engineering Co. (Erie, PA): Feat ures one button oper- cent of solvent and up to 4 barrels per sh ift with automatic ation and no operator requirement. barrel filling. Hoyt Manufacturing Corp. (Westport, MA): Distillation sys- Union Carbide (Danbuty, CT): Recovery efficiencies of up 99 tem recovery efficiency of 98 percent; completely auto- percent in large systems which can pay for themselves in matic, continuous process. about 2 years. Recyc/ene Products, Inc. (South San Francisco, CA): Small volume (5 gal) distillation recovery system available. aThi~ table is for illustrative ~urpo~e~, The appearance of a technol~gy in this table should not be construed as a recommendation or endorsement by OTA SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, based on Information supplled by companies and P.M Cheremisinoff, Pollutlon EnglrJeering, June 1986, pp. 26-33

vents that are immiscible with water and Dissolving the solvent in another material when only a single solvent is being recov- (i.e., scrubbing) can be used. The solvent ered. Since the carbon must be regener- must then be recovered from the resulting ated, two or more units are required to keep solution, for example through distillation the operation continuous. There can be and condensation. Efficiency of removal problems and costs associated with hydro- is often not high with this method. chloric acid formation from chlorinated solvents, carbon bed plugging by particu- Mechanical Instead of Liquid Processes late, and buildup of certain volatile organics on the carbon, Whenever liquids are used to transfer or re- ● Distillation and condensation are used to move material, it maybe possible to accomplish separate and recover the solvent from other the job by a mechanical means. For example, liquids. Removal efficiency can be very metal beads can replace a caustic solution to high with this process. It can be used for remove dirt or oxide on metal parts. Some types solvent mixtures as well as single solvent of plating can be done mechanically rather than streams. with traditional electroplating methods. Paint Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 89 can be removed by bombardment with plastic been so low that it is has been used with little or metal beads rather than by using solvents. thought of the hazardous waste consequences. Nonmechanical sources of energy can also re- There are probably almost countless opportu- place liquid chemicals; for example, the Air nities to cut down on waste created by the con- Force has developed a high-intensity flashing tamination of process water, but there are also light to strip paint from aircraft wings. obstacles. See box 3-F for an illustration of both the possibilities for and the limitations on re- Preventing Vapor Losses duction of wastewaters created in the manufacture of acrylonitrile. Often it is possible to prevent hazardous air emissions by the simplest of techniques while When water is used strictly for the removal realizing large cost savings on raw materials. of heat, then heat pump or refrigeration sys- Since there are often no government regula- tems based on circulation of coolants in a tions on control of toxic fugitive emissions, closed-loop can be used instead. The problem often little thought has been given to the sub- with using cooling water is that chemical agents ject, although it is easy to design equipment that are added to minimize bacterial growth and will do the job. For example, Exxon Chemical slime buildup on cooling coils; such agents may, Americas reduced emissions by 85 percent or for example, contain chromium, which even- more with floating roofs on open tanks of vola- tually renders the water hazardous. tile materials, Other techniques include: install- In many industrial operations water is used ing condensers in or near operations to turn as a solvent, but organic solvents can be so vapors into liquids, which are easily reused; in- much more potent that reductions in water use creasing the height of vapor degreaser tanks of two or three orders of magnitude maybe pos- to increase the distance between the vapor and sible. The higher initial cost can be more than the top of the tank; and using automatic tank offset if the organic solvents are cleaned and covers that close between each decreasing oper- recycled, Recycling can also facilitate removal ation. Another approach is to convert from and possible reuse of the dissolved materials. batch to continuous process. For example, As the cost of managing hazardous wastewa- Monsanto changed polystyrene production ter increases, the use of organic solvents might some years ago from batch reactors to a closed- increase. system continuous process. As a result, air emissions dropped from 5 percent of total pro- Another major industrial use of water is as duction to less than 0.02 percent. a medium for precipitation. The result is wastewater that may contain I to 15 percent dissolved Reducing the Use of Process Water hazardous inorganic salt. Precipitation for product recovery might be replaced by separa- Remarkably large volumes of hazardous aque- tion techniques such as membrane technology, ous waste result from the widespread use of water to transfer heat and materials, particu- Large quantities of water are used for clean- larly in the cleaning of equipment in batch ing, and a good example of reduction is to processes. For the most part, these wastes are replace high-volume streams of water for clean- extremely dilute solutions with very low con- ing tanks, equipment, and products with sys- centrations of hazardous substances—so low tems that use much smaller amounts cyclically. that it is not practical to remove and reuse them. Other approaches include pressurized water or Either the aqueous waste is managed as a RCRA drip tanks to collect chemicals rather than a waste or it is put through a water treatment water tank; counterflowing multiple rinse tanks; plant that typically either creates sludge for land and squeegees to remove residues. Smaller disposal or releases hazardous air emissions. pipes or flow restrictors will inhibit workers Historically, water has been so cheap and the from wasting water. Yet another approach is costs of managing dilute aqueous wastes have to schedule batch processing to maximize back- 90 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste — . —

likm 3-F.-Possibilities for Reduction of Hazardous Water From Manufacture of Acrykmitrile

In 1985 acrylonitriie ranked 38th in the list of the top 50 chemicals made in the United States, ranked 2oth out of the 26 organics on the 1ist, and had the highest growth rate of the organics from 1975 to 1985 with an annual average rate of 6.8 percent. Production in 1985 was 2.35 billion pounds (1.1 million metric tons).1 For each metric ton of acrylonitrile product manufactured, 2.3 metric tons of process water and 400 metric tons of cooling water are used.z Procam Water.-Water is used primarily as a quench neutralizer to cool the reactor effluent and neutralize any unreacted ammonia. Sulfuric acid is added to process water, and the acid solution is added directly to the quench neutralizer tower to effect very rapid cooling. Effluent from the quench tower is aqueous waste, essentially an ammonium sulfate solution. Based on the production rate of acrylonitrile, an estimated 2.5 million metric tons of process wastewater is generated annually. This is roughly 1 percent of the national hazardous waste stream. The disposal cost of the wastewater is estimated at $3o to $60 per metric ton of product based on using deepwell injection for waste disposal; the product cost is estimated at $560 per metric ton. Possibilities for Waste Reduction.-A process technology change is difficult because the process water serves two purposes: it cools the reactor effluent and serves as the medium for neutralizing the excess ammonia. Indirect cooling via a heat exchanger would probably not be rapid enough to replace the direct qpench, and use of a heat exchanger surface might lead to the formation of tars or other undesirable side reactions. Moreover, indirect cooling would not accomplish neutralization of the excess ammonia. To change the acrylonitrile manufacturing process to eliminate or reduce process wastewater would constitute a major change. A large research effort might be required with a pilot and demonstration project and might take 5 to 10 years at considerable cost. Since the cost of the process wastewater is only 5 to 10 percent of the total production costs, such an effort is not attractive. If wastewater management costs were significantly higher, say twice or three times as much ($60 to $180 per ton of product), perhaps because of shifting from injection wells to treatment, then the effort might be justified. Cooling Water.– For every gallon of cooling tower water circulated, a small fraction called blowdown is discarded to remove the buildup of slime and solids which accumulate during recirculation. This blowdown contains toxic chemicals used as bactericide and fungicides and is a hazardous waste. A typical blowdown ratio is about 0.5 percent of the circulation rate. For each 400 metric tons of cooling water used per ton of product, z metric tons of blowdown wastewater is generated. Thus, about 2.2 miilion metric tons of this wastewater is generated annually. Disposal cost of the wastewater ranges from about $26 to about $52 per metric ton of product, or 5 to 10 percent of product cost. Possibilities for Waste Reduction.—Here the water serves only one function, cooling. An alternative could be the use of a heat pump cycle to reject heat to the environment from a closed-loop coolant refrigeration system. After the coolant was used to cool the process, it would be compressed to a higher temperature and pressure and then passed through a radiator that would reject the heat to the environment. The operating costs for cooling would be from $17 to $60 per metric ton of product.a The costs for managing the traditional coooling wastewater, if injection well costs are from $0.05 to $0.10 per galion, are $26 to $52 per hour per ton of product. (This cost could increase if a waste management shift occurred from deepwell injection to waste treatment.) There is a clear potential for saving perhaps $2o per ton of product if closed-loop, efficient refrigeration were used instead of conventional watercooling. For a 100,000 ton per year plant this means a saving of about $2 million annually. Assuming that the capital costs of the refrigeration system might be at most about 10 percent of the original capital costs of the pIant, $5o million, then payback would occur in a few years.

IChemicel & Engineering News, Apr. 21, 1$S6. +lydrocarbon Processing, May 1977, p. 171, Data based on Montedison-UOP process, which differs from the more widely used SOHIO process primarily because of a different catalyst. However, similar water use and wastewater generation can be assumed for both. ~The operating costs can be estimated making the following assumptions: 1) cooling water temperature rise of 12° F, Z) coefficient of performance ranges from 2 to 7, and 3) energy costs are $c).04 per kilowatt-hour. —-—— ——

Ch. 3—Techno/ogy and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 91 — to-back production of’ products, thereby mini- The Limits of Examples mizing washdowns. Hundreds of case studies and examples of In many of these approaches a smaller vol- waste reduction in the United States and abroad ume of water with more highly concentrated document the technical feasibility and eco- contaminants is generated. This water some- nomic benefits of a variety of approaches in times can be directly recycled into production a wide span of industries. Yet it is difficult to systems or can be economically treated to re- know whether individual examples and case cover valuable components, such as metals and studies represent the rule or the exceptions in oils, for recycling back into the process, For current industrial practice. It is a situation in example, Borden Chemical Co, stopped filling which those who have achieved success are en- reactor vessels with water to clean them and couraged to speak of it publicly, while those instead used 5 percent of the previous volume that have not remain silent. for the initial rinse, allowing a concentrated solution of phenol resins to be recycled back In many of these published examples no data into production. or very limited data are given on the total waste context in which one or more specific wastes There is an array of technologies under de- were reduced, and if any data are given for ac- velopment to separate and remove valuable sub- tual waste reduction they are hardly ever given stances from wastewater. These include: mem- in terms of production output or environmental brane technologies such as electrodialysis, risk reduction. It is not always clear whether reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, liquid mem- some of the waste is not simply being trans- branes; adsorption technologies that use a va- ferred from one environmental medium to riety of materials such as activated carbon; and another or whether a new hazardous waste is bubble and foam separation. One or more of being generated in place of the old one, these techniques might be applicable to a particular waste stream. An unfortunate limitation of waste reduction examples is that the generic opportunities are Another important aspect of recovering con- often not recognized. A reader notes the par- taminants is that many of these technologies ticular industry being discussed and if it is not allow the use of closed-loop systems in which his industry, he needs imagination to see that process water is recycled rather than being the waste reduction method might still be appli- passed through the system a single time. In cable. If the examples were redrafted to put some locations, such approaches are attractive them into functional or general terms it might simply because they drastically cut water con- be easier to transfer waste reduction measures sumption. Moreover, this approach can elimi- across industries. nate the generation of large amounts of sludge in water treatment plants. Most importantly, the literature contains next to nothing about failed waste reduction efforts, Many different types of industries, not merely nor does it provide detail on how problems were the chemical industry, could explore opportu- solved in cases that were ultimately success- nities to reduce wastewater volumes. For ex- ful, Moreover, human and organizational fac- ample, a recent development concerns spent tors that went into a waste reduction decision metalworking fluids. After 4 years of labora- are rarely discussed, even though these can be tory research and field trials, Eaton Corp. in- as instructive as technical and economic infor- stalled a patented system in a number of loca- mation. Rarely is there attention paid to which tions to totally recycle its metalworking fluids internal or external factors, such as corporate in-plant. All this spent metalworking fluid, policy or government regulations, had a major which contains 95 percent water, is reused and role in the success of the effort. it is claimed that the system can be used any- where, regardless of operating conditions, Pre- Overall, the waste reduction literature and sumably the system will be marketed to other conversations with people in industry point to companies. two conclusions: first, that waste reduction is Q . serious Reduction of H~ardous Waste widespread, diverse, substantial, and economi- waste reduction becomes a major industrial cally justified; and second, that more can be goal and a criterion of industrial efficiency in done. Traditionally, waste reduction has been its own right, opportunities not previously con- considered only as a consequence or byproduct sidered viable will be acted on and new oppor- of work to improve yields and efficiency. As tunities for waste reduction will be identified. was the case with energy conservation, once

INDUSTRY DECISIONMAKING ABOUT WASTE REDUCTION

There is no standard method by which com- Such a comprehensive examination of oper- panies make decisions about waste reduction. ations requires a broad scope of expertise, prob- For the most part, waste reduction has been ably beyond that of any one person in a com- carried out on an ad hoc basis. A troublesome pany, Review of all processes and operations or costly waste is identified and specific action for all five types of waste reduction opportuni- is undertaken to reduce or eliminate its gener- ties requires familiarity, not only with environ- ation. Wastes are often reduced by process im- mental requirements and waste management provements in which waste reduction is only a activities, but also with process engineering, minor consideration. However, as waste reduc- operations, and product design. A waste reduction begins to appear and rise on the agendas tion audit is best carried out by a group of peo- of CEOS as an issue in its own right, system- ple, each one with expertise in a different one atic audits are beginning to be developed to of these areas; an environmental engineer alone guide comprehensive waste reduction. cannot do it. Involving people from different parts of the Conducting a Waste Reduction Audit company in the waste reduction audit has the Waste reduction audits are distinct from envi- added advantage of increasing consciousness ronmental audits. Environmental audits are of the need for waste reduction. It can stimu- compliance audits—they are internal reviews late employees to think about methods of re- of a company’s operations aimed at meeting ducing waste and help shift thinking away from environmental requirements such as RCRA and the pollution control focus.lz the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.11 Waste The comprehensiveness of waste reduction reduction audits are systematic, periodic inter- audits and the types of actions that will emerge nal reviews of a company’s processes and oper- from them also depend heavily on the way ations designed to identify and provide infor- terms are defined, Depending on how waste mation about opportunities to reduce wastes. reduction is defined, the audit may or may not They provide a useful tool for companies un- review waste in all environmental media, fo- dertaking systematic, comprehensive waste re- cus on reduction of waste generation at the duction. source, and measure reduction on a product output basis.ls l:F~r more information on environmental auditing see, U.S. . Congress, General Accounting Office, HAZARDOUS VVASTE: IzSee D. H Uisingh, et al., Proven Profits from po)]ution pre- Federal Civil Agencies Slow to Comply with Regulatory Require- vention (Washington, DC: The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, ments (Gaithersburg, MD: May 1986), pp. 51-59. Also, U.S. Envi- ]uly 1985), p. 15. A hierarchy for pollution prevention strategies ronmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Auditing Policy is also presented here which places waste audits at the top. Statement, ” 50 Federal Register, Nov. 8, 1985; K. Geiser, “Criti- IsVery often, waste reduction audits are based on the EPA term cal Elements of a Waste Reduction Plan, ” paper presented at waste minimization which gives equal status to reduction and Government Institutes Conference on Hazardous and Solid Waste recycling and so will identify such actions as equally valid op- Minimization, May 8-9, 1986, esp. p. IV-10; and M.A. Smith, A tions, regardless of which poses a greater environmental risk. Handbook of En~’ironmental Auditing Practices and Perspec- Often, too, waste reduction audits concentrate on RCRA wastes ti~es in JVorth Carolina (Chapel Hill, NC: Institute for En\’iron- or wastes destined for land disposal and review other emissions mental Studies, 1985). only incidentally, These two problems are exemplified by the (continued on next page) Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 93

Because waste reduction audits are new, they of a hazardous substance going out in the prod- take a variety of names and forms. Among com- uct from the amount purchased as raw mate- panies that have started auditing, each tailors rial (and taking into account reaction processes its review to its own peculiar needs, Consult- and products), a company should be able to cal- ing firms that have begun marketing waste re- culate how much of the substance is generated duction auditing each packages its procedure as waste. However, accounting for all of the a little bit differently.la However, OTA was able waste streams, emissions, leaks, and spills in to identify a series of basic analytic steps in most the operations usually requires a great deal of systematic audits. The order of the steps may time and many resources, and such procedures vary and two or more may be combined, but are generally considered only when an action each of these points must be considered in any is required on a particular substance of con- comprehensive and systematic waste reduction cern. Even for a small manufacturing opera- analysis, tion, compiling and updating mass balance information on even one hazardous substance in Step 1: Identification of Hazardous Substances the plant can be a big job. Moreover, no infor- of Concern in Wastes or Emissions mation specific to a process may be obtained from a mass balance done on a plant basis, This analysis may be done at radically differ- Chapter 4 discusses in more detail practical ent levels of detail. difficulties with conducting mass balance cal- Level I:—Companies may make only a very culations of sufficient sensitivity to be useful gross analysis of the contents of their wastes. for waste reduction, This occurs commonly in some small businesses which may not have the people, money, Step 2: Identification of the Source(s) of or knowledge to conduct detailed analyses and the Hazardous Substance(s) of Concern collect detailed data. In practice, this stage of Identifying the process source of the waste review may be no more than the realization that for a specific product is essential. Without a company is wasting a great deal of a chemi- knowing which processes are generating which cal. The focus in such cases is on quantities wastes a company cannot know what actions of particular wastes. are required to reduce those wastes. Uncover- Level 11:—Companies may systematically con- ing this information may take time and reduct chemical analyses of all their wastes over sources and may be made more difficult by a given time (especially important in batch proc- accounting methods a company uses. If waste esses where wastes vary) to get more precise management costs, for example, are routinely data about both chemical composition and charged to some general environmental oper- amounts of waste. The difficulty here lies in ation, then the connection between waste and identifying and measuring all wastes, includ- production process and product may not be ing all fugitive emissions, leaks, and spills. apparent. Level Ill:—Companies can do mass balances on Step 3: Setting Priorities for hazardous substances, By subtracting the amount Waste Reduction Actions (i ontlnufd from pret ious page) Companies must decide which types of waste t~a~te reduction audit procedure found in C.H. Fromm and M .S. (Llllahan, “Waste Reduction Audit Procedure-A hlethodologj to target for reduction and at which points in f [Jr Identification, Asswisment an(l Screening of t~aste hlinimi - which processes, In practice, this may be an zat ion options’” paper presented at a Hazarrfo~ls hlatcrials Con- independent, external decision directed for ex- tro) R(?sear(.h Institute c:onff?rf?n(, e, Atlanta, (;A. hlar. ~-[>, 1 $)8(; ,] 14S(~f:, for exam pl~~, K. II. I’olaseh, Chas. ‘I’, \la in, 1 n(,,, “(JoIl- ample, by government regulations, rather than (Iu(,t I ng a \\’a stc \l i n I m izat if)r) A u(f it. /l[lZiiI’(l[)llS t~Il

Step 4: Analysis and Selection of Technically and Proven technologies and the opportunities in- Economically Feasible Waste Reduction Techniques dustries have for waste reduction do not themselves guarantee these technologies will be After a waste is targeted for reduction, the used. Factors that affect the ability and will- problem of choosing one or more feasible waste ingness of companies to implement waste re- reduction techniques remains, Different tech- duction measures include: niques will offer different levels of effectiveness at a different cost and at differing levels 1. the nature of the company’s industrial of risk, If there is no pressing reason to reduce processes, one waste rather than another, companies may 2. the size and structure of the company, decide to take action first on the wastes that 3 technology and information available to are the easiest and least costly to reduce and the company, postpone the more difficult waste reduction 4 attitudes and opinions that affect company problems for later, A great deal depends on the operations, information base obtained, the technical re- 5 the economics of waste reduction, and sources, and the economic circumstances of 6 government regulations. the particular firm. Whether these factors serve as constraints or incentives for waste reduction will vary even Step 5: Economic Comparison of Waste Reduction among different plants within the same company. Alternatives to Waste Management Options Because the Federal Government’s current Once attractive waste reduction alternatives waste minimization program is voluntary (see have been identified, they still must be proven ch. 5), the degree to which these factors moti- preferable to pollution control. In most com- vate or deter industry from waste reduction has panies, waste management is the known, safe determined the amount of waste reduction ac- option that provides a clear result for an invest- complished to date, Understanding these con- ment and creates minimal disruption and risk straints and incentives is therefore essential for to production operations. For most firms, waste formulating Federal policy. They will affect reg- reduction is a newer approach that has the po- ulatory options, for example, because the eco- tential for widespread effects including inter- nomics of waste reduction in different indus- ference in process operations and possible al- tries may influence the decisions government terations of product quality. Waste reduction makes about mandating levels of waste reduc- may, therefore, be perceived as economically tion, However, these elements of industrial risky by industry decisionmakers, decisionmaking are particularly important in assessing nonregulatory Federal policy options. Step 6: Evaluation of the Progress and Success Nonregulatory programs rely on persuasion of Waste Reduction Measures rather than on coercion to influence decisions. This step is critical to the disposition of the The following analysis attempts to shed light company to take further action to reduce waste. on: 1) the relative importance of these factors Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 95 in different situations, 2) the relationship among reduction to justify change. If the case for these factors, and 3) opportunities that may ex- waste reduction is not made clear to the indus- ist for government to manipulate these incen- trial decisionmaker, waste reduction will not tives and constraints to influence industrial de- happen. cisions about hazardous waste reduction. The analysis must be prefaced with two points about Nature of Industrial Process industry decisionmaking. The most important factor in the ability of First, decisionmaking procedures in indus- any company to reduce its generation of haz- try vary greatly; generalizations of the type pre- ardous waste is the character of its industrial sented here will inevitably invite exceptions. processes, These determine the waste reduc- This discussion deals with only a few of the tion opportunities that will be appropriate and most important and influential elements in inapplicable (see table 3-3). There are more op- dustry decisions. A wide variety of other con- portunities for waste reduction in some indus- siderations may also shape the decisions in a tries and some processes than in others. Sev- particular company. eral features of industrial processes can be identified which affect the probability that Second, change represents risk. If business waste reduction opportunities will be available. is going smoothly, the inclination is not to make changes unless there is some clear reason to First, the frequency with which operations do so. However, if an industry is in trouble, andlor processes must be redesigned for rou- there may also be resistance to innovation. Re- tine business reasons is important. For exam- sources are likely to be concentrated on the ple, some manufacturers of consumer products obvious threats to survival rather than on mak- are under pressure to put out new product de- ing changes for waste reduction, Thus, in gen- signs frequently. Most product changes require eral, the burden is on the proponents of waste some type of operations change; frequent prod-

Table 3=3.—Potential for Waste Reduction Opportunities Across Different Industry Types

Company/industrial Operations In-process Process Input End DrOd UCt characteristic Example industries changes Recycling changes substitution changes Mature process technology, Rubber + + high volume product Petroleum Commodity chemicals Paper products Lumber Very stringent product Pharmaceuticals + . — specifications or high Weapons product quality demands for Robotics high cost/high profit Specialty chemicals products Frequently changing, high- Electronic components + + + + tech products for industrial Medical equipment use Job shop processing of many Electroplating + + + + different industrial products Printing } Foundries + + — + Machine shops } Changing production Steel making + + + — — technology for commodity Nonferrous metals goods Text iles Large-scale manufacture of Automobiles + + + + + consumer goods Appliances Consumer electronics Paints SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986 ~ . Serjous Reductjon of /-/~ardous Waste uct reformulation makes a company conscious at times in the specialty chemicals industry of its daily operations and of opportunities to where some firms have set up new production reduce waste without endangering the new lines for chemicals in high demand. product design. In some mature industries such as petroleum However, the relationship between product refining and commodity chemicals, where reformulation and process change (which tends there is little call for product or process change, to be harder to implement than operations opportunities for waste reduction may be lim- changes) is more complex. Product reformula- ited. In other mature industries, intense com- tions may not require process changes. For ex- petition from overseas has stimulated the use ample, changing the circuit design for a new of new but proven processes that permit the model of a company’s personal computer does manufacturer to make a better quality and less not change the requirements for plating and expensive product. The textile and steel indus- etching, which produce most of the industry’s tries are cases in point. However, even in ma- waste. On the other hand, some product changes ture industries with little potential for process do involve a different process, such as those and product change, opportunities for opera- that require completely different materials, A tional changes and in-process recycling may manufacturer of home appliances, for example, exist and may offer broad benefits beyond waste may take advantage of the introduction of a new reduction. They may not, however, be pursued model of blender to switch from chromium plat- because of limited resources and other pressing on the machine casing to a nickel plating ing needs that have higher priority. or to a plastic unit. Some of these alterations Another industry characteristic affecting may eliminate one hazardous waste, but pro- waste reduction opportunities has to do with duce a new one. the product quality. Cases in which the mar- It is even possible that product redesign may ket demands very high quality, as in pharma- force changes that create more waste or more ceuticals, may provide fewer opportunities for hazardous waste than previously. The semicon- input substitution or in-process recycling, Oper- ductor industry is starting to use gallium ar- ations in these plants may also produce large senide (GaAs) semiconductors in some appli- quantities of substandard product waste be- cations. GaAs semiconductors are faster and cause of the quality demands on the product. use less power than their silicon-based coun- High-quality products generally carry both high terparts. The manufacturing processes are sim- costs and profits, making such industries less ilar to those for silicon products, but the intro- sensitive to waste management costs and duction of arsenic, a known human carcino- reducing economic incentives for waste re- gen, increases the hazard of the wastes and in- duction. creases the hazards in the workplace.15 It may also be difficult to find less-hazardous Despite opportunities offered for waste re- or nonhazardous raw materials for the manu- duction, it is unrealistic to expect businesses facture of some high-performance machinery. to redesign products or processes except under Water-based paints are now being used in many pressure from the marketplace or when im- applications since they eliminate the need for pelled to do so in order to comply with govern- solvents which then become hazardous wastes. ment regulations. Redesign of a product or a While these paints may be perfectly adequate process is expensive and risky, When the mar- for many household appliances, they may not ket for a product expands, requiring additional be adequate for the stresses placed on high- plant facilities, process change may become performance machinery, such as jet aircraft. more feasible. For example, this has happened Product quality is by no means a considera- ~ssusan Sherry, et a]., High Tech and Toxics.. A Guide for Lo- tion only for specialized industries (see box 3-E). cal Communities (Washington, DC: Conference on State and Lo- One major automobile manufacturer recently cal Alternative Policies, October 1985), pp. 109-112. considered installing a huge countercurrent Ch. 3—Techno/ogy and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 97

rinsing operation in a new plant to save water Rigid DOD specifications also raise the ques- and cut down on aqueous wastes from paint- tion of what level of quality is really necessary. ing, Prior to painting, auto bodies are dipped For example, DOD requires cadmium plating in successive baths which clean the metal of on many of its aircraft parts since it is less sub- dirt and oil, apply a zinc phosphate coating to ject to corrosion than the more common nickel increase paint adhesion, and apply a chromium plating. However, cadmium is a particularly anti-corrosion coating, Between baths the car hazardous material and from an environmental body is rinsed with a water spray. This is usual perspective it would be beneficial to substitute practice in both this auto firm and among its nickel or some other material wherever possi- competitors. When designing a new plant in ble. A review of required performance levels an area of scarce water, it was proposed to con- at the front end of the product-design process serve water with a counterflowing rinse. The might eliminate the need for some of this cad- idea was rejected in part because the company mium. A review of all DOD specifications might was unwilling to risk problems such as paint eliminate the need for other hazardous ma- peeling and nonadhesion which might occur terials. if the new rinsing procedures were less thor- DOD has recognized the barriers its speci- ough than previous procedures. The company fications place on waste reduction efforts and decided that even if the procedure promised is currently reviewing this problem as part of to perform as well as the old method after a its waste minimization efforts (see ch. 5). shakedown period they were unwilling to risk any interval of even slightly lower product qual- Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration ity. They feared jeopardizing their standing in places product formulation and process re- a market where foreign competition has made quirements on pharmaceuticals manufacturing. quality a major issue. This example is also an Government regulators are slow to grant per- illustration of the problem of making changes mission for process modifications or input sub- in a production line that must perform with- stitutions in this area. out interruptions. Another aspect of product quality which may Size of Firm/Corporate Structure influence the ability of companies to modify The size of a company and the way it is struc- processes is the degree to which manufactur- tured strongly influence the way it makes all ing processes are dictated by product specifica- decisions, including those about waste reductions. The Department of Defense (DOD) often tion, Small businesses tend to have fewer peo- specifies manufacturing processes in its con- ple involved in decisions about waste, and those tracts as a means of maintaining quality in its people are more likely to be familiar with the high-performance equipment. These specifica- processes and wastes in question. In an elec- tions are usually based on design work done troplating shop employing 60 people, for ex- by the DOD contractor and on extensive field ample, a plant manager and company president testing of products. Opportunities exist at the or owner are likely to make all the decisions design stage for the manufacturer to incor- about wastes themselves and to implement porate less waste-intensive features into the change without extensive memo writing, in- process, However, the procedure for modify- struction manuals, or clearance from superiors. ing DOD specifications is so slow that even if a contractor discovers less waste-intensive In large businesses, on the other hand, peo- methods of manufacturing products of equal ple intimately familiar with the processes are quality, he almost certainly will not be able to often far removed from those with the power implement them within the time of his contract. to make decisions about plant operations and Hindrances to the use of new waste reduction process change, Communication between groups techniques also arise from the fact that many in large corporations can be an important bar- types of DOD equipment stay in production for rier to implementation of waste reduction meas- 20 years or more. ures. Decisions and plans made at the corporate 98 ● serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste level to reduce waste may not be well commu- waste reduction, but the diversity does mean nicated or well implemented at the plant level, that different companies may be constrained particularly if these plans have been formulated in different ways. A decentralized company with little coordination at the plant level. may have a strong corporate policy commit- Another problem in large companies is that ment to waste reduction, but if plant managers environmental engineers are most often as- feel there are insufficient incentives, reduction signed to the end of the process where they is unlikely to occur or will be implemented only manage the wastes that are produced, and it slowly. Similarly, if a plant manager in a cen- is usually they who are given responsibility for tralized company is more interested in reduc- waste reduction despite the fact that they have tion measures than are corporate managers and little contact with the design engineers and re- perhaps other plant managers, reduction meas- searchers who lay out the process at the front ures are unlikely to occur. end. Similarly, plant process and operations people may have only limited contact with those Technology and Information Available responsible for major process and product Industry type and company size affect to what changes. extent new technology and information will be The number of people involved in decision- available to a company. In some industries a making differs from one company to another. great deal more information about waste reduc- Small firms are likely to make informal deci- tion techniques and technologies has been de- sions, relying on their own professional judg- veloped than in others. Company size, and to ment and experience since they are unlikely some extent industry/process type as well, af- to have the resources to undertake extensive fect whether a company can develop informa- quantitative assessments of alternatives. In tion and technology in-house when it is not large corporations decisions are made or ap- available elsewhere. As mentioned earlier, sig- proved by many people of diverse knowledge nificant change in company operations for and background who are often only peripher- waste reduction is risky. Firms, therefore, look ally familiar with the technology involved. The for techniques and technologies that have been need to convince nontechnical managers that successfully demonstrated and used elsewhere, waste reduction measures are desirable and can unless the alteration under consideration can be financially justified requires quantifiable easily be tested or implemented. There are more (i.e., economic) analysis. Large businesses are proven measures for some types of processes therefore likely to make waste reduction or any than for others. A small but growing number other environmental decisions slowly, to con- of vendors and consultants offer equipment and duct assessments of waste reduction options, services for waste reduction, Increasingly, and to formulate plans, programs, and goals sellers of waste reduction services are or were before implementing them, There are no data waste generators who have successfully devel- to prove that either of these decisionmaking oped procedures in-house and are profitably styles is intrinsically more or less favorable to selling their expertise and equipment to others. waste reduction, Development and marketing of transferable Among larger companies structure also af- technology is likely to occur among small firms fects how decisions are made. Some compa- which run generic operations and which are nies are very decentralized, Each plant man- regionally based and therefore not in direct ager can make major process and operations competition. For example, printing firms and decisions without corporate approval, In other electroplating job shops that do not compete companies, corporate headquarters govern but serve discrete local communities are indus- many aspects of the day-to-day running of in- tries likely to market waste reduction tech- dividual plants. Again, neither of these situa- niques. Proprietary concerns frequently inhibit tions is necessarily more or less favorable to this kind of technology transfer, particularly Ch. 3—Techno/ogy and Waste Reduction Decisions s 99 when firms compete directly for the same cus- only large firms are likely to have the money tomers. This is often the case in industries and, more importantly, the technical people to where there are only a few large producers and embark on large R&D programs to solve their markets are national. Commodity chemicals, waste reduction challenges. Smaller firms may for example, has always been a very competi- have limited R&D facilities, particularly in indus- tive industry. However, larger producers are tries such as specialty chemicals where some likely to have their own R&D facilities to de- amount of R&D goes on as part of business. velop technologies in-house (see discussion One common obstacle to waste reduction in below), many smaller companies is that they purchase The dissemination of waste reduction tech- much of their technology and raw materials nologies and techniques is more complex than from larger companies. Small printing compa- transferring established pollution control tech- nies cannot begin using water-based inks until nologies to comply with the Clean Water or a major supplier brings them out on the mar- Clean Air Act. End-of-pipe control usually re- ket, Manufacturers of machinery are dependent quires a fairly limited set of solutions, often in- on their suppliers to develop a quality lead- volving installation of an off-the-shelf piece of free paint before they can eliminate their lead equipment. Waste reduction, on the other hand, wastes, may involve a diverse set of techniques applied Small firms trying to avoid or reduce hazard- at the front end to processes or equipment or ous waste generation need information about within operations. A relatively small number the chemical contents of raw materials from of reduction techniques are generic enough to suppliers. Instead of listing the chemicals in be transferred with simple off-the-shelf equip- the raw materials, labels may simply state that: ment or standard prescriptions. When avail- “contents are proprietary. ” Unless they know able, this equipment may only have the capa- what is going into their processes, users can- bility of reducing a limited number of wastes not screen inputs for unnecessary hazardous at a plant and these may not be the wastes that constituents that may later appear in their occur in the highest volume or are the most haz- wastes (or products). For example, a small firm ardous. making caulking compounds and sealants that There is, however, a large body of literature does not generate hazardous waste ordered a about waste reduction in a wide variety of in- raw material from a supplier. The firm speci- dustrial processes, but technical assistance fied that it did not want the material if it con- within a plant maybe necessary for implemen- tained formaldehyde because formaldehyde tation. Only the least complex reduction ideas would render the firm’s waste hazardous, When (e.g., housekeeping changes) are likely to be the material arrived the label contained no directly transferable to other plants, However, information about constituents, but testing most of the process change literature is inade- proved that the material did, indeed, contain quately detailed and very few industrial oper- formaldehyde. Another firm might not have had ations are so generic as to allow direct imple- the resources or the foresight to test. mentation of waste reduction measures from published materials without significant in- The labeling problem has been somewhat house research and experimentation. However, alleviated by the institution of OSHA worker the sharing of information remains important, right-to-know measures which require that all vendors supply buyers with Materials Safety and just hearing about another firm’s successful action at a conference or through a publica- Data Sheets (MSDS) detailing all hazardous con- tion may be helpful. stituents, OTA has heard some complaints about lack of specificity on some MSDS, but Most waste reduction measures documented this requirement now gives buyers information by OTA have been the result of some in-house (or allows them to demand information) vital research and development, tailoring techniques for waste reduction and waste management as to the needs of a particular operation. However, well as for worker safety. 100 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Attitudes and Opinions Affecting the Company ardous materials—and at the national level, as public fear about hazardous wastes increases Although there is no way to predict attitudes pressures for better waste management and of top-level decisionmakers in a company, it waste reduction. People in industry often feel is unquestionable that personalities and per- that these fears are overstated or unjustified and sonal attitudes do have an important effect on may feel frustrated in their attempts to ally pub- implementation of waste reduction, This is par- lic fears about hazardous materials. The infor- ticularly true in small companies where a com- mation the public receives about industrial haz- pany president or manager maybe personally ardous waste is usually focused on accidents interested in hazardous waste problems and be- and Superfund sites and is overwhelmingly neg- come a leader in the field. Even among large ative, Positive information about advances in corporations, it is clear that some companies waste management or waste reduction rarely are more or less well disposed toward expend- make front page news. In addition, many of the ing resources on environmental protection or horror stories about hazardous wastes, particu- waste reduction, viewing these goals as essen- larly at Superfund sites, came about because tial to the health of the company. A few com- of waste handling practices of the 1950s, not panies, notably 3M, have gone so far as to artic- the 1980s. Thus, despite their desire to calm ulate and publicly support pollution prevention public fears, industry decisionmakers often feel as an alternative to pollution control and in so that they have little to gain by compiling and doing have created a positive attitude through- presenting information about successful waste out the company toward waste reduction. reduction and management programs for the Lack of awareness about and commitment to public. On the other hand, some companies waste reduction may influence actions involv- have used waste reduction as an opportunity ing waste at all levels of company operations. to portray a more positive image of their com- Environmental engineers can be blinkered by pany for the public, and more may do so. Fi- their experience with waste management. Envi- nally, some firms are committed to the siting ronmental protection has been equated with of new hazardous waste management facilities pollution control for so long that many envi- and waste reduction may be perceived as a ronmental engineers may not think of waste threat to siting; much depends on the extent reduction as a serious near-term, economically to which waste reduction is perceived as a near- beneficial option for solving waste problems. er long-term opportunity. Even if environmental staffs are interested in waste reduction, they frequently are devoting Economics of Waste Reduction all their time and resources to keeping the company in compliance with pollution control reg- Economics is the driving force for most busi- ulations. ness decisions, and waste reduction decisions are no exception. Assessment of financial costs Worker training is essential to educate peo- and benefits can act as either an incentive for ple who operate processes about practices or a constraint on waste reduction depending which create less waste, These may include on a company’s or a plant’s circumstances. If simple things such as not leaving faucets run- an operation’s waste management costs are ning and avoiding spillage. Some larger com- high and it finds that it can institute significant panies have already put together videotapes waste reduction measures with relatively low aimed at educating all levels of people in the costs, thereby saving on waste management ex- company about the importance of reducing penditures, the company will be inclined to re- waste. duce waste, If, on the other hand, waste man- Opinion outside the company may also in- agement costs are low relative to total costs or fluence waste decisions made within the com- if costs (e. g., cleanup liabilities) are not imme- pany. Public opinion is important at a local diately born by that operation, a company may level–in the siting of plants dealing with haz- decide not to disrupt or put at risk its processes, Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 101 operations, and products with waste reduction, ment cost, process engineers and supervisors even if some relatively easy, low-cost reduction have little incentive to examine their operations measures are available. The outside analyst gen- for waste reduction opportunities. If, on the erally does not attempt to estimate the economic other hand, companies trace waste back to the consequences of such disruptions and risks and processes generating it and incorporate waste for this reason the costs of waste reduction may management costs into the process manager’s be perceived in a more positive light than is budget, the people who are intimately familiar warranted. with the process have an incentive to search for ways to reduce the amount of waste gener- According to the respondents to OTA’S indus- ated. Thus, to the extent that total waste man- try survey, the rising costs of waste management agement costs are strictly accounted for as pro- and associated liabilities for waste disposal are duction costs, they will act as incentives for the primary considerations of companies that investing in waste reduction. plan to implement waste reduction. These considerations are more critical to industries in Accounting procedures may also influence which waste management costs are a high pro- the probability that waste reduction measures portion of operating costs or of profits, Exam- will compete successfully for limited company ples include electroplating, steelmaking and funds. The way in which return on investment commodity chemicals, and companies that is calculated and the extent to which and the have already experienced substantial penalties way in which waste management costs are infor past waste management practices. Indus- corporated into investment calculations will in- tries in which management costs area low per- fluence the amount of capital investment and, centage of operating costs are less likely to be therefore, the kinds of waste reduction meas- sensitive to high waste management costs. Even ures a company is likely to take. for generators whose current costs are not This competition occurs on two levels. First, large, the threat of future liabilities may raise environmental programs, in general, and waste the specter of enormous long-term costs of reduction programs, in particular, must com- waste management. But these liabilities are usu- pete with all other potential uses of an opera- ally speculative and may be discounted in terms tion’s limited capital funds. If a firm is faced of present dollar value or maybe given less im- with choosing between investing in a new prod- portance because management believes that uct line, purchasing less labor-intensive equip- changes in government policy may reduce ment for its current processes, or making proc- them.lo ess alterations which will reduce waste, a firm On a more day-to-day level, the accounting may calculate that it will get a better return on procedures companies use for waste manage- investment from one of the first two options ment costs affect the ways in which waste re- than from the waste reduction option, duction decisions are made. Particularly im- Further, most operations have a single bud- portant is the degree to which companies assign get for environmental programs and this in- waste management costs (including liability cludes waste reduction. In such operations costs) to the processes or plants which produce waste reduction must compete with waste man- the waste. If a company has an onsite waste agement and compliance programs for funds treatment plant with its own budget and all and attention. Waste management options are processes within the plant send their waste often difficult to compete with when reasons there and are not accountable for that manage- for implementing them are painfully clear, as l~one example ~ f a change in go~’ernment [)01 icj which ma~r in a firm that is being threatened with citations reduce liability is E PA’s current reexamination oft he defin it ion for noncompliance with pollution control reg- of hazardous waste u rider RC RA. Some generators may believe that their wastes will not be hazardous under th(? new definition ulations. In addition, waste management pre- and ma} therefore not be willing to in~rest much effort in reduc- sents a clearer, surer investment option in the ing the i r ~eneration. eyes of most generators who see off-the-shelf 102 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste pollution control equipment and operations sonnel to keep up with all of the details of gov- changes as proven. Waste reduction options are ernment regulation and may simply throw up usually newer, methods may be unproven, and their hands and hope that their small size will the results unpredictable, make them unlikely targets for enforcement, Large corporations that may have other reasons The uncertainty about the costs of implement- for believing that enforcement may not occur ing waste reduction measures is critical to deci- still usually have environmental compliance sionmakers who want reliable figures on waste staffs assigned to keep track of regulations, The management savings, labor, capital and oper- job of these environmental engineers, however, ating costs, as well as on the costs or savings is environmental compliance and pollution con- in raw materials resulting from the waste re- trol, rather than environmental protection or duction measure, However, changes at the front pollution prevention in the larger sense. This end of an operation tend to have ripple effects distinction bears directly on the ways in which throughout, and quantifying all of these effects large companies currently make decisions and their costs or savings can be extremely dif- about waste reduction, Environmental engi- ficult. Isolating waste reduction may result in neers in large companies sometimes say that smaller benefits, while seeing it as part of a they have trouble getting support from man- broader innovation or change in production agement for environmental actions which are may increase its costs, Clearly, there are ways not required by regulations, such as audits to to make waste reduction appear more or less trace waste to processes, attractive economically. Since, as noted above, decisionmakers in business tend to avoid un- Current environmental regulations may have necessary risk, the difficulty in coming up with handicapped waste reduction in several ways, firm figures on waste reduction investments First, the existing elaborate framework of pol- handicaps them in competing for limited com- lution control laws has become the center of pany dollars. the environmental protection arena. Control laws are both established and—in theory, if not Government Regulations always in practice—enforceable, The waste minimization program set up in the 1984 RCRA Despite widespread noncompliance and com- Amendments is both new and voluntary. It is plaints about ineffectiveness, environmental hardly surprising that companies concentrate regulations significantly influence the ways their efforts on avoiding penalties and install- businesses make decisions about waste. These ing proven and accepted methods of environ- regulations may be of two types; they may mental protection rather than investing re- directly require that business take action or they sources in voluntary programs they know little may affect the environment in which busi- about. nesses make decisions. Probably the most in- Second, the current waste minimization pro- fluential government measures to date have gram under the 1984 RCRA Amendments is not been of the latter variety, such as the joint and designed to give companies strong incentives several liability for Superfund sites and the to promote waste reduction. As discussed else- enactment of land disposal bans in the 1984 where, the language of the national policy RCRA Amendments. Both of these measures statement in the amendments makes clear the hit directly at the financial calculations which primacy of waste reduction but subsequent sec- determine waste-related decisions. tions of the statute give equal attention to good Industry responses to government require- waste management. In the regulations promul- ments for environmental action vary with the gated under the amendments, the concept of size and structure of the company as well as waste reduction as defined in this study and with more intangible factors like plant manage- in the national policy statement has all but dis- ment and corporate attitudes. Small companies appeared, Under the regulations, waste mini- are less likely to have the resources and per- mization appears to mean any measure that Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions “ 103 avoids landfilling hazardous materials. People to the attention of corporate decisionmakers in industry are, not surprisingly, reacting to the in an unprecedented way. The amendments regulations rather than the policy statement and have also provided environmental engineers have adopted this latter interpretation of waste with a justification for implementing waste re- minirnization as the basis for their efforts. duction measures or, at least, collecting waste reduction information. On the other hand, it The extent to which this program will prompt is clear that these voluntary efforts under RCRA extensive action in large corporations is not yet will focus on minimization of RCRA wastes; clear, Preliminary signs suggest that the amend- they are unlikely to aim at multimedia waste ments are affecting corporate thinking—that reduction. How significant or far-reaching they are bringing waste minimization and bet- these voluntary actions will be is unclear and management, ter waste if not waste reduction,lT is Iikelv to remain so since, as discussed else- ———— where “in this report, no meaningful data are 1 Tsee ~hs, 1 a n~ ~ for d i s(: uss ions of the differences between waste m i n i m izat ion and waste reduction and whv thet’ are im- being collected on current waste reduction portant to OTA’s stud} efforts.

HOW MUCH WASTE REDUCTION IS POSSIBLE? Why People Ask This Question say anything about how much of the current waste might be reduced nor whether its chem- In view of the very large number of targets ical nature, amount generated, and the way it for waste reduction, the many ways to achieve is managed or released at specific sites results it, and the lack of data, it is impossible to fore- in environmental risks that might be reduced cast future levels of waste reduction even ap- or avoided, Further waste reduction may or proximately. Nevertheless, from a public pol- may not make environmental or economic icy perspective it would be useful to get a handle sense, but that cannot be known unless the pos- on the upper technical bound for waste reduc- sibility of waste reduction is seriously ex- tion. No matter how much waste reduction may amined. already have been accomplished, unless the potential amount is known, there is always un- Why Forecasts Are Uncertain certainty and even suspicion about the significance of the effort. That is, the degree of un- Even if general economic factors are ex- realized waste reduction potential is seen as cluded, estimates for technically and economi- the definition of the problem; the higher the cally feasible amounts of waste avoidance and potential, the stronger the case for doing some- reduction in the future are uncertain because: thing (e. g., government setting new policy or industry spending more money). Although this There are too many industrial processes might make some sense on environmental and wastes—certainly tens of thousands— grounds, effective waste treatment is also an to examine each in detail.la option and it may not always make sense to re- Waste generation and reduction are plant- duce wastes at a specific site. A point of and process-specific, but the limited waste diminishing returns is possible for waste regeneration data available are aggregated over many processes and usually over a duction. diversity of plants and companies. For example, when the polymer polyethyl- It is not known how much waste in all (not ene was first manufactured in the early 1940s just RCRA waste) was and is now being the amount of waste was 80 to 90 percent of the original raw materials. The waste is now laChemical Waste Management, Inc., has identified nearl}’ less than 5 percent. But this does not necessarily 100,000 different wastes in its waste management business. 704 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

generated; therefore, reduction cannot be Facility Siting Bias documented. ● There is no base year for all data. Some States have made estimates of future ● It is difficult to predict what changes in waste reduction, often in association with at- production technology and products will tempts to site waste management facilities, occur over a broad range of industry for Such estimates are made in the context of the reasons unrelated to waste, and such changes current system; that is, a predominantly volun- can substantially change the nature or tary approach to waste reduction which is not quantity of waste, or both. being implemented as if it had primacy over ● Considerable amounts of wastes (particu- pollution control, In the context of siting, little larly as regulated under the Clean Water attention has been given to the potential impor- and Clean Air Acts) are legally sanctioned tance of waste reduction in: 1) reducing the need and continued implementation of environ- for more sites, and Z) assuring the public that mental programs will create more waste everything has been done to reduce the num- (e.g., pretreatment standards under the ber of sites that will be needed. State agencies Clean Water Act increase the generation sponsoring these estimates often have a bias of solid, hazardous wastes). toward siting waste management facilities, ● Many regulatory, enforcement, and judi- Moreover, the forecasts are based on surveys cial actions that affect the economic feasi- of generators who send large amounts of waste bility of and perceived need for waste re- offsite, Therefore, they are likely to err on the duction may occur. low side; that is, to underestimate the amount by which waste reduction may reduce the need Limited Expertise Problem for waste management facilities. Also, waste generators naturally want to keep waste man- There is always an important systematic er- agement costs low, which can be accomplished ror in any estimate of future waste reduction. in part by ensuring enough offsite capacity, Considering the range of technical approaches, the best any analyst will be able to do is to make Diffusion of and Access to estimates for the techniques that are easiest to Waste Reduction Technology use, such as in-process recycling. Much more difficulty will be encountered in estimating Waste reduction in the future will be affected waste reduction for the other approaches. No by the extent to which information and prod- person or group, either outside or inside a com- ucts are diffused throughout industry and are pany, is likely to have detailed information available to companies. For the most part, the about enough industrial technologies and proc- country is in the early stages of transferring esses to be able to estimate the results of all or waste reduction technology. Indications of this most of the changes that may, to varying de- process are: grees, reduce waste. Consequently, estimates, Companies that have been successful at even by those in industry responding to a sur- waste reduction are making their knowl- vey or those studying the technical literature edge and expertise available to other divi- and making professional judgments, are likely sions and are sometimes profitably selling to be on the low side and to vary greatly. In the technology to other companies. most estimates there is little information about State programs generally focus on efforts the approaches to waste reduction that were at transferring information and providing considered and how they were applied to industry sectors or waste streams.lg — given on changes in waste generation due to waste reduction IBA good example of this problem is the information in U.S. is misleading because limited information prevented the full range Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Hazardous VVaste Man- of techniques from being considered, although this was not very agement: Recent Changes and Policy Alternatives (Washington, clearly stated. Tbus, the total waste reduction amounts reported DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1985). Information are systematically low. —

Ch. 3—Techno/ogy and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 105 —

technical assistance, particularly to smaller the more traditional waste management ap- companies. proach will persist. Current corporate efforts ● There are increasing numbers of confer- to market more effective waste management ences, workshops, awards presentations, technologies and pollution control techniques publications, and courses helping to spread and to site new waste management facilities information. are not necessarily consistent with fostering ● More information is becoming available waste reduction at the source. Indeed, in the from other nations where there sometimes 1984 RCRA Amendments there is some con- is a longer history of interest in low-waste flict between the goal of waste minimization or pollution-free technologies. and that of waste reduction. ● Some companies in the waste management industry are beginning to develop commer- Waste minimization is generally taken to cial ways of developing, applying, and mean reducing the amount of waste that is land transferring waste reduction technology. disposed (see ch. 5). Lack of data and impre- ● Financing is becoming available for waste cise forecasts contribute to the attitude that reduction activities, although financing is environmental protection means only better likely to remain a problem for many firms. waste management. Although it is better to treat wastes to render them permanently harmless Under current Federal and State programs than to use any form of land disposal, it is still there will not be a very comprehensive or effi- better to avoid or reduce the generation of haz- cient transfer of technology and information ardous waste, if it is technically and economi- in the near future, Because waste reduction cally feasible. Any waste management activ- technology is evolving from simpler to more ity will pose some environmental risks and complex and process-specific techniques, it will require regulation. There is no fundamental rea- become more difficult to transfer. In-process son to believe that waste management, which recycling and plant operations add-on tech- involves repeated spending, is always or even niques, currently emphasized, are the easiest usually more economical than waste reduction, to transfer across companies and industries. although it may be in some circumstances. It One other type of waste reduction is also read- is because waste management has been inex- ily transferable; that is, the substitution of cer- pensive that there often has seemed to be little tain raw materials to common manufacturing point in cutting costs by not generating wastes operations. An example previously mentioned to begin with. For some time to come, waste is the replacement of solvent-based inks with reduction, particularly by more costly methods, water-based ones; some printing plants have will face competition from waste treatment and essentially eliminated their generation of spent disposal technologies. (Most available data re- solvents in this manner. Companies that man- veal no sign yet of a major decrease in the use ufacture products used by other companies as of land disposal, ) This may change, however, raw materials will increasingly commercialize because of the closure of onsite waste manage- new products with waste reduction advantages ment facilities which have not been able to com- for sale to U.S. industry and in foreign markets. ply with new RCRA requirements which have not been able to comply with new RCRA re- Competition From Waste quirements, increased production levels, and Management Alternatives uncertainties about how some of the 1984 amendments to RCRA—notably the land dis- The degree to which waste technologies are posal bans—will be implemented. implemented in the future will depend strongly on alternative waste management methods. Waste management will remain a viable alter- Different approaches to waste reduction will, native for the foreseeable future. Both govern- to some extent, compete with each other, and ment and industry will make many decisions the competition between waste reduction and affecting the competition between waste reduc- 106 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste tion and waste management, and these are over the period 1983-90. However, most of this nearly impossible to forecast. —12 percent—is accounted for by volume reduction by dewatering, a practice OTA consid- Review of Current Forecasts ers not environmentally significant. The re- mainder is accounted for by material recovery, Table 3-4 summarizes information and com- but much of this is probably offsite and not ments about several State efforts to obtain in- within OTA’S definition for in-process recy- formation on waste generation and reduction, cling. The CBO study did not consider the full The following observations can be made about range of techniques because of a lack of infor- the State information: mation. This is an understandable limitation ● Except for a downturn in 1982 to 1983, common to most analyses, but it is not always probably due to the economy, aggregated made clear. Thus, the total waste reduction State data now show a trend toward an amounts reported are systematically low with increase in hazardous waste generation regard to the reduction of waste at the source. zl because of economic growth and other A survey of companies for the Tennessee Val- factors, ley Authority in 1984 found that by the year States are preoccupied with the issue of 2000 total RCRA waste reduction could be 11 siting hazardous waste management facil- percent for wastes which could be incinerated ities for wastes shipped offsite. and 33 percent for wastes normally deposited Analyses of waste reduction are usually in landfills.zz The study used 1984 as a base year done for offsite wastes. These are only and kept production levels constant; a very about 10 percent of the Nation’s total gen- small sample of companies were surveyed. eration; they may, however, represent high- hazard wastes. Although for most cases it is, in principle, ● Although it is difficult to compare State impossible to reach zero waste generation, in studies, estimates of waste reduction for OTA’S survey, which stressed technical feasi- several States using similar methods vary bility and a broad definition for hazardous significantly (Missouri, 4 percent; New Jer- waste, 11 percent of the respondents felt that sey, 7 percent; New York, 16 percent; Penn- 50 to 75 percent reduction was possible through sylvania, 23 to 27 percent; Minnesota, 47 a variety of efforts; 25 percent of the respond- 20 ents felt that 25 to 50 percent was possible, and percent) 0 ● No attention has been given to non-RCRA 59 percent felt that less than 25 percent reduc- wastes. tion was possible. But, again, such estimates ● Estimates for increases in hazardous waste may be low. generation due to increased water pollution control are relatively low but are only for wastes shipped offsite. They may be misleading because most pretreatment will be done onsite by large waste generators. ● No data are given for pastor future plant- specific waste reduction. —- In a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study ‘~lcongressiona] Budget Office, Ffazardous Waste Management: the data given indicate a total of 18 percent Recent Changes and Policy Alternatives, op. cit. Another aspect RCRA hazardous waste reduction nationwide of this study is that it is essentially an analysis based on modeling. Although the total amount of waste generation obtained is in agreement with other data sources, none of the other detailed Zoone possible explanation of this rather large range of esti- data which deal with the distribution of waste generation among mates is that the types of industries vary greatly among these waste types, industries, management technologies, or States are States, but other factors may also be important, such as varying in agreement with other data sources. definitions and varying perceptions by survey respondents of ZZBattelle Columbus Laboratories, “Report on Hazardous Waste what is possible and what is likely in the near term. Management Needs Assessment, ” June 1984. ——

Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions ● 107

Table 3“4.—State Information Related to Waste Reduction

ILLINOIS: The State Environmental Protection Agency collects data on generation of hazardous waste from all generators:

Millions of gallons 1982 ~ 983 1984 547.3 460,7 526.2

The agency does no analysis of these data for waste reduction.

SOURCE” Illlnols Environmental Protection Agency, Surnrnary of Annual Reports on Hazardous kVasfe for 1982, 1983, 1984, September 1985

MICHIGAN: State Department of Natural Resources data on generation of RCRA hazardous waste: 1983 425,000 tons

The Department estimated 6 percent maximum increase in generation from 1980 to 1990 attributable to economic development. After other factors were considered (waste reduction not among them) it is said that a 10-percent increase compared to 1983 is reasonable for existing generators. Very little consideration of waste reduction.

SOURCE Mlch(gan Department of Natural Resources, Hazardous Waste Management in M/chigan, March 1984

MINNESOTA: The Waste Management Board has compiled data principally to aid in estimating the need for a hazardous waste disposal facility in the State. The Board’s data on generation of industrial hazardous waste (RCRA waste only): 1984 123,000 tons Of this total 31,000 tons is managed onsite. Estimates of waste generation in the years 1990 and 2000 are based on combined effects of economic growth and waste reduction efforts. Detailed economic growth rates for industry segments are given. Estimates of waste reduction for the year 1990 are based on 97 estimates of reduction by waste type and industry segment. From 1984 to 1990 waste generation is projected to increase to 153,000 tons because economic growth outweighs waste reduction (no waste reduction figure given). For the year 2000, a weighted average of percent reduction figures given for waste types (without industry segments) yields an estimate of 47 percent reduction relative to 1984. Waste generation in the year 2000 estimated to be 126,000 tons due to additive effects of slower economic growth and increased waste reduction. Only RCRA wastes considered. Analysis also given for reduction of waste treatment residuals.

SOURCE Minnesota Waste Management Board, Es//mate For Need, 1985 -.

MISSOURI: Study for the Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority focused on the possibility of a State owned hazardous waste treatment and resource recovery facility. Generation data therefore includes only wastes shipped off site: 1982 1983 1987 2002 57,000 56,000 61,000 85,000 tons Projections for future years are based on economic growth, source reduction, and projected additional RCRA waste from pretreatment (10,000 tons in 1987 and 13,000 tons in 2002). Source reduction for 1987 is estimated at 4 percent (2,000 tons); no further reduction is projected thereafter (3,000 tons in 2002), even though it is stated that “much more waste reduction may occur by 2002. ” Estimates are based on reduction of eight wastes in seven industries.

SOURCE” Enwronmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority, Hazardous Waste Treatment and Resource Recovery Faci//fy Feas/b/llfy, January 1985 — — Mlssourl

NEW JERSEY: The Facilities Siting Plan focuses on siting commercial hazardous waste management facilities and, therefore, uses data on wastes shipped off site (manifest data):

1981 1982 1983 412,000 344,000 403,000 tons Projected waste reduction for 1988: 33,000 tons. This is relative to 460,000 tons used as a composite average for 1981-83 plus the effects of economic growth. The result is a waste reduction estimate of 7 percent over about a 6-year period, based on estimates for 30 industry-waste type possibilities (4 of which were increases). No similar analysis is given for waste generated and managed onsite (1 1,767,000 tons for 1983, based on 242 annual reports). Potential increase in hazardous waste due to new actions under Clean Water Act: 33,000 tons. No consideration of reduction of non-RCRA wastes.

SOURCES New Jersey Facllttles Siting Commission, New Jersey Hazardous Waste Fac///eses Plan, March 1985 108 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Table 3-4.—State Information Related to Waste Reduction—Continued

NEW YORK: The State Department of Environmental Conservation uses the following generation data on manifested, off site RCRA wastes for siting purposes:

1982 1983 285,000 251,000 tons Projections are made as follows for other years, based on consideration of many factors including economic growth and source reduction, but no details are given:

1984 1988 1994 280,000 308,000 365,000 tons For one 1986 scenario involving high waste reduction, an additional degree of waste reduction (for RCRA wastes only) is specified above that presently planned by industry; reduction there is projected to be 48,400 tons, or 16 percent, of the 1988 base. This is based on estimates for 34 waste types (no industry segment breakdown), of which 24 had no change.

SOURCE New York Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Hazardous Waste facilities Needs Assessment, March 1985,

NORTH CAROLINA: The Governor’s Waste Management Board uses data for RCRA hazardous waste shipped off site because of its interest in siting:

1981 1982 1983 48,650 42,800 52,550 tons No analysis of data for waste reduction.

SOURCE: Governor’s Waste Management Board, Hazardous Waste in North Caro/ina, undated

PENNSYLVANIA: Data on waste generation compiled by the Department of Environmental Resources are used for siting and therefore focus only on manifested, off site RCRA waste:

1981 1982 1983 1984 774,0001 485,000 598,000 639,000 tons Projected waste reduction for 1990: 181,000 tons (expected case) and 211,000 tons (high source reduction scenario) relative to composite (1982-84) base of 661,000 tons, accounting for economic growth only. That is a reduction of 23 and 27 percent over about a 5-year period. These figures are based on estimates for 104 industry-waste type possibilities (16 of which had no change). Data may be misleading as source reduction may include actions that reduce waste shipped off site, but sti II generated. For waste generated and managed onsite (4,200,000 tons for 1983), no similar analysis of reduction is given. Potential increase in amount of hazardous waste generated due to new actions under Clean Water Act estimated at 4,000 tons. No consideration of reduction of non-RCRA wastes. tCalculated by OTA on basis of reported data. Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Fac//ities P/an, draft, November 1985 SOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,— --

WISCONSIN: Department of Natural Resources RCRA hazardous waste generation data:

1979 1984 300,000 to 500,000 125,000 tons Change attributed to waste reduction without detailed analysis of other factors. Goal of 100 percent reduction and recovery for 8,000 tons land filled in Wisconsin (another 26,000 tons Iandfilled in other States) in 1984, but now Wisconsin has no landfill capacity for hazardous waste.

SOURCE: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Waste Reduction and Recovery Plan, August 1985 Ch. 3—Technology and Waste Reduction Decisions “ 109 —

CONCLUSIONS

There are technical reasons for concluding try has not yet been sufficiently motivated, has that it is not possible to accurately estimate fu- not had enough time to do more than get started, ture waste reduction in terms of the maximum and has only begun to exploit the possibilities technologically possible. Indeed, the technical technology offers. possibilities for waste reduction are rapidly It might be more useful to focus on a waste changing. Moreover, estimates are likely to be reduction goal rather than to try to calculate low. People outside of industry are not likely how much is possible. For example, a goal of to be sufficiently familiar with industrial oper- perhaps 10 percent annually might do much ations to make good forecasts. People in indus- to stimulate and draw more national attention try are unlikely to be able to assess the full range to waste reduction. This goal is consistent with of waste reduction techniques possible—and results obtained so far and with goals used by not merely likely—in the near term and long some companies. If waste reduction is to off- run. set increases in waste generation from eco- The technological potential for waste reduc- nomic growth and increases from more wastes tion is substantial, although it is quantifiable becoming regulated under pollution control only in the most approximate terms, across both programs, then such a goal maybe needed just industries and waste types. The conclusion that to hold the line on requirements for hazardous there are many opportunities for waste reduc- waste management. tion in the future rest on evidence that indus- —

Chapter 4 Data and Information for Waste Reduction Contents

Page Introduction...... 113 Industry Information Needs ...... 114 Information Needed for a Waste Reduction Audit ...... 114 Charging Full Waste Coststo Processes ...... 117 Types ofWaste Reduction Information ...... ,117 Information Needed for Federal Policymaking ...... 118 Waste Reduction Information Available to Government...... 119 Usefulness occurrent Data for Waste Reduction ...... 119 Federal Authority To Collect More Information...... 121 State Chemical Inventories ...... 123 Waysto Measure Waste Reduction ...... 124 Theoretical Requirements for Measuring Waste Reduction ...... 125 Practical Constraints on Waste Reduction Measurements ...... 127 Practical Possibilities for Information Collection ...... 128 Pooling Waste Reduction Data...... 128 Screening for Changes in Degree of Hazard ...... 129 Limiting Data Collection/Living With Imperfect Data ...... 129 Information Requirements and Options for Federal Action...... 130 Mandatory Reduction Levels ...... 130 Mandatory Increased Information Collection ...... 131 Nonregulatory Options ...... 132 No New Major Action ...... 132 Case Studies: Information Available on Two Hazardous Substances ...... 132 Cadmium Case Study ...... 133 Trichloroethylene Case Study ...... 137

Tables Table No, Page 4-1. Industry Information Needs for Waste Reduction ...... 115 4-2. Existing Sources of Information Collected by the Federal Government and Their Applicability to Waste Reduction ...... 120 4-3. Comparison of Proposed National Inventory Requirements in Superfund Reauthorization Legislation ...... 123 4-4. Information Needs for Different Waste Reduction Actions by the Federal Government ...... 131 4-5. Major Legislation and Regulations Pertaining to Cadmium (Cd) ...... 134 4-6. Major Legislation and Regulations Pertainingto Trichloroethylene (TCE) ...... 139 4-7. Release ofTCE Into the Environment ...... 141

Figure Figure No. Page 4-1. Process Chemistry Changes That May Affect Mass Balance Calculations ...... 126 Chapter 4 Data and Information for Waste Reduction

INTRODUCTION

One of the great obstacles to waste reduction Simply knowing that a company has reduced policy analysis is scarcity of informational In the volume or mass of its wastes tells nothing developing waste reduction policy, Congress about true waste reduction because no infor- and government agencies should have data mation is given about the hazardous content from many industries on current waste gener- of the wastes before and after. Many hazard- ation, waste reduction accomplished so far, and ous waste streams are made up principally of estimates of possible future waste reduction. nonhazardous substances (often water) and Such data would help Congress and the agen- contain only a small amount of hazardous ma- cies to decide if action is needed, what kinds terial. Even RCRA sludges frequently contain of actions might be taken, and what kinds of a substantial amount of water and other non- wastes or which industries might be targeted hazardous materials. Simple dewatering of for action. Few of these data exist and those wastes can produce large volume decreases that do, for example waste generation data, are with no actual decrease in the waste’s hazard- collected in such a way that they reveal little ous substance content. or nothing about waste reduction. Finally, waste generation figures are in no Current waste generation data are inadequate way correlated to production. Many companies for several reasons. First, the vast majority of and some entire industrial sectors recorded less waste generation estimates are for only wastes waste generation in the early 1980s than in regulated by the Resource Conservation and Re- previous years, but industrial production was covery Act (RCRA). They do not include emis- down during that period. It is impossible to tell sions into other media; neither do they include how much reduction in waste generation oc- releases of nonregulated hazardous wastes. z curred because of reduced production and how Second, annual waste generation estimates for much resulted from implementation of actual the Nation vary widely and must be viewed as waste-reducing measures. highly uncertain because they are based on sam- Thus, generation data as they are now col- pling and modeling. Third, virtually all exist- lected are not useful for assessing either poten- ing estimates of waste generation are estimates tial or achieved waste reduction. End-of-pipe of mass, weight or volume only; no attempt is generation data do not reveal enough about made to estimate the degree of hazard of the what is going on inside the plant to allow any- waste. one to differentiate between changes due to 1 I n this chapter the term ‘‘data is used to denote n u meric a 1 waste reduction and those that are caused by measures of or facts about waste reduction. The word ‘‘in for- changes in production levels, product mix, or mat ion is used to ind ic ate a broader set of facts about waste even waste treatment methods, all of which may reduc t ion, including those that are n u m(?rical and those that are non n u mer ica 1. Thus, data are a subset o f i n formation here. affect the composition and mass of a company’s 20TA’s own est i mate is that between 255 and 275 m i] 1 ion met- total waste stream. ric tonnes of RCRA hazardous wastes are generated each }ea r, but this figure does not even attempt to account for wastes gen- The crux of this problem is that planning and erated under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, nor does it assessing waste reduction requires fundamen- include non regulated hazardous wastes, [U ,S, Congre$s, office of Technology}’ Assessment, Technologies ami hlanagement Strate- tally different sorts of data and information than gies for Hazardous L1’aste Control, OTA-\l-l % (Wrashlngton, have been required for traditional pollution con- DC: L’.S. Government Printing Office, Llarch 1983] p. 3.] OTA’S trol environmental progams. As was discussed forthcoming report Llraste.s in Alfirine En~ironmcnt,s, \\’ill examine data on quantities of wastes regulated under the Clean in chapter 3, waste reduction is a form of pro- W’ater Act. duction process or operations improvement. It

113 174 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste requires actions at the front end of the proc- Companies often do collect this type of iness, rather than at the end of the pipe where formation when reducing their waste. How- current pollution control programs focus. Plan- ever, as this chapter makes clear, this is not the ning, implementing, and assessing waste reduc- type of information currently being collected tion are activities that require the same kinds by government, a fact which has important im- of production information that would be re- plications for the development of waste reduc- quired for any other production improvement. tion policy (see ch. 2). They also require data about the amount of hazardous waste generated per unit ofproduction output, as well as data on costs and savings of the waste reduction actions.

INDUSTRY INFORMATION NEEDS Almost all information relevant to waste re- tion audit, Following is a description of infor- duction must come from industry. Government mation generated by each step of the audit. can affect the kinds of information industry collects through new regulation, and it can also affect the format of collection (specifying peri- Step 1: Identification of Hazardous Substances odicity of data, for example), but the fact re- of Concern in Wastes or Emissions mains that information must be collected by Companies must identify the amounts and industry, kinds of hazardous wastes they generate before they can do anything about reducing them. This Information Needed for a analysis can be done at radically different levels Waste Reduction Audit of detail and the level of detail of the information required will vary accordingly. A waste reduction audit can provide the information a company needs to reduce its Companies may choose to or may have to wastes. Many companies do not conduct for- make only rough estimates of the kinds and mal audits prior to instituting waste reduction amounts of wastes generated, If only a limited measures, Waste reduction largely remains a level of waste reduction effort is planned or is byproduct of other process improvements or possible, this gross analysis may be sufficient. is undertaken on an ad hoc basis to address one Better data on the chemical composition and waste that presents immediate problems or quantities of wastes can be generated, at greater costs. However, as the concept of comprehen- expense, by systematically conducting chemi- sive and systematic waste reduction becomes cal analyses of the company’s waste streams better understood and more effectively imple- over time (an especially important factor in con- mented, audits will become more common be- ducting analyses of batch processes where cause they provide analytic support for waste waste streams are not constant). This method reduction decisions. Even when taking ad hoc of waste identification is now common in in- actions, however, companies usually try to pull dustry since many companies already collect together some of the information and data dis- chemical analysis data on wastes to help them cussed below that make it possible to plan and with plans for waste management, However, carry out waste reduction in an effective man- the drawback to this method is that companies ner (see table 4-1), are unlikely in practice to be able to identify Chapter 3 discusses the steps that a company all waste streams that must be analyzed, includ- might go through in conducting a waste reducing fugitive emissions, leaks, and spills, Ch. 4—Data and Information for Waste Reduction ● 115

Table 4-1 .—Industry Information Needs for Waste Reduction

Waste reduction action Type of information needed Identify hazardous substances of concern in wastes or Kinds of hazardous wastes generated ~ype W] emissions Amounts of those wastes generated ~ype W] Identify source(s) of the hazardous substance(s) of Above, plus process engineering and chemistry [Type T] concern Set priorities for actions Above, plus any regulation affecting wastes generated Uype RI Health effects and degree of hazard posed by different wastes [Type H] Ease and expense of implementing waste reduction for any substance (see below) Analyze and select technically and economically feasible Above, but more specific process engineering and reduction techniques chemistry information ~ype T] Potential costs/savings of the waste reduction action ~ype H General economic situation of the company [Type E] Market information about the affected product(s) and estimates of any effects waste reduction may have on the product ~ype E] Compare economics of waste reduction with waste Above, plus current waste management costs including management alternatives potential liabilities ~ype E] Evaluate waste reduction progress and success Above, plus waste stream contents ~ype W] Actual waste reduction costs/savings ~ype E] Glitches, inconveniences, and unforeseen benefits to waste reduction activities ~ype T] KEY Type W - Waste stream data Type P = Product Ion Information Type E = Economic information Type T = Technology Information Type R = Regulatory Information Type H = Health and environmental effects Information SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

The most complete and reliable measure of Step 2: Identification of the Source(s) of the quantities of specific substances released the Hazardous Substance(s) of Concern into the environment is obtained from mass bal- Without knowing exactly which processes are ance calculations. By subtracting the amount generating which wastes, a company cannot of a hazardous substance going out as product know how to reduce those wastes. Information (if any) from the amount brought into the plant at this stage may also be collected at varying or process, a company can calculate the total levels of detail. Companies can informally link amount that appears as waste and can then at- their identified wastes with the process or tempt to account for this amount through waste operation(s) already known to produce them stream measurements. Such calculations may without collecting additional information, or contain major uncertainties, a and accounting they may attempt to trace hazardous substances for all of a substance in a process is usually time- back to where waste generation is occurring. consuming and expensive. Mass balance calcu- One effective way to do this is to conduct proc- lations are done routinely in some industries, ess level mass balance calculations for hazard- but frequently they are not sufficiently sensi- ous substances and then search processes for tive for waste reduction purposes.A points of waste generation or emission until all 3 [j ncc rta i nt i es i n m as~ balance calcu{atio ns due to chem ica ] waste has been accounted for. c;tmnges ~~ ith in process and to measurement errors are discussfxl later in th[; chaptt?r [SW; dis(:llssiorr a(:(.c)r~l~)~~n}ill~ figure 4-I an(i Tracing every hazardous substance back di sc:llt~i(]n of ~c rcf:n i ng for (fe~rec of haxa r(l n n(l (hem i(:al through the process and accounting for all (: ha ngf:), 4’I’hc [ i SS (; he m i[, a 1 \ f: Xa m plc note(] i n t hc \Ia st f? r(;(f u{. t ion wastes and emissions is an overwhelmingly am- a u(f i t (f i \(, u ~~ ion i n [. h. :J s}IOW> ho~~” sign i f i(. a n t a rnou nt \ ( )f JIa ~tc bitious task. Companies usually attempt to iden- m a f fa i I to he (let f!( t f;(l t)} mass t)a la n ( c (, a 1( u I a t io ns i n a ~rf)r~ lar~f: ()[)(:rat ion. tify waste sources for only some of their wastes. 116 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Since they have limited resources, companies most cases. Direct technical assistance, in the may reasonably decide that they can identify form of a consultant brought onsite, may be enough waste reduction opportunities without more useful (although consultants are often not seeking complete, detailed information about knowledgeable about a specific plant’s opera- all their wastes and waste sources. tions), but is also more expensive. Offers of such assistance by government may be resisted be- Step 3: Setting Priorities for cause of proprietary concerns. Waste Reduction Actions Cost and savings information on waste re- priorities for waste reduction actions may be duction approaches includes their anticipated influenced by: effects on the costs of capital, labor, raw materials, and waste management. Potential side ef- ● existing regulations affecting particular fects on production operations and product types of hazardous wastes, quality may also be important and must be ● the need to conserve costly raw materials, assessed, Tight estimates of these figures are ● the ease and expense of implementing difficult to make because waste reducing meas- waste reduction for particular substances ures are front-end process and operations mod- (see Step 4, below), and ifications and may have effects on other parts ● the adverse health effects and degree of of the process or operation that are difficult to hazard of different wastes. predict. In some cases, one of these factors may over- Information needed about risks involved in ride all others. For example, regulations may waste reduction actions include the cost of dis- promote some waste reduction action for a par- rupting operations and possible costs associ- ticular substance, in which case information ated with changes in product quality. on the others maybe of academic interest only. Step 5: Economic Comparison of Waste Reduction Step 4: Analysis and Selection of Technically and Alternatives With Waste Management Options Economically Feasible Reduction Techniques Waste reduction opportunities must be Having decided which wastes to target, a shown to be economically preferable to more company must then decide on the best way to traditional pollution control methods if they are accomplish reduction. Required at this stage to be judged attractive. Information that will is information about process engineering and be required to compare waste reduction meas- materials, the costs of waste reduction ap- ures with the alternative of waste management proaches and the savings possible from their includes data about the technical and economic use, the risks involved in making changes, and characteristics of the waste reduction action internal investment conditions. (discussed in Step 4) as well as information process engineering and materials informa- about current waste management costs. tion for the target processes is most often pro- The economic assessment of waste reduction vided by in-house personnel but, in some in- versus management must include some infor- stances, waste reduction information from mation, however fuzzy, about the potentially outside—from other plants, trade associations enormous costs associated with waste manage- or State technical assistance programs—may ment liability, Quantifying these risks or costs be useful. OTA has found that transfer of waste is difficult, but even if the risk of becoming in- reduction technology through information pro- volved in a Superfund site is small, the poten- vided in publications—as is commonly at- tial costs are so large that for many companies or is perceived to be, an tempted now—is, this becomes the primary motivation for waste unsuccessful method by most companies. A reductions company may be able to adopt a general idea from waste reduction literature but substantial tailoring to onsite conditions must follow in SSee the results of OTA’S industry survey in app. A. Ch. 4—Data and Information for Waste Reduction ● 117

Step 6: Evaluation of the Progress and Success Charging Full Waste Costs to Processes of Waste Reduction Measures To reduce their waste generation, companies In order to plan future waste reduction in- need to be able to factor waste-related data into telligently, companies must find out how suc- decisions made about actions that will take cessful their past and current efforts are. They place at the front end of production. This can must know how waste reduction measures have be done most effectively by charging each pro- altered the composition and amount of their duction process with the ultimate costs (includ- wastes and what the costs and savings have ing possible liabilities) of managing the wastes been. They must also compare actual costs and it generates. This seems obvious but it is fre- savings with the estimates that were made in quently not done, and this neglect exerts a bias the planning stage to understand how good against waste reduction. Waste management their planning has been. costs, such as the costs of running a company’s Information needed for this step includes: onsite treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), maybe a separate budget item. When enough information on all postreduction management costs are externalized in this way, waste streams, including their composi- design engineers, plant managers, and proc- tion, amounts, and fate, to measure reduc- esses engineers have little incentive to reduce tion and to show to what extent wastes wastes, production decisions may be made in have just been shifted from one environ- favor of more waste-intensive methods which mental medium to another; are not cost-effective because waste manage- waste reduction costs and savings, includ- ment costs have not been fully factored into the ing information about unanticipated decision. Only when companies develop ac- glitches, inconveniences suffered, and any counting information on waste costs at the unforeseen benefits of waste reduction; process and operations level can cost-effective and decisions and the full economic benefits of Step 4 and 5 planning information for com- waste reduction be demonstrated. par-ison with results so that the company can ascertain how good its planning estimates have been.

TYPES OF WASTE REDUCTION INFORMATION

We have seen that each company or plant 2. Type P: Production information on types operation requires many different kinds of in- and amounts of inputs (raw materials) and formation if it is going to be effective in reduc- outputs (product) measured over time and ing the generation of waste. Government and proportions of inputs which end up as haz- the public, too, will need many types of infor- ardous wastes or react to produce hazard- mation to understand how waste reduction is ous wastes. proceeding. OTA has grouped the information 3. Type E: Economic information including: discussed above into six types based on its char- I) costs and savings of waste reduction acter and source. They are: measures; 2) waste management costs, in- 1. Type W: Waste stream data. These data cluding liability costs; and 3) information identify the chemical composition of a on the general economic situation of the waste stream and the amount of each haz- company (e. g., available capital, labor ardous substance present and relate chem- costs, production costs). ical contents to different processes and 4. Type T: Technolog~~ information on the points within processes. chemistry and engineering of company 118 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

processes and on possible waste-reducing For pollution control and management pro- changes to those processes. grams (RCRA, Clean Water, Clean Air, Super- 5. Type R: Regulatory requirements that af- fund) a discrete set of compliance or cleanup fect the company’s operations or that af- technologies can be identified which can be ap- fect proposed waste-reducing changes in plied to waste streams, Pollution prevention those operations. process improvements can be categorized and 6. Type H: Health and environmental effects common techniques identified, but, as chap- and degree of hazard information on haz- ter 3 shows, it is-not possible to compile a l~st ardous substances. Also included is infor- of technologies for waste reduction. Economic, mation about degree of risk, which may production, and waste stream data [Types E, comprise a wide range of data about con- P and W] are clearly specific to operations, centrations of substances, disposal meth- Second, the kinds of information which ods, and the environmental characteristics weigh most heavily in industry decisions about of the areas in which wastes are generated, waste reduction tend to be those that are handled, transported, and disposed, operation-specific, i.e., economic, production, Several characteristics of these information and waste data. Health and degree of hazard types are particularly critical for formulating information [Type H] are usually less impor- policy. First, only the last two, regulation infor- tant in industry’s decisions about waste reduc- mation and healthlhazard information [Types tion; regulatory information [Type R], on waste R and H], are uniform throughout industry. reduction, is currently quite limited, T There is a set of standard government regula- Information that most directly affects indus- tions (State and Federal) under which all com- trial waste reduction efforts, particularly eco- panies operate. Similarly, standard data on the nomic information about production, waste health effects of different hazardous substances management costs, and liabilities, is diffuse, could be compiled.B Technology information specific, and often confidential. As discussed [Type T] may be generic to some extent, but below, this has important implications for gov- less so than it is for pollution control programs, ernment policy, — eDegree of risk calculations would have to be more site-specific 7 because these vary with population density, exposure rates anci Ch. 5 discusses the voluntar~’ nature of the current Federal other site-specific data. waste minimization program.

INFORMATION NEEDED FOR FEDERAL POLICYMAKING

Industry and government collect different All Federal action options require a baseline types of information because they play differ- of information that will yield answers to ques- ent roles in waste reduction, Industry collects tions about this big picture. An overall view detailed process improvement information for is required to assess the nature and scope of direct application to a specific waste generat- waste reduction possibilities, to set priorities, ing processes. The Federal Government, on the and to help determine what kind of Federal ac- other hand, needs to know the sum of all or tion will best serve the public good, In the case a great many individual waste reduction ac- of waste reduction, some important questions tions, whether they represent successes or are: failures, and how this information relates to ● How much hazardous waste of all kinds, larger U.S. industrial, economic, and environ- released into all environmental media, gen- mental issues and policies, erated in the United States each year? Ch, 4—Data and /formation for Waste Reduction ● 119 —

How much is that generation figure chang- Usefulness of Current Data ing each year? for Waste Reduction To what extent are the changes a reflection of industrial production and to what Data currently being developed and main- extent are they the result of waste practices? tained by the Federal Government for pollution How much waste reduction is possible? control do not provide any basis for a hazard- When could it be achie~~ed? ous waste reduction program. This mass of in- H OW much do different increments of formation provides few insights into current waste reduction cost? What are the risks? waste reduction rates and no sense of how What are the benefits? much waste reduction might be possible in the future. Inadequacies of these data for waste re- TO answer such questions and to paint a big duction stem from the fact that existing pollu- picture of the waste reduction issue, cietailed tion control programs are: not multimedia in information is needed on many small waste re- nature, address only a limited number of haz- duction pictures around the country. Doing this ~~ithout becoming swamped in masses of data ardous substances, and address a different set of substances in each environmental medium. is not simple, either in theor}’ or in practice. The data collected, especially under RCRA, are In order to make sense of masses of waste re- not usually substance-specific but cover some duction data, government will need: conglomerate waste, only a portion of which Q waste reduction information from a signif- is hazardous, icant number of representative generators III addition, the following features combine in a representative cross-section of indus- to seriously limit the applicability of these data trial sectors, company sizes, and geo- to waste reduction analyses: graphic locations; ● data standardized in format, collection pro- ● While a large amount of data is available cedures, and period icity; and on wastes, very little is a~’ailable on the c a data management system to allow anal- processes that generate the wastes. This ysis of data once collected. is not surprising given the pol]ut ion control orientation of current regulations. Existing data systems do not come close to ● What little production and process infor- satisfying any of these criteria. Neither do they mation exists is protected as confidential shed much 1 ight on any of the basic questions business information (CBI] which limits ac- about the waste reduction situation. Part of the cess to this data by the public and also b]’ reason for this lies in the way in which we cur- the staff of the Environmental Protection rentl~’ collect information about hazardous Agency for any purpose other than that for w’astes, but the complexity of gathering waste which it was explicitly collected. Much of reduction information itself is also responsible. this data was not a~~ailable to the ~~’astc minimization people ~~’ithin EPA. Waste Reduction Information ● There is little uniformit~ in collection Available to Government method or time period in the existing data. Much of the most useful data for I\Taste re- Sources of information about hazardous sub- duction has been collected onll on an ad sta n[;cs i n the public domain and comments hoc basis, often as part of a (:ont raclor’s on their usefulness for ~~~aste reduction are study to support a(:t ion 011 S0111(1 sin~le SLlb- brieflj cataloged in table 4-2. The Federal pro- stance OJ’ small Sroup of substances. MII(:h grams un(]er i~’h ich these data arc co]]ected are of t hc na t iona 1 data is extrapolated from c1 isc u ssc({ i n [jh apter 5. a sampling o f represent a til’e plants. Samples 120 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste -.

Table 4-2.—Existing Sources of Information Collected by the Federal Government and Their Applicability to Waste Reduction

Limitations on applicability to waste reduction -- Sources of potentially useful Information — -- RCRA: ‘- - General 1. RCRA-defined waste categories for information collection are very broad and often contain large amounts of nonhazardous constituents. 2, RCRA-regulated wastes are only a fraction of total wastes generated In the United States. a Manifest Information including quantities and types of 1, Data not centrally collected or managed Manifests are dispersed throughout wastes shipped off site [Type W] State and EPA regional offices. Data not completely or centrally computerized; often hard copy only. 2. Waste type Identification IS not always accurate, 3 No data about waste minimization program IS contained in certification 4, Manifested wastes are only a small percentage of total wastes generated in the United States, Biennial report information (summaries of generator 1. States administer biennial reporting and use different definltlons, making it and TSDF activities submitted every 2 years; impossible to combine data from different States. Includes description of waste mi nlmization activities 2 Descriptions of waste minimization activities Included are In a narrative form and program) [Type W, perhaps some of types T&P] and quantitative data on waste minimization activities or achievements not standardized. 3. Waste minimization Information only required of generators who ship off site. 4, Waste minimization not defined; can include a wide variety of recycllng and other waste management actlvlttes in addition to waste reduction, Hazardous waste permits for TSDFS Including amount 1, Broadness of RCRA waste categories and Inclusion of nonhazardous and type of waste to be handled [Type W] constituents. 2 RCRA-regulated wastes are only a small fraction of total wastes generated In the United States. 3 Permit waste figures are only one-time estimates; no t!me-series data to indicate changesltrends, 4 Waste mlnimtzation Information retained on site of facility. EPA’s Waste Minimization Report [Types W, T, P, R, 1 Examines only RCRA-regulated wastes, a perhaps H & E] Westat Survey (attempt to estimate national waste 1, Estimates only RCRA waste generation.a generation) [Type W] 2, Estimates RCRA generation only by waste group (F, K,U, etc.), not by waste stream (FOO1, FO02, etc.). 3. There are quallty problems with the data, stemming In part from the sampllng method used 4 Survey provides no time-series data; no waste reduction trends can be assessed Industry studies [Types W,P,T, perhaps E] 1 Completed only for two industrial sectors, underway for only two more 2. Data collected only at only polnl In time: no trend data developed 3 Data are confidential Clean Water Act: NPDES permit and monitoring Information including 1 Data are largely in hardcopy, not computerized, and therefore not easily amount and contents of discharges as well as accessible process creating toxic pollutants [Types W,P] 2, Most data are kept In regional offices, not easily accessible for national analysis, 3. Data are collected in all States only for conventional pollutants and the 65 CWA-listed toxic pollutants.a 4 Data only on permitted discharges, not on actual generation 5 Data from technology-based standards will not be substance-specific. 6. Data reveal nothing about amount of pollutants shifted into Iandfllled sludge to achieve compliance Indirect discharge (pretreatment) data 1 Not centralized Each indirect discharger and POTW keeps own data according to its own format. Information used to set effluent guldellne Ilmitatlons, 1. Data developed with diverse collection methodologies by different contractors pretreatment standards, and water quality standards 2 Data collected over differing periods of time, [Type W, some T,E,P] 3 Data collected only on a limited number of substances, Clean Air Act: NESHAP standard-setting Information [Type W, some 1 Exists only for a very Ilmlted number of substances.a T&E] 2, Data are mostly confidential 3, Format, collection methods, period of collection of data vary widely NESHAP Implementation data Includlng emissions 1. One-time only data; no time-series data, so no reduction trends. amounts and sources [Type W] 2. Available on only a small number of substances (six).a Information collected for the Ambient Air Quallty 1 Not centrally managed, kept at the State level, program [Type Wl .—

Ch. 4—Data and Information for Waste Reduction ● 727 — ————

Table 4-2.— Existing Sources of Information Collected by the Federal Government and Their Applicability to Waste Reduction—Continued

Sources of potentially useful Information Limitations on applicability— to-waste reductlon Toxic Substances Controi Act (TSCA): Inventory of 64,000 chemicals including amount 1, Collected only once for any substance, Much of it out of date. produced by individual plants [Type P] 2, Most of the data are confidential. Exposure information for 250 chemicals–essentially 1. Kinds of chemicals studied are not primarily chemicals of common concern plant-specific mass balance information [Types HP] In hazardous wastes. 2 Virtually all data are confidential. Health and safety data [Type H] 1. Many of the raw test data have not been evaluated. 2. Substances are chosen for review because of their use in products In commerce and manufacturing, not because of their presence as pollutants Information on new toxic chemicals Includlng process 1, One-time only data; estimates of releases are not subsequently confirmed information and estimates of environmental releases. 2, Virtually all these data are confidential. Data on 6,000 new chemicals received [Types W,P,Tl Census Bureau, Department of Commerce: Production information for all manufacturing 1. Census Bureau is legally barred from disseminating this Information except operations [Type P] on an aggregated, industry wide basis. Bureau of Mines, Department of the interior: Production and use information on hazardous minerals 1 Data available on only a small number of substances (minerals rather than (e.g , mercury, cadmium) chemicals), a 2 Information confidential except in aggregated form. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Rough percentage data on hazardous constituents in 1, Data are old (1974). various consumer products [Type P&H] 2. No estimates on total production are provided Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Requires Material Safety Data Sheets listing hazardous 1, No centralized database of this information, 2, Confidentiality can restrict information prowded, constituents in chemicals sold [Type P] .— Data collectd under individual programs can rarely be combined for one purpose because of different on methods—used KEY Type W = Waste stream data Type T = Technology information Type P Product Ion information Type R = Regulatory information Type E Economtc (rrformatlon Type H = Health and environmental effects tnformatton SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1986

and techniques are not the same among in- Substances Control Act (TSCA) to collect industry categories and among programs formation relevant to waste reduction should within EPA and are not the same over time. the Federal Government decide to pursue such ● Most information concerns emissions that an option, In addition, Congress has under con-

are dispersed into only one environmental sideration an expanded information-gathering medium. program in the Comprehensive Environmental ● Very different amounts, kinds, and quali- Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act ties of data have been collected for differ- (CERCLA or Superfund) conference commit- ent hazardous substances depending on the tee bill. If taxing provisions for Superfund are kinds of regulatory actions that have been agreed to by the conference committee and both applied. houses pass the full Superfund legislation, the ● Very little, if any, information exists for the government may have this new authority by the many hazardous substances that are not end of 1986. regulated. ● Existing data are not very accessible, Most often they are in hard copy and very often Toxic Substances Control Act are scattered through regional and State offices throughout the United States. Because TSCA is not a pollution cent rol statute but is aimed at control of production and Federal Authority To Collect More Information distribution of toxic substances, it may be more relevant to waste reduction than any other stat- Congress has recognized the need to collect ute. There are, however, several major prob- information on hazardous substances. Consid- lems with attempting to use TSCA for waste crable authority already exists under the Toxic reduction purposes. 122 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

To support the ranking of chemicals for in- Third, there is a small business exemption vestigation and chemical risk assessments re- provision incorporated into Section 8. Thus, quired under TSCA, the act’s Section 8 gives information collected under this section does the Federal Government broad powers to ob- not cover all plants. For example, in the case tain information on the production, distribu- of the PAIR, most manufacturers or processors tion, and use of toxic substances. This author- with total sales of less than $30 million per ity has been exercised with the promulgation year or with total annual production of under of the Preliminary Assessment Information 100,000 pounds of a chemical have been ex- Rule (PAIR) which required plant-level mass empted from reporting.9 balance and exposure information on 350 Finally, because much of the information sub- chemicals as of December 2, 1985.8 mitted under TSCA is production, rather than There are, however, a few limitations on waste, information, it is claimed as confiden- TSCA reporting authorities which might reduce tial business information. CBI cannot be shared the ability to use Section 8 to obtain informa- with State governments, hence any information for a hazardous waste reduction program, tion collected under TSCA Section 8 would not especially to gather mass balance data. First, be adequate to support a hazardous waste re- Section 8 reporting authorities extend only to duction program that involved any significant existing and “reasonably ascertainable” infor- State implementation, as do current pollution mation, Reporting of hazardous waste reduc- control programs. tion information that has not already been collected by a company and that is not “reasonably Superfund Reauthorization10 ascertainable” cannot be required under Sec- Both the House and Senate bills to reauthor- tion 8. However, the more cumbersome rule- ize Superfund proposed a new hazardous sub- making procedures of TSCA Section 4, which stances national inventory reporting system. provide EPA with authority to require chemi- A comparative summary of these provisions is cal testing, could be used to require the gather- given in table 4-3. ing and submission of previously unavailable information. The Senate version was very similar to the Second, because TSCA applies only to “chem- New Jersey Industrial Chemical Survey (see dis- ical substances and mixtures, “ it may be diffi- cussion below). The Senate bill required cer- cult to obtain information about operations that tain firms to report to EPA and State govern- assemble or fabricate articles. In the case of the ments every 3 years through 1993 (three reports PAIR described above, reporting is required in all) on a list of chemicals prepared by EPA or the hazardous substances listed in CERCLA. only for manufacturers of the designated chem- The information to be reported included plant- icals. Thus, those using the designated chemi- level raw material, product, and emissions data. cals to make other products and those generating the designated chemicals solely as wastes The House version was aimed at making in- have been exempted from coverage. formation available to communities to support emergency response needs. It provided for annual reporting by companies using, producing, BAS proposed i n February 1980, PAIR would have i nforma- tion on 2,226 chemicals. This number was reduced to 250 under the final rule issued in ]uly 1982, in order to reduce the burden ‘Most chemicals produced in quantities greater than 100, OW3 of reporting. Subsequent amendments to PAIR have raised the pounds annually are made in continuous process operations. number to 350. According to the chief of the OTS Chemical Batch process operations, which tend to be 1nuch more \vaste- Screening Branch, this reduction has limited the usefulness of intensive per pound of production than are continuous process the data. As it stands, PAIR provides data on too small a number operations, are therefore disproportionately excluded from of chemicals to allow ranking for Section 4 investigation, which reporting. was the purpose of collecting the data in the first place. [U.S. IOAS this report was going to press, Congress had finished its Congress, General Accounting Office, CHEMZL’AL DATA: E}JA conference committee deliberations On new Superfund legisla- Data Collection Practices and Procedures on Chemicals, RCED- tion, Complete details of the final bill, however, were not a\ail- 86-63 (Gaithersburg, ML): February 1986), pp. 25-26. ] able in time to include them here. Ch. 4—Data and information for Waste Reduction 9 123

Table 4-3.—Comparison of Proposed National Inventory Requirements in Superfund Reauthorization Legislationa . . -.. , Senate Bill House Bill Who must report...... Manufacturers, processors ( >200,000 lb/yr), Companies producing, using, or storing users ( >2,000 lb/yr) of listed substances; listed substances SICS 20 through 39 Hazardous substances list . . EPA to prepare list following guidelines in EPA’s July 1985 Acute Hazards List or bill; otherwise Superfund hazardous EPA determined list of those substances substances I ist effective causing “imminent or substantial endangerment” Reports due ...... 1987, 1990, and 1993 only Every year Report content ...... Uses of chemical; estimated amounts Chemical name (unless confidential) Input data...... Amount shipped to plant; amount consumed Amount present at plant onslte Output data ...... Amount leaving as product; amount shipped Total annual amount released to environment as wasteiby product and amount in excess of that permitted under Federal pollution control laws Discharge data ...... Amount of discharges to air, surface water, Discharges to any environmental medium land, subsurface injection, POTWS, and in excess of a designated amount amount discharged from onsite treatment facilities (and treatment method) Submitted to ...... State office designated by Governor and to Local emergency response committee EPA Other comments ...... EPA required to computerize information Health data (MSD sheets) also must be reported with above information received; information to be publicly available . aAccord(ng to Ilmlted details available before th!s OTA report went to press, both the Senate and House reporting systems are !ncluded I n the Superfund conference bill, some aspects have been changed SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment 1986 or storing listed substances to local emergency Later in this chapter is a discussion about response committees. The data required in- appropriate ways to measure waste reduction. cluded an inventory of the amount present at As that discussion shows, the above national a plant site, annual environmental emissions, inventory systems fall short of providing de- and material safety information on each chem- finitive waste reduction data (see also ch. 2). ical reported. They could, however, supply some preliminary information that may be helpful for initial pol- According to some information available on icy decisions and setting program priorities. the conference committee bill, Congress has The establishment of such systems could also decided to require both types of reporting. The pave the way for more appropriate waste re- more extensive Senate version (“toxic chemi- duction data collection. cal release forms”) will not start until 1988 and will be an annual report until 1993, EPA then has the discretion to lessen the frequency of State Chemical Inventories the reporting cycle. The threshold amounts that determine who must report were lowered for Some States have already conducted plant- manufacturers and processors but substantially level chemical inventories; none have been con- increased for users. Under the emergency re- ducted for waste reduction purposes or are par- sponse inventory, EPA has been given the dis- ticularly relevant for waste reduction. Surveys cretion to set thresholds and the information tend to be one time events so that no time ser- submitted may be aggregated into health and ies information on waste generation is created, physical hazard categories. Congress has re- and they collect annual inventory data rather tained the requirement that EPA set up a com- than waste generation per production output. puterized database for management of the data They can identify major sources of chemicals, collected on the toxic chemical release forms, and this information can be valuable for set- 124 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste ting program priorities, New Jersey’s Industrial swer is yes, the respondent is given two lines Chemical Survey is one of the best known. It in which to describe those methodologies, What is probably the most comprehensive of these is not clear is how New Jersey officials intend efforts and was the basis for the national in- to use the responses to this question. As is the ventory system provision in the Senate Super- case with the Federal waste minimization re- fund reauthorization bill. porting requirement, an endless variety of nar- ratives may result for which no aggregation will New Jersey’s Industrial Chemical Survey col- be possible. lected 1978 data on 155 chemicals from 7,000 plants representing a wide variety of manufac- Maryland has a Toxic Substances Registry turers and users in the State, This one-time that contains an inventory of specific chemi- survey requested annual, plant-level mass bal- cals and facilities that use, manufacture, or ance data on the amount of each chemical process them. Much of the information is con- purchased; the amount shipped as product; sidered confidential and is collected for and the maximum amount in inventory; and the used primarily by State agencies for program amounts present in the air, water, and solid development. For instance, one survey was con- waste streams. The survey cost New Jersey ap- ducted in 1985 on 300 chemicals of interest to proximately $200,000 to complete, and State the State air toxics program. Twelve hundred officials have reported that few claims of con- firms were surveyed (90 percent response rate) fidentiality were made by firms. on their use, production, and handling of the listed chemicals; no emissions data was re- In 1986 New Jersey began collecting new in- quested. formation under its right-to-know legislation; this survey will be repeated every 2 years. It New York State has conducted an Industrial covers firms that produce, use, or store any of Chemical Survey to collect information on 142 154 hazardous substances, Most firms only chemicals used, stored, manufactured, or trans- need complete Part I, giving a range of the max- ported in the State to improve local emergency imum inventory of the chemicals on hand at response procedures. The State Attorney Gen- any one time during the year. In Part II, esti- eral in assessing the information said that, while mated plant-level mass balances of the chemi- it is valuable, much is classified as trade secrets, cals must be reported. In one section firms are is now outdated, and only covers larger firms asked if any methodologies are being employed in the State, 12 to “achieve source reduction or waste avoidance of generated [RCRA] wastes, ”ll If the an-

I I New. JCrsepr ~ nvl ron mental survey,, [’art II, Question N O . 14. The questionnaire defines source reduction and waste a\oid- ance activities as those activities that OTA considers waste reduct ion. Howe\’er, although the su r~’ejr coirers al 1 mcd ia releases, lz~obert Abra1n5, Attorne\, Genera], State of Ne\II }’ork, ‘‘Toxic this waste redu(:t ion question onl~ applies to K(; R.A hazardous Chemical Ac(:idents in Ne\v }rork State: The Risk of Another wastes. 13hopal, ” Jan. 14, 1986.

WAYS TO MEASURE WASTE REDUCTION

Questions about how much waste is currently of nonhazardous constituents in waste streams, being generated and how that figure is being regulatory changes, and cross-media shifts. Ex- reduced (or increased) over time should be an- isting waste generation data are therefore not swerable with data on waste generation. How- useful for answering waste reduction questions ever, as discussed earlier, true waste reduction because: 1) they deal only with some fraction may be disguised in waste generation trends by of hazardous wastes, often only with wastes reg- changes in production, changes in the amount ulated under a single statute (e. g., RCRA Ch. 4—Dafa and /formation for Waste Reduct/on ● 125 tt’astes); 2) the~’ are mass or \’olu me estimates Measurement Criteria only; and 3) the~’ a m in no w~ay correlated to To provide a complete and reliable mcas[] re- p ro(i uc t io n. ment of waste reduction, ~vaste generation (i at a Most hazardous wastes ar[; (;omplex mixtures collection methods would have to b(: (:ha nge(l of” hazardous a n d nonhazardous con stitucn ts. to meet the following criteria. ~~er} often ~~ater is the largest com~)f)nent of Criterion 1: Waste Reduction Data Must Be Correlated to ra~~r ~tastc streams that contain onl} small Production .—Bec ause waste generat ion [raries amounts of’ hazardous sul)sta n(:cs. Thus, vol - directly with capacity utilization (ctrer}rthing u me reduction measurements by t hemsel~res else remaining the same), it is important to reveal nothing about the hazardous portion of know whether waste amoul~ts are rising and any waste st rca m. (; [)n cc n t ration of’ hazardous failing because more or Iess produ(;t is being subst a rices alo nc is not lvaste reduc t ion. Si m i- manufactured or because ~~’aste rcduct ion nleas- larly, L1’astc generation (Iepends on ~)roduction: ures are being implemented. lt’:i:;tc generation trends in data not (:orrelate(l to ~)rod{lct ion ma}r figures noi correlated to production (:an ma,sk indicate a rise or f’a11 i n tvaste genera t ion at- ~k’aste reduction succe,sse.? a.s Itrf:ll as f;~ilurt?nt totai amount of hazardous waste generated per between 1983 and 1985, from 115,000 poun(]s to unit of production. This is the only way to com- 110,000 pounds. But annual product ion hours pensate for the production, volume, and multi- had nearly doubled over this perio(l from 2,380 rned ia limitations of existing data. to 4,55o, therefore waste generation dropped from 48,3 to 24.2 pounds per hour of ~)rodLlc- As outlined below, such a measurement \voLlld tion—al most a 50-percent (Iec I-ease. 14 require a large amount of very detailed process- and substance-specific waste information col- Criterion 2: Waste Reduction Information Must Be Sub- lected periodically on a production output ba- stance-Specific .—This is the onl} wa~’ to oi’ercome sis. There are many reasons why collecting this the volume measurement problem an(i the me- amount and type of data may be impractical, d ia shifting problem. When ~ir ast e st r(!a ms are but understanding what data are theoretically complex mixtures of hazar(ious an(l nonhazard- required to assess waste reduction will illustrate some of the risks and unccrta intics in- curred by accepting imperfect an(l, perhaps, m isleaci ing data. 126 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

ous substances, volume measurements do not Figure 4-1 .—Process Chemistry Changes That give the amount of hazardous substances in the May Affect Mass Balance Calculations waste, much less the amount of any given haz- Case 1: Chemical A IS not changed In the production process (Chemical A IS a hazardous substance) ardous substance. One might hope to gather this information by intensively monitoring waste Chemical A streams for their hazardous constituents, how- Raw materials. (plus other materials) ever such a procedure would assume that all releases were known. Fugitive air emissions, f leaks, and spills can contain substantial Wastes: Chemical A amounts of hazardous materials and would (plus other wastes) almost certainly not be accounted for in such a system. ● Products Chemical A (plus other components) In theory it is simple to calculate the amount I I of a specific substance appearing as waste in a process. One subtracts the amount of the substance in the product from the amount of the Case 2: Chemical A IS converted Into Chemical B In the produc- substance in the raw material; the difference tion process (At least one of the two chemicals, A & B, IS is waste. A company would then know how hazardous much of that substance must be accounted for Chemical A in all waste streams and emissions. Such a mass Raw materials. (pius other materials) balance calculation for specific substances I I keeps nonhazardous constituents from diluting the usefulness of hazardous waste data. Wastes Chemicals A and/or B Also, by forcing an accounting of all emissions (plus other wastes) throughout the process, it finds previously un- . known sources of waste which may aid in planning waste reduction. In practice, however, mass balance calculations are not always easy to conduct or reliable. There is always uncertainty in input and Case 3: Chemical A IS converted Into Chemical B, producing the output measurements. When the inputs and unintended hazardous byproduct, Chemical C (Chemicals outputs are large relative to the difference be- A & B may or may not be hazardous.) tween them, the uncertainties may be larger Chemical A than the amount of waste. Thus, these types Raw materials” (plus other materials) of calculations may reveal little or nothing about I I small quantities of highly hazardous wastes.

Process chemistry can create additional prac- Wastes tical difficulties in calculating mass balances. Figure 4-I illustrates three basic chemical scenarios which pose varying degrees of dif- Products Chemical B ficulty, (plus other components) I1 Ii In Case 1, a hazardous Chemical A is used SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment as a raw material that is incorporated into a product with some of it lost in the process. An In Case 2, Chemical A is converted into example would be the use of cadmium metal Chemical B. At least one of these chemicals is in a cadmium plating operation, which gener- hazardous, and some of that hazardous input ates cadmium m wastes i n the p recess. or product finds its way’ into the waste stream. Ch. 4—Data and Information for Waste Reduction ● 127 -.

For example, the process used in the 1970s to The plant uses 700 million pounds of cumene convert vinyl chloride gas, a known carcino- annually and had conducted a cumene mass gen, into polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic resin balance with an accuracy of plus or minus 1 allowed the release of some of the vinyl chlo- percent. The valve loss, which accounted for ride gas. only 0.06 percent of the raw material, could not be detected by this means. 15 In Case 3, Chemical A is converted into Chemical B, producing the unwanted hazard- Criterion 4: Waste Reduction Data Must Be Collected Peri- ous waste byproduct, Chemical C. An exam- odically.—This may sound obvious, but it is not ple of this is the generation of highly toxic always done. Without time series data on waste 2,3,7,8 -tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (usually regeneration, waste reduction cannot be calcu- ferred to as “dioxin”) during the chlorination lated. Government information collection ef- of a number of aromatic hydrocarbons, a proc- forts about wastes, in particular, are frequently ess used in the manufacture of pesticides. one-time events or a series of events which cannot be compared. Even at this simple level, it is obvious that chemical alterations that occur in instances such as Case 2 and, particularly, Case 3 com- Practical Constraints on plicate the mass balance calculation. Calculat- Waste Reduction Measurements ing mass balances for complex industrial proc- There are several practical reasons why per- esses which involve many substances and many fect waste reduction information can never be complex chemical reactions is a monumental assembled by government. Some of these have task. already been alluded to. First, not all industrial Criterion 3: Waste Reduction Data Must Be Process- operations lend themselves to measurement of Specific.—Conducting mass balance calculations waste on a production output basis because at the plant level with a high degree of sensi- units of production or output are often not easy tivity and accuracy would be extraordinarily to establish. This is particularly true in service difficult. Processes, reactions, and transforma- industry job shops such as autobody shops tions are usually so complex that good data can- where significant amounts of solvents may be not be collected except at the smallest produc- used but in a mix of applications which can tion level—the process or unit operation. It not be easily correlated to sales, profits, or hours might be possible in some cases to conduct a of operation, Similarly, in many batch proc- very rough mass balance on a hazardous sub- esses, such as dye mixing and specialty chemi- stance at the plant level by figuring the differ- cal formulation where both product and waste ence between input and product output and as- vary in type and quantity, a meaningful meas- suming the rest is waste, without trying to track ure of unit production may be difficult, but not that waste. Doing this over time, one might get impossible, to establish. a rough sense of the amount of waste reduc- Second, the amount of data theoretically tion, but the uncertainties in this calculation needed to assess waste reduction is staggering. are almost always large and may not reveal Collecting process-level mass balance data on much about small amounts of highly hazard- every single hazardous substance from every ous waste. Moreover, a plant-level mass balance plant in the country is impossible. would not normally provide any guide for waste reduction action because it tells little about Third, many companies consider detailed where the substance appears as waste in the data on their processes to be proprietary. Com- plant operations. panies may fear that, if made public, this information could be useful to their competitors One illustration of the limitations of plant- level mass balances is the case of a leaking valve —— at USS Chemicals that was emitting 400,000 15~a\,i~ ], sarok ill, Ct ;]],, [,’utfjng (;ht?IJ?l’{;a] \l’[Isf(?s (N Pi\. }roI’h: pounds of cumene worth $100,000 annually. IN E’ORM, In(,., 1985). 128 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste — — and may therefore strongly resist reporting such arising from nonhazardous constituents, cross- data. media shifting, and variations in production, However, once generation figures are sub- Fourth, even if industry had the resources to stance- and process-specific and corrected for collect and report this kind of data, government production volume they appear difficult to ag- has not yet demonstrated its ability to efficiently gregate. The problem becomes one of how to and effectively manage the data on wastes that combine: it currently requires from industry. A data deluge of this magnitude would be overwhelming. X metric tonnes of TCE waste/year of autobody decreasing, But, government does not necessarily need Y metric tonnes TCE waste/meter of fab- a huge amount of disaggregated process-level ric scoured, and information, policy makers need a few crucial Z metric tonnes TCE waste/10,000 door- numbers to understand the crucial questions knobs cleaned to obtain plant-or company- about waste reduction. Examination of current level information. waste generation figures reveals uncertainties

PRACTICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION Pooling Waste Reduction Data stream of X tonnes/year, a B percent reduction in a stream of Y tonnes/year and a C percent One way for government to obtain waste re- reduction in a waste stream of Z tonnes/year duction data without invading the proprietary is a combined reduction of the total waste domain of industry is for companies to pool stream of X+Y+Z of: their waste reduction data in the form of waste reduction percentages. A(X/X +Y+Z) + B(Y/X+Y+Z) + C(Z/’X +Y+Z) = ~e~~::::

Pooling works as follows: a company calculates Since the waste data is volume data, this ap- the absolute amount of a particular waste gen- proach does not necessarily reveal anything erated at the process level per unit production .16 about the degree of hazard or environmental output per year It then converts that figure risks posed by the waste. However, when sub- into a percentage reduction (or increase) rela- stance-specific data are available, this approach tive to the last year’s generation. The percen- can make such determinations. tages can be combined across different processes, plants, or industries by using weighted In this way, a company can pool its process- averages .17 An A percent reduction in a waste level reduction figures into one plant-level reduction figure for each waste. All the-plant level 16A varietv of ways [~ ~a]~u]ate waste I’(?duction as related tO reduction figures can then be pooled into one production ~utput have been used in industry. Some are simple company reduction figure. Similarly, company variations on the method presented here. For example, measuring percentage waste reduction per unit production in any par- figures can be pooled into single reduction ticular year against some standard baseline year (much the way figures for States, industrial sectors, or the en- economists measure in constant dollars) is perfectly valid. It tire country, (See box 1-D in ch, 1,) differs from OTA’S method only in that it presents sums of waste reduction percentages over all years since the baseline year, rather Government could choose whether it wanted than reporting reduction as individual annual percentage changes. This method may be more useful for long-term trends companies to report at the plant or company but less revealing about acti~rity in any given year. However, OTA considers some other methods currently used to be less accurate. For example, measuring percentage waste reduction as a func- leading. A large percentage reduction in a small waste stream tion of revenues may not be reliable, because product changes could skew the average to give an overly positive picture of the and price changes prevent revenues from dire(;tly reflecting pro- average waste reduction, Similarly, the importance of a small duction. percentage reduction in a large stream would not be adequately 17Without ~,elghting reduction percentages to reflect the differ- represented without proper weight ing of the percentages in the ent sizes of waste streams reduced, the a~rerages may be mis- average. Ch. 4—Data and Information for Waste Reduction ● 129 level. In either case, pooled percentages con- To understand and analyze reduction meas- ceal information about company processes urements involving changes in chemistry and which can be of use to competitors, thereby al- concentration of wastes requires detailed data leviating industry’s concerns about confiden- on the composition of the waste and the ac- tiality. The pooling system also greatly limits tion(s) that brought about the change. In most the amount of data the government will receive cases this is likely to be cumbersome even for and will have to manage. the industries directly involved, let alone for the government. However, it may be enough Screening for Changes in Degree of Hazard for government to screen out such data and not use them in its calculations of national waste The pooled figures correct] y measure the re- reduction, duction in volume or mass of waste generated but they do not necessarily reveal anything Limiting Data Collection/ about the amount of hazardous constituents in Living With Imperfect Data the waste or their degree of hazard. A waste reduction action may have little effect on the Clearly the data required for accurate waste degree of hazard of a waste for two reasons. reduction measurement are extremely difficult First, the concentration of the hazardous con- to obtain in practice. However, establishing a stituents in the waste may change. This is a method for acquiring some useful data, even problem of particular concern in measuring re- incomplete or imperfect data, would be an im- duction in aqueous waste streams, which make provement over the current situation in which up much of the national waste output. The great virtually no meaningful waste reduction data majority of wastewater streams are 90 percent is available. Government has at least three non- or more water. With so much water, volume exclusive options for drastically limiting the col- and mass measurements easily cloud waste re- lection effort for waste reduction data and still duction measurement. Reducing the amount learn something about waste reducing activi- of process water can significantly reduce the ties in American industry. volume of an aqueous waste; the waste stream becomes more concentrated, with no reduction Option 1 in hazardous content. Conversely, if the hazardous constituent in a dilute waste stream is Government could forego substance-specific significantly reduced, only a very small reduc- data and require that simple waste volume (or tion would be measured when in fact signifi- mass) generation data be correlated to produc- cant waste reduction had occurred. tion output, as described above, and reported in terms of percent reduction. These data would Second, the chemistry of the waste may suffer because they would treat water and other change because of a waste reduction action and nonhazardous constituents as wastes, but they cloud substance-specific reduction measure- would at least incorporate economic activity ments as well as mass or volume measurements. into waste reduction figures. Such facts would Data indicating that one particular hazardous also be relatively straightforward and inexpen- constituent has been eliminated from a waste sive for industry to collect, and even this limited stream reveal nothing about any newly gener- information would be an improvement over the ated hazardous constituents. For example, TCE current situation. may be eliminated from a waste stream but if methyl chloroform has been substituted, the Option 2 amount of hazardous wastes generated may not have been reduced. Similarly, if a waste reduc- Government could require substance-specific tion action involves substituting new raw ma- data correlated to production output on only terials that produce a smaller quantity of a more a few substances of particular concern, perhaps hazardous waste, true waste reduction has not gradually increasing this number over time. occurred. This option would be most useful if imple- 130 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste mented in conjunction with Option 1. The two about which positive responses were given in could be implemented concurrently (i.e., vol- calculating national waste reduction figures, ume/production data on most wastes, with sub- because without further information the stance-specific data on a few substances) or se- amount of true waste reduction in those in- quentially (initiate volume/production collection, stances cannot be verified. Alternatively, the phasing in requirements for substance-specific government could require and analyze addi- data on substances of concern). tional information to determine if true waste reduction had taken place. This, however, could Option 3 become a very large task. Government could require simple waste vol- These options to reduce the quantity of data ume (or mass) data correlated to production out- industry would be required to report to gov- put but could screen these data for changes in ernment could lift an enormous burden off both degree of hazard. Government could require government and industry. The options may not, that for each reduction percentage reported, however, completely solve a number of the companies answer two questions: Has any practical constraints on data collection cited change in concentration in the waste accom- earlier, such as analyzing the chemistry of a panied this reduction? Has any change in the large number of waste streams and putting to- chemistry of the waste accompanied this re- gether an overall waste reduction picture from duction? Government could then reject any data disaggregated data.

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS AND OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL ACTION The information the Federal Government best available technology (BAT) for each proc- might want in order to assess the need for waste ess. This assumes that industrial processes can reduction or act on this need will depend on easily be broken up into generic types that will the action contemplated. Table 4-4 lists several be similar enough to be regulated under one possibilities for Federal action and notes the BAT standard. Even if generic divisions could information that might be needed to choose be established, industrial diversity and site- and/or implement them. It is clear from the table specific exceptions would be likely to force that the information requirements of some of many companies to petition for variances, as the options are formidable. has been the case under the Clean Water Act standards. Since BAT for waste reduction will Mandatory Reduction Levels have to be part of production technology, rather than an add-on treatment technology, one must The amount of data and information that assume that the diversity and variance require- would be required both to set and to enforce ments will be substantially larger. The contin- mandatory waste reduction standards would uous need to assess variances would inundate quickly overwhelm the regulatory process as it the government with further data and informa- now exists. The government might implement tion to manage. this option in the same way it has approached the setting and enforcing of Clean Water Act Second, standard-setting would be never- effluent limitations and standards, but it would -ending. As new industrial processes are devel- be much harder for waste reduction. EPA oped and old ones are modified, new BAT would need, first, a vast amount of technology standards would have to be set. In addition, as information on all industrial processes that re- more is learned about waste reduction, BAT lease hazardous substances into the environ- may change and new waste reducing tech- ment in order to determine what levels of waste niques may be identified and need to be incor- reduction could reasonably be expected using porated. Ch. 4—Data and Information for Waste Reduction ● 131

Table 4.4.—information Needs for Different Waste Reduction Actions by the Federal Goverment

Posslble government action Information needed —. Type(s) Assessing the waste reduction Will vary depending on depth of analysis, but may include: problem, setting priorities, and reliable national waste generation data, preferably on a substance-specific and W,P choosing an option for action: production/output basis; . reliable data on national waste reduction (or increases) to date; W,P ● Information on the amount of further waste reduction that might be TIP technically possible in different industries nationally, . cost and ease of various waste reduction measures both for industry and for E, T,P,W government, ● degree of hazard of different types of wastes to aid in targeting actions; and H ● already existing government programs that encourage waste reduction R No immediate action: Updated assessment information (above) so that changes can be monitored and for changes which may require action. Nonregulatory options: Technical Assistance and Waste reduction techniques and opportunities in a wide variety of Industries. T Education Program Implementation and success rates of waste reduction In companies assisted so W.E can evaluate program and justify continued funding. Economic Incentives Program (tax Costs of waste reduction activlties. E breaks, grants, low-interest Implementation and waste reduction success of companies assisted so can W,E loans) evaluate program and justify continued funding Regulatory Incentives (extended Current regulations and the current regulatory climate. R permit lives, expedited delisting Actual waste reduction achieved v. any sacrifices made so that trade-offs can be W,H of certain wastes for companies justified. demonstrating true waste reduction) Regulatory options: Mandatory waste reduction levels: 1 Targeting wastes of concern Waste stream contents and amounts w 2, Setting appropriate levels for Waste reduction potential in each industry T, P,E,W each industry 3. Enforcement Continual updates on all of the above information. T, P,E,W Increased mandatory reporting of None However, it is Important that government know why it is requiring this waste reduction activities, for reporting. If purpose is simply to force industry to collect this data so industry example, requiring WI I I be more alert to waste reduct!on possibilities, then government need do ● More detailed reporting of little, but if the Purpose is also to comile some useful data on indust waste reduction plans in activities, the government must have some way of managing an enormous place quantity of Incoming data so that It is accessible Current management systems ● Reporting of hard data on would not be adequate wastes reduced ● Reporting of waste reduction data on a production output basis KEY Type W Waste stream data. Type P Production Information Type E - Economic Information Type T Technology Information Type R – Regulatory informatlon. Type H Health and enwronmental effects information SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986

Third, EPA would have to enforce these rent compliance with regulatory programs of standards. Presumably, companies would be this type is low. required to report waste generation figures— perhaps by process and/or substance and/or Mandatory Increased Information Collection unit output—at regular intervals. Those figures, even at the grossest level of total volume gen- A milder regulatory option open to the Fed- erated per plant for most industrial plants in eral Government would be to increase manda- the country, would quickly swamp EPA. A mas- tory reporting of waste reduction information, sive inflow of information of this kind could including, perhaps, more detailed waste reduc- not even begin to be managed with existing re- tion plans, but to set no enforceable standards sources since EPA does not have the resources or waste reduction targets for industries. This to manage the data it already receives and cur- eliminates the need for standard-setting and en- 132 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste forcement but is still likely to produce a flood mands on data management systems. The pri- of information which government currently mary requirements are for data for planning cannot manage. It is therefore important that and priority setting among these options, The before choosing this option, policy makers de- government would probably want some infor- cide why they want more information and what mation on significant obstacles to waste reduc- they plan to do with it. The purpose may sim- tion and would want to know where compa- ply be to stimulate industry to be more alert nies most need assistance in reducing their to waste reduction possibilities. If so, govern- waste before deciding what program(s) would ment need not be very concerned about analyz- be most effective. Similarly, government would ing or using the information. Government may probably also require information on the effec- even decide not to require reporting but to re- tiveness of these programs after they are insti- quire that industry have the information avail- tuted in order to justify continued funding, As able for in-house scrutiny by EPA or State offi- a practical matter, it is not necessary that ei- cials. (This is similar to the current waste ther type of information be provided in great minimization reporting requirements under detail; government has made many decisions RCRA.) If, on the other hand, government to authorize and continue funding programs wishes to compile waste reduction information based on limited data as to their effectiveness. for its own use, government must create advanced new systems to collect and manage in- No New Major Action coming data. In order to make a considered decision that Nonregulatory Options government should take no major action, some amount of the planning and priority-setting in- Nonregulatory options generally require formation necessary for all other options would much less information and make fewer de- be needed.

CASE STUDIES: INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON TWO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES To illustrate the information currently being chemical used widely as a solvent. TCE is typi- collected on hazardous substances and its lack cal of synthetic organic chemicals: it is manu- of usefulness for waste reduction efforts, OTA factured, it is used by the chemical industry reviewed the information gathered on two to make other chemicals, it is widely used in hazardous substances—cadmium and trichloro- other industries, and it can be destroyed by a ethylene (TCE), Neither of these substances is variety of waste treatment processes or allowed representative of the universe of hazardous sub- to degrade in the environment. stances. Both were recognized decades ago as In contrast, cadmium is an elemental metal. having potentially hazardous properties, and As such, it cannot be destroyed. Once dug up each has an extensive history of scrutiny under from the ground, typically as a component of a wide variety of regulatory statutes. Much zinc or copper ore, 100 percent of it must be more information has therefore been generated disposed of in the environment. In addition to about cadmium and TCE than about most other appearing in its pure metal form, cadmium is hazardous substances in industrial use today. found as a component of hundreds of differ- Cadmium and TCE were chosen, not only be- ent chemicals, most of which share its toxic cause there was a great deal of information properties. Thus, when one refers to cadmium about them, but also because they represent as a substance of environmental concern, usu- very different classes of hazardous substances ally both metallic cadmium and its compounds with different lifecycles and industrial uses. are being discussed, Cadmium and its com- Trichloroethylene is a liquid synthetic organic pounds are generally easier to detect and quan- Ch. 4—Data and /formation for Waste Reduction ● 133 — . tify in waste streams and the environment than battery manufacture); or 2) the burning of coal are most organic compounds, such as TCE. and other fuels containing traces of the metal. For cadmium and TCE, the case studies ex- Extremely imprecise estimates project that amined the quantity and quality of information about half of cadmium wastes initially go to available to the Federal Government about: the air, about a quarter go directly to land, and another quarter are discharged into waste 1. public health and environmental hazards; water streams, *6 Whatever the nature of the 2. industrial uses that result in waste gen- original discharge, cadmium rapidly binds to eration and possible waste-reducing ap- soils and sediments and then concentrates in proaches (e.g., substitutions); biological materials, particularly leafy vegeta- 3. extent of generation as a waste nationally bles grown on contaminated soils. As a result, and at individual industrial plants [includ- foods are the largest source of human exposure ing all types of emissions, releases, and dis- to cadmium. charges into the environment); and 4 regulation and the ways in which regula- Cadmium has a long history of regulation, tory activities have affected its waste gen- but it is not clear what effect regulations hate eration nationally. had on the amount of cadmium used in industry and whether regulations have prompted Cadmium Case Study cadmium waste reduction by industries. The opportunities for cadmium waste reduction are Summary complicated by the fact that the total supply is so dependent on the production of other ma- Cadmium is an elemental metal long known terials and that all of that supply must eventu- to cause serious kidney, respiratory and cardio- ally become waste, Major cadmium legislation vascular effects. More recent evi ience from animal studies suggests that cadmium may also and regulations are presented in table 4-5. cause cancer. ig Industrial Use of Cadmium Cadmium is mined only as a byproduct of other metals, usually zinc, but also copper and Cadmium coatings are particularly useful in lead. It must be separated from these ores dur- the electrical, electronic, automotive, and aero- ing processing; the total cadmium supply is space industries. Cadmium is also important heavily dependent on the production of these in a number of other capacities. It is used in other materials. Because the supply of cadmium the negative plates of batteries. Cadmium pig- is determined by the demand for zinc, the price ments offer high-temperature stability, brilliant of cadmium is dependent only on its demand colors and high opacity, resistance to chemi- and can fluctuate widely. Ultimately, because cal attack and degradation by light, and good an element cannot be destroyed, all cadmium dispersion characteristics in plastics and paints. mined eventually becomes waste: during min- Cadmium compounds are also used as stabi- ing and extraction, during manufacturing and lizers in both flexible and rigid types of poly- industrial use, or after the disposal of cadmium- vinyl chloride to retard the degradation proc- containing products. ess caused by heat and light, Despite massive efforts, the national materials balance of cadmium is unknown because of the highly complex dispersion paths of the metal through the economy and into the envi- 18] R}] Asscx; iatw, In(., “I, e\Iel 11 hlaterials Balance: Cadmium, ” ronment. Different studies ascribe the major draft contractor report i]repare(l for EPA’s Office of Pesticides industrial sources of cadmium in the environ- and To xi(, Subs ta n( CS, Su rt’c~’ a ncl Analysis Di vi siorr, hla r, z 1, 1980. ment to: I ) mineral processing and use in va ri- lfl~l S I)fjpa rt m~:nt () f tll(? I nt erio r, 13 u reau of hl i n es, ,! Iiner:]l ous industrial applications (e. g., electroplating, F’a[ts an(i Proh] ems, 1985 r(iition. 134 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Table 4-5.–Major Legislation and Regulations Pertaining to Cadmium (Cd)

Statute: Action(s) taken — Clean Air Act: Intent to list Cd as a hazardous air pollutant published Nov. 16, 1985, based in part on EPA’s conclusion that Cd is a probable human carcinogen. Decision to list will rely on pollution control techniques for Cd and further public health risk analysis. Safe Drinking Water Act: National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards (N IPDWS) of 0.01 milligrams/liter set December 1975 was intended to include a fourfold safety factor to reduce the earliest manifestations of chronic Cd poisoning. Clean Water Act: Water quality criterion for Cd to protect human health is identical to NIPDWS, 0.01 mg/l; set Mar, 15, 1979. Ocean dumping banned for all but trace amount of Cd (proposed Jan. 11, 1977, finalized Jan. 6, 1978), “Reportable quantities” of cadmium acetate, cadmium bromide, cadmium chloride set at 100 lb in 1979. Discharge of more than the reportable quantity into navigable waters within a 24-hour period must be reported to National Response Center. Cd and Cd compounds were specifically designated in list of 65 priority toxic pollutants or pollutant categories. Cd and Cd compounds are regulated for specified industrial point sources. Applicants for NPDES permits in certain primary industrial categories with processes which discharge Cd or Cd compounds must report quantitative data on Cd discharge at each outfall. Resource Consewation and Recovery Act (RCRA): Solid waste classified as toxic hazardous waste, if passes toxicity test. Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations are designated as hazardous in part because of their Cd content. Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces and from secondary lead smelting are regulated as hazardous in part because of their Cd content. All of these designated hazardous wastes are subject to the “cradle-to-grave” manifest system that covers generators, transportation, storage, and disposal of such wastes. Groundwater cannot be contaminated beyond the facility boundary at Cd levels in excess of 0.01 mg/1. Oil containing more than 2 ppm Cd is restricted for burning. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): Tax of $4.45/ton on manufacturers, producers, and importers of Cd. Tax on receipt of waste containing Cd of $2.13/dry weight ton. Reportable quantity of 1 lb for Cd and 100 lb for Cd acetate, Cd bromide, and Cd chloride released into the environment. Cd particles need not be reported if larger than 100 micrometers. Occupational Safety and Health Act: Average exposure limit of 0.1 mg/m3 of Cd fume and 0.2 mg/m3 of Cd dust; maximum exposures: 0.3 mg/m3 and 0.6 mg/m3 respectively. Mine Safety and Health Act: Maximum air concentrations of Cd established for different types of mining operations. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Same standards as NIPDWS—O.01 mg/1. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act: Has established rules governing transport of cadmium acetate, cadmium bromide, and cadmium chloride. SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.

Substitutes for Cadmium*” other inorganic compounds, but they are often There are a number of possible substitutes less brilliant in color and lack cadmium’s sta- for cadmium. For electroplating, zinc can be bility, which is especially important in high- substituted for cadmium except for applications temperature molding of plastics. in alkaline environments or when the plate Organotin compounds are the most efficient must be exceptionally thin. Aluminum platings stabilizers known for polyvinyl chloride, but have also been successfully substituted for cad- they are much more expensive than cadmium. mium platings in recent years. The best substi- Lead stabilizers are relatively cheap and effec- tutes for cadmium in paints and pigments are tive, but they are also toxic. The lead-acid battery is the lowest cost substitute for cadmium Zolbid+ batteries. They are easily recharged and have Ch. 4—Data and Information for Waste Reduction ● 135 more capacity but are less dependable and have streams and stream sediments; figures on quan- a shorter life than cadmium batteries. tities transported in this manner are presented by OWRS with some caution. Transport and Transformation in the Environment Data Used for Legislation and Regulations There is less information on the environmental movements of cadmium waste than there In general, each regulation is supported by is on its health effects. Because cadmium is a some amount of: 1] health effects data; 2) ex- stable element and does not have a half-life for posure data, often in the form of environmental destruction, the amount of cadmium in the sur- release data; and 3] health risk assessment data, face environment can only increase. which is based on the first two. The metal and its compounds move through One instructive example is EPA’s notice of the environment in a variety of ways. Cadmium intent to list cadmium as a hazardous air pol- is first introduced into the surface environment lutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.24 during mining. The volatility of the metal al- Although this action is only a notice of intent lows release of cadmium vapors during ther- to regulate and thus can be based on less informal processes, such as ore roasting and smelt- mation than required for a full regulation, the ing, as well as during incineration of wastes type and amount of data on which this action and combustion of fossil fuels. Cadmium va- is based is of interest because: 1] it is one of por reacts with carbon dioxide, oxygen, or EPA’s most recent actions involving cadmium water vapor in the air to form cadmium car- and thus is based on the most current data; and bonate, cadmium oxide, or cadmium hydrox- 2) it is probably similar to the type, amount, ide salts, zl Atmospheric releases of cadmium and quality of data currently available to Con- eventually settle on lands and surface waters gress or EPA if either were to take action on where they bind to soils and sediments. waste reduction for cadmium. In a recent report, EPA’s Office of Water Reg- EPA makes clear in its intent to list notice ulations and Standards (OWRS) suggested that that data on sources and levels of cadmium deposition through dispersion of atmospheric emissions are problematic: emissions can affect essentially all cropland, The present estimates of cadmium emis- although the intensity of deposition is very 22 sions are subject to several sources of uncer- 10W. By contrast, since cadmium is known to tainty. These include a general lack of source- accumulate in sewer sludge, land spreading of specific information that requires the use of sludge can cause intense cadmium contamina- simplifying assumptions (e. g., the use of aver- tion in very small areas. OWRS estimates that age values for the cadmium content of fossil as much as 400 metric tons per year (mt/yr) of fuels, municipal waste, and sewage sludge). cadmium may reach cropland topsoil via phos- A second source of uncertainty concerns the phate fertilizer,23 as much as 140 mt/yr via emis- levels and effectiveness of current emission sions deposition, and as much as 70 mt/yr from controls. The EPA is aware that a number of sludge land spreading. Cadmium can also be the identified source categories are already re- eroded from crop topsoil and transported to ducing emissions of cadmium through equipment installed to control total suspended par- l ‘ U,S, Environmental f]rotf; ction ,Agen{y. Irrtf:rmf?flja Prr’oritJ ticulate matter and lead. There are questions Polfu (ant (;uidarrce Document: Cadmium. JUIY 1982. concerning whether the control efficiency}’ for 12 [J,,$, ~: n V1 ronrnental Protectjo n ~,gen[:~’, ~,’a(~~nl’[lnl [;[)rl ~d rrrj- cadmium emissions are equivalentlsimilar to nation of the )Zn virunment: i4n Assessment of Nation IIIide Risk, EPA-440/4-85-023 (Washington, DC: Office of ~1’atcr Re~ulat ions the control efficiency for total part icu}at e t?mis- and Standards, February! 1985]. sions .25 zs f)hosl)hatf; fert i I izer is Cent a m i nated ~i’ i t h (:a (i n] iu 111 heca usc cad m iu m has a natural asso(: iation wit h phosphate m I nerals. The degree to whi(;h phosph:te rm;k is contain inated u’ith cadrn ium —— depends on the ori~in of the phosphate, [(1 ,S, Environmental z450 Fe(iera ] Register 4200, o(; t, 16, 1985, Sp~?C i fic do(; 11 Inf; o t ~ ~~rote[;tiorl Agen( :}, (;ac]rnium [,’ontarnination of the Er~~iron- relied on are 1 isted in the N“otice. rnf!nt: ,4 n Assf:ssrnf:nt of ,Vation Jt’idf: Risk, n~I I it, ~). 25. ~~~() Federal Register 4200, ~{:t. 16, 1 ~8~. 136 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

EPA also noted that current source informa- Most of the data EPA uses and plans to col- tion is based on engineering estimates only. Be- lect to support this regulation are on health fore making a decision to list, EPA plans to effects and public exposure, both of which improve its information by requesting data are only peripherally related to waste re- directly from source owners and making plant duction. The emissions data component of visits and source tests, the exposure information, the most relevant to waste reduction because it is plant- EPA also plans to request additional health specific, is the area in which EPA’s data effects data. EPA’s 1981 Health Assesmient was the weakest. Document emphasized the long-recognized kid- Much of the information EPA plans to col- ney dysfunction problems as cadmium’s prin- lect will be sampling data to support mod- cipal health effect, and ingestion, rather than eling of exposure and dispersion. Such in- inhalation, as the principal path of cadmium 26 formation will be only marginally relevant exposure. Recent studies suggesting cad- to waste reduction. mium’s potential carcinogenicity prompted EPA to review and revise this document and National Materials Balance classify cadmium as a probable human carcinogen. Several attempts have been made to conduct a national materials balance for cadmium. The Public exposure information was based on most extensive effort, conducted in 1980,27 dispersion modeling, which may affect the qual- shows as much about the difficulties involved ity of the data. EPA’s Human Exposure Model in this massive effort as it shows about the estimates the cancer risk from cadmium ex- amounts of cadmium and its movements through posure by using location and emission charac- the country. teristics of actual or representative sources, combined with census and meteorological data The study was ambitious, It took a year, cost to estimate the magnitude and distribution of $225,000, and attempted a Level II materials population exposure. EPA notes that there are balance, which involves searching the pub- a number of assumptions underlying these esti- lished literature thoroughly and contacting mates that can yield either over or under esti- trade associations, other agencies, and indus- mates of the risk posed by cadmium. These in- try for unpublished information. A Level I ma- clude estimating the carcinogenic potency of terials balance would have entailed only a sur- a substance through the use of a mathematical vey of readily available information, with many model for extrapolating high-dose worker or assumptions to account for gaps in informa- animal studies to the much lower concentration. A Level III balance would have collected tions present in the ambient air. EPA plans to new data from site visits and monitoring to fill improve these estimates before proceeding fur- in gaps in the Level 11 balance so that its re- ther with its listing procedures. sults be would statistically valid, Despite the fact that EPA relied mostly on The report has never progressed beyond draft 1985 or updated data in its deliberations about form, in part because EPA’s Office of Toxic whether to list cadmium as a hazardous air pol- Substances decided not to pursue regulation lutant, it is clear from this brief overview that: of cadmium, eliminating the reason for the materials balance, Further, EPA had strong res- EPA concluded that in most areas it had ervations about some of the assumptions and insufficient data, especially concerning 28 estimates. One reason for commissioning a sources of cadmium emissions, to promul- Level II mass balance was that EPA hoped to gate a regulation at this time.

z7j R13 Associates, InC,, Op. Cit. 2eMike Callahan, Acting Director, Exposure Assessment Group, zeu. s, En~, ironmenta] protection Agency, Health Assessmen ~ Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Pro- Lkwument for Cadmium, Epff-600/81 -023, May 1981. tection Agency, personal communication, June 10, 1986. .-

Ch. 4—Data and /formation for Waste Reduction ● 137 — eliminate some of the significant uncertainties Another difficult y is the variation in cadmium in Level I mass balance calculations. Unfortu- content of fossil fuels, which account for a sig- nately, the dispersion pathways for cadmium nificant fraction of air emissions. The cadmium are so complex that the contractor could do lit- content of coal or petroleum products varies tle but guess at estimates of cadmium quanti- from reserve to reserve, from seam to seam, and ties in particular sinks and at how imprecise even within seams. their estimates might be. EPA’s concern was that these estimates, although probably as relia- Plant, Company, and Industry-Level Information ble as the others, were not of Level II certainty.29 OTA attempted to find sample plant-level in- A study on cadmium in 198530 points to fossil formation on cadmium wastes, input, or prod- fuel emissions as a much larger source of cad- uct outputs but was unsuccessful. EPA’s doc- mium air emissions than ore refining which ument, Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium, was identified in the earlier study as the major which did not examine plants but instead resource. Another study supports the importance lied on references and models, concluded that: of fossil fuels as sources of atmospheric cad- “very little information could be found about mium. 31 Discrepancies among the various ma- individual plants which manufacture products terials balances are large, often by orders of containing cadmium, 33 magnitude, and often sources of release which appear to be significant in one study are not Trichloroethylene Case Study even listed in another. These areas of disagree- ment cast doubt on the accuracy of these ma- Summary terials balance studies and call into question Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a volatile organic the possibility of conducting a reliable national compound (VOC) known for decades to be toxic materials balance on cadmium, to the liver and nervous system. More recently One problem encountered in all cadmium there has been evidence suggesting its car- materials balances is that cadmium dispersal cinogenicity. is highly complex, both in relation to produc- Trichloroethylene is an inexpensive but ef- tion and to use. Cadmium, a minor constitu- fective solvent commonly used in decreasing ent in zinc, copper, and lead ore, is not entirely operations of many kinds, particularly for me- removed by refining, Thus, some cadmium is tals, plastics, and textiles, It is also used as a carried with its companion metals through their stabilizer in the manufacture of polyvinyl chlo- lifecycles. A significant fractions of cadmium ride. TCE is produced at only two plants in the in use is associated with galvanized zinc, in United States and is used as a chemical inter- which it is found as an impurity. Similarly, mediary at about a dozen other plants. How- about a quarter of all cadmium sent to waste ever, over 90 percent of all emissions into the disposal facilities comes from phosphorus pro- environment are estimated to come from the duction, where cadmium is an impurity in the tens of thousands of different industrial de- phosphorous mineral. Thus, data on the life- creasing operations all around the country. cycles of these other substances may be neces- Only a few tenths of 1 percent of ail emissions sary for a complete understanding of the cad- are emitted during TCE production, mium materials balance. — Because of its volatility, most TCE eventu- Zw’rh is is 11 [)t tO Sa;, that a Level 1 I materials balance is imposs i- hle. JRfl also did a ~.evel 11 materials balance for benzene which ally finds its way into the air, Even TCE ini- ~:[J~ ~,onqi([or$ to he morp reliable. [Callahan, op.(i t.] tially discharged into water or land will, in large ~cl[ T S [{n LII r[j n rn[~n t~ I I)r(}ter:t io n Agen(, } , [;a(imr’rlm (,’01? ta17?i- part, volatilize. Estimates are that more than nation of the .EII ~iron merrt: A n A.s.ses.~ men t of ,\’ation ~i’lde Kish, or), [. it, 85 percent of TCE is discharged into the atmos- “G(JA Corp., Sor\fe} of Cadmiom Emission ,Sor]rce<5, EPA- phere, where it is expected to degrade with a 450/3-81-01 3, corltra(, tor report prf;pa red I[)r [{1’,4”s office of Air Quality Planrrlng an(l Standards, September 1981. 33 [ I s, E n~, irorl m[+nt:l 1 Prot(;(;t ion” Agen(; y, Sources of’.4 tmos- 1~ [j ~;t ~~,ppn 2 j a n d :] 3 per(: ent, d(.cord i ng to the J R H $t 11 (i jr. pheric [;admium, EPA-45015-79-006, August 1979. 138 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

half-life of between 24 and 48 hours. Inhala- that sufficient evidence exists to warrant clas- tion is by far the most common form of human sifying TCE as a probable human carcinogen. exposure. Industrial Use of TCE Trichloroethylene has a long history of regulation which may, in part, account for its rap- Trichloroethylene is one of the most versa- idly declining use in industry. While this de- tile and least expensive solvents used for decline has obviously been accompanied by a greasing—primarily for metals but also for plas- decline in TCE wastes generated, the overall tic, glass, and textiles.ss result may not be a decline in the amount of In addition to being a solvent, TCE is used hazardous waste, since the principal substitutes in the production of polyvinyl chloride, fungi- for TCE have been other hazardous materials— 36 cides, adhesives, and cleaning fluids. methyl chloroform for metal decreasing and methyl chloroform and perchloroethylene for Substitutes for TCE textile scouring. While these substitute materials are considered under current regulations Market factors, such as increased replace- to pose less risk to workers, when discharged ment of metals with plastics, as well as envi- into the environment they are known to be haz- ronmental and health concerns, have prompted ardous, although their effects are not well un- substitution of methyl chloroform (l,l,l-tri- derstood. chloroethane) and other solvents for TCE, As a result, production and use of TCE have de- One interesting feature of TCE regulation is creased since production peaked in 1970 at that it has been focused largely on TCE dis- 277,000 metric tons per year (ret/y r). Produc- charges into water, which are estimated to action has been estimated at 146,000 mt/yr for count for only 12 percent of TCE wastes. EPA 1978, 81,000 mt/yr for 1982, and 65,700 mt/yr is only now beginning to undertake regulation 37 for 1983. A Level I Materials Balance for TCE, of TCE air emissions, which account for ap- published in 1980, reported that TCE had al- proximately 85 percent of TCE wastes. Major ready been widely replaced by methyl chloro- TCE legislation and regulations are presented form in the metal cleaning industry and by in table 4-6. methyl chloroform and perchloroethylene in the textiles industry. 38 Hazardous Characteristics and Health Effects34 TCE has been known since the early part of Transport and Transformation in the Environment this century to have a wide variety of effects There is less information on the environ- on the human nervous system including: head- mental characteristics of this chemical than on ache, dizziness, vertigo, tremors, nausea, sleep- its health effects. Most of the information must iness, fatigue, lightheadedness, unconscious- be pieced together from very disparate sources, ness, and in some cases, death. Death related and models tend to be used heavily where data to TCE exposure is believed to result from is absent, cardiac arrest. Volatilization is the major process by which Recently TCE has been the subject of an ac- TCE is removed from surface water. The half- tive debate over its carcinogenic potential. Af- ter reviewing the evidence, EPA has concluded JsArthUr D. Little, Inc., and Acruex Corp., “An Exposure and Risk Assessment for Trichloroethylene, ” final draft, March 1981, revised October 1981, p. 3-16. 34 J. Dou1l, CD. Klaasen, and M.O. Amdur, Casarett and Doull’s “31 bid., p. 3-24. ToxicologuV (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1980). 37J.J. Vandenberg, Trichloroeth~dene Exposure and Cancer Risk Also, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hea)th Assessment Analysis, Oct. 11, 1985. Document for Tricfdoroeth~dene, EPA/600 /8-82 /006F, July 1985. ‘o J RB Associates, Inc., “Level I Materials Balance: Trichloro- Also, Chemical Effects Information Task Force, Oak Ridge ,Na- ethylene,” draft interim contractor report prepared for EPA’s tiona] Laboratory, Trich/oroeth~/ene Health Iiffecfs, Sept. 26, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Survey and Analysis 1985. Division, April 1980. Ch. 4—Data and Inforrnation for Waste Reduction ● 139

Table 4.6.–Major Legislation and Regulations Pertaining to Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Stat ute: Action(s) taken Clean Air Act: Intent to list TCE as a hazardous air pollutant published Dec. 23, 1985, based in part on EPA’s conclusion that TCE is a probable human carcinogen. Decision to list will rely on possibilities for polIution control techniques and further public health risk analysis. Standards of Performance, promulgated Oct. 18, 1983, for new stationary sources covers producers of TCE as an intermediate or final product. Required reporting of TCE emissions, emission levels, emission control techniques, production volumes, sales and purchase data for 15 plants known to produce (directly or as a byproduct) or use TCE under Section 114 for EPA’s recent report, ‘(Survey of Trichloroethylene Emission Sources. ” Safe Drinking Water Act: EPA promulgated a Recommended Maximum Containment Level (RMCL) for TCE of zero (Nov. 13, 1985) because of the Agency’s conclusion that TCE is a probable human carcinogen. RMCLS are nonenforceable. At the same time EPA proposed a Maximum Containment Level (M CL) of 0.005 mg/1 for TCE in drinking water. MCLS are enforceable and are set as close to RMCLS as feasible, given technologies and costs. TCE is regulated as a hazardous waste under the Underground Injection Control Program. Clean Water Act: “Reportable quantity” of TCE set at 1,000 Ibs in 1979. Any discharge into navigable waters in excess of the reportable quantity in a 24-hour period must be reported to the National Response Center. NPDES permit applicants in specific industrial categories must provide quantitative data on TCE discharge from each outfall and must meet the standards set under the various industrial point source categories. TCE was specifically designated as 1 of 65 priority toxic pollutants or pollutant categories. TCE is therefore regulated for a number of specified industrial point source categories. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): RCRA specifies that any solid waste containing TCE is a hazardous waste. In addition, TCE is considered hazardous under RCRA as spent halogenated solvent (FOO1, FO02). Hazardous wastes under RCRA are subject to the “cradle-to-grave” manifest system that covers generators, transportation, storage, and disposal of such wastes. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): Reportable quantity of 1,000 Ibs (same as Clean Water) constitutes a hazardous spill. Occupational Safety and Health Act: Average exposure limit, set June 27, 1974, is 100 ppm, with an acceptable maximum of 200 ppm. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Establishes tolerances for residues of TCE in certain foods as a result of its use as a solvent in their manufacture. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act: Has established rules governing transportation of hazardous materials, including— TCE. SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986 life of TCE in surface water is estimated to be water does degrade, with a half-life of about a few hours to a few days, depending on the a year. EPA recently concluded that available characteristics of the body of water, TCE is also data supports the hypothesis that the major known to volatilize from soil; rate estimates are source of groundwater contamination by vinyl imprecise but suggest that volatilization from chloride, 1,2-dichloroethylene, and 1,l-dichloro- soil occurs at about an order of magnitude than ethylene is the decomposition of TCE and volatilization from water at a similar depth. 39 tetrachloroethy lene.40 Since TCE is widely re- The fate of TCE is usually destruction by photo- leased in the environment, EPA also expects oxidation following direct emission to air or its degradation products to have a wide occur- volatilization from water or soil. The half-life rence. TCE is the most common hazardous sub- for this process is estimated to be 24 to 48 hours. stance at Superfund sites .41 Although TCE was not thought to undergo any other significant breakdown reactions, it 405(J Federa] Register 46880, ~OIr. 13, 1985. is now thought that TCE trapped in ground- 41 u ,,s, ~rlk.iron men{al Protect ion Agcnc\I, Office of E mergenq and Remedial Response, “Supporting Anal}sis for CERCI.A Sec- tion 301(a](l ](c) Stud}, ” draft report, Task No. 7, EPA contract s~Arthur L), Little, Inc., and Acruex Corp., op. r;it. 68-01-6872, July 1984, Exhihit 1, p. 3-5. 140 “ Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Data Used for Legislation and Regulations Most of the data EPA uses and plans to collect to support this regulation are health In general, regulatory action is supported by effects and public exposure data, both of some amount of: 1) health effects data; 2) ex- which are only peripherally related to posure data, often in the form of environmental waste reduction. release data; and 3) health risk assessment data, Much of the information EPA plans to col- which is based on the first two. lect will be sampling data to support mod- EPA’s most recent action regarding TCE was eling of exposure and dispersion. Such in- its notice of intent to list it as a hazardous air formation will be only marginally relevant pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air to waste reduction. Act.42 Although this action can be based on less information than that required for a full regu- National Materials Balance lation, the type and amount of data on which There were two early separate attempts at a this action is based is of interest because: 1) it materials balance for TC E 43 Both of these are is one of EPA’s most recent actions involving rather old now; they used 1977-78 data. The TCE and thus is based on the most current data; Level I materials balance draws on a wide va- and 2) it is probably similar to the type, amount, riety of readily available public documents and and quality of data currently available to Con- personal communications with producers and gress or EPA if either were to take action on users of TCE.44 More recent data (1983-84) have waste reduction for TCE. been collected in other studies, but these are Most of the data used by EPA were health less comprehensive and do not specifically at- effects data, however, the notice makes it clear tempt a materials balance. that EPA felt much of the information about One of the most useful sources of informa- carcinogenic effects of TCE on humans was tion compiled about TCE is EPA’s Survey of unreliable. It considered only two studies with Trichloroethylene Emissions Sources (STES) .45 animals to be sufficiently valid to provide a ba- To supplement background information avail- sis for classifying TCE as a probable human able in public documents and other published carcinogen, literature, EPA used its authority under Sec- EPA’s TCE exposure and cancer risk analy- tion 114 of the Clean Air Act to request data sis used EPA’s Human Exposure model to esti- on TCE sources, production/sales, emissions, mate public exposure to TCE from TCE source and emissions control techniques from the two categories described in EPA’s Survey of Trich- identified producers of TCE and 13 of the 16 loroethylene Emissions Sources. However, identified producers or users of TCE as a by- EPA admits that the source and environmental product in operations. release information used in the risk estimates There are a number of limitations on these is very rough and plans to improve these data data. First, companies were asked only to pro- before proceeding further with the listing provide estimates of these figures, not to measure cedures. emissions. Emissions from equipment leaks and Despite the fact that EPA relied on very re- storage tanks, for example, were calculated cent data in its deliberations about whether to using modeling equations. Second, and more list TCE as a hazardous air pollutant, it is clear 43 RB Ass iates, Inc., from this brief overview that: J oc 441,evel I h4aterials Balance: Trichloro- ethylene, ” op. cit. Also, JRB Associates, Inc., “Materials ● EPA concluded that in most areas it had Balance—Task #14: Chlorinated Solvents, ” final draft (contrac- insufficient data to promulgate a regulator report prepared for EPA’s Office of Pesticides and Toxic S(III- stances, Survey and Analysis Division, July 11, 1980. tion at this time. qscompare this with the Level 11 materials balance attem Pted for cadmium which was much more ambitious in scope. ‘4J.50 Federal R~~iSter !jZQZZ, Dec. 23, 1985, amended at 51 Fed- 45u .s. Environ mental protection Agency, Surw’eyr Of Trichloro- eral Register 7714, Mar. 5, 1986. Specific documents relied on eti]~dene Emissions Sources, EPA-450/3-85-021 (Washington, DC: are listed in the Notice. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ]uly 1985). Ch. 4—Data and /n formation for Waste Reduction . 141

important, the 15 plants from which EPA was Table 4-7.— Release of TCE Into the Environment able to gather plant-specific data only’ account (metric tons per year for 1978) for approximately 128 metric tons of the esti- Source Alr mated 57,600 metric tons of TC E emitted in Land Water Production ., ., 300- 40 1983.48 EPA was unable to gather data from spe- Metal decreasing ...... 92,400 12,800 2,200 cific sites for metal decreasing operations for Other solvent uses ...... 11,400 1,600 270 the STES report. These are estimated to account PVC chain terminator. . . . . 130 — — for 85 percent of TCE use and about 91 per- Total . . . . 104.230 14.400 2.510 Percent of total . (86%) (12°/0) ‘ (20/0) cent of’ total TCE emissions. An attempt was SOURCE U S Envlro~ mental Protect Ion Agency /ntermed/a Pr/or/ty Pollu(ant made to compensate for this enormous gap Gufdar?ce ~ocurm?nt Chlonfla(ed Solvents July 1962 revised October using gross estimates of the amount of TCE 1984 emitted in five industries that use TCE in decreasing operations .47 These estimates were ob- Plant, Company, and Industry-Level Information tained by applying emissions factors generated OTA was able to find some small amount of from available literature to 1983 consumption 48 plant level data on TCE for the 15 producers data for each of the fiv’e industries. and users surveyed by EPA under Section 114 EPA has published estimates of the distribu- (see above), although the production/sales data tion of TCE emissions in environmental me- for these plants were confidential. In addition, dia shown in table 4-7. Although TCE emissions a materials balance for TCE in the electronics can be controlled through carbon traps and/or industry has been done, But less than 1 percent condensers, almost all TCE in use is eventu- of the total use of TCE is accounted for in the ally emitted into the air because recycled sol- electronics industry’ which has now’ turned to vent is reused and landfilled still bottoms lose TCE substitutes in most cases for occupational 49 residual TCE \’ia volatilization. safety reasons. Chapter 5 Waste Reduction in the Federal Government Contents

Page Introduction ...... 145 Building Toward a Waste Reduction Ethic ...... 145 The Evolution of the Pollution Control Culture ...... 146 Environmental Protection Under the Pollution Control Culture ...... 151 Waste Reduction: Multimedia Pollution Prevention...... 152 Waste Minimization: Statute and Regulations ...... 154 The Statute ...... 154 The Regulations ...... 157 The EPA Report to Congress ...... 160 EPA’s Implementation of Waste Minimization ...... 161 A Low-Priority Issue ...... 161 Waste Minimization Oversight ...... 162 Waste Minimization: A Voluntary Endeavor ...... 166 The Existing Media Programs: Waste Reduction Opportunities and Problems ...... 168 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act...... 168 Clean Air Act (CAA) ...... 172 Clean Water Act (CWA) ...... 176 Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) ...... 180 Superfund ...... 182 Research and Development, Information and Technology Transfer...... 182 Research and Development at EPA ...... 183 Other Environmental R&D Organizations ...... 186 Other Federal Agencies: R&D and Information Transfer ...... 189 Tables Table No. Page 5-1. Statutory Definitions of Hazardous Waste Terms ...... 149 5-2. Government Spending on Pollution Control v. Waste Reduction ...... 153 5-3. Waste Minimization Regulations ...... 159 5-4. Comparison of Environmental Control Media Programs ...... 169 5-5. Status of Clean Water Pretreatment Standards by Industrial Category. .l79 5-6. State Level Environmental R&D Centers ...... 188 5-7. Waste Minimization at the Department of Defense ...... 190 Figures Figure No. Page 5-1. Waste Reduction. Pollution Control...... 150 5-2. EPA’s Statement on Preferred Options ...... 157 5-3. EPA Brochure on “The New RCRA Requirements” ...... 163 Box BOXNO, Page 5-A. Small Business Waste Reduction Funding Assistance ...... 187 Chapter 5 Waste Reduction in the Federal Government

INTRODUCTION

The implementation of a voluntary, yet reg- an examination of the evolution of a pollution ulatory waste minimization program under the control culture under the existing media envi- Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Of- ronmental programs and a discussion of the fice of “Solid Waste is a consequence of amend- problems this traditional approach represents ments that were passed by Congress in 1984 for the adoption of effective waste reduction. to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act This chapter then reviews the portions of the (RCRA]. Throughout the discussion of current 1984 RCRA Amendments that are the basis for government and industry activities in this re- the waste minimization regulations now in ef- port, OTA has attempted to show how waste fect and analyzes possible outcomes of the minimization, as it is evolving, is not necessarily resultant voluntary program in terms of waste waste reduction. In fact, focus on waste mini- reduction. mization can shift attention away from waste The last section covers supplemental activi- reduction. ties (e.g., research and development and tech- RCRA and the other national environmental nology and information transfer services) in the protection legislation and programs of the last Federal Government that may be of assistance 15 years have been based on pollution control. to companies and State and local governments Implementing waste reduction, a concept of that are attempting to shift from pollution con- environmental protection that emphasizes pol- trol (or, waste management) to pollution pre- lution prevention, may require both a new legis- vention. These services are scattered through- lative mandate and a new administrative effort. out the Federal Government and are not always Significant difficulties could also arise in the identified as waste reduction. A separate waste implementation of waste reduction if the con- reduction program could provide coordination cept is strictly confined to those hazardous to pull these services into focus to enhance their wastes covered by RCRA. benefit. The first section of this chapter discusses these aspects of waste reduction, starting with

BUILDING TOWARD A WASTE REDUCTION ETHIC

The current national environmental statutes During the first 15 years of Federal environ- and programs implemented by EPA constitute mental protection, this strategy of waste man- a waste management by media approach to agement by media has supported and enhanced environmental protection, Pollutants are depos- the growth of a pollution control culture. Pol- ited into the Nation’s air, water, and land as icymakers, regulators, industry, engineers, and an end result of activities such as manufactur- environmentalists have become accustomed to ing and transportation, The strategy employed thinking solely in terms of waste management. to protect the environment has invariably been While economics and health issues and national to try to affect that disposal by controlling those goals in competition with public health and the pollutants, individually by media, af’ter they environment play a variable part, the standards have been produced and have the potential to developed under the environmental programs move among media. are primarily based on an analysis of the tech-

145 146 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste nical capabilities for controlling those sub- varying degrees to each particular process that stances that are produced. Little parallel consid- produces the pollutants but scientific principals eration has been given to pollution prevention and operations are well understood and out- by assessing and altering the activities that cre- comes can be reliably predicted. Pollution con- ate the pollutants. Despite an increasing inter- trol is also easier because it does not involve est in waste reduction today, pollution control penetrating into the confidentiality of or dis- still appears to be the path of least resistance rupting industry processes. Nor does it threaten in environmental protection. product quality. Although regulations rarely require the adoption of specific technology, it is The Evolution of the Pollution Control Culture often simpler for a firm to adopt the control technology used to set regulations than to de- The concept of pollution prevention was vise alternative methods. added to RCRA with the 1984 amendments on waste minimization. waste reduction, however, Pollution Control’s Beginnings is not a new idea. Neither is recognition of the cross-media transfer of pollutants. Legislative activity of the 1970s and the comprehensive assumption of Federal responsibil- Pollution prevention has been a part of the ity for environmental protection was a result Clean Air and Clean Water Acts since the early of pollution problems that were identified in 1970s. While pollution control is given priority the 1960s. The immediate environmental cri- in these acts in the setting and application of sis needing solution was an accumulation of air and water regulations, each allows for the problems that had been created in the past. The use of alternative approaches. Each makes ex- Nation’s water was polluted, the air was dirty, plicit statements equating environmental pro- and the land was overburdened with trash. Rec- tection with pollution control and prevention. ognition of this crisis instilled a point of view The first goal of the Clean Water Act, to elimi- that has persisted since: a perspective on pol- nate the discharge of pollutants, is only physi- lution that focuses on its place of disposal or cally possible if pollutants are eliminated at the point of release, Since those early years, exten- source (i.e., by waste reduction). In setting ef- sive measures have been taken to solve the prob- fluent guidelines, the act allows the use of lems created by pollutants; few have been taken “process and procedure innovations, operating to address the creation of pollutants. Waste- methods, and other alternatives. ”1 Title I of the water treatment, a known civil engineering Clean Air Act, which covers regulations for in- technology, quickly became the major clean dustrial sources, is named Air Pollution Pre- water technology in the 1970s. Similarly, famil- vention and Control. Throughout, the phrase iar techniques such as building walls as bar- prevention and control is repeatedly used. In riers were initially adopted for the Superfund setting regulations based on air quality criteria, cleanup program in the 1980s. the act in many places allows waste reduction options. z It is illuminating to note that in 1970, before major environmental legislation was passed, Despite the seeming flexibility of these stat- the first report of the Council on Environmental utes, pollution prevention has not often been Quality included the following statement about pursued. The more obvious path has proven to the complexity of environmental problems and be pollution control. Pollution control is easier inadequacy of the pollution control approach: to pursue because it tends to use generic technology: wastewater treatment; scrubbers, elec- ,.. the sources of air, water, and land pollution are interrelated and often interchange- trostatic precipitators, and baghouses; cement able, A single source may pollute the air with walls; and steel drums. All must be adapted in smoke and chemicals, the land with solid wastes, and a river or lake with chemical and ‘Clean Water Act, Section 301(b)(2)(A). 2The waste reduction aspects of the individual environmental other wastes. Control of air pollution may pro- statutes are analyzed more fully later in this chapter. duce more solid waste, which then pollute the Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 147

land or water. Control of the water-polluting The current division among media is not al- effluent may convert it into solid wastes, ways distinct. The Clean Air Act authorizes pro- which must be disposed of on lands grams that deal with air emissions, Water as The suggested solution was to have: “A far a medium is covered by three statutes: the Clean more effective approach to pollution control.”4 Water Act (discharges into U.S. waters), the Ma- It was thought that this could be gained through rine Sanctuaries Act (protection of coastal and the coordination of media problems that would ocean waters), and the Safe Drinking Water Act come about with the organization of the Envi- (sources of drinking water), The Resource Con- ronmental Protection Agency. servation and Recovery Act is generally understood to deal with the medium of land, but while The 1970 report makes little specific mention it sets standards for land disposal of hazard- of pollution prevention. It analyzes water and ous wastes—primarily to protect groundwater air pollution, solid wastes, and pesticide use —it also does so for incineration, which inevi- and presents a series of recommendations for tably involves air emissions. The Federal Insect- each. Only in the discussions of water quality icide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and pesticides does pollution prevention ap- also deals with land issues through its controls pear. Often prevention is mentioned within the on the use of pesticides. The Comprehensive context of research needs. For instance: Environmental Response, Compensation, and Water pollution, like other forms of pollu- Liability Act (C ERCLA or Superfund) provides tion, is a problem of materials balance . . . At- for the cleanup of polluted land and under- tention must be given to technology assess- ground water resources. The Toxic Substances ment to prevent future pollution and to choose Control Act (TSCA), like FIFRA, focuses on alternative courses that will reduce it.5 chemical substances, the use of which can af- The situation was very different in the case fect all media. of pesticide problems, where pollution preven- Pollutants are released into the environment tion was a major finding. Proposals for more as solids, liquids, or gases and do not follow effective regulation included measures to as- paths set forth by statute, Once released their sure adoption of less persistent or less toxic ma- physical or chemical forms can change, and terials and to limit the availability of certain they can be transported some distance from types of pesticides. their source by air or by water, The effect of environmental regulations and their implemen- Pollution Control and Cross-Media Shifts tation is often to shift pollutants among Despite recognition that the environment media—in some cases out of the realm of regu- must be perceived as a single, interrelated sys- latory control. For example: both wastewater tem, EPA was organized by individual media treatment plants and air pollution control de- rather than by functions.6 The discussion about vices produce a sludge which can be a hazard- a need for a multimedia focus continues today.7 ous waste and may or may not be regulated un-

K;ounci] on En\’ironmental Qua lit}’, L’n ~’ironrnental Qualitj. der RCRA; tall smokestacks required under I{)TO, “Ai)l)en(j ix H: hlessage of the President Relat it’e to Rcor- clean air regulations to disperse emissions long Xanization f]lans Nos. 3 and 4 of 1970, July 9, 1970, ” p. 295. distances are now suspected of being a source 41 bid., p, 295, 5 of acid rain; surface impoundments (settling 1 1)1( 1., p. 59, “Sfx: Alfred hlar(.~l~, “Environmental Protection Agenc\’, ” “~he ponds), for which RCRA sets operating stand- l’(~~ifi(. ~ of Rf’,gulation. ]amet Q. tlrilson (ed, ) (.New }’ork: IIasic ards, are a source of volatile organic compound Book\, I! M()], (VOC) air emissions. Wee The (jonser~fatlon Foundation, ~ontrolling L’ross-.$te(fia I’ollufant,s IWashington, 1)(;: 1984); an(i 13arrj G, Rahc. F’ragmer]- tat[on and integration in S’tate h-n Lironmental ,ilanagelr]f:nt Shifting is not in itself an inherently bad prac- [Lt’ashington, 1)[;: The (jonser~ration F’oundatlon, 1986), Alto, tice. The impact of any particular form of a haz- (;hri\t ine Nll(jt, ‘‘ NI ultimed ia h!aneu~rers, ” ,Science ,N’ett.s, F’f;h. 23, 1985; Rochel]e 1,. Sta nfield, “Pollutants That Just Jt’on’t Co ardous substance can vary with its presence AL\aj’ P()\c (;hallf’ng[~ for F;PA an[i Statps, ” ,\’ation:)) }ourna], in different environmental media, But deter- 1)(?(; . 8, 1984, mination of risk must be made individually, in- 148 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste eluding analyses of how the pathway will in- Air or Clean Water Acts as air or water pollut- crease or decrease the potential for harm to ants although they can be the same chemical human health or the environment. While shift- or compound. Therefore, if it is technically posing may solve a problem in one medium, it can sible and economically beneficial, a regulated create a problem in another. Prudence and lim- RCRA hazardous waste can be legally emitted ited resources with which to make determina- into the air or water. Also, chemicals that are tions of risk would dictate that shifts be avoided limited in terms of disposal by air and water whenever possible. regulations can be managed in unlimited amounts as RCRA hazardous wastes. These provisions Shifts among media are possible and legally create perfectly legal opportunities for shifts sanctioned because the environmental statutes between RCRA (i.e., land disposal) and the air differ from one another in a number of critical and water. respects, They are inconsistent in the substances covered and in the way in which they Growing evidence that the RCRA manage- are to be analyzed and regulated. Some stat- ment practices for land disposal were failing utes require that the economic impacts of reg- to protect health and the environment is forc- ulations be considered; others do not. The ing a change in the RCRA system. The 1984 rigorousness with which scientific evidence RCRA Amendments mandated EPA to impose must be applied to the analysis of risk to hu- a series of land disposal bans based on chemi- man health and/or the environment differs cal classes. So far, EPA’s approach toward set- among statutes. Even the language used in stat- ting these regulations has been based on the utes and adopted in common use varies, as earlier water and air philosophy. Limits are be- shown in table 5-1. Some definitions are spe- ing proposed for permissible water-borne re- cifically given by statute; others are set forth leases from land disposal facilities. by regulation. The Pollutional Control System The regulatory philosophy of both the Clean Air and the Clean Water Acts has been to limit The pollution control culture was graphically the amount of designated chemicals, compounds, summed up in 1985 by the Administrator of or classes of chemicals released into the Na- EPA, Lee M. Thomas, who said: tion’s air and water, Regulated substances can The current statutory structure arises from still be produced and do not have to be de- a general environmental strategy that has stroyed. Both programs legally sanction indus- been accepted–consciously or not–by nearly trial releases below permitted limits. The list everyone who has worked for environmental of regulated chemicals and/or industries protection in this country. Let’s call it the strat- (sources) has never been the same for both egy of the cork, water and air, allowing shifts between these It consists of putting a regulatory cork in media, every pollution source you can find as quickly as you can. At first the corks may be some- Hazardous wastes classified under RCRA what loose and some pollution escapes. But have not been regulated in the same way as with advances in technology they can be water and air pollutants. RCRA does not limit pushed in tighter. Of course, as we have seen, releases; it sets standards for the management the pollution will tend to squirt out in new and (treatment, storage, and disposal) of whatever unexpected places. The solution is a new set is produced. RCRA regulations apply to all in- of corks, and the process of jamming them in dustrial categories but unequally depending on begins all over again. The idea is that if you the amount generated. The body of substances get enough corks, and put enough pressure be- defined as RCRA hazardous wastes has always hind them, pollution will eventually be elim- been much larger than those regulated either inated. e as air or water pollutants. Many RCRA hazard- 8Lee hl. Tllornas, “A Systems Api]roa(:ll: (~hallenge for EPA, ” ous wastes are not regulated under the Clean L7P.A ]ourn;~l, Septt?mber 1985, p. 22. Ch, 5— Waste Reduction in the Federal Government 149

Table 5-1 .—Statutory Definitions of Hazardous Waste Terms

Terms by program Statutory deflnltlon Notes Clean Water: Conventional pollutants Includl ng but not Ilmtted to pollutants classified as List appears In 40 CRF 401 16, with 011 biological oxygen demanding, suspended sollds fecal and grease added conform. and pH [Section 304(a)(4)] TOXIC pollutants those pollutants, or combinations of pollutants, including disease-causing agents, wh{ch after discharge WI II, on the basis of Information available to the Admlnlstrator, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormal ltles, cancer genetic mutations, physlolog}cal malfunctions (Includlng malfunctions In reproduction) or physical deformations, I n organisms or their offspring [Section 502(13)] Table 1 of Committee Print 95-30 of the Committee on Publlc List of 65 substances appears In 40 CRF Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives 401 15 to be publlshed by Admlnlstrator Revisions to Ilst must Commonly referred to as ‘ prlorlty’ take Into account tox!clty of pollutant, persistence, pol Iutants degradabdtty usual or potential presence of affected organisms In any waters and their Importance, and nature and extent of effect on organisms [Section 307(a)(l)] Hazardous substances such elements and compounds which, when discharged In A Ilst of hazardous substances as any quantity Into or upon the navigable waters of the United !dentlfled by the regulatory system States present an Imminent and substantial danger to the appears In 40 CFR 1164 public health and welfare, lncludlng, but not Iimlted to fish, [Section 31 l(b)(2)(A)] Clean Air: Air pollutants emlsslons which In h~s [the Adm\nlstrator’s] judgment, Often referred to as “crlterla” pollutants cause or contribute to al r poll utlon which may reasonably be because of the alr quality crlterla ant(clpated to endanger publlc health or welfare [Section document that must be Issued prior to 108(a)(l )(A)] regulat Ion Hazardous alr pollutants An alr pollutant to which no ambient air quallty standard IS Commonly referred to as “toxic” alr applicable and which In the judgment of the Administrator pollutants may cause, or contribute to, an Increase In mortality or an Increase In serious Irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, Illness [Section 1 12(a)(l)] RCRA: Hazardous waste any solld waste or comblnatlon, which because of Its Lmt of reportable quantlt!es of hazardous quantity, concentration or physical, chemical, or Infectious substances IS In 40 CFR 261 characteristics may (A) cause or stgntf!cantly contribute to an Increase I n mortal Ity or an increase in serious trreverslble, or Incapacltatl ng reversible, Illness, or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when Improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed [Section 1004{ 5)] CERCLA: Hazardous substances (A) any substances designated [by] SectIon 31(b)(2)(A) List of reportable quantities of hazardous of the Federal Water Pollut~on Control Act, (B) any element. substances IS In 40 CFR 302 compound, mfxture, solutton, or substance designated pursuant to section 102 of this Act, (C) any hazardous waste [regulated under] Sect Ion 3001 of Solid Waste Disposal A“ct (D) any toxic pollutant listed under Section 307(a) of Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (E) any hazardous alr pollutant I!sted under Section 112 of the Clean Alr Act, and TSCA: (F) any Imminently hazardous chemical substance or mtxture Chemical substances IIlsted under] SectIon 7 of TSCA [Section 101(14)] and m Ixtures any organic or Inorganic substance of a particular To regulate must make a flndlng of molecular density (not excluded by subparagraph B) “unreasonable nsk of Injury to health or [Section 3(2)(A)] the environment” SOURCE Cr,mp!lwl by the Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986 from enwronmental statutes and 40 CFR

F’igure 5-1 shows a hypothetical industrial As the figure shows, the pollution control side plant with its ‘ regu1atory corks in p1ace, re- ef the plant is a complex maze. The applica- leases that are either legal sanctioned or not tion of waste reduction can reduce that com- regulated, and cross-mcdia shifts of pollutants. plexity. 150 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste —

) m )

z k

c .o- Z z a) Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government . 151

Environmental Protection Under able with which to determine health risks, and the Pollution Control Culture lawsuits that have been brought by both regulated industries and affected communities. The dominance of pollution control in pro- Compliance with regulations is based on an tecting the environment begs the question of analysis of the risk, by those being regulated, effectiveness. Most people would agree that im- of not complying. This risk increases as the per- provements have been made in the areas of con- ceived level of enforcement activity increases. ventional air and water pollutants and that high The compliance rate will also be proportional uncertainty exists in terms of unregulated and to the penalty for noncompliance. toxic substances. Analysis of regulatory effectiveness for pol- The General Accounting Office in 1982 asked icymakers at the Federal level is complicated the question, “What have we accomplished?” by a paucity of data. On a national basis, data It replied: are available that show the trends over time in Overall, there has been progress toward the emissions of conventional air pollutants. meeting established goals. The air is signifi- Similar data are not available for hazardous air cantly cleaner, more wastewater now receives pollutants, conventional or toxic water pollut- the required level of treatment, and most ants, or RCRA hazardous wastes.12 This is so drinking water meets national standards. The despite the fact that environmental regulations job, however, is still far from complete.9 impose innumerable reporting and recordkeeping requirements on industry (see ch. 4). The Conservation Foundation reported in 1984 that since 1982: Air Quality Air quality has continued to improve . . . Water quality, on balance, has remained con- Conventional air pollutant data is obtained stant, as has been true for the past decade. from continuous monitoring equipment oper- As with air, this finding is based on the tradi- ated by State and local governments and vari- tional measure of pollution and does not take ous Federal agencies. Some 250 million air pol- into account pollution from toxic substances. lution measurements are included in EPA’s There are simply not enough monitoring data National Aerometric Data Bank,13 and this in- to know whether the toxics problem is getting formation is compiled and published annually. 10 better or worse. The compilation published in 1986 shows that Statutes are only as good as the regulations in 1984 emissions totaled 184 million metric that follow. Once set, regulations must be com- tons. Total suspended particulate were 7 mil- plied with to be effective. Effective compliance lion metric tons; sulfur dioxides, 20 million met- depends on whether control devices have the ric tons; carbon monoxide, 75 metric million technological capability to operate efficiently tons; nitrogen dioxides, 20 million metric tons; and routinely over time, Considerable time and volatile organic compounds (VOCS), 22 often separates the enactment of a statute and million metric tons. Over the period 1975-84, the promulgation of regulations.11 Reasons com- emissions of these pollutants decreased from monly cited for this are: administrative delays, between 6 and 33 percent. Lead emissions, re- the technological complexity of setting regula- corded at 40 million tons per year in 1984, have tions, the inadequate scientific base now avail- declined 72 percent over the same period. In

I 2 F() r a n ()\t;r\ i(;~~ 0 f n a t io na 1 en~i rwn m en t a 1 monitoring, sc~~ Ro(:h(’ll(; 1,, St anf i(:l(l, ‘‘N() on(> Knuw’s for Sure if Pollution Con- t rol f~ro~ra ms Arc Reall\’ L1’ork ing, ,\’;jtioIlifl journal, hlar, 23, 1985, pp. 643-646, 1 ~ [ I, S. E r] i, i ro n In [III t H I Prutfx; t io n Agf; n(; y, ,Vational A ir QUal- il~r ,In(l h’rnl.s.jr’on~ ‘1’rcn(fs Report, 1984, EPA-450/4-84-001 ( Rtj- s[!ar(:h ‘1’[’iiinxlf’ I’:]rh, NC: offi((~ of Alr Qual it~’ Planning an(i Stan[iar(]s, ,q~)ril 1986), ~), I [i,

62-636 [) - Rfj - 6 : 01, ~ 152 Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste the report this dramatic decline is attributed Chemical Manufacturers Association has sur- primarily to the lowering of lead content in gas- veyed its members for the last 4 years but only oline and the introduction of unleaded gaso- 324 chemical plants have responded in all 4 line. Both of these are waste reduction, rather years. In the 1984 survey, 725 plants reported than pollution control measures. generating 253 million metric tons of hazardous waste.18 No national data exist for emissions of specific hazardous air pollutants; there is no regu- Water Quality lar monitoring program. No time series data are available for these pollutants. The data that The only national data on conventional and do exist are arrived at by such techniques as toxic water pollutants are models that predict taking grab samples at specific locations and the outcome of different levels of effluent limi- extrapolating the data received to the national tations and compilations of permits that have level. Separate EPA estimates of annual releases been issued. These data do not show what is of hazardous air pollutants give different re- being discharged but only what industries have sults because methodologies and substances been permitted to discharge. Permit holders are included vary. A study on control techniques required to monitor their actual discharges and for VOCS estimated annual emissions from in- submit Discharge Monitoring Reports regularly dustrial sources at 24.7 million metric tons.14 to EPA Regional Offices or State offices. The Another report that attempted to pool available Regional Offices are responsible for the man- nationwide data on just 86 hazardous air pol- agement of the monitoring data but they are lutants estimated these emissions to be about generally years behind in doing so, The data 4,5 million metric tons per year.15 are not systematically aggregated into national statistics, RCRA Hazardous Wastes The above discussion shows that national OTA, in its 1983 report Technologies and data is so disparate that it can only be used to Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste provide a sense of the magnitude of multimedia Control, 16 said that about 255 to 275 million met- pollutant releases. In addition, the data—by ric tons of hazardous waste under Federal and itself—indicates little about the consequences State regulation are generated annually. A na- of discharges to public health and the envi- tional survey on the generation of RCRA haz- ronment. ardous wastes was released by EPA in 1984. It estimated that 264 million metric tons were Waste Reduction: Multimedia 17 generated in 1981. No national trend data are Pollution Prevention available for this universe of pollutants. The The importance of waste reduction to envi- —....— 14u. s, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Qual- ronmental protection has been acknowledged ity Planning and Standards, “Control Techniques for Volatile in the national policy statement of RCRA which Organic Compound Emissions From Stationary Sources, ” draft states: “ . . . the generation of hazardous waste report, July 1985. lsTom Lahre, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Characterization of as possible, ” As OTA has shown throughout Available Nationwide Air Toxics Emissions Data, ” June 13, 1984. this report, however, the primacy given to this The report discusses the difficulties of aggregating such data and their reliability. concept over waste management is already be- 16u. s. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technol- ing diluted by the various ways in which the ogies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control, regulatory term waste minimization is being in- OTA-M-196 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1983). dividually defined and carried out under cur- YTU. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nationa) survey Of rent regulations. Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage and Dis- posal Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in 1981, EPA 5301SW- 84-005 (Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency %hernical Manufacturers Association, “ Results of the 1984 Response, April 1984], p. 2. CMA Hazardous Waste Survey, ” January 1986. Ch. 5— Waste Reduction in the Federal Government “ 153

In short, although the concept of waste reduc- in fiscal year 1986. This amount will more than ton is officially sanctioned, it is already being double if Congress approves the Department overwhelmed by the pollution control culture. of Defense’s request for $30 million in fiscal To counter what appears to be an inevitable year 1987 for its new waste minimization plan. trend, waste reduction requires leadership and (An estimated 20 percent of that budget may visibility. Neither is being provided yet by the go toward waste reduction.) Even then, over- Office of Solid Waste (OSW) at EPA where the all spending on waste reduction will be less than responsibility for waste minimization now lies. 1 percent of that spent for pollution control. There, the focus is solely on waste management, Implementing a goal of pollution prevention on avoiding the land disposal of RCRA hazard- (i.e., waste reduction) may only be possible ous wastes. Waste minimization has become when responsibility lies outside the existing me- one of several tools to achieve that goal rather dia programs. A waste reduction program, es- than a goal itself. When asked about the sig- 20 pecially one based on a nonregulatory approach, nificance of the 1984 amendments to the Re- need not rival the size and cost of the current source Conservation and Recovery Act, the di- regulatory media programs. Along with its own rector of OSW said: “ . . . it really makes it legislative mandate, provisions and resources crystal clear that Congress wants the Agency of the existing programs could be used to im- to move away from land disposal to other forms plement a waste reduction program. Within ei- of disposal. ’19 ther a regulatory or nonregulatory format, a sep- Government spending on waste reduction re- arate waste reduction program could provide flects the general lack of priority for pollution the basis for a shift from pollution control to prevention, As table 5-2 shows, government pollution prevention. A separate waste reduc- spent almost $16 billion in 1984 on pollution control. OTA estimates that government spending on waste reduction totaled only $4 million Zo’l’he ~)ros and ~~ns of a regulatory 1’S. a 11011 regulator’ Pro- gram are presented in ch. 2 of this report. Also, in ch. 6, waste 10’4 hlaking the New RCRA Work: An Interkiet%” i~ith hlar(ia r~?duction acti\rities at the State l[?~’el whi(:h ar(: predorninantl}r Williams, ” EP.4 ]ourna], April 1986, p. 3, Italics for emphasis. nonregulatory are discussed.

Table 5“2.—Government Spending on Pollution Control v. Waste Reduction (millions of dollars)

Annual Type and source of spending — expenditures A. Pollution controP Pollution abatement ...... $12,275 Regulation, monitoring, and R&D ...... 3,443

Total ...... $15,718 B. Waste reduction Total Estimated percent budget for waste reduction Federal Government: EPA ...... $0.8 Report to Congress (WM) ...... $0.550 x 50 = $0.175 ORD WM R&D ...... 0.235 x 10 = 0.02 R&D HW grants...... 1.0 x 50 = 0.5 DOD waste minimization program . . . 5,0 x 20 = ...... 1.0 TVA waste rnanagment ...... 20 x 5= ...... 0.1 State governments:’ Based on 10 existing programs . . . . 7.0 X 25 = ., ...... 1.8 Total ...... $3.7 aFederal, state, and local data for 1984 Department of Commerce news release, Aug 5, 19~ bOTA estimate for fiscal year 1986. csome state program funds are prowded by EpA. KEY WR = waste reduction, WM = waste mlnlm!zat!on, and HW = hazardous waste. SOURCE As noted 154 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste tion program could also serve as an instrument always be generated. Some wastes will require to make the multimedia approach a priority land disposal because they cannot be recycled within EPA. or completely destroyed. Some will be emitted unavoidably into the air and released into the Actions that generate air and water pollut- water. Thus, it is important that the current pol- ants can be as amenable to waste reduction as lution control regulatory system be held in place are those producing RCRA hazardous wastes. and its effectiveness increased through stronger However, with statutory authority covering enforcement activities. In the absence of pre- only RCRA hazardous wastes, there is little rea- scriptive waste reduction regulations, the pol- son to believe that industry or EPA will move lution control regulations become indirect in- beyond the regulations and consider air and centives that encourage some in the private water pollutants in their waste minimization sector to adopt waste reduction. programs,21 While most State waste reduction programs focus on RCRA hazardous wastes, The effective operation of a waste reduction a few have taken a multimedia approach (see program can also be hampered by existing stat- ch, 6), utes and regulations. The sanctioned, permitted release of pollutants under the air and water Given this concentration on only one of the programs creates a problem for the measure- three regulated waste streams generated by in- ment of waste reduction and may eliminate dustry and the inconsistencies that exist be- some of the incentive. Does waste reduction tween the substances covered and the meth- occur, for instance, when an existing raw (un- ods of regulation under RCRA and the clean treated) pollutant stream is reduced while the air and clean water programs, the current waste discharge or emission remains the same as it minimization program might actually contrib- was because the standards legally sanction the ute to an increase in air and water pollution. rate of release? Any change in the outflow may waste reduction, however, cannot by itself cause a plant to become involved in permit re- prevent all of the Nation’s environmental prob- visions. A plant that makes a significant change lems. Some amount of hazardous wastes will may become subject to stiffer water or air reg- .—.—21 — ulations. Thus, current environmental protec- ~~or instance, few’ of the industry documents that O’I’A has obtained describing corporate waste minimization plans go be- tion statutes may be barriers to pollution pre- yond RCRA hazardous wastes; some explicitly exclude air and vention since no firm willingly adopts practices water regulated wastes from their plans. Most of the waste reduction case b istories now published focus on RCRA hazard- that will cause it to make costly revisions in ous wastes. its regulatory status.

WASTE MINIMIZATION: STATUTE AND REGULATIONS

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend- The Statute ments of 1984 set new national policy about the generation of hazardous waste. This pol- Under Section 1003 of RCRA, “Objectives” icy and the waste minimization provisions that was retitled “Objectives and National Policy” amended the Resource Conservation and Re- and a new paragraph stated succinctly: covery Act (RCRA) now serve as the basis for Federal action to reduce the generation of haz- The Congress hereby declares it to be the ardous waste,22 national policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous ZZTh Ha~ar{ious and Solid Waste Amendments are Public I,aw e waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expe- 98-616, dated Nov. 8, 1984. This law officially amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act, which is commonly referred to by the sweep- ditiously as possible. Waste that is neverthe- ing amendments passed m 1976: The Resource Conservation and less generated should be treated, stored, or dis- Recover~, A(;t [RCRA). Hereafter, the Hazardous and Solid Waste posed of so as to minimize the present and Amendments will be referred to as the 1094 RCRA Amendments, future threat to human health and the envi- or the amendments. Waste minimization was only one of many changes ade to RCRA in 1984. ronment. — — ——

Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 155 — -—

With this language and the implementation in the U.S. Senate bill, The Solid Waste Disposal sections that follow, Congress defined a two- Act Amendments of 1983 (S. 757). The Senate tiered national waste minimization policy, First Public Works and Environment Committee’s re- and foremost, the generation of hazardous port on the waste minimization provisions of this waste is to be reduced or eliminated. Second, bill voiced concern about “ . . . pollutants con- the management of waste that is generated tained in effluents, emissions, wastes or other pol- should follow practices that minimize risks. lution streams . . . “25 Concern about the continuing and long-term Thus, in this report OTA has considered the risks of hazardous substances formed the ba- reduction of the generation of all wastes and has sis of this new policy in which three basic facts defined hazardous wastes as all nonproduct haz- are recognized: hazardous waste that is not gen- ardous outputs from an industrial operation into erated poses no risk to human health and the all environmental media, even though they may environment; good management practices can be within permitted or licensed limits. (See ch. lower the risks of hazardous waste that is gen- 1 for OTA’S definitions of waste reduction and erated; and land disposal is the least preferred hazardous waste.) management practice. These concerns were reiterated in a new Waste Minimization Requirements paragraph of RCRA where specific methods for Three specific activities to implement na- achieving the stated national policy are in- tional policy were mandated by Section 224 of cluded. This objective states that one of the the 1984 RCRA amendments. These require- ways in which the protection of health and the ments apply to generators of RCRA hazardous environment is to be promoted is by: wasteZB who manage their wastes onsite or to . . . minimizing the generation of hazardous those who ship wastes offsite. In addition, EPA, waste and the land disposal of hazardous as the agency delegated to carry out RCRA pol- waste by encouraging process substitution, icies, was told to study the “Minimization of materials recovery, properly conducted recy- Hazardous Waste” further and report back to cling and reuse, and treatment . . . 23 Congress.

OTA’S Waste Reduction Specifically, Congress required: 27 The RCRA national policy statement is the Reporting Procedures: Generators subject to reporting requirements were to include basis for this OTA study. The assessment is con- < fined to the first part of that policy: the techni- . . . efforts undertaken during the year to cal, industrial, and governmental aspects of ac- reduce the volume and toxicity of waste tions to reduce the generation of hazardous generated; and . . . the changes in volume waste. The second part of the national policy and toxicity of waste actually achieved dur- statement, hazardous waste management, was ing the year in question in comparison with assessed in OTA’S 1983 report, Technologies previous years, to the extent such informa- and Managment Strategies for Hazardous Waste tion is available for years prior to [Nov. 8, Control .24 1984]. ” Manifest System: 28 A section on waste Even though the amendment consistently refers minimization was added to require a gener- to “hazardous waste, ” OTA has included more than RCRA hazardous wastes in this study. Close 25[J s, (;o n gr[:s$, S[;n ate cC)nl m it tee 00 ~;11\riro11111(311 t ~ 11(1 1) Ub- examination of techniques and practices labeled Ii(: L1’c]rks, Solid [t’a.ste Di.spo.sal Act Amendmer]t> uf I~8J, Re- waste reduction, often reveals that when RCRA port No 98-284, oct. 28, 1983, p. 65. wastes are reduced air and/or water pollution can z640 C F R 260.10 {ief’i nes Henerato rs as ‘‘an}’ pers On, by site. ~vhose a(:t or process produces hazardous waste identified or increase. Most of the waste minimization provi- liste(l in f)art ~(j I of this chapter or ~those act first causes a haz- sions of the 1984 RCRA amendments originated a rdous waste t () hfx. om e sob j ect to regulation. Z7S11T 1)~, St:(,t ioIl ~ ()()z(a )( (j], Standards applicable to genera- 23~ js(jl i(] ~~ra Stt; r)l~~j{)~a I ,qf;f ( SJI’ I)j+ ), Sert ion 1 O03(a ](~] tor~ of baza r(lous waste, l~or[’, ~, r) p, (; i t,, \! a r[, h 1983 ~~]t]id,, paragraph (h) 156 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

ator’s certification on the manifest for all which the Administrator determines are regulated offsite shipments of hazardous feasible and desirable to implement the na- waste, effective September 1, 1985. The tional policy established by section 1003. ” certification was to state that, “the gener- The report is due October 1, 1986. ator of the hazardous waste has a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of such waste to the degree Two Tiers of Waste Minimization determined by the generator to be economically practicable; and . . . the proposed Each implementation section in the 1984 method of treatment, storage, or disposal RCRA amendments is titled Waste Minimiza- is that practicable method currently avail- tion and, like the national policy statement, is able to the generator which minimizes the composed of two parts, The first part is con- present and future threat to human health cerned with the reduction of the generation of and the environment. ” hazardous waste; the second with proper man- zg ● Permits: A section on waste minimiza- agement of that which is generated. Some of tion was added saying that, effective Sep- the language in the implementation sections, tember 1, 1985, as a condition of any per- however, is not as clear as that in the national mit issued for the treatment, storage, or policy. Phrases such as “reduce the volume or disposal of hazardous waste on the prem- quantity and toxicity of such waste, ” and “re- ises where such waste was generated the duce the volume and toxicity of waste gener- permittee certify, no less often than an- ated” can be interpreted as instructions either nually, that, “the generator of the hazard- to: 1) reduce the generation of hazardous waste, ous waste has a program in place to reduce or 2) reduce waste that has been generated. The the volume or quantity and toxicity of such first phrasing clearly instructs generators to waste to the degree determined by the gen- practice pollution prevention. The second, erator to be economically practicable; and however, implies pollution control, a manage- . . . the proposed method of treatment, stor- ment activity that takes place after a pollutant age, or disposal is that practicable method is generated. In requiring EPA to study the currently available to the generator which “Minimization of Hazardous Waste, ” ambi- minimizes the present and future threat to guity appears again in the phrase “to reduce human health and the environment. ” ,.. the hazardous waste they generate. ” This 30 ● EPA Study ✓✐ Congress required EPA to imprecision can shift or blur the hierarchy of submit a report to Congress on “the feasi- activities based on risk that the national policy bility and desirability of establishing stand- seeks (i. e., the primacy of waste reduction). ards of performance or of taking other additional actions under this Act to require If the national policy statement is used as a the generators of hazardous waste to re- guide to interpretation of the implementation duce the volume or quantity and toxicity sections, the intent of Congress seems clear. of the hazardous waste they generate, and Waste minimization is an overall goal composed of establishing with respect to hazardous of two unequal parts. Within the context of wastes required management practices or voluntary waste reduction, generators should other requirements to assure such wastes move as expeditiously as possible to reduce the are managed in ways that minimize present generation of hazardous waste. This practice and future risks to human health and the requires the alteration of industrial processes environment. Such report shall include any and operating procedures—a front-end approach recommendations for legislative changes that is pollution prevention. Congress recog- .— nized that zero reduction is usually not possible Zolbid., section 3f.)05(h), Permits for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste, and stated that, for those wastes that are pro- tOIbid., Section 8002(r), Special studies; plans for research, de- duced, good management practices (traditional velopment, and demonstrations. end-of-pipe control) should be established, —-

Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 157

The Regulations amendments. These imprecision in translat- ing statute to regulations have served to guide Ten years ago, EPA published a preferred generators away from reducing the generation waste management strategy in the Federal Reg- of wastes—or even from examining the possi- ister that established waste reduction as the pri- bility of reducing the generation of wastes— ority option (see figure 5-2). Rules and regula- before turning to waste management alter- tions pertaining to waste minimization were natives. finalized on July 15, 1985.31 The clear statement giving priority to waste reduction that was pro- RCRA waste minimization regulations include: 1) a waste minimization statement added vided by the RCRA national policy statement 32 (and EPA’s earlier one) is not repeated in the to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest; regulations. Instead, the language and position- 2) two waste minimization information items ing of the regulations appear to shift the empha- added to the biennial report required of gener- 33 sis of waste minimization from reducing the ators and 3) a provision that each generator generation of hazardous waste to reducing land holding a treatment, storage, and disposal fa- disposal as a hazardous waste management cility (TSDF) permit record a waste minimiza- practice. tion certification in the written operating record kept at the facility .34 EPA made it clear that The language used consistently in the regu- the last provision applied only to generators of lations is the ambiguous “to reduce the volume hazardous waste, as the language in the amend- or quantity and toxicity of waste generated. ” ments stated, This exemption emphasizes the In the explanatory preamble to the regulations, importance of waste reduction over other as- the terms minimize and reduce are used inter- changeably, a practice not followed in the 334o CFR Part 262.41. qls~ Federal Register 28702. 3440 CFR Part 264.73(b)(9).

Figure 5-2.—EPA’s Statement on Preferred Options

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ders. Thev are not otherwlw directlv re~ulated. . Ener-gj hldterl,il Kc( t)t erv AGENCY under current EPA authority. Thus, hazardous Ji’aste I n( Inerat Ion ‘Trt,,it n](,llf waste ma}’ include residues from pollutlon con- SeI ure Ultlmate Dlsp(J\al EFFECTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE trol devices (e.g., electrostatic precipitator dusts] ttraste reduction. Reducing the amount of MANAGEMENT (NON-RADIOACTIVE) as well as production rejects, excess, or ohso- hazardous waste at the source, through pro(,ess lete chemicals and suhstance (e.g , DDT] For Posltlon Statement changes, is desirahle. Rest rirt lon of hazardous purposes of this position statement only, radio- c hemi~als used rn operat ion~, substitution of active wastes are excluded. less hazardous materials, and bet trr quality con- Wastes containing toxic chemicals, pesticides, trol to reduce prodo( tloo ii)[)llagp are all exam- The purpose of thl~ IS position statement to acids, caustics, flammables, and exp]os ives are describe a pi-eft!rreci waste management strate- ples of possible a(tlons Ii hi(t) reduce the often classified as hazardous wastes, although amount of hai?ardous wra~t[~ rml~llring disposal gy or set of priority pathways for hazardous their properties may vars’ wi(iely. Consequent- waste control that adequatt’1} protects the pub- Also, the less hazar(ious wa~tc wh][,h must he -r ly the specific properties of each waste must be rflsposed, the less the risk of eovlronmental I]c health and environment. rhe priority patb- considered in determining needed control ways are damage. Materral re(.over}. iu( h as solvent equally appropriate for routine (non- procedures. Although hospital and ~eterinary hazardous] waste management. re(.laiming, is another alternatil[~ wh i( h reduce~ wastes are not the major focus of this po~ it ion waste w ithln the 1 nd ust r]al fa( II It} *** statement, they may contain pathological wastes *** Although several statements at the December which can be considered hazardous, and many public meetings urged specific definition of of the same principles are applicable and ln(;ineratiof]ltre~ tmt’r]t 10( ]neratron even hazardous wastes for regulatory purposes, it is desirable. without energy resourx [>~ I \ desirable, in It\ the Agency’s view that, for purposes of this ad- proper order of pr]orlt~ , rnarnl} to destroy or- tisory position statement, a precise definition .** ganic wastes, Other r~()[)-t)~]lrl,]t)it, wastes should IS not necessary Hazardous wastes are those The Agency believes that reuse, energy recoi- he detoxified and nrutral]~ed to the extent pos- wh]ch may cause or contribute to adverse acute ery and material recover}. as well as treatment s]hle through phys]cal, (.hem][ al, and biological or chronic effects on human health or th[’ rn - are dpsirahle pr]or to u]t 1 m,it[> (ilsposal, wperial - treatment. Careful attention to en~ironmental 11 i ronment when such wastes are not pro~)erly ly lan{i disposal. ‘rhu~, the desired waste man- emlsslons with control equipment and monitor- ( ontrolled. These wastes primarily consist of the agement opt]ons are [In order of prlorlty): ing devices IS still required regardless of th[’ byproducts of industrial prodo(.tlon, (.onver- it ,+5!(, Rwiuc tl[)n process employeed. s]on, and extraction act]~ltles, and ma} be In the W astc Separatl[)n and Concenlrallon form of solids, sludges, slurrles, liquids, or pow- Wastf, Ex( hange

SOURCE Federal Register, VOI 41, No 61, Aug 18, 1976 158 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste pects of waste minimization. TSDF permit hold- onsite are subject to biennial reporting require- ers who are not generators would not be able ments under Part 262.41(b) and, thus, do not to practice waste reduction since it must oc- have to report biennially on waste minimiza- cur where wastes are produced. They can and tion efforts.36 should, however, be expected to practice good waste management. The Permitting Condition This third provision of the waste minimiza- The Manifest Certification tion regulations requires permitters who treat, The waste minimization statement is in- store, or dispose of hazardous waste onsite cluded as a part of the Generator’s Certifica- where such wastes are generated to certify: tion on the manifest and reads: . . . no less often than annually, that the per- . . . Unless I am a small quantity generator mittee has a program in place to reduce the who has been exempted by statute or regula- volume and toxicity of hazardous waste that tion from the duty to make a waste minimiza- he generates” to the degree determined by the tion certification under Section 3002(b) of permittee to be economically practicable; and RCRA, I also certify that I have a program in the proposed methods of treatment, storage place to reduce the volume and toxicity of or disposal is that practicable method cur- waste generated to the degree I have deter- rently available to the permittee which mini- mined to be economically practicable and I mizes the present and future threat to human have selected the [practical]” method of treat- health and the environment. ment, storage, or disposal currently available to me which minimizes the present and future This certification must be placed in the oper- threat to human health and the environment, ating file that is maintained on the site of the TSD permitted facility. The Biennial Report Consequences of the Regulations Under RCRA, both generators who ship hazardous wastes offsite and those who generate As a result of the way in which Congress and/or treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wrote the legislation and EPA the regulations, waste onsite must submit a biennial report by generators of hazardous waste have been un- March 1 of each even numbered year. Only evenly hit, no enforcement can reasonably take those generators who ship offsite (the same place, and little evaluation can be made as to group subject to the manifest certification) are whether the goals of waste minimization are subject to the new waste minimization bien- being met. The regulatory program will not nial reporting regulation. They are required by make possible the determination of whether EPA to include in their reports: waste reduction is taking place. Table 1-1 in chapter 1 summarizes how effectiveness has . . . a description of the efforts undertaken been eroded by the statute, regulations, and during the year to reduce the volume and tox- their implementation. icity of waste generated . . . [and] . . . a description of the changes in volume and toxic- while many generators may operate in both ity of waste actually achieved during the year modes, those who ship their hazardous wastes in comparison to previous years to the extent offsite are subject to two regulations; those who such information is available for years prior to 1984. 361 t ~ an be argued that these on site managed wastes are not as potentially hazardous to the general public as those transported EPA placed these regulations under Part offsite, due to the lesser number of people with which they come in contact. However, many hazardous waste disposal sites that 262.41(a) of the RCRA regulations. Generators are now being cleaned up under the Federal Superfund program who treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste or by private parties are located on the sites where the wastes were generated. The potential damage to the Nation’s ground- \\’ater is largely unknown. 35The ~,ord ~rfi(:tjcaj ~t,h ich a~~ea rs i n the a Imend ments was sTItallcs a(j ded for em ~]hasis to ind i{; ate another change i n omitted from this statement in the regulations. phrasing. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government . 159 operate as a TSDF are subject to one. Small cussed in chapter 4 of this report, true waste quantity generators (SQGs), on the other hand, reduction can be disguised in waste generation are subject to the manifest certification but do trend data by changes in production, changes not need to comply with the waste minimiza- in the amount of nonhazardous constituents in tion portion of the biennial report.38 Table 5-3 waste streams, regulatory changes, and cross- gives a breakdown of the types of generators media shifts. Despite this complication, the under RCRA and the waste minimization reg- regulations do not provide any guidance to ulations to which each is subject. generators on appropriate waste minimization measures. It will be difficult to evaluate how effective y waste minimization is being implemented. Data A potential change in the emphasis of na- collected because of the regulations will be tional policy arises out of the way that EPA sparse and inconclusive, Only the biennial wrote the regulation regarding TSDFs. Lan- reporting regulation requires an actual descrip- guage appears in this regulation that never ap- tion of voluntary efforts and the submission of peared in the amendments and does not appear time series data to show whether wastes have in the other regulations. A TSDF permittee is been reduced or not. (Both the manifest and told that it is a condition of his permit that he permit certification only require a statement reduce the wastes that he generates. This phras- that such a program is in place and that wastes ing implies an end-of-pipe approach to waste that are generated are being managed properly.) minimization and is inconsistent with the fact The information provided by the biennial re- that TSDFs that only manage wastes are not ports will be from a small subset of the Nation’s covered by waste minimization regulations. Ei- RCRA hazardous waste generators, as the re- ther EPA has placed a TSDF permittee in a porting ignores those wastes that are managed different category with regard to waste mini- on the site of generation.39 In addition, as dis- mization or the ambiguous phrases used elsewhere (under manifesting and reporting) can ~fl’rhe 1 {1~~ ~ mend m [;n ts mandated EPA to pro mu]gat[? stand- be interpreted in this latter fashion.40 a rds bjr i\far. ~) 1, 1986, for Small Quantity Generators mho gen - er;ite between 1 ()(] an{j 1,00(1 kilograms ~]er month. The statute From EPA’s perspective, enforcement is not exempted SQGS from TS1)F permitting requirements if the~’ store onsite up to 180 days, rathc?r than 90 daj’s. EPA wrote the SQG an important aspect of these regulations, as is regu]at 1{) ns ~u{. h that SQ(l S are not subjw: t t o the ~vaste m i n i m i- consistent with Congress’ objective of encour- xations hienn ia] re~lort ing require m(?nts, ‘rhe~’ are, howe[rer, sub- aging voluntary efforts. In the Federal Regis- Iect to the full manifesting pro~isions of RCRA. Thus, the \\aste 41 minimization certificate on the manifest form must be signed. ter notice, EPA cited legislative history as [51 Federal Register 10146, Mar, 24, 1986,] making it clear that the amendments do not au- a~-rh[; State of California has recognized this coverage defi- thorize EPA to interfere with or to intrude into ciency of the biennial reports. A lam was enacted in September 1985 (Assembly Bill No. 685) that imposes the reporting require- the production process. Reinforcing the volun- men ts as a ‘I’S t)F pe rm itt i n,g cond it ion for generators who man- tary nature of current waste reduction activi- a,ge ~~’a s,tes o n the site of generation. The language adopted was ties, the “economically practicable” test for the that of the 1984 RCRA Amendments, however, so that while the Statf: will be rf;cei~ring more information from a larger uni~erse reduction of the generation of hazardous waste () f ~e nf’ra t () rs, i t W. I 11 he the same inconclusive information. and the “practical method” test of hazardous waste management are to be defined individually by each generator. Table 5-3.—Waste Minimization Regulations EPA, however, stated a concern with compli- Regulations ance ‘‘with the certification signatory require- Manifest Biennial Permit qo~~hen the bien 11] al r~?port j n,g regu]at ions \%’ere trd t[s~ci td irlt(~ Generators certif i cat ion report cer!if i cat ion . - tht~ lnstru(:tions on the form, the phrase reads: “redu{;e the \I()]- Off site shipment. . . X x 0 ‘- u m e and toxic i t} of th[? ktaza r(~ous tt.a ste ~trhi(;h .Iour hu,sin(?,~,$ Onsite TSDF ...... 0 0 x a gent~rtife.s. ” [[ ;.S. FJtl\irotllll[?llt~l] [’protection Ayenc\’, Hazal dous Small quantity ...... X o X \l’aste (jenerator R[~p(jrt for 1985, EI’A F’orm 8700- 13A (5-80] X = required, O = not required Rc\ised ( 1 1-85). ] aonly SQGS holdlng wastes more than 180 days need to obtain a TDF Permit ~1 ~Js j Ilg the SC rjate Report N () . 98-284 on .S,757. See pre~inu \ SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment citation, 760 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste ment” which it identifies as the manifest cer- . . . “43 However, instead of using the national tification. 42 Manifests are not collected by EPA. policy statement in the amendments as the ba- They are sequentially routed along with each sis for its working definition of “waste mini- batch of hazardous waste and end up wherever mization,” EPA has consulted legislative his- the material comes to rest. Copies of manifests tory (Senate Report No. 98-284) and, it says, (with the certification) are not routinely in- sought advice from outside organizations such spected by EPA. Similarly, the waste minimi- as the Great Lakes Regional Waste Exchange zation certifications made by TSDFS are placed and the National Association of Solvent Recy- onsite. Verification of compliance could only clers.44 Its definition of waste minimization be- be made by collecting such documents from comes :45 the 5,000 national TSD permitted facilities. Any source reduction or recycling activity Given the language used in the regulations, undertaken by a generator that results in (1) however, verification of a signed certification, the reduction of total volume of hazardous would not indicate whether a generator has: waste or (2) the reduction of quantity and tox- 1) a program to reduce the generation of haz- icity of hazardous waste, that is either gener- ardous waste, 2) a program to reduce waste that ated or subsequently treated, stored, or dis- is generated, or 3) a program that combines posed. Such activities must be consistent with both. OTA could not find any evidence of any the goals of minimizing present and future enforcement activity underway. threats to human health and the environment. Source reduction is subsequently defined as: The EPA Report to Congress Any activity that reduces or eliminates the In requiring EPA to study waste minimiza- generation of a hazardous waste in a process. tion, Congress broke the task into the two com- and a material as being recycled if: ponents of waste minimization. Both parts deal with establishing requirements (i. e., no longer . . . it is used, reused, or reclaimed. a voluntary program) that generators comply EPA’s source reduction is analogous to with national policy. In the first part EPA is OTA’S waste reduction. But, the emphasis of to advise on possible methods to require the national policy on waste reduction (i. e., its pri- reduction of the generation of hazardous waste. macy) is lost in the EPA definition of waste min- In the second, EPA is to advise on required good imization. Source reduction activities are front- management practices for those wastes that are end practices which by their nature minimize generated. Because EPA’s effort was ongoing hazardous substances and therefore lessen pub- during OTA’S study, OTA has not been privy lic health and environmental risk. But in EPA’s to the content of EPA’s forthcoming report to definition these practices carry no precedence Congress. Sources of information that are avail- over recycling. The phrase “that is either gen- able include statements made by EPA officials erated or subsequently treated, stored, or dis- preparing the report and drafts of contractor posed” implies that waste minimization can background reports. take place either before the wastes are gener- EPA recognizes that the 1984 RCRA Amend- ated or after. ments failed “ , , . to give [a] clear and concise AsJames R. Berlow, Treatment Technology Section, U.S. Envi- definition of the term waste minimization ronmental Protection Agency, speech before the “Hazardous and Solid Waste Minimization” conference of the Government In- stitutes, Inc., May 8-9, 1986. 441bid. 425(J Federa] Register 28734, JUIY 15, 1985. dslbid. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government 161

EPA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF WASTE MINIMIZATION The Office of Solid Waste (OSW), one of three A Low-Priority Issue major units under EPA’s Assistant Adminis- trator for Solid Waste and Emergency Re- In keeping with Congress’ initial low-key ap- sponse, is charged with implementing RCRA. proach to waste minimization, OSW has not OSW is awaiting the findings of its report to assumed a leadership role and considers waste Congress to proceed with any waste minimi- minimization a low-priority item on its agenda. zation activities beyond the promulgation of If considered at all, waste minimization is some- the regulations mandated by the 1984 RCRA thing for the future. This lack of priority and Amendments. 46 Meanwhile, little oversight is of any distinctiveness given to waste minimi- being conducted of the implementation of those zation by EPA is reflected in many OSW state- regulations, and no waste minimization or- ments, actions, and publications, A draft doc- ganizational entity has been set up within EPA. ument, “Hazardous Waste Implementation Waste minimization is not a budget item; the Strategy, ” produced by OSW in March 1986, issue is given only passing reference in EPA’s analyzes ways to incorporate all the 1984 RCRA fiscal 1987 budget justification document. Amendments into the existing program. It also provides some insight into OSW’s thoughts With the inclusion of waste minimization in about potential waste minimization options. the 1984 RCRA Amendments, Congress gave Within the short-term strategy section, waste some attention to the issue of reducing the minimization receives only scant mention, as generation of waste. In regulating and imple- a way to shift more responsibility to waste menting waste minimization, EPA is caught be- generators. Under the long-term strategy (between the statute’s call for regulations and con- yond 4 years), waste minimization becomes gressional intent that they not be intrusive. “the long-run solution to many of [our] current Should enforcement occur, EPA has no criteria problems and should be a major component of of its own with which to judge compliance. our long-run strategy. 48 The document then Congress left the choice of exactly how to meet discusses how increasing regulatory burdens the regulations up to the regulated community will make “this concept . . . feasible. ” Options by providing that substantive determination of are presented that range from “voluntary im- “economically practicable” and “practicable plementation and technology transfer to pro- method currently available” be made by the mulgating uniform waste generation limits by generator. Further, the statute did not explicitly industry category. ” The latter are presented in define waste minimization and EPA did not de- terms of waste streams, whether they are un- fine it in the regulations. As a result, not only treatable and whether they are low or high risk. the choice of actions but also the determination Untreatable wastes, for instance, could be sub- of what actions constitute waste minimization ject to minimization levels while minimization has been left up to the regulated community.47 of low-risk wastes could be affected by technology transfer and outreach programs. A “mar- ketable permits approach” could be considered for high-risk, untreatable wastes.

qeMarcia Will lams, Director, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Envi- ronment] Protection Agency, statement to OTA, Mar, 13, 1986.

47A de facto definition is evolving, however, The principal contractor for EPA’s report to Congress on waste minimization has —— been making speeches at conferences and seminars o~er the last ML’, S. En\’ironmental Prot(?ction Agency, Office of Solid Waste, year using a definition of waste minimization that includes wast[? “Hazardous W’aste Implementation Strategy, ” undated draft reduction, recycling and treatment—any actiirity short of land (copy made a~ailable to OTA from OSW in April 1986), p. 26. disposal, Because of the contractor’s known connection with In the April 19a6 issue of EPA Journal, the director of OSW was EPA, industry has been adopting this definition, despite the fact quoted as sa}ing that this document, which concentrates on pol- that EPA’s own later working definition for the report does not lution control, was to serve as a catalyst for discussion about in(; lude treatment. what is really important and key in the implementation of RCRA, 162 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

A brochure, Highlights of the Hazardous and technologies and promulgation of regulations, Solid Waste Amendments of 1984: The New guidelines, and guidances for the storage, treat- RCRA requirements4g is sent in response to all ment, incineration, and recovery of hazardous inquiries received about RCRA. A copy of the wastes. ” In the reorganization announcement, brochure is presented as figure 5-3. Where is the only time the words “waste minimization” there any mention of waste minimization? Is appear is as the last of the Waste Management it one of the “major changes?” Is it among the Division’s 32 assigned functions: “Developing list of the new law’s “significant provisions?” the Report to Congress on Waste Minimiza- tion. 51 In the Hazardous Waste section of EPA’s Op- erating Guidance FY 1987, waste minimization is not one of eight program priorities. It appears, Waste Minimization Oversight instead, under a subsection on “new initiatives” It is a reflection of the lack of any focus on within Goal 111: “Anticipate and prevent future waste minimization that responsibility for the environmental problems and maintain high current requirements of the 1984 RCRA Amend- levels of environmental quality. ” Other than an- ments is shared by many portions of OSW. As nouncing the anticipated report to Congress, mentioned, the report to Congress is being pre- the single paragraph devoted to the subject pared by the Treatment Technology Section. states that waste minimization “holds prom- The manifest certification, biennial reporting, ise for helping to abate capacity shortfalls and and permitting provisions are assigned to for assuring the public that effective efforts are offices normally responsible for such activities. being made to manage waste responsibly. ” In The State Programs Branch has overall respon- other words, waste minimization might help sibility for seeing that the 1984 amendments to control pollution; no value is placed on pre- are implemented at the State level; EPA Re- vention. The only action indicated for 1987 is gional Offices are responsible for implemen- the vague statement: “secure implementation tation in those States without authorized RCRA of appropriate waste reduction/minimization programs. 52 method 50 The 1984 amendments provided that all re- The Office of Solid Waste was reorganized quirements or prohibitions of the act pertain- in May 1986, but the opportunity was not used ing to the generation, transportation, treatment, to raise the visibility of or bestow any impor- storage, or disposal of hazardous waste were tance on waste minimization or waste reduc- to take effect in all authorized and nonautho- tion. In fact, the opposite appears to have rized States at the same time. EPA was directed occurred. Previous to OSW’s reorganization, to carry out such requirements and prohibitions the group preparing the waste minimization re- directly in a State until the State became au- port to Congress was located in the Treatment, thorized to do so. EPA decided that all the Recycling, and Reduction Program, five levels RCRA rules promulgated on July 15, 1985, in- below the Assistant Administrator, Under the cluding those regarding waste minimization, reorganization, this program was renamed the Treatment Technology Section. It remains five levels down and under the Waste Treatment slGary M. Katz, Director, Management and Organization Di- Branch of the Waste Management Division (ex- vision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, memorandum on “Reorganization of the Office of Solid Waste, ” to Howard Waste Management and Economics Division) M. Messner, Assistant Administrator, May 7, 1986. of OSW. The Waste Treatment Branch is given sZThe number of States with RCRA authorization changes from “primary responsibility for the assessment of time to time; as newly authorized States are added, existing authorized States can lose that status by not adhering to the rules, ..——. - In March 1986, 33 States had received final authorization to oper- AOU,S. Environment] Protection Agency, EPA/530-SW-85-008, ate RCRA programs. No States, at that time, had authorization April 1985. to implement the 1984 amendments. Federal and State RCRA 50U s. Environmental. Protection Agency, Operating Guidance people often use the terms pre-HSWA authorization and post- FY 1987 (Washington, DC: Office of the Administrator, March EfS WA authorization to distinguish between the latter two pos- 1986), p. 37. sible states of State RCRA authority, Unlled Slales APJII 1985 Environmental Prolecllon EPA/530-sw-85.008 $~~;;gton DC 20460 n November 8, 1984, amendments were enacted . Require[nc[][s ior re[rofi[ting L’eridl Il existing o strengthening the Resource Conservation and surface impoundments with iiners. Highlights of Recove~ Act (RCRA), the federaf law protecting . Expanded requirements for monltorlrrg and human health and the environment from the cleanup of ground waier al fJcllit Ies holding improper management of hazardous waste. This permits under RCRA. the Hazardous new legislation—the Hazardous and Soiid Waste Amendments of 1984-makes many changes in the . Authority to clean u p past reie~ses of hazardous and Solid Waste national program that regulates hazardous waste wastes at RCRA-permi tted fac II I [ Ies

from the time it is generated to its final disposition. . Authority [O expedite permits for new and Amendments of The program 1s administered by the U.S. innovative treatment technologies to foster research Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its and developmcni Office of Solid Waste. . Authority, to impose permit conditions beyond the 1984 The new legislation makes major changes in the program to: scope of the exis~irlg RCRA regulations 10 prolect human heai[h and the environment . Contro] leaking underground storage tanks. . Require mer; ts to identify addi I lon~l hazardol]s There may be as many as 10 million tanks used to The New RCRA store fuel, toxic chemicals, and waste in the United wastes. States. Leaking tanks are a growing source of ● A full assessment of the hazards posed by a waste Requirements ground-water contamination. prior to dells[ing ● Control hazardous waste generated in quantities ● Enhanced federal en forcemerr t du t hOritl CS between 100 and 1000 kilo~rams per month. The (including Lhe .ibitt ty [o issue ‘correct I\e action - inciusion of these small quantity generators will orders to f~c II I t Ies U’I [ h i nterl m 5(.+ [ us under increase the number of federally regulated RCRA) generators from about 15,000 to over 150,000. . Requ Irenlel I ts for thorough Inspect 1011> of federal . Phase out the land disposal of hazardous waste. and state hd~.i rdr-rus urds[e fac il I [ Ies in the future, waste generators will have to reduce . Specific COII [ rols on t] )e burn i ng and blc I IJI ng of the amounts of hazardous waste generated, recycle hazardous wastes as fuels their waste, and use other treatment technologies to the maximum extent possible . Requ i reme n [S for the I egLIIJt Iorl of used o I I ● Give EPA authority to develop new crl terid for . T i gh ter COII [ rols o n t 11 e ex pro r [ u i hd ZJ rdo~l > facilities receiving nonhazardous soiid waste W’aste, (municipal iandfills) to ensure that these facilities . A new progr.1 m i or ldcn t I !}rl n~ [he h c.il [ h risks adequately protect human }]eaith and the presented by flldl~’ldual surface lm]mur]cirl~rr][s anci envl rorrmen t from ground-water contamination Iandilils The following is a iist of the new I.*w’s significant . New ci [ izer~ righ t$ u r]der Rc’~w 1 rl~] Ud I I )g provisions. pari icipation I n the per mitt Ir]g procc>s. Iegdl . Immediate prohibition against certain land se[ tlernents, ~nd i r]vol~cmco t i n lc~.il ac[ ioI)5 where disposal practices, (for exarnpie, placement of past and pre>vn[ hazar dou~ w~s[e rn~rl,igenlenl liquids in landfilis. salt beci formations, mines, and practices pOSC arl “ i m nl I nen 1 a IICi suhst dn [ Idl - caves: use of hazardo~ wa~te as a dust }Iazdrd, suppressant; and certain types of injection of While some oi IIlc pruils~ons of the new l~w took hazardous waste]. effec[ I M Med I,i (c l)’, o[}lers drpcnd upon the . M inirnum technology requirements for hazardous timetable Include. d I o (he iaw ~r]d I!2PA’s waste Iandfilis, surface tmpoundmen ts, and mrornu ]f+j t i o I 1 0[ r eg~l IJ t ions I r] any case. I he new r incinerators (for example, installation of double k~’~w anlendrll~’rl ts W I 11 tjrlr]g .~boui [lldjor ch~l~gcs liners, systems for co]iecting leach~~e, aIId in ttle fu tur~> [l] 164 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste met that test and therefore were to “take effect cern among generators, It was added as a sec- in authorized States and are Federally enforce- ond paragraph to an already existing statement able. ”53 Thus, until States are authorized un- certifying that the information on the form was der the 1984 amendments, the burden is placed correct. In many firms a shipping supervisor on EPA to implement those amendments. had been responsible for signing that certification. It was not appropriate for that person of March 1986(8 months after the regula- As to certify, as well, that the firm had a waste tions were promulgated) little oversight was be- minimization program in place. ing provided by EPA. OSW was not aware of which States had adopted the new Uniform There is no Federal enforcement of manifests; Manifest, whether the biennial reporting forms the regulated community is relied on to moni- in use requested the required waste minimiza- tor compliance and report possible violations tion program information, or whether the waste of the tracking system. Some States do collect minimization conditions were being included manifests, primarily to obtain waste generation as a permit condition for TSDFS. OTA con- data54,” ducted a telephone survey during the last 2 weeks in March 1986 to ascertain how much Biennial Reporting implementation was underway since the information was not available from OSW, In some Under RCRA regulations, all generators and TSDFS must report the previous year’s activi- cases, EPA Regional Offices could supply the 55 ties biennially (in even numbered years). This information; in others it was necessary to con- reporting system was first used in 1984 (cover- tact State RCRA offices. ing 1983), and the second reporting was done One particular comment made repeatedly to in 1986. In States with RCRA authority, gener- OTA by people in EPA Regional Offices and ators and TSDFS report to their State, which in State RCRA offices was that no guidance was in turn must send a summary of the collected provided by OSW to EPA Regional Offices, information to EPA. In States without RCRA States, or generators as to what constitutes authority, generators and TSDFS report to the “waste minimization” or a waste minimization EPA region covering their State. The EPA re- program. The rationale for this lack of guid- gion is then responsible for the summary re- ance apparently derives from the nonintrusive port to EPA. Generators and TSDFS must re- intent of the statute, which allows actions to port by March 1; States and EPA Regional be determined by generators, The consequence Offices have until September 30 to submit a of this lack of guidance—especially of any at- summary report to EPA. tempt to define waste minimization—is confu- The last set of information collected by the sion among generators and regulatory staff and biennial report in 1984 was never aggregated a lack of any consistency in reporting. to provide data on a national level about the state of waste generation in 1983, A major prob- Manifest Certification lem encountered by EPA was the lack of con- The waste minimization certification state- sistency of waste definitions among States. ment was added to the Uniform Manifest; and Few, if any, of the problems that prevented the new manifest became effective on Septem- aggregation of the 1983 data were corrected ber 1, 1985. The results of the telephone sur- prior to the collection of the 1985 data, vey by OTA showed that, in general, States have Biennial reporting is the only one of the three adopted the use of the new manifest for offsite waste minimization activities in which the stat- shipments. ute language specifically requires generators The position of the waste minimization statement on the manifest form caused some con- SAFOr instance, NeW York, New Jersey, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois collect a copy of the manifest and computerize the data. s350 Federa] Register 28729, July 15, 1985. ~ssome States require annual reporting. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 165 to indicate any changes in volume and toxicity informed that simply stating: “I have no waste of waste over the previous year. But neither the minimization program” would be acceptable statute nor the regulations provide a standard since the statute language did not require gener- and appropriate measurement method. As a re- ators to have such a program. Procedural guid- sult, the data collected will be inconclusive. It ance was given to EPA regions for those re- will also be sparse, because this reporting is quired to conduct the biennial reporting for only required of those who ship wastes offsite, unauthorized States but no guidance was pro- a subset of the Nation’s generators. vided to authorized States. EPA considers the burden of reporting to be on generators to fol- EPA did not forewarn generators about the low the statute and regulations, whether or not new waste minimization reporting require- the State form includes a request for a waste ments. The EPA form for 1985 reporting in- minimization statement. cluded three-quarters of a page titled ‘‘Section XVI. Waste Minimization (narrative descrip- Despite the lack of EPA oversight, a majority tion).” The complete instructions for this sec- of States appear to have included a waste mini- tion are: mization statement requirement. This information, however, will be kept at the State level as Describe in the space provided your efforts, undertaken during calendar year 1985, to re- States do not have to include waste minimiza- duce the volume and toxicity of the hazard- tion information on the summary that they must ous waste which your business generates. Also supply to EPA by the end of September. Be- describe changes in waste volume and toxic- cause of the lack of guidance given to genera- ity actually achieved during 1985 in compari- tors as to what constitutes waste minimization, son to previous years, to the extent possible.5B there will be no consistency in the information that is reported to States or EPA. Given the EPA Some States have their own forms; some have language in the instructions that accompany used the EPA form. Some, such as Minnesota, its form, it should be expected that most gener- used the previous 1983 form as a guide and the ators will report on waste management rather result was that they failed to collect the waste than on waste prevention activities. minimization information. One State, New Jer- sey, went beyond the Federal requirement and Permitting included with the reporting form a survey for generators to complete on waste minimization All TSDFS must obtain an operating permit activities. This was not done because New Jer- from EPA (or their State if it has RCRA author- sey saw a need for a more systematic collec- ity). The permit is issued in two steps: An in- tion of information. Instead, State officials were terim (Part A) followed by a final (Part B) per- afraid that without providing some further ex- mit. So far, most TSDFS are operating with planation of “waste minimization” they would interim permits and can continue to operate be overloaded with telephone calls from gener- that way until EPA or the State notifies them ators wondering what that narrative statement to apply for a Part B. Until States are authorized should contain (see ch. 6). to implement the 1984 RCRA Amendments, a joint permitting system exists for new TSDF EPA did not provide any supplemental in- permits, A State can issue a permit covering formation to generators about the new report- the pre-1984 amendments and the EPA region ing requirements. One EPA official was advis- attaches the additional 1984 amendment re- ing generators who asked for guidance about quirements. their narrative statement to consult the statute (rather than the regulations). They were also In the case of permitting, EPA did offer guidance to Regional Offices. In a memo on Septem- ber 1985,57 it advised them on how to proceed 50U ,s. Environment] Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Generator Report for 1985 [Form 8700 -13A (5-80] Revised (1 1- sT~ruce R. weddle, I)ireCtOr, Permits and State programs Di- 85)]. The section of the regulations coiering the reporting re- vision, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. En\’i- quirements is also included as part of the form packet, Italics ron mental Protection Agency, memo to Hazardous Waste Di\’ i- added for emphasis. sion Directors, Regions I-X, Sept. 11, 1985. 166 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste with the waste minimization permit condition. OTA found that the aspect of the waste mini- In addition to providing the appropriate lan- mization regulations that deals with permitting 58 guage the memo dealt with the joint permit- conditions was well understood at the region ting system. It suggested that if the waste mini- level. Either regions were assuming responsi- mization condition was the only 1984 RCRA bility (under the joint permitting procedure) or Amendment condition of a permit, then a spe- held responsibility for unauthorized States or cial arrangement could be worked out with the they had arranged to delegate the responsibil- States (prior to authorization) whereby they ity to the States. What was not clear at the re- could incorporate the waste minimization con- gional and State levels was how to explain to dition themselves when writing an onsite TSDF generators just what constituted a waste mini- permit. mization program. In other words, how to write sB1t is Yuiie brief. An addition of the phrase ‘‘and (9 [on-site the permit and what to write in the permit had only])” to the Operating Record portion of the permit refers the been made clear. But, what generators with per- permittee back to the 40 CFR 264.73 section where the operat- mits are expected to write up in their annual ing record regulations are written. Paragraph [9) of that section contains the annual certification of waste m inimixat ion re- waste minimization statement was left unclear, quirement.

. WASTE MINIMIZATION: A VOLUNTARY ENDEAVOR From a nonintrusive regulatory statute, a con- Today there is no way to know with any cer- tradictory voluntary waste minimization pro- taint y whether waste reduction has occurre gram with mandatory reporting requirements is the principal focus of action or even whether has been created. It is an attention getting ap- industrial practices are changing and waste proach that can cause those firms subject to minimization is underway. Three sources of the regulations—or, certain people in them— formation are available and can offer some in- to give more thought to waste minimization. dication of what is happening: 1) anecdotal evi- But, in the absence of an official definition for dence from firms in public statements about waste minimization, responses should predict- their waste minimization plans, 2) hundreds of ably be more of the easy, familiar waste man- case histories presented in the literature and agement actions that have been taken in the at conferences, and 3) generator surveys con- past. Growing awareness and the threat of a ducted to ascertain attitudes and forecast waste more stringent regulatory program may moti- reduction’s potential, None of these sources can vate some firms to do as much as seems feasi- reliably provide the information being sought. ble. But other firms uncertain about future leg- Anecdotal evidence contributes to the body of islation and/or regulations may do little, holding knowledge but does not provide definitive in- off on major changes to make sure that they formation, Case histories only report positive will conform to future legislative and regula- experiences. Waste reduction forecasts are tory language. This latter response may be espe- flawed because they fail to consider that waste cially true in a regulatory environment with lit- reduction technology encompasses the entire tle enforcement. arena of industrial production (see ch. 3). As discussed above, however, certain legislative and regulatory aspects of the current, Corporate Plans voluntary waste minimization program assure that neither a qualitative or quantitative evalu- While a number of firms have well-publicized ation of its impact can be objectively accom- waste minimization plans, firms without any plished. All mandatory reporting is in a narra- plans are silent, Some positive response to the tive form, and there is no recognized definition current voluntary program does not necessarily of waste minimization to at least standardize indicate a readiness throughout U.S. industry the reports. to embrace waste minimization. Moreover, for Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 167 —

some of the same reasons that compliance does that selecting production processes that mini- not necessarily follow regulations, plant activ- mize byproduct streams is the most cost-effec- ities can remain unrelated to corporate plans tive and efficient method of dealing with and statements. Many firms have supplied OTA wastes. with copies of their corporate waste minimization plans. The examples presented below, Minimization is defined in a major chemi- which show commitment by three firms, point cal company’s corporate plan as any waste re- out that the definition of waste minimization duction or waste management practice short varies but tends to include waste reduction and of land disposal. Corporate policy does place waste management and that waste reduction waste reduction as the prime consideration, is not given any primacy, In general, firms are and the company has given detailed informa- reluctant to provide the level of detail that tion in public forums about its waste reduction would give convincing proof of waste reduc- projects. Public relations brochures on the envi- tion because of proprietary concerns. ronmental policies of two of the company’s plants contain graphs showing significant re- A major U.S. firm has formed a Corporate ductions in air releases and water emissions Hazardous Waste Minimization Committee. It of specific hazardous wastes over 10 years de- has instructed its plant managers on how to spite increased product production at the comply with the waste minimization regula- plants. Left unsaid, however, is how the reductions. Information has been requested from tions were accomplished. Waste reduction re- plant managers to form the basis of company ceives a one-line mention in each brochure reporting requirements, Included are: 1) quan- while the balance of the 24 pages deals with tities and nature of wastes generated per year, waste management. This emphasis on waste 2) procedures and technologies used in waste management leaves the impression that waste disposition, 3) steps taken to reduce the volume reduction was not the prime factor in the re- and/or toxicity of wastes generated, and 4) duced levels and that pollution control or waste changes in volume and/or toxicity achieved. management may have occurred. However, nowhere in the corporate documents is the distinction made between the reduction Case Histories of the generation of wastes (waste reduction) and reduction of wastes that have already been OTA reviewed the literature on waste reduc- generated (waste management). Also, the com- tion case histories (see ch. 5). Case studies per- pany has asked its plants to report volume tain to both waste management (consistent with and/or toxicity reduction, whereas the regula- waste minimization) and waste reduction. 1n tions ask for volume and toxicity reduction. general, OTA found that often the data most While manufacturing process change is iden- critical for analysis were omitted. Hazardous tified as a way to promote the reduction of substances were poorly identified, information wastes, the two research projects funded in about the concentrations of chemicals in waste 1986 (solidification and incineration) are in- streams was missing, and it was often difficult tended to solve waste management problems to ascertain whether the reported waste reduc- not enhance the feasibility y of waste reduction. tion involved volume or toxicity or both, In addition, because case histories have focused Another firm, a medium-sized chemical com- almost exclusively on RCRA wastes, air and pany, defined waste minimization in an internal water examples were difficult to obtain and notification about the new RCRA regulations, often suspected shifts from RCRA to air or The definition includes generation minimiza- water could not be documented. tion, recycle/reuse, treatment, and disposal. While the document does not explain the term Surveys generation minimization, its placement in the list of actions implies reduction of the genera- Another way to determine the status of waste tion of waste and the document does suggest reduction is through a survey of generators. 168 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

One section of OTA’s industry survey (see app. erate hazardous waste. In an indirect way these A) was to have been completed only by those results can be seen as indicating the extent to firms that have engaged in waste reduction which surveyed generators have considered activities. Of the 99 firms that completed the waste reduction. These estimates of potential survey, only four skipped that section. This high should be somewhat higher than activities ac- rate of response seems to imply that most firms tually underway. A compilation of the results have waste reduction activities underway. It for five States over a variety of industry cate- could, however, also be a consequence of the gories and waste streams shows that the po- fact that the survey respondents were biased tential for waste reduction ranges from 4 to 47 toward waste reduction, and this bias should percent. (For more information on these sur- lead to a higher than normal activity level. veys, see ch. 3.) Other surveys have been conducted in the last Under the current waste minimization pro- year or so by a consulting firm while analyz- gram, little definitive information is voluntar- ing the need for hazardous waste facilities in ily made available that makes it possible to as- several States. These surveys asked generators sess the current state of waste reduction and who ship wastes offsite to project their plant’s little is being collected for future analysis be- potential for waste reduction, Thus, these firms cause of the waste minimization regulations in were to respond about the current feasibility effect today. It is possible to say that some work for waste reduction, given the extent of their is underway but not to say how much, how wide- knowledge, weight of current incentives to re- spread it is across the Nation, or how environ- duce wastes, and current disincentives to gen- mentally significant it is.

THE EXISTING MEDIA PROGRAMS: WASTE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES AND PROBLEMS

The environmental programs with major na- also shows, about $1 billion has been requested tionwide influence on U.S. industry are those for Federal spending on these program for fiscal based on: the Resource Conservation and Re- year 1987. Most of these funds cover pollution covery Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean control; very little is spent on waste reduction. Air Act, The impact of TSCA over the last 10 (See table 5-2 for a comparison on government years has been primarily the cost to chemical spending for pollution control vs. waste re- manufacturers of reporting. The Superfund duction,) (CERCLA) program affects the economics of Throughout the following analysis only the industrial activity directly through its taxing Federal level is considered. Some State envi- mechanisms and, indirectly, through liability ronmental programs may effectively compen- provisions. sate for some of the Federal deficiencies. It is, The following reviews of these major statutes, however, beyond the scope of this report to ana- regulations, and programs offer some insight lyze 50 State air, water, and hazardous waste into the opportunities and problems associated regulatory programs. State waste reduction pro- with operating a waste reduction program with- grams are the subject of chapter 6 in this report. in the context of the existing environmental pro- 59 tection system, Table 5-4 contains general in- Resource Conservation and formation about the programs and includes Recovery Act60 information on the Federal Insecticide, Fungi- cide, and Rodenticide (F IFRA) and Safe Drink- Since its beginnings, the RCRA program has ing Water (SDW) programs, as well. As the table been a waste management program. Through ~The waste minimization actions mandated by the 1984 RCRA Soln Ch. q of this report, the relevance to waste reduction of Amendments are discussed in preceding sections of this chap- the information and data collection systems of the current envi- ter. This section covers other aspects of the RCRA program that ronmental programs is separately evaluated. pertain to waste reduction. Table 5-4.—Comparison of Environmental Control Media Programs

Fiscal year 1987 request Parties subject Program a to regulation Type of regulation — EPA office (mllllons $) Pollutants covered RCRA Office of Solid Was~~ $256.2 Hazardous waste, either Ilsted Generators Management standards, (under Assistant Admlnlstrator or by meeting characteristic Transporters EPA sets by regulation for Solid Waste and Emergency test Treatment, storage, and Response) disposal facllltles (TSDFS)

Clean Alr Assistant Admln!strator for AIr $2392 Alr (crlterla) pollutants Industnal sources EPA sets emlsslon and Radiation Hazardous Mobile sources I lmlts/standards State or local authorities permit

Clean Water Assistant Admfnlstrator for Water $2178 Conventional Direct dischargers Into U.S By Industrial category TOXIC priority waters !ncluding publ!cly emission guldeltnes set by Nonconventional owned treatment works EPA, allowed discharges set (POTWS) by permit Indirect dischargers (into Pretreatment standards set by POTWS) EPA

TSCA Office of TOXIC Substances $ 893 Potentially any chemical, must Manufacturers and Can prohlblt manufacture, (under Assistant Administrator be judged “unreasonable Importers of chemicals require Iabellng, Ilmlt for Pestlcldes and TOXIC risk” production, require record keeping, control Substances) Statute excludes some speclflc substances, disposal methods. require prohlblts manufacture of notification to customers PCBS FIFRA Office of Pestlclde Programs $ 69.4 Pestlcldes Manufacturers EPA sets regulations on use, (under Assistant Admlnlstrator Users registers manufacturers, for Pestlcldes and TOXIC monitors residues Substances) States certify firms that apply pesticides

SDW Office of Drinking Water $ 841 Contaminants found In Suppliers of drtnklng water EPA sets national allowable (under Assistant Admlnlstrator dr!nklng water Users of underground maximum concentration for Water) Inject Ion wells levels (MCLS) and regulations for users of Inject Ion wells States Implement and enforce aBudget data are from EPA s Budget Justlflcatlon Document for f!scal year 1987 SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment 170 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste the act or regulations, RCRA defines hazard- If, under a health-based model, hazardous ous wastes; prescribes a manifesting system for wastes are ranked by degree of hazard, then all wastes shipped off the site of generation; waste reduction could occur when a less haz- and sets operating standards for generators of ardous material is substituted, hazardous waste, for facilities that treat, store, The land disposal bans process is also push- or dispose of hazardous wastes, and for trans- ing the RCRA program toward “the use of treat- porters of hazardous waste. Permits are re- ment technologies on a large and comprehen- quired to operate treatment, storage, and/or dis- sive scale,” despite the fact that “ . . . waste posal facilities. minimization, recycling and reuse [are] the pre- While this management system sounds com- ferred solutions under RCRA. 62 (Preferred so- prehensive, exclusions and operating ineffi- lutions, with waste reduction at the top of the ciency erode its effectiveness. Congress, in the list, were first officially articulated by EPA in 1984 RCRA Amendments, tried to fix the defi- 1976; see figure 5-2.) While millions of dollars ciencies by setting up a series of land disposal are being spent by the RCRA program on land bans based on chemical classes, bringing small disposal bans and treatment technology, the ex- quantity generators into the system, requiring panded use of the stated preferred solutions is the control of underground storage tanks, and left to “ . . . the normal operation of the mar- requesting studies on such recognized problems ketplace. 63 as discharges of hazardous wastes to publicly 64 The POTW study was conducted to deter- operated treatment works (POTWs) and on mine if the Domestic Sewage Exclusion in mine wastes. RCRA should be repealed, This exemption The failure of land disposal to control pollu- states that domestic sewage and any “mixture tion has become well known, especially under of domestic sewage and other wastes that the companion Superfund program. In mov- passes through a sewer system to a publicly- ing toward land disposal bans, the RCRA pro- owned treatment works for treatment” is not gram is, however, also moving away from the a hazardous waste.65 The rationale for this ex- current method of defining hazardous wastes. emption under RCRA is that industrial wastes This change has implications for waste reduc- discharged to sewers are regulated by CWA’S tion. Traditionally, once a substance is defined pretreatment standards. Among its findings, the as a hazardous waste, any amount or concen- study concluded that 95 percent of the metals tration of that waste is hazardous. There are in such discharges were eliminated due to no limits placed on the amount that can be gen- Clean Water Act regulations. At the same time, erated, but once generated it must be managed the control systems required by these regula- in a prescribed manner. Waste reduction oc- tions were catching only 50 percent of the curs when less of a hazardous waste is gener- -- “John P. Lehman, “Can Pollution Be I)estroye{i?” EPA /our- ated. Under initial plans for land disposal bans, naf, April 1986, p. 10. EPA has developed a system of permissible 63 I bi(~. EPA has proposed spending over $75 m 1]11 On i 11 fi seal water-borne releases, similar to the basic sys- }rt?ar 1987 on a Hazardous Waste budget category called Regula- tions, Guidelines, and Policies, [U.S. Environmental Protect ion tem used in the air and water programs. On Agen(;y, justification for Appropriation Estimdte,s for L’onlmit- a more comprehensive basis, but at a more pre- tee on Appropriations, Fiscal Jrear 1987, pp. Hil’-,?3 and HM’- liminary stage within the RCRA program, is 25,j.4 major [:omporrent of that categor~r is the cfeireloprnent of’ the land disposal hans. Under~tra~’ is the identification of best a plan to redefine the universe of hazardous demonstrated a~ailabfe technolog~’ (BDA T) for classes of tt’astes wastes using a health-based model for setting harmed from lane] disposal. permissible concentrations.” Should such a ~~[,r.s>, Erl L,iror]nlerltal Protection Agerr[;~’, Reimrt to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Puhlicl~’ Owrrred 7’reat- change eventually be adopted, a hazardous ment Works (Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations and waste could be eliminated—in a regulatory Standards, February 1986). sense—simply by lowering its concentration. 1~5~0 ~FR r~a rt 261 .Q(a)(ii). The regulation actualljr states that such mixtures are not solid \\’astes. Howe\er, due to RCRA regulations, a suhsta nce must first be judged a solid waste before 61 Irlside ~’, P.A. \l’ecA/\, R~?port, vol. 7, ,No. 23, ]U ne ~, 1986. it can be a hazardous waste. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government . 171

66 organics discharged to POTWS. EPA recom- recycling as waste reduction and recycling as mended that continuation of the CWA pro- waste management. EPA explicitly excluded grams “ . . . can bring about major, additional from regulation those recycling activities it de- reduction of organic substances. “67 In other termined not to be waste management prac- words, despite past experience, it was con- tices. TO In general, under the new regulations, cluded that the regulations based on pollution recycled (used, reused, or reclaimed) materials control would eventually work effectively to re- are defined as solid wastes. As such, recycJed move pollutants, There was no consideration materials can be subject to hazardous waste reg- given in the study to solving the problem by ulations under Subtitle C of RCRA. Special ex- reducing the generation of hazardous wastes emptions, however, allow waste reduction to which are now being dumped into the sewage occur outside of RCRA. A key exemption is ma- system, terials “ , . . recycled by being returned to the original process from which they are generated, In the EPA report to Congress on mine 71 without first being reclaimed, If a material wastes, waste reduction was considered. The is first reclaimed before being returned to a extraction and processing of minerals presents process, a variance must be obtained to exempt some unique problems for waste reduction. The that material from RCRA regulations. objective in mineral extraction is to obtain as high as possible a concentration of the desired A major benefit of waste reduction is avoid- mineral, leaving behind waste tailings. When ing the regulatory system since that which is chemicals must be used to assist in the separa- not produced is not regulated, The recycling tion process, the EPA report points out that: regulations can require a firm to apply for a ‘‘some changes in beneficiation processes can variance if its waste reducing in-process recy- lead to changes in the chemical composition cling requires a reclamation step. While the var- of the tailings released into tailings impound- iance procedure provides for regulatory escape, ments. 68 it can also be a deterrent to waste reduction, The need for a variance can also prod industry Recycling Regulations to consider alternate waste reduction approaches (such as changes in process technology and New RCRA regulations on recycled materi- equipment, process inputs, and end products) als, which are often cited as disincentives to which have less of an add-on or end-of-pipe waste minimization, became effective in July character and may be more difficult to achieve 1985. ’9 As discussed in chapter 1, it is difficult 72 technic ally. to determine precisely the difference between New regulations concerning the burning and ~~somc-()~ ~he (;h{;m ic;a]s released b~’ industries are shifted to blending of fuels and use of waste oils are also the air and land during t ransportat ion” to POTWs. At the POTW, often cited as disincentives to waste minimi- the received chemicals (loadings) are either destroyed or dis- chargeci to the air, land, and water. Of the substances receii’ed zation because they regulate practices that can b~ the POTW group in(;luded in the study, 14 to 25 percent volati- reduce the use of land disposal, Depending on lizes to a]r, 43 to 62 percent biodegrades, 14 to 15 percent ends the circumstances, OTA considers the burning up in sludge, and 8 to 18 percent is discharged into surface water. [Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Jt’astes to and blending of fuels to be, at best, a marginal Pub/ic/~’ Owned 7’reatment lt’orks, op. cit., p. 5-8.] waste reduction approach. Such regulations ~T1,ee M, Thomas, Administrator, U.S. Environmental protection Agency, POTW study transmittal letter to U.S. Congress, Feb. 7, 1986. 68(J s, E nk,l ron nl(;nt al ~)rot(;(;t ion Agen(; ]”, ~$’ilSteS frOm the E’~’- 7050 Federal Register 619, Jan, 4, 1985, Part 1( I I 1)( B] Secondary tractlon and Beneficlation of Afetallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Materials That Are .Not Solid \Vastes, Asbestos, Ot,erburden from [ ‘ranium &lining, and Oil Shale, 7140 CFR [~art 261 ,Zg(e)( 1 ). Reclamation is defined b~’ RCRA EPA/530-SW-85-033 (lVashington, DC: Office of Solid LVaste, De- as an actik’it~’ that: 4’ . involves the regeneration of wast(?s or cember 1985), p. 3-5. the re[;oter} of materials from waste s,” [50 Federal Register 618, Hsrrh[; f i nal rules were J]ublished i n 50 Federal Register 614, Jan. 4, 1985, ] Jan. 4, 1985. The regulations may be altered somewhat in 1987 72 See Ch. 3 of this report for a complete discussion of waste b~ a lawsuit pending in the U.S. (;ourt of Appeals in Washing- reduction approaches and the tendenc}? of industr~’ to concen- ton, 1)(1. trate; on in-process rf;(. }(:ling. 9

172 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

could indirectly and positively influence waste for projects based on the same guidance infor- reduction decisions by increasing the cost of mation as was provided for the previous year. producing these materials. For this reason, it is unlikely that waste reduction will become a higher priority during the Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) second round of projects. It was expected that a large portion again will be directed at SQGs, The 1984 RCRA Amendments brought into as supporters again conducted an organized ef- the system those firms generating between 100 76 fort to obtain the funds, and 1,000 kilograms per month of hazardous waste. The SQG regulations, finalized on March There was at least one possible win and one 24, 1986,73 included two on waste minimiza- definite loss for waste reduction in the 1986 tion: manifest certification and the TSDF per- Section 8001 grants. Pennsylvania’s Department mitting condition. SQGs must now complete of Environmental Resources was awarded a portion of the biennial report but not the waste $125,000 by EPA Region 3 to fund “hazardous minimization section. waste source reduction” demonstration or pilot projects. Despite the fact that Pennsylvania’s Most of the nonregulatory activities related definition of source reduction is similar to to SQGs in RCRA have been outreach efforts OTA’S waste reduction, the grants will be avail- to assure that such generators become aware able for both waste reduction and waste man- of their new responsibilities. One method of do- agement projects. The loss is a research and ing so has been through the dispersal of RCRA technical assessment program begun by Ten- Section 8001 grant funds via EPA Regional nessee’s Department of Economic and Com- Offices to State and local governments and 74 munity Development with fiscal year 1985 other nonprofit entities. The fiscal year 1985 Section 8001 funds that will not continue. Ten- funds ($4.5 million), were not intended exclu- nessee had received $90,000 for Phase I of this sively for SQG-related projects. They were in program, which was matched by $10,000 in part to: State appropriated funds. The department’s re- . . . fund the development or implementation quest to EPA for 1986 funding for Phase II was of State or local hazardous waste management denied by Region 4. One goal of the project had efforts not directly permit-related but focused been to “reduce hazardous waste generation on innovative waste management activities, for 3 to 5 selected industrial categories by 20 such as waste reduction, waste exchange, sit- to 50 percent.” Both State projects are aimed ing, use of alternatives to land disposal, shared at small and medium-sized business. treatment, and assistance to small quantity

generators, which will reduce dependency on 77 land disposal . . . 75 Clean Air Act (CAA) However, the single largest group of projects Federal responsibilities concerning industrial that resulted and most of the funding went for sources of air pollution have included the set- SQG education and assistance projects. A re- ting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards view of the summaries of 80 such projects re- (NAAQS) for total suspended particulate, sul- veals that most dealt with compliance needs. fur dioxides, carbon monoxide, nitrogen di- Only three projects included waste reduction. oxides, ozone, and lead; the setting of National The second set of funds (fiscal year 1986, $4.5 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollut- million) was awarded by the Regional Offices ants (N ESHAP); the imposition of new source 7351 Fed~a] Register 10146. ——. . .

TaThe availabi]ity of these funds has been one of the reasons 76Marty Madison, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental that State waste reduction ~rograms have targeted such genera- Protection Agency, personal communication, May 14, 1986. tors. See the discussion in ch. 6 of this report. TTAlthough initia] versions of the act date from the early 1960s, T5u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidance on use the Clean Air Act was passed essentially in its present form in of Additional Appropriation for State and Local Activities, ” At- December 1970 (Public Law 91-604) with additional amendments tachment B to memorandum from Lee Thomas to all Regional in I!3i’7 (Public Law 95-95). Legislation was pending in the !lgth Administrators, Dec. 13, 1984. Congress to amend the act. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 173 performance standards (NSPS) on emissions Conventional (Criteria) Pollutants .—The Air Quality from new stationary sources of pollution; and Criteria and Control Technologies section82 of oversight for State programs which set up per- CAA governs conventional pollutants. With the mitting systems to control actual emissions .78 issuance of air quality criteria documents, which give the scientific basis for NAAQS, EPA The Clean Air Act begins, “Title I—Air Pol- is obligated to provide information to States and lution Prevention and Control” and continues air pollution control agencies on “air pollution with Findings and Purposes, among which are: control techniques” related to specific air pol- that the prevention and control of air pollutants, However, such information must in- lution at its source is the primary responsibil- clude data on “ . . . available technology and ity of States and local governments; and alternative methods of prevention and control .,. that Federal financial assistance and of air pollution. Such information shall also in- leadership is essential for the development of clude data on alternative fuels, processes, and cooperative Federal, State, regional, and lo- operating methods which will result in elimi- cal programs to prevent and control air pollu- 83 79 nation or significant reduction of emissions. tion. Thus, while the statute requires EPA to dissem- Title I includes the stationary source provi- inate information on pollution control meth- sions of the Clean Air Act, those that affect U.S. ods to meet the criteria, it is also supposed to industry. 80 The phrase prevention and control accompany that information with alternative appears throughout the first sections of the act. methods that include waste reduction ap- The Administrator is to encourage cooperative proaches, (See ch. 3 for a discussion of waste activities “by the States and local governments reduction methods.) for the prevention and control of air pollution.” New Source Performance Standards .—Section 111 of A national R&D program is to be established 81 CAA requires EPA to set NSPS based on the for the prevention and control of air pollution, “application of the best technological system of continuous emission reduction . . . the Ad- The Pollution Control Culture Under CAA ministrator determines has been adequately Unlike under the Clean Water Act, where pol- demonstrated . . . “ The technological system lution control has been the primary tool, both is defined by the statute in two ways. The first pollution control and prevention have been is a “technological process for production or adopted under CAA. In the 1970s, initial actions operation by any source which is inherently by EPA concentrated on setting NAAQS. These low-polluting or nonpolluting” (i.e., a waste re- environmental quality standards, which serve duction approach). The second includes a pol- as the basis for individual plant emission limits lution control approach or the pretreatment of determined at the local level, are now well estab- fuels,84 lished. Standards for numerous new sources and As discussed in chapter 3, given the variety of standards for six hazardous air pollutants have industrial processes and operations in use it been promulgated. Unlike NAAQS, these lat- can be more difficult and expensive to prescribe ter two categories (NSPS and NESHAP) deter- the best (as the statute requires) technological mine emission limits for individual sources of system if it involves waste reduction rather than pollutants and can be industry-specific. pollution control. Production processes can be

nEpA can a]so prevent Slgrl ificant deterioration (PSII) in Bzlbid., Section 108. selected regions where NAAQS are higher than ambient condi- f13 I bid,, Section 108(b)( 1 ). 1 talics for emphasis. tions and place I imits on new emissions in non attainment areas ~Ibid., Section 111(a)(l). Fuel pretreatment includes such tech- where NAAQS are not being met. Under CAA, EPA also deals niques as “washing’ coal to remove the sulfur prior to combus- with air pollution from mobile sources. tion. Depending on the fuel, the substance removed may be as Tglta]ics for emphasis, Section 101[3) and (4). hazardous as that which would be emitted after combustion. If SoTitle I I deals with mobile sources. so, a potential CAA problem most likely ends up as a RCRA or alClean Air Act, Section 102(a) and 103(a]. a CWA problem, 174 “ Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste plant-specific, whereas pollution control tends plans to move forward in regulating hazard- to involve generic systems applicable over a ous air pollutants. The major component of the wide range of production processes. plan, however, was to shift responsibilities to other Federal programs (such as FIFRA and Hazardous Air Pollutants.—In setting hazardous air TSCA) and to the State level. Few, if any, new pollutant standards, EPA is directed to “issue ideas were presented; waste reduction was not information on pollution control techniques 85 considered, . . . The amendments to CAA passed in 1977 allowed EPA to promulgate “a design, equip- While industry can be subjected to varying ment, work practice, or operational standard” regulations by State and regional air control when it is not “feasible to prescribe or enforce districts, the Federal list of regulated toxic sub- an emission standard. 86 This paragraph gives stances under CAA is short, and standards are EPA the authority to set waste reduction stand- not comprehensive in terms of industry cate- ards for hazardous air pollutants. The Admin- gory or source. Substances that are not regu- istrator can also allow the use of “alternative lated can be emitted without limit. Not all emis- means of emission limitation” that will achieve sions of a particular substance are covered; only a reduction in emissions equivalent to the emis- specific, identified major sources are included. sions standard. This appears to give an indi- Benzene standards, for instance, apply so far vidual generator the option of applying a waste only to fugitive sources (defined as various reduction approach to meet the emission stand- equipment, such as pumps, compressors, etc., ards. The option could be unattractive to a “intended to operate in benzene service”). Any generator, however, if a lengthy and costly pro- equipment at a site “designed to produce or use cedure is required to obtain approval from EPA. less than 1,000 megagrams of benzene per year” is exempt, 89 (One thousand megagrams is equal The history of hazardous (toxic) air pollut- to 1 million kilograms or 1,000 metric tons.) ant regulations under CAA highlights many of Coke oven emissions standards (proposed in the problems intrinsic to a pollution control January 1986) are intended to control a variety scheme, especially one facing the regulation of 87 of substances but only from wet charging and potentially hundreds of substances. Regula- topside leaks.90The cost of setting NESHAP tory actions concerning hazardous air pollut- has been high. EPA has been working on the ants are defined and regulated under Section setting of benzene standards since 1977 and has 112. This section is currently one of the most categories other than the above yet to be deter- controversial parts of CAA. Of prime concern mined. Expenditures—on this one substance— to many people is the slow way and the meth- have totaled over $6 million through fiscal year odology by which hazardous air pollutants have 1985.91 been identified and studied and how the decisions regarding whether or not to impose emis- Waste Reduction Under CAA sion standards have been made. Since Section 112 was added to CAA in 1970, 29 substances As the above shows, a legislative framework have received some kind of regulatory atten- exists for the reduction—to complement the tion by EPA; emission standards for specific control—of hazardous air pollutants and also, sources have been set for six of them by to a lesser degree, of conventional air pollut- mid-1986. ants. NSPS explicitly allow waste reduction to be used for standard setting, but the language In its 1985, “A Strategy To Reduce Risks to Public Health From Air Toxic 88 EPA outlined w40 CFR 61 .I 10 through 61.112, July 1, 1985. @s Ibid,, Section 112(b)(2). Italics for emphasis. 90U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘A Strategy ‘ro Re- Be Ibid., Section 112(e)(l). duce Risks to Public Health From Air Toxics, ” table 1, 87A new study, undertaken by OTA in 1986, will assess the 91u.s+ Congress, General Accounting Office, AIR POLL U7’IUIV: regulation of hazardous air pollutants. EPA Strategy to Control Emissions of Benzene and Gasoline ‘U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, June Vapor, GAO/RCED-86-6 (Gaithersburg, MD: December 1985), p. 1985. 66. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government . 175 requiring a finding of the best technological sys- The type of emission standard employed by tem places a high burden on its use for that EPA under NESHAP varies by substance and purpose. source. Operating standards have been applied The concept of reduction has been used (i.e., for asbestos use). For vinyl chloride, emission standards are stated either in concentra- under CAA. For example, sulfur dioxide emis- tions (ppms) permitted to be released, which sions have been lowered in part by a switch is conducive to the use of stack scrubbers, or to the use of lower-sulfur content coal. How- in terms of allowable operating losses per prod- ever, the NSPS for sulfur oxides for coal-fired utilities both sets a maximum allowable emis- uct unit. The latter standard is more liable to promote waste reduction. sions rate and requires the removal of 70 to 90 percent of potential emissions by technologi- Innovation Waivers cal means, Thus, utilities are required to use pollution control scrubbers whether or not Incentives to promote the development of waste has been reduced at the source.92 Under innovative ways to control pollution were in- the NAAQS category the use of waste reduc- troduced into CAA by amendments to the act tion has not been similarly overridden. Emis- in 1977,95 Waivers can be granted to both new sions of nitrogen oxides from existing combus- and existing sources to delay compliance dates tion processes have been partially controlled while new systems are being designed, in- by changing process operating conditions, such stalled, and tested. In both cases there must be as combustion temperature. a substantial likelihood that the new method will either reduce emissions below the regula- On the other hand, for many of the industries tory standard or meet the standard at lower subjected to CAA regulations, pollution con- cost. Waste reduction could apply in either case trol equipment may be more commonly used. but may have to be explicitly mentioned as a In a document on control techniques for VOCS, feasible alternative to be considered by regula- EPA reported that there are two methods, end- tors and industry. of-pipe control and “changes in the process or rawt materials, ” employed commercially to con- According to a study conducted by the De- trol VOC emissions.93 Chapter 3 of the docu- partment of Commerce in 1980, the waivers ment contains 63 pages of general discussion have failed to encourage industry to develop on pollution control and two pages on waste innovative technology. 96 The main reasons reduction. Air pollution control devices such cited were lack of flexibility, confusion over as electrostatic precipitators separate out rather the eligibility of technology, and inappropri- than convert or destroy pollutants and bag- ate time limitations, (See also the following dis- houses collect particles contained in air cussion of waivers under the Clean Water Act, ) streams. The resultant solids and sludges, if hazardous, are then shifted to the RCRA regulatory arena. 94

‘H2~[;t3 [J, S, (;O Ilgrf; ss, Of’fit; e of ‘1’ec; hnolog~’ Assessment, ,4 ~id Rain i)[](~ “1’ransported Air Pollutants: Imp]ication,s for Pui)lic })()]j(:~r, oqIA.~-2{)4 (~$r~shin~t~n, DC: U.S. Go\’ernrnent 1)rint- i ng Office, JU nc 1984], p. 141 and app. A to (;h. 7. 93L,l, S, ~ n~,lr~n m~;nta] protection Agt?nc}., “(~ontrol Techniques for trolatilf; organi(; Compound Emissions From Stationar\ Sourl, c\,” op. cit., p. 3-1. The stated purpose of this document ~s’l’ht: ~t,[ll~(:r ~)r(~~isl{)ns ;Ip])t!;ir in Sc(:t ioIIS 11 l(j) and 11 ~((fj(~j 1s t o (;orn p] ~ }~ i t h Sw, t ion I {J8(h) of ( 1 A A ( se~! a t]o~’e ] t~’ h ic h re- of the (~lea n AI r ,+(:1. quires Ii f’A to pr{)k i(lf} i n formation on pollutlon pre[ent ion ‘h’’[)l)l)ortllniti(:s for 1 nno~rati(]n: Administration of Sections Inethod 5, 111 (j) and 1 13[d)(4 ) of the Cle;in Air A(:t and Industry’s Ile\reloI)- 94A t ~, ~) 1(; a ] 1 ,()()(). m Cg a \!ri] t t poit’f2 rpia n t SC rut)t) i U g h igh-Sll] f U r rnent of I n no~al 11(> (hot rol Tech oologyr, as cited hy Nicholas (.oa] pr{)(l (1(,(:5 ah[)ut 200,000 to 11s of slu(lg[! i)(; r }’(lil r, IA(; id Rain A, Ashf or(l, ct ,] I., “ ( “~in~ Regulation ‘ru Change the Nlarket for t)n(i Tr;)l) s~)ortwl ,4 ir [>oll(lta n t.s: Im[)]i( ‘a tions for l]ut)li(, Poli(:> , I nnol’at Ion, ” / {drtril I’(f ~ill~lroll~jlelltal la Ii’ Rc?~’i(?~i, I’ol. 9, 1 9[15. op. (it,, [), 141, ] pi). 419-466. 176 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Clean Water Act (CWA)97 A basic premise of the Clean Water Act is that the only legal pollutant discharge is a reg- The Nation’s current programs governing dis- ulated discharge. In all other cases, “the discharges to surface waters were set in 1972 by charge of any pollutant by any person shall be major amendments to the Federal Water Pol- unlawful. 101i Since 1972, technology-based reg- lution Control Act. Among the policy and goal ulations have been imposed on industrial plants declarations in the statute are: in over 30 industrial categories and on publicly . . . it is the national goal that the discharge owned treatment works (POTWs). CWA splits of pollutants into the navigable waters be elim- dischargers into two groups: those who emit inated by 1985; pollutants directly into surface waters and those . . . it is the national policy that a major re- who Discharge indirectly through sewers to search and demonstration effort be made to POTWS. The direct dischargers—both POTWS develop technology necessary to eliminate the and industrial plants—are subject to permitting discharge of pollutants . . . 98 conditions under the National Pollutant Dis- charging Elimination System (NPDES). For this It is only physically possible to achieve the group, effluent limitations which set the maxi- goal of elimination of discharges of pollutants mum quantity or quality of pollutants that may by eliminating pollution at the source (i.e., waste be discharged are promulgated by EPA and are reduction). Elimination from the Nation used to set specific permit conditions for levels waters can occur by using end-of-pipe treat- of conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, and ment that shifts pollutants to another medium. 102 nonconventional pollutants, Indirect users This latter strategy of pollution control has been of POTWS that have pretreatment programs, the guide for over a decade of emphasis on a are subject to toxic pollutant pretreatment system of controlled, sanctioned discharges de- 103 standards. The discharge levels allowed un- signed to “restore and maintain the . . . integ- gg der effluent limitations and by pretreatment rity of the Nation’s waters. The second, in- standards vary among industrial subcategories terim goal of the statute has become guiding and also by whether a discharge is a new or principle: 104 existing source of pollutiono . . . it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which The Pollution Control Culture Under CWA provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for While EPA is instructed to “ . . . prepare or recreation in and on the water be achieved by develop comprehensive programs for prevent- July 1, 1983; ’00 ing, reducing, or eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters and ground waters. . . 105 — IOIIt)id., ~ection 301(a). ] Iozconventional pollutants are biochemical oxygen dernanci BTThroughout this discussion the terms Clean Water Act and (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, fecal coliform, and oil CWA will be used, as is common, when referring to the Federal and grease. ‘rOXic pollutants under CWA are more commonly statute, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). The called “priority pollutants. ” They are designated by Section latter act was originally passed in 1948 [Public Law 80-845) to 307(a][l) of the act and listed in 40 CFR Part 401.15 as 65 classes which major amendments were made in 1972 by Public Law of toxic pollutants which determine 126 specific materials. Most 92-500. The Clean Water Act is actually the name of the 1977 are organic chemicals; 13 are heavy metals. amendments [Public Law 95-21 7) to the Federal Water Pollution IOilndirect dischargers are also subject to General prohibitions Control Act. [40 CFR Part 403.5(a)] and Specific Prohibitions [40 CFR Part ~FWPCA, Title 1, Section IOl(a)(l ) and (6). Italics for emphasis. Aos.s(b)]. These regulations prohibit pollutants that will “Pass ~Ibid., Section lol[a). In some instances, like for the Paint and Through or Interfere” with POTW operations and pollutants that Ink Formulating category, the regulations [40 CFR Parts 446 and will cause hazards (fire and explosions), corrosive damage, etc. 447] require that no discharge of process wastewater be made. IOAThe basic industrial categories (see 40 CFR 403, APP. c) are EPA justified this discharge ban by noting that most plants al- broken down into several hundreds of subcategories. For a more ready comply by using solvent recovery, incineration, and con- comprehensive review of the CWA program, see U.S. Congress, tract solvent recovery [40 Federal Register 31724, July 28, 1975]. Office of Technology Assessment, Wastes in Marine .Environ- These are waste management approaches that can shift pollut- ments, to be published in early 1987. ants from navigable waters into other media. 105 FWPCA, Section 102(a). Italics for emphasis. The language, IOOIbid., Section 101(a)(2). “prevention, reduction, and elimination” is also used in Sec- (continued on next page) —-—

Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government . 177

the use of control technology (primarily, waste- The language defining BATs quite clearly in- water treatment facilities) has primacy under cludes waste reduction by calling for the “best CWA and in the way it has been implemented. control measures and practices achievable” in- An EPA publication, for instance, reports that: cluding “treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating methods, and Categorical pretreatment standards for a other alternatives. Under BATs, EPA is to re- given industry are based on the capability of a specific wastewater treatment technology or quire the elimination of discharges of pollut- series of technologies to reduce pollutant dis- ants if, “the Administrator finds . . , that such charges to the POTW , . . 106 elimination is technologically and economically achievable . . . 109 To meet the first goal of the The following review of some of the statu- act, the statute specifies a fourth category of tory language reveals that EPA does have lati- effluent limitations: the use of control meas- tude in setting regulations under CWA. While ures and practices available to eliminate dis- control technology is stressed and often men- charges.110 tioned first, other options are given that point toward the use of waste reduction. Standards.—The language covering pretreatment and performance standards also provides Effluent Guidelines.—The act set up a schedule for the use of waste reduction. In the case of so that limitations on direct discharges of pol- pretreatment standards for indirect dis- lutants were to be met in stages. The first, to chargers, the “best available technology eco- be met by July 1, 1977, was based on “best prac- nomically achievable” must be used to set ef- ticable control technology currently available” fluent standards. A standard may prohibit any (BPT). By July 1, 1984, a standard of the “best discharge. EPA is given the discretion to re- available technology economically achievable” vise such standards as “control technology, (BAT) was to be applied, along with the use of processes, operating methods, or other alter- “best conventional pollutant control technol- natives change 111 New source performance ogy” (BCT), to toxic pollutants in order to move 107 standards (NSPS) are to be achieved “through toward the national goal of elimination. In application of the best available demonstrated setting the various regulations, EPA must control technology, processes, operating meth- specify the factors taken into account in deter- ods, or other alternatives, including, where mining the “control measures and practices” practicable, a 113standard permitting no discharge applicable under BPT, BCT, or BAT; and the of pollutants. EPA is also required tO ‘‘is- rigorousness of the application of the control sue information on the process, procedures, or concept varies under each. BPT and BCT fac- operating methods that result in the elimina- tors are similar and include “total cost of ap- tion or reduction of the discharge of pollutants plication ., . engineering aspects of various to implement standards of performance . , . 114 types of control techniques, process changes , . . “108 Neither the statute nor the regulations require that industrial facilities install the specific control technology on which limitations and stand- (continued from prmious page) ards are based. They must, however, achieve tion IOI(b) in reference to congressional policy regarding rights discharge limits that EPA determines are pos- of States in operating water qualit~’ programs and regarding sup- sible using the model technology, In fact, the port for research. IMU.s. E n~,i ron mental Protection Agency, Guidance Man Uai for the (Use of Production-Based Pretreatment Standards and the Combined Llrastestretim Furmu/a (Washington, D(; : Permits Di- lc]~lbid., Se[:tiorl 301 (t J](Z](A), Italics for emphasis. \’ision and Industrial Technology Division, September 1985), p. Ilolhid., Se(; tion 304(b)(3). 1-2. 1 II Ibid., Section 307(b)(2), 1(’’FtVfY:A, Sections 301(h)(1)(A), 3t)l(b)(2](A), and 301( b)(2)[E). 112 I bid., Se(; t ion 306(a )( 1 ). The statute imposed deadlines on the dischargers. Therefore, lls Ibid., Section 304((;). Con,gress intended EPA to have the regulations in place suffi- 114U. S En\.irOnmental Protection Agenc}., Guidance hfanua] ciently ahead of these dates to allow for compliance. for the [ ‘se of i+oductjon-l?a,~ed Pretreatment Standards and the IO~lbid,, Section 30~(b)[ 1 )(B). Combined 11’a,Stcstream Formula, op. cit., p, 1-3, 178 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

use of the model technology does not assure Three waivers for better control techniques that a facility is in compliance with the regula- were granted by EPA Region 5 to steel firms tions.115 However, the technical Development and only one of these was ultimately used, One Documents that support each regulation and was unused because the plant was closed, In the preamble to the regulations published in the second case, the existing treatment proc- the Federal Register identify the technology ess was modified to comply with the BAT reg- used to set the limitations or standards. It seems ulation making the innovative process unnec- obvious that a firm being subjected to new reg- essary. 117 In Region 3, two applications were ulations would opt to use the identified tech- received and one waiver has been granted. As nology rather than spend time and money devis- in Region 5, the grantee was a steel firm that ing an alternative. Thus, despite flexibility in proposed an innovative control technology that the statute and the explicit mention of alterna- qualified because of lower cost.118 tives to pollution control, the system that has Several factors could account for the seem- evolved under CWA inhibits the adoption of ing unattractiveness of this waiver provision waste reduction by industry. to industry. Among them are: 1) a possible lack of knowledge among direct dischargers that the Innovation Waivers provision exists; 2) a feeling in industry that A section was added to CWA in 1977 to in- the uncertainty of outcome is not worth the cost duce industry to adopt innovative measures. of applying, since either significant discharge An administrative procedure was set whereby or cost reductions must be proven; and 3) the facilities subject to NPDES permits (direct dis- value of the reward (a 3-year extension) is low. chargers) could apply for an extension of time Because little or no compliance enforcement (up to 3 years; until July 1, 1987) before com- occurs under the NPDES, a similar “extension” plying with BAT regulations. This Section is available to all dischargers whether or not 301(k) specifies three categories of acceptable they bother to go through the waiver process.119 alternative methods for meeting the regulations In addition, regulations were not written for and gaining the time waiver: 1) replacing ex- all industrial categories by the BAT statutory isting production capacity with an innovative deadline of July 1, 1984, so many potential ap- production process, 2) installing an innovative plicants are essentially ineligible for the waiver control technique, or 3) achieving the required that will expire in 1987. reduction with an innovative system to significantly lower costs beyond those determined A Model for Waste Reduction by EPA to be economically achievable. To qual- Standards or Guidelines ify, the first two must result in an effluent re- Examination of the effluent limitation guide- duction significantly greater than that required lines and the performance and pretreatment by the regulations and move toward the na- standards process that has evolved under the tional goal of elimination. In all cases, the tech- Clean Water Act provides an opportunity to nology must be judged as having the potential foresee what a prescriptive waste reduction for industrywide application, Waste reduction program might be like. The process under the approaches could apply under the first and Clean Water Act has been lengthy, contentious, third categories, but there is no evidence of its use under this section, llTGary Amendola, Eastern District Office, Region 5, U.S. Envi- Only a handful of applications for the waivers ronmental Protection Agency, personal communication, June have ever been received by EPA headquarters,116 17, 1986. Ilerrerry Oda, permiting and Enforcement, Region 3, U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, personal communication, June 1 ISMarVin Rubin, 1 ndustrial ‘rec h nolo~y II ivisi~n, U.S. Envi- 18, 1986. ronmental Protedion Agency, personal communication, June I IQU, S. Congress, General Accounting Office, W’astetva ~er Dis- 16, 1986. chargers Are Not Complying With EPA Pollution Control Per- 116Marilj~n Goode, Permitting, U.S. E nv iron mental Protection mits, GAO/ RCED-84-53 (Gaithersburg, MD: Dec. 2, 1983), p. 42. A~enc~, personal communication, June 16, 1986, Also see OTA’S Wastes in Marine Environments, op. cit. Ch, 5— Waste Reduction in the Federal Government “ 179 and expensive. The following discussion shows Table 5-5.—Status of Clean Water Pretreatment that setting waste reduction standards could be Standards by Industrial Category more complex, take more time, and be more Final regulations costly. If resources were sufficient and indus- Promulgation Compliance try, government, and environmental organiza- Industry category date date tions worked cooperatively, these complica- Aluminum forming ...... 10/24/83 10/24/86 tions of setting waste reduction standards might Battery manufacturing ., . . 03/09/84 03/09/87 Coil coating ...... 12/01/82 12/01 /85 be dealt with effectively over time. Coil coating (can) ...... 11/1 7/83 11/1 7/86 Copper forming . . 08/15/83 08/1 5/86 The setting of regulatory standards under the Electrical components I . . . 04/08/83 11 /08/85 Clean Water Act began in 1973 and is still in Electrical components II . 12/1 4/83 07/14/86 process, By March 1979, EPA had not even pro- Electroplating...... 01/28/81 06/30/84 07/1 5/83 07/15/86 posed BAT guidelines for any industrial Inorganic chemicals I . . . . . 06/29/82 08/1 2/85 120 categories although the 1972 act required dis- Inorganic chemicals II . . . 08/22/84 06/29/85 chargers to comply by July 1, 1983. While many 08/22/87 Iron and steel ...... 05/27/82 07/1 0/85 of the BAT regulations for direct dischargers Leather tanning . . 11 /23/82 11 /25/85 have now been promulgated, some of these are Metal finishing ...... 07/15/83 06/30/84 still not in effect because of lawsuits that have 07/1 0/85 02/1 5/86 not been concluded. After numerous delays, Metal molding and the regulations for the organic chemicals and casting ...... 10/08/85 10/31/88 plastic manufacturing industry category—origi- Nonferrous metal forming ...... 08/23/85 08/23/88 nally proposed in 1983—are under court order Nonferrous metal to be finalized by December 1986. Some of the manufacturing I 03/08/84 03/09/87 pretreatment standards, although promulgated, Nonferrous metal manufacturing II . . 09/20/85 09/20/88 are still not in effect; some (notably for the or- Pesticides ...... 10/04/85 1 0/1 8188 ganic chemical industry) are not yet set (see Petroleum refining . . 10/1 8/82 12/01/85 table 5-5). The annual budget for the Effluent Pharmaceuticals ., ...... 10/27/83 10/27/86 Plastics molding and Standards and Guidelines program at EPA that forming ., ...... 12/1 7/84 None sets the regulations peaked at $28.2 million for Porcelain enameling . . . . . 11 /24/82 11/25/85 fiscal year 1981 and totaled $144 million from Pulp, paper, paperboard . . . 11/1 8/82 07/01/84 Steam electric . . . . 11/1 9/82 07/01 /84 fiscal year 1979 through 1986. The requested Textile mills ...... 09/02/82 None budget for fiscal year 1987 is $6.2 million. As Timber products ., . . . 01/26/81 01 /26/84 a the cost of research is not included in these Organic chemicals . . None Plastics/synthetics ...... a None -- — — — figures, the true cost to the Federal Government aunder court order to promulgate standards by December 1986 of setting regulations under the Clean Water SOURCE U S Environmental Protect Ion Agency, Report to Congress on the D!scharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publ!cly Owned Treatment Works Act is considerably greater. When government (Washington DC Off Ice of Water Regulations and Standards Fehruary costs peaked in 1981, U.S. industry spent $14 1986~ pp 6-59 billion on water pollution abatement and control. 121 it necessary for EPA to gather industry-specific data on raw materials, final products, manufac- As mentioned above, the regulations differ turing processes and operating costs, equip- by industrial categories and subcategories be- ment, age and size of plants, water usage, cause of the many differences in processes, wastewater discharge, treated effluent charac- waste streams, and economics that must be teristics, the sources and volume of water used, taken into account.122 These differences made the sources of pollutants and wastewaters, the — . amount of raw waste, the constituents of ‘2(’[; .S. (;tjngres5, General A(,[:(junt ing office tl’asfcit atcr Di.+ waste- [, h

The final result of these efforts is a complex operations can be plant-specific. In addition to array of regulations. Three different limitations the problems of matching production processes can be set—based on BPT, BAT, and BCT—for to reduction approaches, an effective waste reall regulated direct discharging industries, per- duction program needs a multimedia approach. formance standards have been adopted for Standard setting under such a program would some new sources, and two sets of standards— require the consideration of all hazardous waste one for existing and one for new sources—are generating processes as well as potential shifts being set for the regulated indirect dischargers. across media. The existing regulations cover 1,102 pages in 123 As discussed in chapter 4, the data and in- the Code of Federal Regulations. formation that EPA has collected under the The CWA regulatory structure and the pro- water program is out of date and is, therefore, cedure that produces it is simple, however, not relevant for setting future standards for compared to the effort that would be required waste reduction, Comparable information has to regulate waste reduction. Under CWA, once not been collected for air emissions nor for processes producing polluting streams were RCRA discharging industries and processes. analyzed, a discrete set of feasible end-of-pipe Thus, the first stage of a prescriptive waste re- technologies could be identified and tested duction program would be a lengthy and ex- against the economic criteria set forth in the pensive process of collecting information and statute. Next, one model technology was cho- data. sen to provide the basis for the limitations or standards. Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA)125 It is not possible to determine one model tech- Through TSCA, EPA has the authority to deal nology for waste reduction. OTA has defined with many aspects of a chemical’s lifecycle. The five categories of possible waste reduction ap- statute covers a broad category of chemical sub- proaches (which are discussed fully in ch. 3). stances and mixtures126 and is one of two envi- For each process or operation identified as a ronmental statutes that deals with the produc- producer of hazardous waste, therefore, one or tion of chemicals as well as the effects of their all five categories could be applicable and use.127 Of major relevance to waste reduction within each category a very large number of is the prevention concept embodied in TSCA. approaches might also be possible. While the actual approach to be adopted could be left up In enacting TSCA, Congress was concerned to a specific plant to determine, government that: would need to analyze the possible approaches . . . among the many chemical substances and in order to determine an equitable level of re- mixtures which are constantly being devel- duction that could then be required and en- oped and produced, there are some whose forced for specific processes or operation manufacture, processing, distribution in within a specific industry.124 Moreover, it is not commerce, use, or disposal may present an unclear that generic waste reduction approaches reasonable risk of injury to health or the envi- 128 can be applied across plants within specific in- ronment . . , dustries. In other words, many processes and

lZa4fJ CFR, July 1, 1985. lzspublic Law 94-469 enacted on Oct. 11, 1976. Izqunder the Metal Finishing Category in the water program 1Z6TSCA, Section 3(2)(A), defines chemical substances as “any EPA identified 46 unit operations. The first six were called core organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular iden- operations and a facility has to perform at least one of them in tity. ” Exempted from coverage under TSCA are pesticides, order to be subject to pretreatment standards for metal finishers. tobacco or tobacco products, materials covered by the Atomic Many of the 46 might offer a potential for hazardous waste re- Energy Act of 1954, and “any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, duction. [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance A4an- or device . . . “ ual for Electroplating and Metal Finishing Pretreatment Stand- IZTThe other statute is FI FRA which regulates the production ards [Washington, DC: Effluent Guidelines Division and Permit and use of pesticides. Division, February 1984), p. 3-2.] lzarrSCA, Section 2(a)(2). Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government “ 181

The statute provides the government with the In its first 7 years, EPA issued regulations on authority to require manufacturers to develop four existing chemicals: 1) the manufacture, and submit data on the chemical substances processing, and distribution in commerce of they produce or intend to produce. During its polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) was pro- 10 years, the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) hibited, as had been required by the statute; 2) has generated an inventory of over 62,000 nonessential uses of chlorofluorocarbons were chemicals produced or imported as of 1977. banned; 3) the disposal of dioxin was controlled; This list provides the basis for the Pre Manu- and 4) the inspection of schools for asbestos facturing Notice (P MN) system whereby man- was required. As of early 1986, regulations were ufacturers must notify EPA at least 90 days in under consideration for a number of existing advance of their intent to produce a new chem- chemicals. ical substance,lzg In fiscal year 1984, 1,192 While the TSCA program has subjected in- PMNs were received. After review, OTS gave dustry to extensive reporting and recordkeep- permission for 1,036 (86 percent) of these chem- ing procedures on specific chemical sub- icals to be produced. OTS took some action (reg- stances, most of the information collected has ulation or further review) on 116 (10 percent). 130 been labeled as confidential business informa- The balance were withdrawn. tion by the manufacturers, Chapter 4 in this re- EPA can regulate chemicals under TSCA in port discusses the information collected under a variety of ways. It can prohibit or limit the TSCA and concludes that, because of the num- “manufacture, processing, distribution in ber of limitations placed on what information commerce, use, or disposal” of a chemical can be collected as well as the confidential na- judged to present “an unreasonable risk of in- ture of much of this information, this function jury to health or the environment. ” It can also of TSCA would be of marginal use for a Fed- alert users to potential risk by requiring that eral waste reduction program and perhaps of “any article containing such substance or mix- even less value if such a waste reduction pro- ture be marked with or accompanied by clear gram were delegated largely to the States. and adequate warnings and instructions 131 Some proponents of waste reduction point OTS can refer chemicals to other agencies to TSCA as the appropriate environmental stat- for action, removing them from regulation un- ute under which to operate a waste reduction der TSCA. For instance, after concluding that program. The slow pace of activity under both 1,3-butadiene was a probable human carcino- TSCA and FIFRA, however, points out a diffi- gen, a referral was made to OSHA in 1985 for culty of relying on regulating chemicals at the consideration of ‘engineering controls or per- raw material stage. ‘llhe sheer numbers of chem- sonal protective equipment” to reduce the can- icals and the changes in chemicals produced cer risk to which thousands of workers are ex- for raw material use can easily overwhelm any posed.132 government attempt to thoroughly, equitably review and assess chemicals prior to their use, The potential for regulating chemicals under The General Accounting Office has estimated TSCA is greater than its implementation so far. that it will take the FIFRA program the next 20 years to complete its reregistration of exist- lze~en~ bel n~ ~efi ne(~ as either not he in~ on the exist i n~ in v~n- ing pesticides.133 tory list or a “si~nificant new use” of a chemical on the list. ljOcounCil on En\,irOnmental Quality, EJI ~Jjror?rne~~~/ Qu~lif~ 1~84, 15~~ Annual Report [\vashington DC: U.S. Government [)rinting office, 1984), P 194 Is] TSCA, S[; ct i [, n ~(a) and 6(a)(3). A j ud,gmen t of ‘‘unreason- ahle risk is a ha la nc i ng p recess between health an(l environmental effects, exposures, and e(; onom ic ~’alue of a (;hemi(; al, a(:(. ording to EPA, II)on R, Cla}, “ issues in Toxics (~ontrol, ’” L’PA ~ourna~, June 1985, p. 4,] 133U, S, Congress, Genera] Accounting Offi(;e, PESTICIDES: lsZHaZar[io[l.5 Materials intelligence Report (Camhrid~e, MA: EPA Formidable Task To Assess and Regulate Their Risks, \lrorld Information S\stems, Jan, 10, 1986), p. 4. (l A()/R(; E 1)-86-1 25 (Gaithersburg, hlD: April 1986), p. 20. 182 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Superfund 134 the right-to-know provision would increase the awareness of people working in a plant about Superfund has been a major influence in con- hazardous substances in the plant and, thus, vincing industry to change traditional waste act as an incentive for waste reduction practices. management practices. The act is also cited as Information about the presence of substances an inducement to firms to undertake waste re- within a community can also increase public duction because of its taxing and liability pro- pressure on industries to consider waste reduc- visions, In combination with RCRA, liabilities tion as an alternative to waste management. assessed to generators who can be named as parties responsible for creating Superfund sites A national chemical inventory could directly can be high. This potential cost of doing busi- benefit a Federal waste reduction program, pri- ness is now becoming a part of investment cal- marily as a tool to identify priorities. The cur- culations in major corporations. rent legislation suggests a plant-level inventory in which chemical input and outputs are iden- In addition to having these indirect impacts, tified. As discussed more fully in chapter 4, ag- provisions calling for citizens right to know and gregated plant-level information leaves many the establishment of a national chemical inven- questions unanswered about whether waste re- tory in the U.S. House of Representatives and duction is actually occurring. It can, however, Senate Superfund reauthorization bills are rele- 135 provide information essential for setting direc- vant to waste reduction. Implementation of tions and priorities for waste reduction pro- laqsuP~rfun~ is the c~rnrn~n n~rne for the c~mpreh~nsive Envi- gram components such as information and tech- ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilit~r Act (~ER~LA), ~~ubll[; [,aW! 9B-SIIJ, ~ecember l~BC). Reauthorization Of suPer- nology transfer, education, and generic R&D. fund may occur in 1986 in the 99th Congress. IJSAS this report ~,as ~oing to press, Congress had finished its conference (;omm ittet? deliberations on new Superfund legislation. Details of the final bill, howe~’er, were not available in time to include them here,

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER A number of existing agencies of the Federal Most of the work that is conducted by the Fed- Government could provide substantial support eral Government is primarily directed at the to U.S. industry in its efforts to prevent envi- internal needs of agencies. Most work labeled ronmental pollution. Government actions could waste minimization has a minor waste reduc- include evaluating generic process operations, tion component. EPA has a small technology engaging in industrial process R&D, and infor- evaluation contract underway, makes some mation and technology transfer. But, little such grant funds available to small firms and acade- support is offered today that is relevant to waste mia, and has helped to fund some State research reduction. EPA—the obvious lead agency— grant programs. The Department of Energy is spends less than 1 percent of its R&D budget informally incorporating waste reduction into on waste minimization. Research organizations its waste management program at one major desiring to work on waste reduction find it dif- facility. The Department of Defense has devel- ficult, if not impossible, to obtain funding be- oped a formal waste minimization program to cause of the lack of importance given waste re- help control its extensive waste generation duction by government and industry. problems. The Tennessee Valley Authority Ch. 5— Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 183

offers some regional technical and information recycling. Current work within EPA continues support. Information programs on hazardous in the same vein, assessing and collecting in- materials are managed by the Occupational formation; no technology R&D is being con- Safety and Health Administration in the De- ducted, (Waste reduction R&D options are pre- partment of Labor. There is no coordination sented by OTA in ch. 2 and technology is dis- of these activities other than that which occurs cussed in ch. 3.] within EPA between its Office of Solid Waste and Office of Research & Development. As has happened elsewhere within EPA, waste reduction has become a minor tool in the May opportunities exist, howevrer, within agency’s search for alternatives to land disposal. the existing mandates of these and other agen- In the April 1986 issue of EPA ]ournal in an cies and programs to increase support for waste article about research at EPA that seeks to reduction. Federal agencies, such as the Bureau “break the land disposal habit, ” waste reduc- of Mines, the National Bureau of Standards, tion is mentioned as one of four “major alter- and the National Science Foundation, could natives, ” along with materials recovery, energy lend additional support to U.S. industry. Do- recovery, and waste treatment. Over two-thirds ing so, which would avoid the cost of setting of the article is devoted to waste treatment activ- up new programs, would not be productive, ities at EPA; in the section on waste reduction however, without the establishment of a mod- there is a brief mention of the fact that some est Federal waaste reduction program to provide private sector initiatives exist and that as eco- policy drive, guidance, and coordination . nomic conditions change more waste reduction will take place.137 Research and Development at EPA Proposals for future R&D efforts do not indi- Waste minimization research and develop- cate a change in emphasis. Waste treatment ment is a low-priorit~’ item within EPA. It re- continues to receive high priority. In drafting ceived about $1.2 mill ion—half of 1 percent of up its justification for a $36 million request for EPA’s fiscal 1986 estimated $213.8 budget for hazardous waste R&D for fiscal year 1987, the all R&D, The waste minimization estimate of closest EPA came to mentioning waste m i n i- $1.2 million is derived from portions of the mization was in plans to centinue to evaluate expenditures of EPA’s Hazardous Waste Engi- “both new and existing alternative treatment processes for wastes likely to be banned from neering Research Laboratory, EPA funds bud- 138 geted for the Center for Environmental Man- land disposal. Such alternative treatment agement at Tufts University in Massachusetts, processes could include recycling, but will not and EPA funds granted to the Industrial Waste reduce the generation of hazardous waste at Elimination Research Center in Illinois.136~ (In the source. ch. 6 of this reort, table 6-2 identifies State waste Internal and Contract Research .—The Ha~ard~us reduction programs that have received addi- Waste Engineering Research Laboratory}” tional EPA funds,) (HWERL) is one of three research laboratories OTA estimates that much less than 50 per- in the Office of Environmental En~ine~rin~ & cent of E PA’s funding for waste minimization ‘rechnolo~~.lq~ Despite claims that HWE ~L “is R&D applies to waste reduction, even though workin~ to foster increased use of . . . ~t~~ste re- *‘ lm orrA could find 1 ittle ~j’ork s~)c- the agency has identified waste reduction as one ducti On . . . , of two categories of waste minimization. For ci fic al 1 j’ d i rected t ott’a rd this obj cc t i \Te, The EPA’s report to Congress, $500,000 was spent for contract re~)orts that revie[ted [he state of existing te(;h n[jlo~fr for u’aste reduction a II(I 184 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Alternative Technologies Division of the lab- continue to be used for technical analyses with oratory has responsibility for waste minimiza- potential for information transfer. In an over- tion research. A series of case histories on recy- all planning document outlining the fiscal year cling opportunities has been completed and will 1988 R&D budget for RCRA hazardous waste, be published in 1986, Funding for waste mini- waste minimization is not identified by EPA mization for fiscal year 1986 is $235,000 (2 per- officials as a “hazardous waste strategic issue cent of the division’s total budget) and is being area” for which a budget is recommended.143 used for one contract. Neither waste minimization nor waste reduction is included among the issue areas identi- The aim of this single waste minimization fied. In a research plan document reviewing project is to develop a standard waste audit pro- the Alternative Technology Division’s future cedure that could be used throughout industry budget needs, waste minimization is included to identify waste minimization opportunities. 144 as one of five major research objectives. The The current project will test the applicability budget plan for waste minimization for fiscal of a waste audit procedure developed by the year 1989 calls for an increase from the present contractor to five different facilities that gen- 2 percent to 4 percent of the division’s total bud- erate large amounts of RCRA wastes that are get. It is apparent that future budgets, like cur- slated to be banned from land disposal. Prob- rent budgets, will continue to concentrate on lems will be identified and improvements pro- waste treatment. One discussion point in the posed (recycling or waste reduction) at each research plan suggests supplemental funding facility. A followup project is under consider- to support a program on potential waste mini- ation to determine whether the proposals are mization reuse and recycle regulations. The actually adopted and whether they are suc- amount suggested for this project would grow cessful. from $400,000 in fiscal year 1987 to $500,000 Waste audits, in various forms, are used by in 1990 and amounts to a tripling of the divi- industry today and have become one of the serv- sion’s current waste minimization budget. No ices offered by engineering consultants (see ch. supplements are suggested for waste reduction 3). EPA’s funding to test the applicability of a research. model waste audit appears to be primarily in- The Alternative Technology Division’s re- ternally directed. For instance, a model proce- search plan was reviewed by the EPA Science dure has potential as a regulatory tool (for the Advisory Board, The board recommended that analysis of waste minimization plans). Or, if waste minimization research be “significantly EPA decides to institute a waste minimization strengthened. ” Methods suggested by the board grants program, a standardized waste audit included increasing the proportion of the divi- could serve as a required feasibility step to aid 141 sion’s research funds dedicated to waste mini- in the analysis of proposals. EPA is not con- mization, placing more emphasis on waste ducting, and has no plans to conduct, technol- reduction (as opposed to the division’s concen- ogy R&D related to either recycling or waste tration on recovery and reuse of waste materi- reduction. Such research—generic or specific— als), and establishing a formal network between is viewed as being more appropriate for industry itself to conduct, especially given the small amount of government budgets available for 142 INLT .s. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research waste minimization. and Development, memorandum from the Hazardous Waste/ Superfund Research Committee (Meg Kelly and John Skinner] Future spending on waste minimization by to Donald J. Ehreth (Acting Assistant Administrator for Research EPA is only due to increase slightly and will and Development) and J. Winston Porter (Assistant Administra- tor for Solid Waste and Emergency Response), Apr. 23, 1986. lqlHarry Freeman, Research Program Manager, Alternative 144u,s, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research Technologies Division, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research and Development, memorandum “Alternative Technology Re- Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal \’iew (Step 2), ” from Alfred W. Lindsey (Acting Deputy Direc- communication, July 8, 1986. tor, Office of Environmental Engineering & Technology), to the “ZIbid. Hazardous Waste Research Subcommittee, June 16, 1986. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 185 industry, academia, and government to im- for specific projects. The center’s mission is prove the transfer of information,145 to pursue basic research applicable to environmental problems that have been identified by Research by Grants Funding .—There are three pro- EPA. Specific projects have focused on the grams within the Office of Exploratory Re- chemistry of metal recovery and adsorption of search that handle EPA’s unsolicited grants and organics from liquids and vapors. Both of these university research: the Research Centers Pro- recovery techniques could have applicability gram, the Research Grants Staff, and the Small to waste reduction if they are incorporated into Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. manufacturing processes. The center would Since the research centers’ work is determined like to pursue waste reduction more directly by EPA needs, little attention has been given but does not do so because the subject lacks to waste reduction or even waste minimization. priority at EPA. It also finds there to be little A small percentage of the research funded by industrial support for waste reduction research grants and the SBIR program has dealt with because neither environmental regulations nor waste reduction in the past. If the issue of waste eccnomic factors are sufficiently compelling reduction increases in visibility, these two pro- 14e to force an interest. grams as now constituted have the potential of providing more funding—for research by Within the 1986 Superfund legislation is an nonprofit entities and small businesses. Waste authorization for the establishment of 5 to 10 reduction, however, will need to be placed ex- regional University Hazardous Substance Re- plicitly on suggested proposals lists and given search Centers at an annual cost of $5 million. prominence during award procedures. Accord- These centers—which could replace the Cen- ingly, the persons involved both in determin- ters for Excellence—are to conduct “research ing the lists and judging the proposals submitted and training” relating to the “manufacture, use, will need to be cognizant of waste reduction. transportation, disposal, and management” of Neither of these programs offers funding assis- hazardous substances.147 Such a legislative tance to the bulk of industry, which maybe the mandate is broad and could be interpreted to most relevant place for development of waste include research relating to waste reduction, reduction techniques. However, without a specific mention of waste reduction or waste minimization in the legis- The Research Centers Program oversees lation, the likelihood that such research will oc- activities at the eight EPA Centers of Excellence cur is poor, given the inclination of EPA to set up in 1979 to provide EPA with an improved place such items low on its agenda. basic research capability. Each center-located at a university—receives $540,000 per year from Through the Research Grants Office, annual EPA’s R&D budget and is expetcted to supple- funding is awarded to nonprofit institutions ment its income from other public and private and State and local governments primarily for sector sources. The centers do not focus exclu- basic research. The total research grants bud- sively on hazardous waste. get for fiscal year 1986 is $10.8 million. (This The Industrial Waste Elimination Research Center, established in 1980 as a joint project of the Illinois Institute of Techrmlogy and the 146Cha r]es H a as, 1 ndust ria] bt’a st (? ~~] i m i 11 a t i () 11 Res(;a r(: h (If)n- University of Notre Dame, is the EPA center ter, persona] communication, hlay 23, 1986. where work is most directly related to waste lqp~’he ]a nguage quote(j comes from Resea [’(.}] a 11(1 I le\elop- reduction. Its annual budget is based on the ment paragraphs in an undated Superfund conieren(:e (I raft. As this report was going to press, Congress had finished its Super- EPA grant and is supplemented occasionally fund conference committee de] iberat ions but details of the final by funds given by public or private interests bill t~ere not ayailahlc in time to in(; lude them here. Hazar(]ous substances am defined under Superfund (C ERCLA) an(i inc]udt; 14su,s, En\. ir~nmenta] IJrotec; tion Agency, “Review of the Alter- RCRA hazardous itastes, hazardous air pollutants listed un(ler nat i~e Technologies Research Program, report of the Environ- Section 112 of Clean Air Act, toxi(; pollutants regulated Lln(](}r mental Engineering Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Section 307(a) of Clean lt’ater A(:t, an{] imminently hazar(iol]s f30ard, JUII 1986. chem ic; al +(ll)~ta n(:es un(ler Section 7 of TSCA. 186 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste amount will decrease to about $7 million in the cycle of awards, the topics are: drinking water budget requested by EPA for fiscal year 1987)148 treatment, municipal and industrial wastewater treatment and pollution control, biological Proposals for projects are submitted based sludge treatment for improved handling and on a list of four program areas of interest to disposal, solid and hazardous waste disposal EPA: environmental biology, health, engineer- and pollution control, mitigation of environ- ing, and air/water chemistry and physics. For mental pollution problems, air pollution con- the 1986 award cycle, waste reduction projects trol, and environmental monitoring instrumen- were explicitly mentioned as an area of inter- tation. While neither waste minimization nor est under wastewater treatment and pollution waste reduction appears as a topic area, the control within the environmental engineering concept of waste reduction appears as a sug- program area. They are defined as: “In-plant gested “area of interest” under the wastewa- unit process operations minimizing or elimi- ter treatment and pollution control topic and nating toxics generation and release to the environment. 149 Similar solicitation was not sug- under solid and hazardous waste disposal and pollution control. gested under the air pollution control category; there is no comparable category for RCRA haz- Fifty-one Phase I and II projects were funded ardous wastes, by EPA between 1983 and 1985. A review reveals that five waste reduction projects were No projects that could be considered relevant included in 40 Phase I awards over that time; to industrial waste reduction were awarded re- one of these waste reduction projects advanced search grants in 1985; however, two dealt with to Phase II, reducing the use of chlorine in and the formation of toxic byproducts from the disinfection Small business firms may also be able to ob- of drinking water. tain assistance directly from the Small Business Administration for waste reduction projects The SBIR program is mandated by the Small 150 (see box 5-A), Business Innovative Development Act of 1982 and, under that act, is entitled to at least 1 percent of EPA’s R&D outside contract funds. In Other Environmental R&D Organizations fiscal year 1986 the program’s funds amounted to about $2.6 million,151 Contracts are awarded A number of States or universities have estab- in two stages. Phase I funding is used to show lished hazardous waste research facilities. the scientific and technical merit and the fea- Some receive financiaI assistance from EPA or sibility of a proposal. Phase 11 funding is in- other government agencies; some do contract tended to move the Phase I innovation toward work for EPA. Overall, they now conduct rela- commercialization n. tively little waste reduction research, but they As in the procedure under the grants pro- would do more if the need were recognized and grams, prospective SBIR bidders receive a list funding made available. Four such existing of broad topics of interest to EPA. For the 1986 organizations are highlighted in table 5-6 and discussed briefly below. A Research and De- l~~(:]ti I,l(:t: (j;ll, ]orcj, 1~rogl.~l M fvlan;~g[:r, Kcscarrh Gra nts Office, velopment Center for Hazardous Waste Man- (J .S. Erl\ril’(Jrlrlietlt:~l Protection A,genc\’, personal (;om]nunica - tion, May 23, 1986, agement has been proposed for the State of New - ! 49 (‘ .S ~; n v i ro n m[;nt;i 1 I>rot (?(:t ion Agf?n(; y, ,\’()/i(;it;] ti[)n fi)r R(? York, search Grant Propro.wls, EPA/tx)o/8-85/02 I [Washington 1)(;: Sel)- tember 1985), p. 9. The Industry/University Cooperative Re- I so ptlb] i~ [J~Jj, g ~-~ 19, ‘]’111 $ l~gl $] at ion 1 nc 1 u(~t!s (i S11 I} Set pro~” 1- search Center for Hazardous and Toxic Waste siun th:l t comes (iuc O(:t. 1, 1988, The House o f f

Box 5-A.—Small Business Waste Reduction Funding Assistance The Small Business Administration (SBA) offers a wide range of loan programs to small business firms. In the environmental area the prime SBA loan vehicle is a Pollution Control Financing Guarantee (PCFG) authorized under the Small Business Investment Act.’ So far, no applications have been received by SBA for any waste reduction projects. Consistent with what OTA has repeatedly found elsewhere, the PCFG program has been viewed by those outside and within SBA as a way to support traditional pollution control activities. The Small Business Ombudsman at EPA, however, has recognized its potential to assist its constituency by advancing waste minimization projects and has been trying to work with SBA to expand the program.2 PCFGs should be applicable to waste reduction projects. A small business firm can apply to SBA for this loan guarantee if private financing is denied or if it is granted, but at a rate not comparable to those granted to other business concerns, “with respect to the planning, design, or installation of pollution control Facilities . . .“3 The statutory definition of a facility has been interpreted as one that is likely to: . . . prevent, reduce, abate, or control noise, air or water pollution; or eliminate contamination by removing, altering, disposing, or storing pollutants, contaminants, waste, or heat; or provide for the collection, storage, processing, treatment/utilization, or final disposal of solid or liquid waste, including any related resource recovery property.4 Other general SBA loan programs could also apply to waste reduction projects. These alternative programs, however, are less favorable. They do not carry a fixed interest rate, are for a shorter term than PCFGs (maximum 7 years rather than 15), are only 75 percent (vs. 100 percent) guaranteed by SBA, and are applicable only when financing has been denied in the private market. Loan programs that emphasize the need for capital costs can promote the application of more costly waste reduction approaches. As discussed in chapter 3, waste reduction can often be achieved by simple, relatively inexpensive methods such as changing operating procedures of existing facilities or instituting better housekeeping methods around a facility. Since waste reduction approaches improve the overall operation of industrial processes, it can be difficult to draw a line between a change for waste reduction and a change for process efficiency. Given the huge number of small business firms in the Nation, this lack of distinction and the promotion of government loans for waste reduction could initiate an ultimately costly, unbounded industrial loan program. (See the discussion of this problem under Policy Option III in ch. 2 of this report.)

ISection 404, which authorizes PCFGS, was added to the act by Public Law 94-3o5 in 1976. ZKaren Brown, Small Business Ombudsman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication, May 29, 1986. See the Om- budsman’s office report, “Evaluating the Need for an SBA Pollution Control Financing Program,” May 16, 1986. 313 CFR Part 111. Small Business Ombudsman, U.S. Environmentaf Protection Agency, “Assistance Programs for Pollution Control Financing,” March 1986, A possible complication may arise over a statement that appeared about PCFGS in the Federal Register on June 4, 1986 (vol. 51, p. 20247): “PCFG assistance . . . is intended for small concerns to comply with ecological standards by installing non-productive pollufion abatement equipment, purchased incident to their other profit-oriented activities. ”

present time and later, rec~clin~. When re- coupled with production cost an(l i reproved se~ r(:h has thoroughly ~~~lorecl these means competitiveness needs. 52 to manage wastes, then the Center may consicler At the (university of Alabama in Birmingham, tt~ste reduction. l’h~ center is increasingly de- a Hazardous Materials Management and Re- })endent on industry funding. 1t has not not~[l source R~[;~very Pro~r~m (HAM N1 ~ R R] m’ as a n~T (;u rreni int ercst on the part o f in~us t r~r i n g~I i n i n g outs idc ass is t i] n [ ;(? i n t h e (Iflt’elop Ill e 11 t (j f [La st e re{] u (: t i () n t e{: h n i(] u es I)[}c a u se ‘‘ . . . such a(; t i~’ i ty is ha nf] 1(:(1 i n t (; rnal 1~ a II({ a 1 tt’a}’s 188 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Table 5-6.—State Level Environmental R&D Centers

Annual Waste management v. Organization and location Funding source(s) budget a waste reduction [WR) activities Center for Environmental Management at Tufts University ...... EPA 100 ”/0$2.0 million Little waste reduction. Two waste minimization projects completed. A technical waste treatment study planned. Industry/University Research Center for Hazardous and Toxic Waste at New Jersey Institute of Technology...... NSF 3% $3.0 million Concentrates on waste treatment State of New Jersey 66% methods; no WR research planned. Private sector 16% Hazardous Materials Management Resource Recovery Program at University of Alabama ...... State of Alabama 660/0 $0.2 million Aim to eventually focus on WR, but University 33 ”/0 initial projects are on recycling, treatment, and regulatory compliance. Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center ...... State of Illinois 100”/0 $1.3 million “Prevention and Source Reduction” is one of 4 research areas. WR is now 10 percent of technical assistance work. No WR research yet. aEstimated operat!ng and research SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986 established in late 1985. The prime goal of the information exchange programs .’’155 Waste Re- facility is to support research “aimed at ulti- duction and Treatment is one of four “clusters mately eliminating by-product wastes from of concentration. ” Two projects have been com- manufacturing processes. ’’153 So far, funding pleted: a study of foreign government waste support for this waste reduction research has minimization practices and the organization proven difficult to acquire from either govern- of a conference. A technical project on onsite ment agencies or the private sector. Initial treatment is being planned. projects—funded primarily by the Alabama De- Illinois’ Governor and Legislature created a velopment Office—have included establish- Hazardous Waste Research and Information ment of a regulation information newsletter, Center in 1984. One of five objectives of the development of a waste exchange information center is: “Reducing the volume of hazardous service and a training assistance program for wastes generated and the threat they pose to RCRA generators, and waste incineration re- 156 human health and the environment. ’’ Preven- search. The organization hopes to have one or tion and Source Reduction Studies is one of four two waste reduction engineering research 154 research areas, and projects in this area that projects funded within a year. “will support industries’ efforts to minimize or The Center for Environmental Management prevent hazardous wastes from being produced at Tufts University is funded principally by EPA or to detoxify those wastes’’ 157 (i.e., waste reat a cost of $2 million per year. The center’s duction and waste treatment). Actual work in mission is “to develop an effective approach waste reduction has, so far, only been incor- to environmental management through inno- porated into the activities of the center’s tech- vative research, policy analysis, education, and nical assistance project (see ch. 6),158 — 155Th~ Center for Environ mental Management, Tufts L’ n iver- Issu-n iversitj, of Alabama, “Hazardous Materials Research Cen- sity, promotional brochure, undated. ter Will Aid Industry, ” Capstone EngiIIeering, vol. 2, No. 1, Winter IsaHazardous Waste Research and Information Center, Annual 1986, Report (Ma~ 1, 1$7/35 - April 30, 1986), p, iv. 154 George Whitt]e, Coordinator, Hazardous Materials Manage- 1571 bid,, p. viii. ment and Resource Recover} Program, L\ni\ersit~’ of Alabama, ls~Da\,id I.. Thomas, Dire(; tor, Hazardous Waste Research and personal communication, July 10, 1985. Information Center, personal communication, May 1986. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 189

Other Federal Agencies: has been recognized in the Office of the Secre- R&D and Information Transfer tary of Defense (OSD) and in each of the military services. There are a variety of ways in which existing Federal agencies could promote waste re- A DOD policy on hazardous waste was established in 1980 which cited as the first step a duction. The Department of Defense and a ma- determination to “limit the generation of haz- jor Department of Energy facility have newly ardous waste through alternative procurement initiated internal waste minimization programs 161 practices and operational procedures. Waste to help ameliorate their own hazardous waste minimization within the Navy, Army, and Air problems. This work may have limited value outside of the agencies in terms of technology Force has preceded—and been the impetus for —the development of an official DOD waste transfer. More important to this discussion on waste reduction may be the incentives each minimization plan. These individual efforts are outlined in table 5-7. Throughout DOD, waste agency has instituted to reduce the generation minimization has been defined broadly to in- of hazardous wastes. The Tennessee Valley Au- clude reduction, recycling, reuse, and treat- thority has been instrumental in assisting States ment. Waste reduction, therefore, constitutes in its region to promote waste minimization. an unknown part of DOD waste minimization The Occupational Safety and Health Adminis- activities, most of which are focused on RCRA tration indirectly promotes waste reduction hazardous wastes. through its regulation of hazardous materials in the workplace. The Joint Logistics Commanders’ Hazardous Waste Minimization Ad Hoc Working Group As discussed in chapter 3 of this report, waste 162 reduction technology is a misleading phrase. (JLC Working Group submitted a report to It implies that there are distinct technologies OSD in December 1985 which recommended the elements for a DOD waste minimization that lead to the reduction of waste. But waste program (see details below). As of mid-1986, reduction is, instead, a criterion by which to OSD was formulating a directive that would assess almost any industrial production technology. By the same token, R&D in waste re- require all parts of DOD to develop waste mini- duction encompasses many aspects of indus- mization plans. Funding of $30 million for fiscal year 1987 has been requested. For fiscal year trial production. Thus any Federal agency 1986, $47 million had been approved for the already offering support to U.S. industry could also assist its waste reduction efforts. existing individual programs but was eliminated because of overall Federal Government The Department of Defense Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget constraints. Services were, however, subsequently author- DOD generates over 500,000 tons of RCRA ized to spend approximately $5 million for hazardous waste annually159and has identified waste minimization out of a $50 million sup- several hundreds of sites that will require plemental appropriation for DOD’s cleanup cleanup at an estimated cost of $10 billion. 160 program. Logistics operations (procurement, mainte- A number of procedures within DOD that nance, and transportation of materiel and fa- have counterparts in the private sector have cilities) are the major sources of new waste. The been identified as key elements in causing ex- need to minimize the generation of this waste cessive hazardous waste generation. A major disincentive to waste reduction within DOD is 159U .s. ~ongr~ss, General Accounting Office, HJ4Z24 RDOL ‘($ \$~ASTE: DOD Efforts to Improtre ,!tanagement Of [; f? Ilt’1’:ltl[)ll, Storage and Disposal, GAO/NSIAIl-86-60 (Gaithershur,q, hlI): 101 u.s []ep~rt In(lnt of I)efcllse, 1) EQPPM ~0-~, ~~t. ~ 1. 1980 Ma~r 1986), p. 10. 1~~ ~femi>ers i n~ ] ~l{]e re[] resen ta t i t’es from t }1[? Defe n St? IJog is- leou ,S. Congress, General A[;c; ount i n,g of fl(;e, t{,~~i~ RDO( ‘L$ sties Agency, Na\ral Nlateri{?] Command, the Arm}r Materiel (;{Jm- Jt~Ac57”~’: Federal (J’jtjj Agencies SIO\I to COI~Ip/j ttith Regola- mand, the Air For(, e I.o,gistics (;orn mand, and the Air Forct’ S\rs- tor~r Requirements, CAO/RCE1l-86-76 {Gait hershurH, hl 11: hlay tems Command. Groups sLIch as t hf: Strategic Air Command a n(l 1986), p. 9. the Ta(:t ical Air (;ommand arc not represt)nte(]. 190 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste — .-

Table 5-7.—Waste Minimization (WM) at the Department of Defense — — Office of the Secretary: Defense Environmental Leadership Project (see text). Defense Logistics Agency (D LA) provides material support (procurement, quality control, storage, distribution, maintenance), Has instituted some informal changes i n materiel ordering to reduce wastes created by shelf-1 ife regulations. Navy: All Commands required to report by April 1986 on WM measures taken. Object IS to raise awareness of issue and accumulate information for transfer across Commands, Naval Civil Engineering Lab is investigating private industry initiatives for transferability to Naval operations, Army: Army Materiel Command (AMC) has developed a Hazardous Waste Minimization (Hazmin) Plan. All AMC installations must implement wide range of activities including reduction goals (15 to 60 percent by 1992) for major wastes streams (metal working, electroplating, painting, electrical maintenance, and waste treatment sludges). Also disposal of untreated wastes in landfills to be eliminated by 1992, Air Force: Office of Secretary of Air Force has several studies underway on decision making and costing practices that affect waste generation, Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) requested $13 million from Defense Environmental Restoration Account for WM in 1986. Has completed assessment of WM opportunities in 8 major facilities (U.S. Air Force, Aeronautical Systems Division, Waste Minirnization at Air Force P/ants, by the Earth Technology Corporation, 1986) Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC) “Pacer Reduce” WM plan in place since end 1985. Set overall goal of over 50 percent reduction by 1992. Has taken complete waste stream inventory by process, Studying technologies in private sector for transfer to AF operations. Some R&D conducted at Tindle AFB, SOURCE Off Ice of Technology -AssessmentU 1986 that the Defense Property Disposal Office re- mization programs include scouting the private moves hazardous waste from facilities without sector for technology, charge. Thus, DOD’s production and storage facilities need not consider the cost of hazard- DOD Goals .–DOD may establish a policy that ous waste management in their operations. In is transferable to the private sector and other addition, because DOD tends to order materi- government agencies-the setting of nonbind- als in excess of needs, many materials outlive ing reduction goals which are to be incorpo- their shelf-life and end up as hazardous waste. rated with increased stringency. Such goals, According to a 1986 DOD report, because of to be met by 1992, have already been established the many components of DOD, even within mil- with in some military departments, based on itary departments, and because there has been waste streams or processes. For instance, the a lack of official oversight, it is difficult to dis- Army has reduction goals in place that are to seminate waste reduction processes and inno- be met by 1992. They include reductions of 60 vative ideas throughout the agency. percent for electrical maintenance and waste treatment sludges, 50 percent for electroplat- DOD is not necessarily a source of technol- ing and painting wastes, and 15 percent for ogy transfer to the private sector. R&D in DOD metal working wastes. In the Air Force an over- often occurs in areas where the applicability all goal of 50 percent reduction by 1992 has been is unique to DOD or where DOD constitutes set, DOD already has established a goal to elim- a large part of the industry (e. g., aircraft man- inate the disposal of untreated hazardous waste ufacturing). The agency considers that the pri- by 1992 through waste reduction, recycling, and vate sector—because of its costs incentives-is treatment. more likely to generate more and better waste reduction techniques.163 Most DOD waste mini- JLC Working Group.—The JLC Working Group was created in September 1985 because of concern about “the serious liabilities associated with the generation and subsequent handling Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 191 . . and disposal of hazardous wastes. 164 The Group’s DELP is searching out and publicizing waste Hazardous Waste Minimization Program, reduction success stories within DOD to en- which was submitted to OSD in December 1985, courage development and implementation of includes a number of elements for each DOD industrial process modifications that will re- department to implement. They include: accu- duce the amount of hazardous waste generated rate annual waste reporting, material control at DOD facilities.167 The first phase of this programs, reviews of existing technology and project evaluated 40 case studies of industrial activities, coordination between services, im- process modifications and recommended 18 of plementation of “economically practicable haz- these for further study in phase two oft he proj- ardous waste minimization technology” and ect. From these 18 case studies, three were the initiation of R&D, consideration of waste selected as “Projects of Excellence. ” The third minimization in all acquisition programs, and phase includes training sessions at a number the development of reduction goals and moni- of DOD installations on applying the tcchniques toring of progress within each command. The developed in the three selected projects.168 The group identified hazardous material control, final three projects were: a paint-stripping proc- delisting, material substitution, process change, ess using plastic pelIet blasting, modifications and recycling as “means of hazardous waste to metal plating, and reducing solvent and oil minimization. 165 pollution from vehicle washing and maintenance. The 2-year project cost approximately The program requires that R&D be coordi- $300,000, primarily for contractor support. It nated among depart ments to avoid duplication. has been completed and no other major tiaste Necessary spending levels were estimated at reduction efforts are pending in DELP. $10 million per year for each of the military departments, with funds for development of Department of Energy these programs to be taken from the Defense Environmental Restoration Account.166 DOE faces estimated costs of $750 million for environmental cleanup at three of its facilities. Office of the Secretary of Defense.—Currently, two Among Federal agencies, this cost is second different groups within OSD have worked on 169 only to DOD’s. Eighty-s ix percent will be waste minimization: The Defense Logistics Agency (see table 5-7) and the Defense Envi- spent at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, facility DOE has not yet began a formal waste minimization ronmental Leadership Project (D ELP). program but has had an informal program at DELP was founded in January 1984 by the its Oak Ridge National Laboratory since mid- Director of Environmental Policy at the Penta- 1985. 170 gon. It was originally funded for a 2-year trial Two important changes have been made to period but has since been extended indefinitely. DELP’s stated mission is to find innovative so- create incentives for both DOE contractors lutions to long-term environmental problems and individual researchers to consider waste reduction. First, the reduction of hazardous that have cost and policy implications and to improve DOD’s national leadership position in environmental protection. The program has focused its activities on improving DOD compliance with environmental regulations and minimizing waste, 192 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

wastes has been added as a fee criterion to con- regulations and manage their wastes in an envi- tracts. Thus, those contractors who can show ronmentally responsible way is one way of a reduction in wastes can qualify for increased meeting these goals, payments. Secondly, DOE’s Waste Manage- TVA has therefore developed a Waste Man- ment Division no longer assumes the costs for agement Program that offers technical assis- the management of wastes generated at Oak tance and information to waste generators and Ridge. Instead, such costs revert back to each the public on ways to manage and minimize generator. their hazardous wastes. The annual budget for DOE is unique in that its facilities generate this program totals $2 million.171 TVA defines radioactive wastes that must be handled quite waste minimization to include many facets of differently from RCRA hazardous wastes and waste management as well as waste reduction. from water and air pollutants that are also To date, its activities have been strongly focused produced. Radioactive wastes cannot be de- on promoting recycling and reuse and good stroyed; they must be stored, usually after be- management practices—and there have been ing encapsulated. The waste minimization pro- some encouraging results,l 172 While there is gram at Oak Ridge began because the facility some recognition of its value at TVA, little was facing storage constraints for radioactive waste reduction work has yet been done so far. wastes that were contaminated with liquid States in the TVA region have received sup- RCRA hazardous wastes. The success of efforts port from TVA for their activities in promot- to prevent the contamination of radioactive ing pollution prevention pays through State wastes and thus significantly reduce the vol- conferences. Such conferences bring the con- ume of radioactive wastes needing storage led cept of waste reduction and proper waste man- the Waste Management Division to apply waste agement to State generators and disposal oper- minimization to its RCRA waste problems. A ators, government officials, and educators. secondary reason for this action was the sub- They do not concentrate on waste reduction sequent waste minimization requirements im- or present waste reduction as the preferred posed by the 1984 RCRA Amendments. choice, They do tend to provide the initial con- The facility’s waste minimization efforts are sensus gathering which can serve as the base now being geared primarily toward reducing for an official State program. TVA participates RCRA hazardous waste generation at the in these conferences and functions as a co- source. During the investigation of processes sponsor. An estimated $35,000 of its Waste that generate RCRA hazardous wastes, how- Management Program budget is used for this ever, possibilities for air and water pollution purpose. So far, conferences have been held reductions have been discovered. One project, in Alabama (October 1985) and Tennessee for instance, resulted in the substitution of a (March 1986). A third conference is scheduled water-based for a solvent-based coolant, The for Kentucky in late 1986. solvent coolant had to be managed as a RCRA hazardous waste and was the source of air emis- Occupational Safety and Health Administration sions as well. Waste reduction efforts are still OSHA, in the Department of Labor, regulates a minor but increasing component of the Waste hazardous materials in the workplace and Management Division’s activities. There is no through some of these actions has influenced separate budget item for waste minimization. industrial management of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Communication Standard, Tennessee Valley Authority

TVA is a regional development agency that ITIDr. Philip J. Mummert, Projects Manager, Waste Manage- seeks to attract and keep industries in the val- ment Program, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal commu- ley while at the same time protecting and con- nication, July 23, 1986. 172D~ye Cox, Program Manager, Solid and Hazardous Waste serving the resources of the valley, Helping lo- Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communi- cal industries comply with hazardous waste cation, Mar. 28, 1986. Ch. 5—Waste Reduction in the Federal Government ● 193 which went into effect in November 1985, re- standards unless they are not feasible—in which quires that manufacturers and distributors of case, personal protective equipment may be chemicals provide their customers and work- used. Health and safety professionals use a hi- ers with Materials Safety and Data Sheets erarchy of engineering controls: substitution, (MSDS) and that they label hazardous products, enclosure, isolation, and ventilation .17A How Users of chemicals, such as the auto and steel prevalent substitution is as a method of regu- industries, have until May 1986 to develop such latory compliance is not known. One OSHA data for the chemicals they mix for their own publication about protecting workers from ex- operations. Intensive safety training programs posures to methylene chloride suggested that: for workers must also be in place at that time “The best method for controlling exposure to for both chemical and nonchemical industry any extremely toxic material is to use a less 175 employers. Currently these measures apply toxic material where possible. ” The bulk of only to manufacturing industries, however the document, however, presented end-of-pipe OSHA has proposed broadening application of solutions to industry-specific problems, the standard to cover service industries as well. OSHA has done little research and taken no In addition to alerting employers and work- specific action to push reduction, In fact, ers to workplace hazards, these worker right- OSHA’s powers to advocate waste reduction to-know measures, by publicizing the hazard- are very limited, OSHA itself has no jurisdic- ous constituents of materials, have served as tion over hazardous wastes, which are regu- catalysts for waste reduction, 173 Substitution of lated under EPA statutes, In addition, while it nonhazardous materials into processes may re- can require publication of known health risk sult from worker pressure or from the fact that data about hazardous chemicals, the Agency implementing worker safety measures could be cannot require the generation of any new health more expensive than substituting nonhazard- studies or data; that power is given to EPA ous materials. Improved segregation and recy- under TSCA.176 cling (as well as improved management] may result as businesses learn more about hazard- Potential Sources of Waste Reduction R&D ous constituents in manufacturing inputs. The There are a number of agencies within the information provided by MSDS may be particu- Federal Government that conduct industrial larly useful to smaller businesses, which may R&D and that, therefore, could be sources of not have the facilities to test all their raw mate- waste reduction technical assistance and infor- rials for hazardous constituents and which, mation transfer, Two prominent examples are therefore, may not have known what was in the Bureau of Mines and the National Bureau their waste streams. The regulations govern- of Standards. In addition, the National Science ing MSDS, however, allow for certain proprie- Foundation, which has traditionally been a tary exemptions which can mask the contents funding source for basic research in universi- of a product. ties, has now established Engineering Research All of these possible effects on waste reduc- Centers that could conduct industrial applied tion are indirect. Waste reduction—in the form research relevant to waste reduction. of materials substitution—has been part of The National Bureau of Standards in the De- OSHA’S traditional method of protecting work- partment of Commerce provides a variety of ers. Its regulations require that engineering and work practice controls be used to comply with 194 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste scientific and technological services to indus- goals and mining operations and mineral proc- try and government. Three of its four divisions essing and utilization plants. ’’177 The Bureau —the National Engineering Laboratory, the has an ongoing program in reuse and recycling Center for Chemical Engineering, and the Cen- R&D, and $25.3 million have been requested ter for Materials Science—conduct basic and for R&D in extractive metallurgy and recycling applied research that can lead to improved technologies for fiscal year 1987. Waste reduc- processing of chemicals and materials. Waste tion has not yet been added to its research reduction is a form of improved processing. efforts. The Bureau of Mines is the Federal agency that those in the mining and mineral process- 177L1. S. ~~ngress, House of Representatives, Hearings before ing industries look to for technical assistance a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Depart- ment of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations for and process information. One of its goals is to 1987, Part 2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, “ameliorate conflicts between environmental 1986], p. 5. Chapter 6 State Activities in Waste Reduction Contents

Page Introduction...... t...... ● ...... 197 Existing Programs and Planning Efforts ...... 198 Some Generalizations About State Programs ...... 201 Program Support ...... 204 Waste Minimization ...... + ...... 204 RCRA v. Multimedia ...... + ....207 Target Firms...... 207 Budget Size...... D O ...... 209 Nonregulatory Framework ...... !...... *...211 Program Activities...... 212 Information Collection for Program Effectiveness ...... 215 North Carolina, An Example Program .*****. .,..*..* ● O***..* ...... 216 The Effectiveness of State Programs ...... 219 Waste Reduction: Federal and State Cooperation ...... 221 Current Federal Support...... 221 State Program Needs...... 223 Tables

Table No. Page 6-1. Results of OTA State Survey ...... 0199 6-2. State Waste Reduction Programs...... + ...... 202 6-3. State Planning: Potential Waste Reduction Programs ...... 204 6-4. Definitions of Waste Reduction Provided by States ...... 0...... 205 6-5. North Carolina Pollution Prevention Pays Program Funds...... 217 Boxes Box No. Page 6-A. Local Governments and Waste Reduction...... 0...... 0198 6-B. California: Waste Reduction Lost Enroute From the Legislature ...... 206 Chapter 6 State Activities in Waste Reduction

INTRODUCTION

State governments have taken the initial steps State efforts and the effectiveness of these ef- in establishing programs related to waste re- forts in increasing the implementation of waste duction. The first program was formed in 1981 reduction in industry. The chapter concludes in New York; programs in North Carolina and with an analysis of changes needed at the State Minnesota followed in 1983 and 1984. With few level and in the State/Federal relationship to exceptions, the prime rationale for the exist- improve the chances of adding pollution pre- ing programs and those being planned is to help vention as a complement to the traditional pol- ameliorate the contentious local issue of siting lution control approach to environmental pro- new hazardous waste facilities.1 tection. In preparing this report, OTA studied exist- This chapter does not attempt to analyze the ing State waste reduction activities. Environ- level of success each individual State program mental programs have most often been de- has achieved in carrying out the State mission signed at and mandated from the Federal level; for which it was created, since often that mis- but in the case of waste reduction, States have sion is broader than the encouragement of assumed a leadership role. Healthy, effective, waste reduction. Thus, a finding about waste and growing State-level efforts in the absence reduction may have no bearing on the viabil- of a Federal program would suggest that Fed- ity of a program from the State perspective. eral action is not critical to the advancement of waste reduction. Instead, OTA found a patch- The existing State programs have been de- work of programs that are often more concerned signed and are being run by people who are with waste management than with waste reduc- very committed to their programs. They tend tion and that indicate a need for parallel Fed- to be extremely knowledgeable about the State’s eral leadership. industry and its hazardous waste problems. promoters of the concept pollution preven- Given political realities, the programs have tion pays point to the State 1ead, which grew started out small with the goal of gaining a per- from interest at the local level, as indicative of manent presence in the State’s environmental a groundswell of public support for waste re- protection structure. As first generation production. But many questions must be asked. grams, they tend to be inventive and they often How widespread are these programs across the focus on new approaches to environmental pro- Nation? What are individual programs actually tection. At the same time a cautiousness exists trying to accomplish? How effective are they about alienating those who see waste reduction in promoting waste reduction initiatives in lo- as a threat or as competition for State resources cal industry? To what extent are their efforts and attention. concentrated instead on waste management? Collectively, these programs are not promot- This chapter begins with a discussion of the ing waste reduction in any major way. They are extent of State-leveI efforts and presents two too few in number, do not focus on waste re- minimum criteria for defining State waste reduction, and concentrate on small business. duction programs, Next, the chapter analyzes While the number of State programs appears the direction, content, and focus of existing to be growing, individual budgets are not growing, and the future of these programs as a sub- 1 At the State Ie\’el, the siting issue appears to provide the major irnpf?tus for naste reduction, just as waste management costs stantial force for waste reduction nationwide pro~ide incenti~’e in the priiate sector is in doubt. This does not mean, however, that

197 198 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste existing State programs should be discounted come the vehicles for implementation of Fed- when designing and adopting Federal policies; eral policies. current and future State programs could be-

EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANNING EFFORTS

OTA found a growing number of variously Box 6-A.—Local Governments and constituted programs underway at the State Waste Reduction level that promote waste reduction with differing degrees of effort. States other than New Some local (city and county) governments York, Minnesota, and North Carolina are be- and groups across the country are actively pur- coming active; still others are engaged in plan- suing ways to promote waste reduction efforts in local industries. The existence of local-level ning. Local governments are also becoming in- activity should be kept in mind as Federal pol- volved (see box 6-A). icies are considered and adopted. It was not Difficulties in surveying these efforts arise possible for OTA to include a thorough review from the fact that there are no existing, agreed of waste reduction at the local level in this re- upon definitions that answer the basic ques- port; two examples are highlighted below. tions: What is waste reduction? What consti- In California’s Santa Cruz County, a local tutes a State waste reduction program? OTA ordinance (No. 3725) was passed in 1986 that chose initially to leave program definitions up can require facilities that handle or store haz- to individual States, simply asking States in its ardous materials to submit a Hazardous Ma- survey conducted in January 1986, if they had terials Management Plan as part of a permit- a waste reduction program. Of the 51 replies ting procedure. In the plan the facility must document the use of best available control received, 12 were affirmative, Ten States that technologies or waste reduction in the han- answered in the negative indicated that they dling of hazardous materials. Fees are charged were planning programs. Twenty-nine States such facilities based on the amounts of haz- responded that they did not have a program ardous materials handled and stored onsite. and were not designing one. Table 6-1 contains a modified version of OTA’S State survey 2,3 Under pressure from its citizens, the city council of Saco, Maine, passed an ordinance Because there are no operating State pro- in 1986 requiring a local firm to finance an grams based solely on reducing waste at the independent review of waste reduction and source of generation, a basic definition made treatment options for dealing with wastewa- up of two criteria was then used by OTA as ter contaminated with heavy metals. When the a starting point for analysis of State waste re- review is completed, the council will decide whether to impose waste reduction measures duction programs. One criterion was the exis- as a condition for a local permit to discharge tence of an organizational focal point for waste the wastewater into surface waters. (This citizen project is described in “A Community- 21 n Ilece m her 1985, ()’1’A prepared a ~u r~’[!j tf~ ga t her i n fol’- Based Source Reduction Campaign To Protect mation for this report and document a(:t i~’ity at the State Ieirel, the Saco River,” by the Maine Peoples AIli- All 50 States and the District of Columbia were sent a lo-~)age questionnaire with 35 questions. O-I’A was awa rc that the term ance and the National Campaign Against tt’aste reduction has many definitions and, therefore, asked each Toxic Hazards.) State to protricle its own definition and to respond to the ques- t ionnaire within that context. Eventuall}r, responses were ob- For the most part, local governments use ta ined from the entire surve~r group. It became obyrious when their authority over land use to become in- the answers were tabulated that some of the ciuest ions ~~ere am- volved in environmental issues such as waste biguous and produced unclear rf;sponses. ‘1’hose problem qu(?s- reduction. For details, see Susan Sherry, et al., tions plus others which pro~’ed irreleirant ha~’e t)een eliminatwi from the resu]ts in the modified ~ersion as sbottn in table 6-1. Golden Empire Health Planning Center, High WrheneI’er possit)le, responses ha~e been clarifit!d b~’ t[?lephone. Tech and Toxics: A Guide for Local Commu- ~’1’he table shows that ,States t~’ it h names that start ~t’ it h the nities (Washington DC: Conference on Alter- 1(’tters N throu~h Z ha~’e a Iotter ~)rot)ability 01 h~l~iug a ~~ast(! native State and Local Policies, 1985). rt?du(:t ion progranl than those at the up~)er en(] of tht: :11 ~)tlabt:t, Ch, 6—State Activities in Waste Reductfon . 199

Table 6-1 .— Results of OTA State Survey

States

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN 1A KY .A ME MD MA Ml MN MS MO

] Does State have program? NNn N Yn Yn n N n N N Y N N n n N n Y Y Y N y’ If yes when established? — — 84 – 85 – 84 81 – 85 85 84 — Why establls;ed~ — — — — — — Land disposal shortfall x x Treatment shortfall x x PuDIIc support for progrdnl x x x Lack of Insurance for WM Escalating WM costs x x h To Improve WM x x x ,x x x keed to mlnlmlze HW sites x x x 13LRA 1984 Amendments x x x Other comment$ If no program why not? -- Ldc F of funds xx xx xx x A Need for facliitles more urgent x xx Waste qeneratlon not pr,orlty Item x x Waste reduction not prlorlfy Issue x RCRA req program takes resources c other comments Is there alannlng effr,rt r State? Y b, n N Yn n Y n N N Y N N v n Is p~oqranl plannlng focused on RCRA hazardous ‘waste; I R I or mulhmedla pollutants (f+ J? R R– r — m — !,1 has Slate ronsldered facilitating or requlrlnq WR plans by lndustryv NR – n Nn n Y n N n Y N N n Y N Y N- Does State have a techmcai assistance program I TAP 17 Y– Yn n P Y fi Y N N N n n N P h Does State TAP provide onsl[e assistance? — — ‘{ - Y \ Has State held or olannln~ tl~ hold waste reductlo~ v v !,, conferences? YYn N Yn n n N N N N Y Y Y N Has Stale developed Information material on waste reduction for Its mdustry~ Y N n N Y Yn n P n N h Y N N Y v (1 N v Does Sfate Impose taxes and ~ or fees on chemical production or wastes? YNn Y Y nr Yy n Y n N Y Y Y Y Y Y nr Y P Are economic mcentlves used n your State [hat could oromote wasfe reduction? NR NR n Y Y n Y n NR N Y Y N N n ) P P Y Vn 200 Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Table 6-1 .—Results of OTA State Survey-Continued

States MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Does State have program? Y e n N n N N Y Y N N N n N n N n N N N N n N n y N If yes, when established? 82 – – – – – 81 83 — — — — — — – 84 – Why established — — — — — — — — — — Land disposal shortfall x x Treatment shortfall Public support for program x x x P P x Lack of Insurance for WM Escalating WMgmt costs x x P x To Improve WM x x P P x Need to minlmlze HW sites x x RCRA 1984 Amendments P t Other comments If no program, why not? . — Lack of funds x x x x xxx Xxxxxx x Need for facilities more urgent x x x x x Waste generation not prlorlty Item x x x x x x Waste reduction not pnorlty Issue x RCRA reg program takes resources x f h I k I Other comments ~ I Is there plannlng effort m State? NnYn YNY Y NNNn YnYn YYNNn YnPN l~program/plannlng focused on RCRA hazardous wastes (R) or multimedia pollutants (M)? R–R–R–M M R – NR – R NR – – – M – R – Has State considered fa~llltatlng or requmng WR plans by Industry? N – – – NR N N Y NY NnN– N–N N NR N – N – Y N Does State have a techn!cal assistance program (TAP)? N–N– PNY Y N Y N n P – N – Y N N N n Y -- Y N Does State TAP prowde onslte assistance? P–Y Y–Y––N–––Y––––N–Y— — – Has State held or plannlng to hold waste reduction conferences? Y–N– YNY YNYNn Y–N– YNNNn N–YN Has State developed Informahon material on waste reduction for Its Industry? N–N– YNN YNNNn N–N– YYNNn N–NN Does State Impose taxes and/or fees on chemical production or YnNy YNY YNYPy NyYn YYNYn YyYN wastes? — Are economic Incentwes used [n your State that could promote waste reductlon~ NR n NR n NR – Y Y NR Y NR y P n NR n N NR NR NR n P n Y –

KEY CINR = quesl[onnalre not returned ‘No atfenllon given WR NR = no reponse to quesflon el nforrnal Vm assistance with regulatory perrmttlng process N = no fWR already occurring due to h[gh tr.ansporlatlofl costs V – yes gNol Included In EPA work grant

P = pending or planning hNo political pressure for WR —- not adcable ‘WR not needed NOTE Use ot lower case letters Indicates that OTA obta[ned InformalIon by telephone INo authority to require aOnly waste exchange kwould have If EPA funds available $ndustry argues WR not necessary awaltlng Federal guidance and leadership bNo s[atufory authority WR not Identlfled as Issue C NO HW proqram [n State Ch, 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction ● 201 — -— reduction activity in the State government. The Some programs already underway are still plan- other was a current offering of some waste re- ning how best to broaden their activities. When duction services to industries in the State. These and if all the planning efforts now underway criteria eliminated those States that have only culminate in waste reduction programs, about a legislated or executive policy statement on a third of the States will be promoting waste waste management practices, those in which reduction to some extent. efforts are directed at studying possible types The lack of a standard definition for the term of services to offer, and those in which service waste reduction is another source of difficulty is limited to, for instance, a waste exchange or in surveying State efforts. One of the major find- a Governor’s award, Using these criteria, OTA ings of this report is that the definition of waste found that there were waste reduction pro- reduction guides and focuses the activities of grams in 10 States: California, Connecticut, any program; the inclusion of waste manage- Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, ment in a definition tends to shift efforts away New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wis- from waste reduction. OTA found that State consin. As table 6-2 shows, each has a differ- definitions often include offsite recycling and ent mix of components, level of budget, and waste treatment. As an example of the variety extent of concentration on waste reduction. that exists, table 6-4 gives the 13 definitions re- State planning efforts (see table 6-3) indicate ported on OTA’S State survey. that the number of programs may increase. In With few exceptions, all of the State programs fact, some States such as Massachusetts may can be considered waste minimization pro- satisfy the above criteria by the time this re- grams; their primary concern is to encourage port is in print. These planning efforts, how- any activities that may reduce the use of land ever, are at different stages and there is no uni- disposal facilities.’ They do not focus on reduc- formity from one State to another about what ing the generation of waste at the source. constitutes a planning effort. Some programs have been officially initiated (i.e., have a legislative or executive mandate to operate) but are still planning their structure and implementation. Some planning efforts are aimed at developing the consensus necessary to obtain the le~islativc or executive mandate to operate.

SOME GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT STATE PROGRAMS Despite a lack of consistency and their po- siting new waste management facilities is tential for change, it is possible to make some a major goal; generalizations about State programs:5 RCRA hazardous wastes are the target pollutants; ● they are new; ● their target industries are small and medi- ● the force driving their initiation and sus- um-sized businesses, along with small quan- taining their momentum is public distrust tity hazardous waste generators; of land disposal for hazardous wastes; ● budgets are relatively small; good waste management practices are ● a nonregulatory framework is preferred; stressed rather than waste reduction, and ● technical assistance is the predominant program component; and little systematic information or data collection is underway to assess program effectiveness, 202 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste — ——

Table 6-2.—State Waste Reduction (WR) Programs

Program name and/or - Program Annual WR as percent Activities which include coordinating body components budget a of activities waste reduction California: Alternative Technology & Policy Waste Reduction Unit $1.5 mllllon <25 Funded studies of 1) economic Development Section Incentives for WR, 2) waste audit (Department of Health Serwces) of 5 CA industries, 3) strategies for solvent use reduction. Grants program Funded at $1 million/year; first matching grants awarded July 1986, Technical assistance No onsite consultations offered, Assists in regulatory compliance. Connecticut: Office of Small Business Services Technical assistance $50!000 <10 Advice on RCRA hazardous waste (Department of Economic to SQGS; chief initial role to Development) acquaint firms with new regulations. Fiscal 1987 budget cut to $40,000. Loans unknown Low Interest loans available to small and large firms for WR and .— waste management projects, Georgia: Hazardous Waste On-Site Technical assistance $220!ooo b 10-15 As part of RCRA compliance Consultation Program assistance to SQGS, some WR (Georgia Tech Research advice offered. EPA source of Institute) 900/0 of past funding; State to supply all funds for fiscal 1987 at — $250,000. Illinois: Hazardous Waste Research & Research $1.3 million 10 WR will be part of hazardous waste Information Center basic/applied research and information transfer services, Illinois TAP Technical assistance WR is part of waste management assistance to small/medium sized — firms. Minnesota: Minnesota Waste Management MnTAP $180,000 25 Technical assistance. telephone and Board onsite; seminars and outreach. Summer engineering intern program. Research grants $ 55,000 50 Funded industry RCRA hazardous waste projects in 1985; program under review in 1986. Received $100,000 EPA grant for 1987. Governor’s Award Annual award since 1985 New York: Industrial Materials Recycling Act Techntcal assistance $494,000 <25 Sol Id/hazardous WR and management Program advice; primarily telephone, some (New York State Environmental onslte visits. Operates waste Facilities Agency) exchange Information service. Industrial Financing 0 Revenue bonds of $131 million Program since 1976 for pollutlon control projects by Industry; Proposed revolving loan fund would Include WR. Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction ● 203

Table 6.2.—State Waste Reduction (WR) Programs—Continued

Program name and/or Program Annual WR as Dercent Actlvltles which Include coordinating body components budget a of actlvlt(es waste reduction North Carolina: Pollution Prevention Pays $190,000 >50 Technical assistance Multimedia WR and recycllng advice by telephone and ons!te visits, conduct seminars and outreach. Challenge grants Matching grants (29 since 1985 with $5,000 maximum) for WR and recycllng projects North Carolina Board of Science Research & education $400,000b >50 Grants up to $30,000 each for WR and Technology grants and recycllng projects, funds include $100,000 from EPA. Governor’s Waste Management Governor’s Award Annual award since 1983 Board North Carol~na Technical Financial assistance unknown Provides funds for new/improved Development Authority products/services; tax credit also available for sol id/hazardous WR projects Pennsylvania: PennTAP Technical assistance $150,000’ <50 General techn!cal assistance to (operated by Penn State small business In State; two staff University with funds from members handle environmental State’s Department of problems Commerce) Department of Environmental Demonstration grants $139!ooo b unknown WR and waste management pro]ects eligtble Resources — (1 986-87) Tennessee: Department of Economic and Technology assessment $loo,ooob >50 Pilot program In 1986: EPA dented Community Development request for contlnuatton of funding for 1987 University of Tennessee Technical assistance $200,000 unknown Technical assistance with onsite Hazardous Waste Extension (1986-87) waste audits; Information Service clearinghouse and workshops planned Waste Management Research Research $1,7 million <25 Policy research and engineering and Educat!on Institute R&D Two contract projects !n 1986 include WR State funding of $700,000/year approved for 1985-90 Safe Growth Cabinet Council Governor’s Award— -. First presented in 1986— Wisconsin: - Bureau of Solld Waste Information outreach $175,000b <25 WR Included as part of assistance (Department of Natural to RCRA generators, prtmarily Resources) small businesses P!annlng grants $500,000 <25 WR and recycling grants totallng $242,000 given to local communities In 1986 from Wisconsin Fund. Fund cut from future State budgets WR and recycllng $350,000 0 Industry project proposals totallng demonstration grants $1 miilion received; no WR projects Included Program will have only $150,000 to grant In 1987. Tax exemptions unknown Sales tax exemption available on purchase of WR and recycling equipment. — — aBased on State’s 985-88 fiscal year, unless otherwise noted blnclud es funds from the U S Environmental protection Agency c Estl mate based on staff!ng level fOr enVi rOn mental as?.l?.tance SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1986 204 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Table 6-3.—State Planning: Potential As offshoots from the siting issue, State pro- Waste Reduction Programs grams tend to have a broad but limited and hesi- State Status/stage of development tant political base of support. As discussed in Alabama ...... Legislation pending chapter 1, a certain tension exists among propo- California a . . . . New activities proposed to supplement nents of waste reduction, those attempting to existing program site new hazardous waste facilities, industry, Connecticut a . . Preparing recommendations for program expansion for submission to traditional pollution control regulators, and en- legislature in 1987 vironmentalists. The State programs, poised Florida...... Planning as result of mandate to among the concerns of these groups, tend to reduce land disposal of solid wastes Massachusetts . . Developing multimedia program within exist at a metastable position. Environmen- established regulatory agency; talists, for instance, may wish to have the pro- legislation pending grams strengthened by imposing some level of Michigan ...... Decisions pending on proposals by hazardous waste board and Governor regulations, Industry, fearful of further regu- Nevada ...... Comprehensive hazardous waste latory burdens, strives to maintain the status management planning underway quo with a focus on those aspects of waste mini- New Jersey . . . . . Studies underway to define State hazardous waste facility needs mization that do not penetrate into the specifics Pennsylvania a . . . More comprehensive program of their operations. Many people—including designed; awaiting funding source supporters—view the possible outcomes of Texas...... Recent legislation created interagency coordinating council to plan needs waste reduction with high uncertainty. Some Washington . . . . . Study mandated by legislation are seriously concerned that a potential dilu- underway —. tion of pollution control efforts could come %ls.c) listed as exisllng programs In table 6.2 about with a shift to waste reduction. State SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1986 waste reduction programs are, as a consequence, viewed as a small part of overall solu- Program Support tions to environmental problems. This balanc- State and local governments have been un- ing act and level of anxiety constricts State der increasing pressure from citizens, the envi- programs to a small niche within the existing ronmental community, regulators, and indus- environmental bureaucracy and limits their po- try regarding the siting of new hazardous waste litical and financial support. facilities. Most current State waste reduction programs have evolved from studies initiated Waste Minimization to investigate the needs for new hazardous waste management facilities. Most States have given waste reduction the top position in their stated policies regarding For instance, public pressure halting a siting hazardous waste. Despite these declared inten- process in the mid-1970s, prompted an inves- tions, most State programs stress good waste tigation by the Joint Study Commission of Min- management practices rather than waste reduc- nesota’s legislature. The commission concluded tion. This emphasis may be a consequence of that a land disposal facility was needed in the the fact that these programs grew out of haz- State but recommended that an independent ardous waste siting problems that were created board be created to avoid conflicts of interest. because of poor waste management. Further- Accordingly, the Minnesota Waste Manage- more, waste management has been the tradi- ment Board was established in 1980 to develop tional control technique approach for dealing a State plan for hazardous waste management with pollution problems. The focus of the Re- and to site disposal and treatment facilities. Em- source Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), bodied in the policy statement of the legisla- the basis for most State waste reduction pro- tion that created the board was the concept of grams, is waste management—not prevention. waste reduction and proper waste management. In addition, firms tend to be open about their Minnesota’s present program is the result of waste treatment facilities and techniques, recommendations made by the board in 1984. whereas waste reduction deals directly with Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction 205

Table 6-4.—Definitions of Waste Reduction Provided by States

California: We are using a broad definition of waste reduc- ume of hazardous waste produced without increasing risk tion which equates with reducing the amount of waste go- to the public or the environment. Examples include im- ing to or requiring land disposal; this includes on and off- proved process/production control and maintenance, proc- site treatment and recycling as well as source control. ess modification, substitution, equipment changes. Connecticut: Eliminating or reducing the quanitites of waste New York: New York State has no “official” definition for produced at the source through process changes. The ben- waste reduction. The working definition for source reduc- efits of waste reduction include reduced liability and elim- tion is anything which decreases the amount of waste des- ination of waste needing storage, treatment, and disposal; tined for disposal. This definition includes recycling and reduced water use and air emissions; and increased worker reuse and is, therefore, not limited to process changes. safety. North Carolina: The PPP Program goal is to find and apply Kansas: Implementation of any process changes or use of ways to reduce, recycle, and prevent wastes before they other technology which results in the reduction of hazard- become pollutants. The reduction effort addresses water ous waste requiring further treatment or disposal. and air quality, toxic materials, and solid and hazardous Massachusetts: Onsite practices which minimize or eliminate wastes. Actions include volume and toxicity reduction, the risk posed by hazardous losses from product processes recycle/reuse, process modification, elimination through before they are generated; . . . we consider that the program substitution and waste exchanges. may incorporate the potential to prohibit the use of spe- Pennsylvania: Source reduction—reducing the generation of cific hazardous inputs and perhaps the manufacture or use waste at its source through process or raw material of hazardous products if deemed necessary under certain changes. circumstances. Texas: Waste reduction is the prevention of waste at its Minnesota: A decrease in the total quantity of hazardous source either by redesigning products or by otherwise waste generated by the generator through abatement, mini- changing societal patterns of consumption or industrial mization, reuse, or recycling; or decreases in the quantity patterns of waste generation. which could result in a decrease in risk to public health Vermont: Production-based reduction in amount of waste safety and the environment, even though the quantity [sic] generated. is not decreased. Wisconsin: Waste reduction . . . to reduce the quantity or the Montana: Waste reduction = any actions taken that avoid weight of wastes generated. These methods may include, discarding a material. Discard = if it not used, reused, but are not limited to, consumer product redesign to in- reclaimed, or recycled. crease product longevity, repair or serviceability; changes New Jersey: New Jersey’s Hazardous Waste Facilities Sit- in the manufacturing process to produce less manufactu r- ing Commission through its Source Reduction and Recy- ing waste; the utilization of less packaging in consumer cling Task Force consider source reduction, recycling, re- products; and the conscious effort to change consumer use, and recovery to be the elements of waste reduction. . . consumption habits which result i n the generation of less source reduction is any method or technique applied at waste. the site of generation, the use of which reduces the voi-

SOURCE Direct quotes from Office of Technology Assessment State Survey.

processes and operations that firms usually con- pendent consultants who are in the business sider proprietary. Thus, it is easier and safer of selling equipment along with advice. B for State waste reduction programs to focus on Often a State’s words and deeds seem to be traditional waste management. at odds (see box 6-B). The 1985 annual report for Minnesota’s technical assistance program OTA could not identify any operating State (MnTAP) begins with a statement that: program that is based exclusively on waste re- . . . “pollution prevention” by reducing or duction or that gives waste reduction overall eliminating the generation of waste is an im- primacy. Among States involved in planning, portant advancement over the concept of man- only Massachusetts is developing its program aging hazardous wastes aft er they are gener- around waste reduction. The North Carolina ated, through “pollution control. ”7 program does consider waste reduction as a ‘iRoger Schecter, Director, Pollution Prevention Pa\’s Program, first option in its technical assistance efforts North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Commu- but also promotes recycling, both onsite and nity De\relopment, personal communication, Apr. 29, 1986. 7L1 i nnesota \lraste Lfa nagement Boa rd, .4 Year of.$er}’ice, hlin- offsite. Waste treatment in North Carolina is ne.sota Technlc~l A.ssi.stance i’rogram, 1985 i4nnual Rt?port, Jan- left to both the regulatory programs and inde- uary 1986. .206 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Box 8-B.-Californla: Waste Reduction Lost Enroute From the Legislature In moving from the statute to implementation in California, waste reduction took on a new meaning. This incident is similar to what has happened in other States where deeds do not match stated goals, at the Federal level in the implementation of the 1984 RCRA Amendments on waste minimization, and in industry where talk of waste reduction often results in waste management activities. It also shows how a definition can determine program focus. In 1985 the Hazardous Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Treatment Research and Demonstration Act was passed by the California Legislature. The first legislative finding under the act is a restate- ment of the two-tiered national policy statement of the 1984 RCRA Amendments that calls for waste reduction and proper waste management. California sharpened the language, however, by explicitly identifying recycling, as well as treatment, as components of proper management. In addition, a distinction is maintained throughout the act by referring to “hazardous waste reduction, recycling, and treatment” as three separate activities. The major portion of the act deals with funding and establishing a $1 million annual grant program in the State to promote the research, development, and demonstration of “hazardous waste reduction, recycling, and treatment technologies.” These technologies are further and distinctively defined as “technologies and techniques which have, as their primary purpose, the reduced generation of hazardous waste, the recycling of hazardous waste, or the conversion of hazardous waste into a less hazardous form.” Several portions of the act apply only to waste reduction. The act requires all generators of hazardous waste to submit a biennial report on “the changes in volume and toxicity of waste achieved through waste reduction.” (The Federal waste minimization reporting requirement applies to a subset of generators: only those who ship wastes offsite.) The legislature also required the Department of Health Services, which implements RCRA in the State, to report back by June 1,1986, on the “establishment of a comprehensive program for achieving reductions in hazardous waste generation.” The study was to address various program elements “as they relate to hazardous waste reduction. ” The report to the legislature, Reduction of Hazardous Waste in California, does not retain the statute’s reduction, recycling, and treatment concept, Instead, the Department of Health Services has converted waste reduction into an umbrella term encompassing “strategies . . . to reduce the volume of hazardous waste going to land disposal.” The components of waste reduction are identified as: recycling (both onsite and offsite), treatment, and source reduction. Source reduction is given the legislature’s definition of waste reduction: the “elimination or reduction of generation of hazardous wastes.” Doubt is cast on its feasibility by the claim that “its implementation beyond a certain point requires major technological changes and can become costIy. ” Having waved aside the reduction of the generation of hazardous wastes, the report proceeds to discuss primarily waste management in the balance of its 14 pages. The Waste Reduction Unit of the Department of Health Services does not give any primacy to waste reduction as defined by California’s legislature.

The next paragraph introduces the report MnTAP makes most of its contacts with haz- which, it says, ardous waste generators over the telephone. In the annual report, seven “primary types of [tele- . . . documents the hazardous waste reduction, phone consultation] assistance” are listed. None improvecl hazardous waste management and increased regulatory compliance achieved by pertain to hazardous waste reduction, as de- Minnesota hazardous waste generators with fi~~~ above by Minnesota. The first type is “ad- the assistance of MnTAP. vice on ways to dispose of hazardous waste that Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction 207 — has been generated, ” three deal with other detoxification and reduction of hazardous aspects of hazardous waste management, two wastes. ’12 Administratively, it developed into with referrals to other State agencies, and one a multimedia program. The planning effort in with needs for general information on State pro- Massachusetts is built around a multimedia ,grams,8 In MnTAP’s student intern program, concept, The New Jersey Hazardous Waste Fa- waste reduction does have primacy, Participat- cilities Siting Commission is coordinating that ing companies are chosen only on the basis of State’s program planning efforts, and although waste reduction projects. g there is currently a RCRA focus, there is senti- ment for broadening to a multimedia focus.13 The Fourth Annual Report of New York’s In- Because Illinois’ technical assistance program dustrial Materials Recycling Program provides operates under the Hazardous Waste Research another example. The introduction to the re- and Information Center, it focuses on RCRA port cites the law that mandates the program hazardous waste but does not hate a legisla- to “help industry reduce, reuse, recycle and ex- tive or executive mandate to do so, The staff change industrial materials. “Io But waste re- responds to other media problems when they duction rarely appears in the balance of the re- arise, 14 port that describes the program’s activities. For i nstance, the section on technical information and assistance services ranks waste reduction Target Firms options first on a list of recommended proj- Rather than target firms based on the haz- ects. 11 It then highlights six waste management ardous waste streams they generate and poten- projects. Appendix D in the report has a de- tial problems they create, State program people tailed list of hundreds of technical information deal almost exclusively with small and medi- and assistance services offered in 1985. Waste um-sized businesses. The often stated ration- management predominates: there are only two ale for having set this priority is that large firms explicit mentions of waste reduction. Two more have the resources to pursue waste rduction entries might be either waste management or and effective management practices and do not waste reduction. need help. The inappropriateness of using limited State resources to assist big business is also RCRA v. Multimedia often cited.

For the most part State programs concentrate Another reason for targeting small business on RCRA hazardous wastes and give little if any can be that industry generally views waste re- attention to the opportunities for reduction of duction as a threat if it is carried to the regula- air and water pollution. Because they empha- tory stage. By concentrating on small business size land disposal abatement, few State pro- entities, State programs do not stimulate the grams have been designed from a multimedia concerns of large firms, which may have the perspective, However some, due to later influ- pOlitical muscle to influence Govenors’ and ences or the views of people involved in the State legislators’ attitudes about waste reduc- programs, develop a multimedia approach. The tion programs. The ability of industrj to exert initial basis for the North Carolina program was influence, however, can be dependent on the the State’s Waste Management Act which estab- prevailing winds in State government. For in- lished legislative policy guidelines to encourage stance, the staff members in California is waste and promote ‘‘ . . . the prevention, recycling, reduction program share the convientional wis- 208 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

dom that small business has the greater need Minnesota technical assistance program are ad- for its services, but program efforts are not yet vertised as being” . . . FREE to any Minnesota concentrated in that direction.15 Legislators in business,” the objectives of the program are “to that State know—due to the heightened aware- reduce hazardous waste generation and iden- ness in California regarding toxics—that most tify alternatives to land disposal by providing of their hazardous waste generators are not small quantity generators with technical assis- small business firms, and they want appropri- tanceo ”17 ate action from the program in dealing with SQGs are not necessarily small business the problem. firms; on a plant basis a large firm can qualify as an SQG. The appropriateness of using lim- Small v. Large ited resources on SQGs can vary State-by-State. The size of a firm—in terms of annual sales In some States, they may generate a substan- or number of employees—is not necessarily in- tial percentage of RCRA hazardous wastes or dicative of the amount and/or toxicity of wastes types of those wastes. Focusing on SQGS may being produced. Targeting solely by firm size be a consequence of a program’s focus on may not be the valid way to try to cope with RCRA hazardous wastes. SQGs have only re- a State’s hazardous waste problems or an effi- cently been subject to regulations under RCRA, cient use of a small budget. In certain States and there has been a concentrated effort by EPA small firms may be more prone than large ones to inform such RCRA hazardous waste gener- to poor waste management practices, i.e, they ators of their new responsibilities. Part of that may create problems out of proportion to their effort has included making funds available to hazardous waste generation rates. States for SQG projects (see below). Another factor that must be considered is that There is uncertainty about the amount of since the goal of most State programs is to edu- RCRA hazardous wastes being generated by cate industry as to the benefits of waste reduc- SQGs. In 1982 OTA estimated that SQGs rep- tion, large firms may have as great a need for resented “from less than 1 percent to over 10 State services as small and medium-sized firms, percent” of States’ RCRA hazardous waste It maybe true that large firms have greater ac- generators and the figures for most States were cess to financial resources and technical ex- at the low end of the range.la According to an pertise to pursue waste reduction than do small EPA study, however, SQGs produce less than firms, but these assets may not be used for waste 0.5 percent of the hazardous wastes annually, reduction for a variety of reasons, One State— although they represent 98 percent of the Na- Massachusetts—has recognized the need for tion’s total number of generators.19 Statistics top-down support for waste reduction and has produced at the regional or State level can also plans to offer seminars for corporate CEOS, vary. In a 1986 report covering New England, eight RCRA waste streams were compared. De- Small Quantity Generators pending on the waste streams, small generators produced between less than 1 percent and In some cases, small quantity generators 20 (SQGS), l’ are the target industries of State pro- a high of 8 percent of the wastes. On the other grams, either exclusively or in combination with small business. While the services of the 17 Minnesota Technical Assistance Program, promotional flyer. ——— -——_ :8u.s. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “The RCRA lsKlrn Wilhelm, waste ReciUCtlOn Unit, California State De- Exemption for Small Volume Hazardous Waste Generators,” staff partment of Health Services, personal communication, Apr. 30, memorandum, july 1982, p. 20. 1986. 19U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, Nationa] small Quan- Iosmall quantity generators are defined by RCRA regulations tity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey (Washington, DC: Of- as those which produce (or accumulate) between 100 and 1,000 fice of Solid Waste, February 1985), p. 2. kilograms per month of hazardous wastes. Since March 1986, ZONew England Congressional Institute, Hazardous Waste Gen- they have been regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. Generators eration and Management in New England (Washington, DC: Feb- which produce less than 100 kilograms per month are called “very ruary 1986), table 11-4. In this study a small generator is defined small quantity generators” and are not covered by regulations. as one producing 5,OOO or less kilograms of waste per year. Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction ● 209 — hand, according to statistics from Massachu- years 1985 and 1986, $4.5 million has been dis- setts, SQGS produce 25 percent of the State’s persed via EPA’s Regional offices to States, lo- RCRA hazardous wastes. cal governments, and other nonprofit entities. The largest group of projects receiving fund- Funds for Small Business and SQGs ing were those designated for SQG education and assistance projects, The State of Tennes- Targeting of small business and SQGs by see, however, used its fiscal year 1985 grant State programs has been supported by EPA. For to fund a pilot technical assistance waste re- example, Georgia’s Hazardous Waste On-Site duction program. Funds requested in 1986 to Consultation Program received $50,000 (66 per- continue the project for another year were de- cent of its budget) in 1984 to 1985 from EPA’s nied by EPA’s Region 4. This Tennessee effort Small Business Ombudsman Office and $200,000 is one of only a few Section 8001 projects deal- (90 percent) in 1985 to 1986 from EPA’s Office ing specifically with waste reduction, of Solid Waste. Georgia’s program, as a consequence of this funding and perceived State needs, concentrates its efforts on bringing SQGs Budget Size into voluntary RCRA compliance; and waste 21 Funding for the 10 State waste reduction pro- reduction is a relatively minor component. grams identified by OTA totaled about $7 mil- The State has assumed full funding of the pro- lion in fiscal year 1986, but less than 50 per- gram for fiscal year 1987, and the program may cent of that money is for waste reduction. eventually broaden its target population. 22 Individual State waste reduction programs Funds have also been made available from tend to have small budgets because they are new EPA’s Office of Research and Development in and experimental and must compete with pol- Cincinnati. The Hazardous Waste Engineering lution control programs for funding. Budgets Research Laboratory has funded two Small for all activities range from $40,000 to almost Business Initiative projects in fiscal year 1986 $2 million, when research funds are included. through State waste reduction programs (North Waste reduction expenditures are estimated at Carolina and Minnesota). Minnesota’s MnTAP less than 10 to over 50 percent of program will administer $100,000 in grants on applied budgets. Budgets are especially small in com- research projects to assist small business in parison with the total amounts spent by States’ complying with regulatory problems. The environmental control programs. In its fiscal grants will apply primarily to RCRA hazard- year 1986, California budgeted $114.5 million ous waste and will not be restricted to waste 23 of its own resources for its air, water, and solid minimization, waste programs. Another $50 million was spent Section 8001 of RCRA allows for funding of at the local level in California for air quality 25 special hazardous waste projects. 24 In fiscal programs, Minnesota, with a $235,000 waste ——— —--- .—-— reduction program, budgeted $6.6 million in zllt is mo(jcled after the Occupational Safety and Health Ad- State funds for its water quality, air, and RCRA m inistrat ion’s “Section 7(c)I” consultation program which began in 1975. Under this program employers can ask for an OSHA programs for fiscal year 1986. In addition, these paid (consultant to offer advice about how to meet regulations. latter programs received $5.1 million from the The consultants are not inspectors, and there is no threat of ci- Federal Government.26 tation or penalty. [U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess- ment, Pre~’enting l]lness and lnjur~ in the tVorkplace, OTA-H- Programs aimed at stimulating rather than 256 (it’ashington, IX: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1985], p. 235.] regulating waste reduction do not and will not ZZJ[)h n c, Nemeth, (lhief, En\’iron mental Health and safet~’ 111- require budgets comparable to those needed by vision, Georgia Tech Research Institute, personal corn munlca- tion, Apr. 28, 1986. 23J im Bridges, ~)roject Of fi(; er, Hazardous Waste Engineering Zscharles shulo(;k, En\,lronrnental Affairs Agenc\’, State of Cali- Research Laboratory], U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc\, fornia, Ma~’ 14, 1986, personal communication, Ma~ 8, 1986. 26 Joh n Claus, r)i rc(; tor, Administration Serk’ices Sect 1011, pol-

ZqTh is source of fun (js is explored more fully i n the RC RA se(:- lut ion Control Agenc~, State of hlinnesota, personal communi- tion in ch. 5 of this report. cant ion, hfa~’ 1, 1986. 210 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

regulatory pollution control programs. But, to Small budgets can actually be a benefit to balance the pollution control culture which has State programs in their initial stages because evolved over the last 15 years, more than the they require relatively little justification for concurrent 1 percent or less of environmental budg- tinuation. Designing and maintaining small ets will be required. No Federal funds were bud- programs prevents an increase in tension geted for waste reduction in fiscal year 1986, among waste reduction advocates and local in- while EPA’s budget for its pollution control air, dustry, existing regulatory programs, and sit- water, and RCRA programs totaled $732 million. ing proponents. Small budgets for waste reduction do not just reflect the fact that awareness of the issue of New, relatively small budget programs, how- waste reduction is recent. The level of funding ever, often are targets during budget-cutting for waste reduction also indicates that it has periods, The Wisconsin Fund has been grant- little status as a solution to environmental prob- ing funds to local communities in that State for lems. State studies conducted to determine solid waste planning since 1978. In 1984, leg- RCRA facilities’ needs have tended to show that islation was passed to allow the fund to cover waste reduction methods would have a rela- and to give priority to local waste reduction and tively modest effect on the generation of state- recycling planning efforts. The first waste re- wide RCRA hazardous waste streams (see ch. duction and recycling grants–a total of $242,000” 3). In addition, strong competition is offered —were funded in January 1986, In February by traditional State environmental regulatory 1986 the legislature withdrew all of the remain- programs that are immersed in the pollution ing money in the fund because of general bud- control culture. Such programs receive ex- getary constraints in the State. plicitly designated funding through the Federal RCRA, air, and water programs, while waste State people point out that small budgets and reduction does not. As the availability of Fed- their corresponding small programs are not eral funds decreases, the States must increase necessarily indicative of the support and re- their share of program costs; and the traditional sources given waste reduction at the State level. regulatory programs are given priority. State governments are complex; they contain The most common reason cited as an expla- a multitude of administrative and legislative nation of why States do not have waste reduc- offices as well as advisory committees and tion programs is lack of funds. Many State offi- boards. Environmental boards composed of cials interested in waste reduction claim they State officials serve as internal coordinating are barely able to keep the currently mandated bodies; those made up of private citizens serve RCRA and Superfund programs going, much in oversight roles and provide external support less add a new program. State officials have and an influx of ideas. (See ch, 2 for a discus- suggested that if the Federal Government would sion of waste reduction boards.) Any of these delegate funds for waste reduction they would State entities can provide elements of support then institute such a program. This feeling that and can also present obstacles to State waste the States are being overwhelmed by current reduction programs. Most programs cite the Federal regulatory programs was echoed by environmental regulatory program offices as participants at an OTA meeting with State their major source of information and data, and waste reduction program officials .27 28 in some cases regulatory program staff refer firms to waste reduction programs. State busi- zT’rht; ~’rA 1lleetillg (Apr. 22, 1986) was held i n conjunction with the Third Workshop for State Waste Kedllction Programs ness support agencies are also useful. Min- in Washington, DC. nesota’s program, for instance, works through Zasee {~lso test i 111011}, \)\ the AssOc lat i On of State and ‘1’errit~ria] the established network of eight Small Business Soli(i Wast(? Manage~lc”nt officials hefore the Subcommittee on ~{ (J t)-[Il(ie[)[311 (ieIlt A&?IIcles ot the [1. S. House of Representa- Development Centers across the State to en- ti~rf!s, hla~ 8, 1 {186, hance its outreach efforts. Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction . 211

Nonregulatory Framework studying ways to help the regulatory people use the flexibility of current statutes and regulations Most programs operating now provide volun- to apply waste reduction within a multimedia tary services to industry and are strictly non- framework, regulatory. Some have considered or are considering the use of regulations in the future. Whether a regulatory or nonregulatory ap- California describes its program as one com- proach at the State level will be more effective bining voluntary and regulatory aspects. Mas- in promoting waste reduction to industry is de- sachusetts, where a waste reduction program batable. It is too early to tell from State experi- was just getting underway as this report was ences: no programs have yet collected support- being written, is the only State that has decided ing data and the only two using regulator to work through its regulatory system to pro- approaches are embryonic. Massachusetts is mote waste reduction. still planning how it will use the existing regulatory structure.30 The State programs’ nonregulatory approach may be essential for developing a consensus for The regulatory environment can limit capa- waste reduction. It allows promoters to sell the bilities. The California program is located industrial community the concept that avoid- within the State RCRA regulatory program of- ing the generation of pollutants is in their eco- fice and operates under two regulations—land nomic interest while defusing concern over gov- disposal restrictions and an expansion of the ernment interference in internal operations. Federal waste minimization reporting require- Many see their ability to work cooperatively ments. The program also offers regulatory conl- with industry impaired if they operate from a pliance assistance to RCRA generators. Its tech- regulatory mode because the existing regula- nical assistance effort does not offer onsite tory/industr} atmosphere is adversarial. The consultations because of a concern that its staff’ major goal of most State programs as they are would be obliged to report a n y none compliance now set up is not to regulate but to increase with RCRA regulations that they might happen industry’s awareness of the potential of pollu- to witness. The North Carolina program, on the tion prevention. However, it is the cost of other hand, successfully operates out of a reg- complying with existing regulations that often ulatory agency because its staff have no regu- motivatcs industries toward considering waste latory powers. reduction techniques and investigating waste The extent of the adversarial relationship be- reduction assistance offered by State programs. tween industry and government regulators The State of Massachusetts, after a number varies across the Nation, In general, it appears of years of studying the possibilities of promot- to be more onerous between industry and the ing waste reduction through the imposition of Federal Environmental Protection Agency than netv economic incentives and disincentives, between industry and some State rcgulatory has decided instead to operate within the cur- bodies. Whether waste reduction technical rent regulatory structure and programs. Thus, assistanc e staff (with or without regu1atory the State’s lead Source Reduction Program is powers) are invited into a plant site for consul- located in its regulatory Department of Envi- tation is determined by this relationship, the ronmental Quality and Engineering but outside operating procedures of f’irms, the personality j of the department’s media programs (such as of plant managers or contact personnel, and firms’ ability to the trust government regula- the Solid and Hazardous Waste, Air Quality, 31 a n d Water Pol 1 u t i o n C o nt rol Divisions). 29 I t is tors, 212 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

California and Massachusetts are consider- Program Activities ing other regulatory components for their programs. A California bill would create a vol- A State can, theoretically, educate its indus- untary registration process for independent try about waste reduction by offering informa- environmental auditors. This bill, before the tion and technology transfer services. It can California Legislature in 1986, would create encourage the adoption of waste reduction Environmental Quality Assessors (modeled af- practices by removing disincentives (increas- ter certified public accountants), This approach ing the cost of waste management by adding could increase the adoption of waste reduction waste end taxes, for example) or by instituting techniques if the assessors were required to incentives (such as loan and grant offerings or provide such assistance as part of their regis- feedstock taxes), It can support R&D to improve tration requirements. Supporters feel that this the technical opportunities for waste reduction. program could assist small and medium-sized It can mandate that industry adopt waste re- businesses in gaining access to chemical man- duction practices. Actual program component agement experts, thereby helping them “to choices will be based on each State’s perceived achieve and maintain compliance with toxics needs and available resources and the politi- laws and regulations and reduce long term lia- cal feasibility of initiation and implemention. bility. 32 The bill requires a minimal examination of applicants and those who pass will be Information and Technical Assistance placed on a referral list. While some individ- By and large States have adopted an educa- ual firms in California have opposed the bill, tion role, and the cornerstone of most existing several major industry groups such as the State waste reduction programs is a technical Chamber of Commerce and the California Man- assistance component, Nine States (California, ufacturers’ Association are supporting it. Those Connecticut, Illinois, Georgia, Minnesota, opposed view the bill as a precursor to man- 33 North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, and dated environmental auditing, Tennessee) have technical assistance programs Massachusetts may require industrial firms (TAPs) which, in varying degrees, offer waste to draw up annual waste reduction plans to be reduction advice to State industry. Some TAPs certified by State-approved engineers. The (such as those in Minnesota and Illinois) have waste reduction plans would specify the steps been set up specifically for the purpose of offer- taken to accomplish waste reduction at each ing a range of waste minimization assistance; point of release of each regulated substance in some offer a broader range of technical advice a plant. The theory behind such actions is that to State businesses. An example is Pennsylva- forced planning will point out material losses nia’s TAP which now includes waste reduc- and increase awareness among firms of the po- tion but has been offering technical assistance tential of waste reduction. Legislation that in- to State business (modeled after the agricultural cludes such planning requirements has been extension service) for 21 years, New York’s TAP introduced in Massachusetts and is being con- covers solid, as well as hazardous, waste prob- sidered in 1986, 34 lems and offers waste minimization advice that includes a waste-information exchange service. Minnesota’s TAP is widely regarded as a Szstate of California, Commission for Economic Development, model assistance program, It began operations “Proposed Legisiationt Environment] Quality Assessment, Sen- ator Craven. ” Attachment to letter to Joel Hirschhorn, OTA, from in December 1984 and offers a call-in service Peter Diebler, Special Consultant to the Commission for Eco- and onsite consultations. A unique feature of nomic Development, Mar. 10, 1986. the Minnesota TAP is its summer engineering Sspeter Diebler, consultant to the Lt. Governor, State of Cali- fornia, personal communication, May 1, 1986. intern program which expands its onsite con- sqThe Massachusetts Toxic LJse Reduction bill, Section 8, Toxics sultation capability to long-term projects while b’se Reduction Plans, training future engineers to be aware of a mul- Ch, 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction ● 213 titude of hazardous waste problems and so- a public relations effort to bring public atten- lutions. tion to the awards, the cost to industry (especially to smaller firms) of entering may not seem The TAPs so far appear to be largely reac- to be worth the effort. When Tennessee first tive; initial contacts are responses to telephone used the technique in 1986, the winners were and written inquiries. This method is an effi- mentioned in the local newspaper, but only on cient use of small budgets and is in keeping with page six of the business section. Had any of the voluntary nature of the programs. Its effec- those firms been suspected of creating a haz- tiveness in reaching a high percentage of State ardous waste problem, they would have re- hazardous waste producers may depend on the ceived front page attention, strength of a complementary outreach effort. TAP advice ranges from help with regulatory Financial Assistance compliance problems to waste management Next to technical assistance, the second most and waste reduction, Appropriate technical in- prevalent program component at the State level formation is supplied or other sources of in- is direct financial assistance to help override formation offered. For information outside the some of the costs of waste reduction or improve scope of the TAP, callers are referred to other the technical opportunities for such projects, State agencies (for assistance with loans or tax Financial assistance is offered in the form of credits, for example) or to private firms offer- loans or competitive research grants, some of ing needed services, which are on a matching basis. None of this Onsite consultations result from requests by assistance is offered exclusively for waste re- firms. Except for the program in Georgia (see duction projects; much covers RCRA hazard- above], the existing TAPs are limited to a small ous wastes only. number of onsite consultations per year be- Grants in North Carolina, Minnesota, and cause of staffing levels. Depending on travel California in 1986 totaled approximately $1.5 distances, an onsite consultation takes 1 or 2 million to industry (primarily small business) days. A followup written report with suggested and academia for a wide range of projects. Only actions can take up to a month to prepare. a portion of this sum—at the most 50 percent— State programs also educate and expand the will be used specifically for waste reduction, effectiveness of their TAP through outreach. California’s research, development, and dem- Outreach is variously defined but generally in- onstration grants, for instance, were established cludes promotional activities, such as speak- under the State’s Hazardous Waste Reduction, ing before trade associations and civic organi- Recycling, and Treatment Research and Dem- zations. Seminars are conducted for specific onstration Act of 1985. The act excludes from industrial groups (e. g., electroplates, dry consideration only those treatment activities cleaners) or may focus on specific waste streams “occurring directly in, or on, the land, such as (e.g., solvents, waste oils), Such activities can techniques using evaporation, surface impound- help State programs enlarge their constituency, ments, or land farming, ”35 Minnesota’s Haz- ardous Waste Reduction Grants are advertised Governor’s awards are used as an outreach as” . , , available to help investigate new waste device aimed at raising public awareness, They reduction techniques—or the applicability of have been presented in North Carolina, Min- known techniques—to reduce waste genera- nesota, and Tennessee and will be awarded for 36 tion. Although this language appears to fa- the first time in Kentucky in September 1986, vor waste reduction at the source of genera- The awards are generally given annually to tion, an analysis of the four awards in 1985 firms that conduct laudable waste reduction or waste management projects, States appear to IS,~~&lT1blL, B i]] N{). 685, appro~’ed Sei)ternber 1985. have difficulty in obtaining candidates after the l~hf in neso~a \l’ast[; hlanagement ~loar(~, “Hazardous \l’astt’ Re- first couple of years. If a State does not include duction Grants” hrm; bure and application form, un(latwi, 214 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste —.-

shows that two were waste reduction projects (the maximum is $30,000).39 The grants are and two were volume reduction projects. The restricted to generators of RCRA hazardous waste reduction projects investigated the fea- waste and capital equipment purchases are not sibility of changing circuit board etchants to allowed. reduce the generation of wastes and reusing While the funds for Wisconsin’s grant pro- acid solutions. North Carolina’s grants (which gram to local communities were eliminated in are reviewed below) are available for waste re- 1986 (see above), the State has a smaller Waste duction and recycling projects. Reduction and Recycling Demonstration Grant California’s first research, development, and program, which began in 1986. Applications demonstration grants were awarded in June have been received totaling $1 million for the 1986. Applicability for the grants is divided into use of $350,000 that is available this year. In two groups: the private sector and public agen- subsequent years, the program will have only cies and universities. The private sector re- $150,000 to disperse. None of the applications ceived 24 grants totaling over $800,000; the this year include proposals for waste reduction latter group’s grants totaled $75,000. No break- projects. down of grants in terms of the ratio of waste Tax credits for waste reduction are not widely reduction to recycling and treatment projects available, and when they are, cover only RCRA is available. One of the four categories of pri- hazardous wastes, North Carolina has a tax vate sector grants (feasibility studies) is more credit program that was originally established likely to include waste reduction projects, ac- for recycling and resource recovery in the cording to program staff .37 Just over half of the 1970s. The statute was recently extended to in- grants in 1986 are for feasibility studies. clude “the costs of facilities or equipment to The future of Minnesota’s research grants be used to reduce the volume of hazardous program was in doubt in mid-1986 due to a com- wastes generated. “40 Minnesota did offer a tax bination of overall budget cuts in the State and credit for pollution control and waste reduc- a low rate of response to the program’s second tion equipment “used primarily to reduce the year offering .38 Although 90 requests for appli- generation of hazardous waste . . . 41 The cations were sent out, only two proposals were credit only lasted I year due to an overhaul of submitted. Depending on the worthiness of the State’s tax structure in 1985. No firm ap- these proposals, the Waste Management Board plied for the credit when it was available in may decide to fund them at a maximum of Minnesota, and few have applied in North $30,000 each. The rest of the remaining grant Carolina.A~ Purchases of waste reduction and budget (which originally totaled $150,000 for lql t s}l(jtll(l I)t; Ilot C(] thtl t No rt 11 (~tir’()111] ;i has l) a(i ! 111’(!(; ~u( - 1986-87) may be shifted to its MnTAP. The (:(;~sfl] 1 rou I](Is () f a ~itl rd i ng mat ( 1) i n ~ grant\ t I) I 11 (i u \t r} s I n (: (~ board is conducting an overall review of the I ~8Q, Its maximum grant has t)een $s, ()()() a II(I t hat l)ro~ram’s staff feels that $1(),000 ~~’ould tw Inure apr)ro~)rlat(!. [ Rogf:r S( 11[’(:- grants programs, If a decision is made to con- tcr, Director, I)()]lution I]re\’e Iltioll I’a}s l’rogra 111, North (;,i ro- tinue the program, some changes probably will ]ina I)el)artrnt; nt of Natural Resources and (;ommunlt} 1)c\e- be made in the application procedure and in opmf;nt, hla~ ~, 1 g8fj.J California (:{111 award rf; searctl gra flt \ with ii $z~,o()() to $1 ()(), ()()o maximum, []Im l’t)tt~;r, il’a~t(’ Rt:(iu( tion the program itself. For instance, the proposal [ I nit, (;a}ifornla ])eljartnlent of li(; a]th Ser\ I( [)s, ])orsotliil” (0111- process is apparently complicated and appli- III u II icat ion, ]un(! 16, 1986. ] ) cants feel they are not given enough time to 4[IR[)g[,l. S[. he(, t e r, 1> I [,(;( [() I. N“(I rt h ( 111 r( )1 i n il [)()]] Ut 1o11 f I’f?\ (? 11- tion f’;i~s Pro~ram, ~pec(; h I)efore the 1 ~8S ‘1’rianglf; (I[)rlf(:r(?n(:(’ complete it. The staff also feels that the cost on ~Il\’i I’011111(311t:l] ‘i’ fx, hllo]o~\’, Ra]f}@. .N( ;. ]ta] ics for (!mphiisis. of applying may be excessive in terms of the 411 g~~ Al i n Ilebot; l I,a ~i~s ( ~h;~pter fjQ-1, Se(, t ion 2S10.06. A 5 (; It f:(i possible outcome, given the size of the grants i n 1 (n}: ( ;() n suit i n g Associates, 1 n(:,, Ec;ont)mic; II](;erl t] lr(:.s tot” Ih{’ Re{iuctioxl of Hax,Irdous I$rast(?s, I)reparc(i for the Sttit(’ oi (:al i- — fornla, Altcrnatf3 Tfx;hnology and Poli(;} Se(. tion, llfl])artmf?nt i 7] i ~, pot t(j ,., \\rii$tt; Re(l U( t ioIl [‘n it, (;a] i fOI” Il ia rl(?~)a rt Ill (?l] t () Iof 1 i ealth Sf; ri’i(; es, Ilec. 18, 1985, p. 23. ~+(}a]ttl St!rlri(,(?s, persona] Cummlln i(, at ion, jllne 16, 1986. 4J I(U ~’ [~~rlsult i ng ASSOL i at es, 01). (; it,, ap[), A, p. Z4. 1 C 1: I’C])() [’t ~~(1 18\\’ ci\nc Same S, I\fa Il{i~e I’, Plarlning :in(i Tt;(hni(:a] Assistan(:(!, that since 1975 1() firms ha~e been ccrt ified h} the North ( ;a r(j- Nlinncsota J1’aste Nlanagcmcnt Hoard, personal (:OIlllIILllli(:;itiorl,” I ina Department of I f urn; in Rc\our(.[!s for re(:}(:ling, re(:otorin~, ” hla~ 1 and ]Unf? 11, 1!186. (I r rf; (i u(; i ng haza I’(]o us tta st f~s a n(i t h a t t hc ma I or it f’ of t hf}s(> 1,1- ([ [)rltIrl[Je(/ on rlf?\( p++’) Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction ● 215 recycling equipment are exempt from Wiscon- Information Collection for Program sin’s 5 percent sales tax. Businesses in Wiscon- Effectiveness sin are now exempt from property taxes amount- ing to the worth of waste treatment equipment, There is no systematic information or data and the State program is trying to extend this collection process underway in any State except exemption to waste reduction and recycling Pennsylvania that assesses program effective- equipment. 43 ness, and in no State is waste reduction being assessed. State programs explain this lack by Loan programs are available in a number of saying that they are too new and too experi- States. Among these are general loan programs mental to be able to ascertain at this stage what that can be used for pollution control and, some- information is even appropriate. A key deter- times, waste reduction projects, Others have minant of effectiveness is the amount of waste been specifically established to cover pollution reduced over time. Some States have struggled control or, less often, waste reduction projects. with, but none have solved, the question of how Connecticut, because of a statute that estab- to measure waste reduction on a statewide ba- lished an assistance and advice program for sis. This type of analysis is complicated by the small businesses on “the reduction, recycling number of factors (e. g., general economic con- or processing of hazardous wastes . . , ,“ can ditions, State programs, existing regulatory pro- make use of existing general State loan programs, liabilities, and waste taxes) that may in- grams.” New York, through its Industrial fluence industry to reduce hazardous waste.46 Financing Program, has had the authority since 1978 to provide loans to industry for multimedia State programs hesitate to require informa- pollution control projects, such as sewage treat- tion—even when free services are offered—that ment works, resource recovery facilities, and would record progress, possibly because of industrial hazardous waste facilities. The Envi- their reluctance to intrude on the business com- ronmental Facilities Corp., which administers munity. For instance, in Minnesota’s summer the loan program, has proposed to the State leg- engineering intern program, six students each islature that a revolving loan fund be established spent 4 months in 1985 working within a firm by the State to “debt finance hazardous waste, to develop a plan for a specific waste reduc- solid waste, industrial waste reduction, recy- tion project. North Carolina’s program provides cling, treatment, and disposal projects at smaller onsite technical assistance helping firms with companies. ”45 waste audits or assessing the potential for a waste reduction project, Neither State program requires the benefactors of these services to supply specific followup data after implementation of the advice on projects’ success or lack of suc- [continued from previous page) cess. Instead, they place the burden and cost cilities recycled hazardous wastes. The ICF report recommendeci of collecting such information on themselves. [on p. R-5) that California not adopt the use of tax credits be- Because of limited program resources, the re- cause they “do not address any specific barriers; unless allowable tax credits are high (e.g., greater than 50 percent), the amount sult is that they are simply unable to collect and of waste reduction directly attributable to the credit is likely to assess appropriate information and data. be low; and the costs of tax credits are difficult to control. ” qqJohn Relndel, Recycling Coordinator, Bureau of Solid Wast(?, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, Julj’ 25, 1986. q4State of Connecticut, Public Act No. 85-542, enacted JUIY 1, 1985. The Connecticut Development Authority also offers long- terrn industrial retrenue bond financing for a kariety of proje(;ts which i n(; lude the ~Ju rc h ase and i n sta 1] at ion of poi]o lion a/JiIte ment equipment, This hon(] progr-a m-u n] ike the former-is n[)t rest r icted to K(; RA hazardous ~ia ~tes. Mhl a riii n J. hl u(]:I r, A rl a I yst, 1 n(] ust rial \l’a ste f)rogram, Ne\t’ — York State En\lronrnental “Fa(; i lit ies (;orp,, ~]ersona] comnluni- ~{~see (:h. A f[ll, a d i S(; u ss i~n of appropriate measures for Wa Ste (.ation, June 19, 1986. r(; dtlction,

62-6 ’36 0 - 86 - 8 : [)1, 3 216 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

NORTH CAROLINA, AN EXAMPLE PROGRAM

Since it is not possible for this report to ● 1984: present a thorough review of all eight State —Legislature Research Study recommended programs, OTA has chosen to present North establishment of NC3PP and defined its Carolina’s Pollution Prevention Pays Program basic structure, (NC3PP) as an example. Although it conforms —authorizing bill established NC3PP and to many of the generalizations expressed above, funded three full-time positions. it is unique in that it is a multimedia program The original idea for the program came, how- which “addresses toxic materials, water and 7 ever, from local environmentalists who were air quality, and solid and hazardous wastes. “4 disappointed about the lack of success of both It focuses largely, but not exclusively, on waste the fight against hazardous waste land disposal reduction. facilities and the campaign for good hazard- The goal of the program is to “find ways to ous waste management practices. They pro- reduce, recycle and prevent wastes before they posed an alternative: if the concept pollution become pollutants”48 (i.e., are disposed in some prevention pays could be institutionalized and medium). To meet that goal, the program offers waste streams reduced in the State, then many advice, provides information, and awards grants of the land disposal problems might be solved. to firms, universities, and communities for They found listeners among State officials, in- waste reduction and for onsite and offsite recy- cluding those within the North Carolina Depart- cling research, education, and demonstration ment of Natural Resources and Community De- projects. Waste treatment options are excluded velopment (DNRCD).4g from these activities because treatment tends While the idea for the program and sequence to shift hazardous substances among media and of State actions which created it are similar to because of possible overlaps with the activities other State experiences, the people who became of regulatory programs and the services of pri- involved in North Carolina did not view the vate consultants, environment from a media-specific perspective. The NC3PP evolved over approximately 3 The presence of such people at the early stages years out of a sequence of official State actions: of development of the program shifted the focus away from an exclusive RCRA hazardous ● 1981: waste position to a multimedia approach. This —North Carolina Waste Management Act perspective also helped to keep the program’s was passed by State legislature; estab- operations focused specifically on waste reduc- lished policy guidelines and the Gover- tion and recycling. nor’s Waste Management Board. ● 1982: NC3PP components today include technical —State funded a 3P symposium, assistance, research and education, and finan- –first Governor’s Award was presented. cial assistance. The program received its first ● 1983: year’s direct funding from the legislature in the —State funded pollution prevention Re- summer of 198450 and filled its allotted three search and Education Grants through its staff positions by January 1985. Most of 1985 Science and Technology Board, was spent getting the program into full opera- —NC3PP position was created within the tion, especially its technical assistance compo- Department of Natural Resources and nent. The bulk of the program’s conceptuali- Community Development. zation and planning had occurred previously

q~This agellcy inc]udes the regulator}’ programs for air and 47 N~rth Ca ro] i [la PO]] Utio n Prevention Pays Program, ‘‘1985 water; the RCRA program is located in the Human Resources Program Summary and Status, ” January 1986. Department,

4eIbid. S~North Carolina operates u rider a July-to-June fiscal year. Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction ● 217 — within DNRCD and during the Legislative Re- two persons instead of one assigned to techni- search Study, and the first Research and Edu- cal assistance to have at least one person full- cation Grants were awarded in 1983. In addi- time for onsite consultation. However, present tion, the Governor’s Waste Management Board and foreseeable funding levels prevent this ex- has been presenting annual Governor’s Awards pansion of their service. for Excellence in Waste Management since An information clearinghouse maintained by 1982. These awards deal with RCRA hazard- the program includes a library of relevant liter- ous and low-level radioactive wastes only. ature and has the capability of conducting data So far, NC3PP has used both State and Fed- searches through a variety of databanks. An in- eral Governments as sources of funding. The house database is now being developed that will current annual budget totals $590,000 (see ta- include literature, case studies, contacts, and ble 6-5). The State funds NC3PP through DNRCD Program publications.” The library is available and the Research and Education Grants through to the public and is a particular favorite of engi- the Science and Technology Board in the De- neering consultants. partment of Administration. NC3PP provides Outreach, another aspect of technical assis- the staff to administer and manage the board’s grant program. tance, consists of presentations by the staff to trade associations, professional organizations, citizen groups, universities, and industrial Technical Assistance workshops. The content and level of each pres- In its first year of operation in 1985, the North entation is tailored to the particular audience. Carolina Program’s technical assistance was A lo-minute slide/tape show giving an overview conducted primarily by dealing with incoming of the program is made available to groups. telephone calls and written requests for infor- Workshops on specific industrial sectors or mation. While only 5 onsite visits were man- waste streams are organized and supported by aged in the last half of 1985, the program hopes funds from Research and Education Grants. to conduct 15 or more in 1986. Waste reduction is the first option considered by staff when Research and Education offering technical assistance. Using the Research and Education Grants Unlike generic hazardous waste problems, awarded by the Science and Technology Board, specific or unique problems can require indi- the program promotes research projects and vidual research on the part of staff and may develops educational tools. Its objectives are result in onsite consultations. Most firms pre- to target North Carolina wastes and industries; fer onsite visits by the staff, and the staff con- Slrrhc ~{)st (:omprehensit, , up-to-date hib]iogral]hy on Pol~u- siders this to be the most valuable way of offer- e tjon pretwntjon is published by ?JC3PP. The Januar\ 198[j issue ing assistance to firms. However, such visits contains 90 pages of citat ions (o\rer 800 i ndi~idua] (: i tat ions] bro- require substantially more time than telephone ken down into t~to genera], a ITI is(.ellant?ous, an(i 18 S1(: (:ate- consultations. The program would like to have gory sections,

Table 6-5.—North Carolina Pollution Prevention Pays Program Funds

1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87’ Program operation and challenge grants ...... — $180,000 $190,000 $190,000 Research and education grants . $300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 EPA Small Business Initiative . — 1 00)000 100,000 100,000 Total ...... $300,000 $580,000 $590,000 $590,000

aThe State approprlate~ on a 2.year budget cycle, thus the 1986-87 funds were approved i n the 1985 session of the le91 slatu re The EPA 198687 funds, while part of a 3-year contract, are subject to review SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 218 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

document the economic and technical feasibil- tion and recycling projects. The money can- ity of waste reduction; reduce in volume the not be used for operating or capital costs or State’s hazardous, toxic, water and air waste detailed engineering design, and the project streams; and develop innovative approaches to content must be transferable to other firms or environmental management. communities in North Carolina. Sixteen grants were awarded in 1985 and an initial 13 in 1986, Research grants (using 1983 funds) were Of the recent group, nine are for waste reduc- awarded for 13 university projects in 1984. The tion projects. second round of these grants (1984 funds) was awarded in 1985 for 11 projects, For the third The program has no problem in attracting in- round, 34 proposals were received in 1986; 15 terest in its grants; 21 proposals were submitted projects were funded. The overall makeup of for the 1986 round. The results are publicly each set of awards has varied as the program available as “Project Summaries” and are used develops a better understanding of the State’s by the program in its technical assistance ef- needs and the importance of research and edu- forts. The program plans to use these results cation to the program. Of the 15 projects in the to help document its program justification re- recent round, 11 deal with waste reduction port for the next State budget cycle. The Project issues. Summaries clearly indicate the outcomes of the projects, explain whether they were success- Financial Assistance ful or not, and discuss their transferability,53

The program provides financial assistance Conclusions and the Future primarily from its Challenge Grants with total available funding of $50,000 from the State and The Pollution Prevention Program began $50,000 from the EPA grant. Additional assis- with the objective of applying waste reduction tance is provided by referring firms to other and recycling techniques to North Carolina in- State agencies that administer industrial reve- dustry and waste streams and it has been nue bonds and loans; the North Carolina Tech- deemed successful at meeting that objective. nological Development Authority which pro- It now has a secure place within the State’s envi- vides funds for new or improved products, ronmental institutions. However, it will not processes, or services; and the Department of grow in size in the near future due to the State’s Human Resources, which provides a certifica- overall budget concerns, Any budget increases tion allowing firms to take advantage of spe- that become available will go to the environ- cial tax treatment. The latter resource is avail- mental regulatory programs. able only for those who purchase and install In general, the program is supported by both hazardous waste equipment for waste reduc- the environmental and industrial communities tion, resource recovery, or recycling. It is not in North Carolina. The chamber of commerce known how useful these services have been to 52 organization in the State—North Carolina industry or in promoting waste reduction. Citizens for Business and Industry—was one The Challenge Grants are awarded each year of the original supporters of NC3PP, helped to for a maximum of $5,000 which must be institutionalize it, and still strongly supports matched by the awardee. They are given to its activities. 54 This business group feels that small businesses and communities for the de-

velopment and implementation of waste reduc- ssNorth Carolina has discovered that transferability of information across industries is limited by firms’ tendency to view their own situation as unique, certainly unique to their trade, sZThe tax certification can cause problems at the local level The Project Summaries encourage readership because they are if it involves a hazardous waste management facility. Local com- brief, and because they are brief lack the specific detail that munities believe that such firms should pay higher, rather than categorizes them as industry specific.

lower, taxes. [Bill Meyer, Chief, Solid and Hazardous Waste Man- sqJoe Harwood, Chair, Environmental Concerns Committee, agement Branch, North Carolina Department of Human Re- North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, personal com- sources, personal communication, May 8, 1986. ] munication, May 9, 1986. Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction 219 — the program works because it is voluntary; that nology, than on waste reduction, which can in- a mandatory approach would not be appropri- volve their own processes. ate. The business group is now looking at the The program considers an expansion of its idea of adding a tax incentive in the State that technical assistance to allow for more onsite will give some credit to firms that substantially visits to be its first priority, if additional funds reduce their wastes. become available. After 3 years of awarding re- NC3PP does not make a conscious effort to search grants to State universities, the program target its activities toward small business con- staff sees a need to enlarge the pool of exper- cerns. There is no reason to target small quan- tise. It maybe difficult, however, to obtain the tity generators since they are part of the RCRA authority to allow competitive bidding outside universe and NC3PP does not focus on RCRA of the university system. The State universities hazardous wastes. An initial data collection ef- have become accustomed to the annual $300,000 fort identified (by number of facilities) the five infusion of funds and will oppose any change. major industrial categories of hazardous waste The Challenge Grants are considered by staff generators, air and water quality permitters, to be too small and need to be doubled to and industrial pretreatment programs. How- $10,000 to enable more detailed work to be ac- ever, the Challenge Grants and use of the EPA complished. It has been found that the once-a- funds are restricted to small business firms, and year cycle for grants is not always appropri- this group is the most likely to call for assis- ate, and the program is now holding back about tance. Large firms tend to be a valuable source $30,000 of this money for use as worthy projects of information to the program, but they are are identified through its technical assistance more open about sharing information on waste work, management, which tends to use generic tech-

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE PROGRAMS

As yet, there is little information available gue program benefits effectively, often using on which to base any evaluation of the effec- anecdotal evidence. Programs can also gather tiveness of State programs in achieving their the support of their constituents to help them stated goals or in reducing the generation of haz- through the budget process. In general, indus- ardous waste. It is not possible to judge at this try tends to be supportive of State programs time whether the technical or financial assis- as they are currently constituted. This is espe- tance offered by State programs actually en- cially true of those firms that have taken advan- courages waste reduction. The programs do not tage of the services offered. On the other hand, appear pressed for accountability and do not some industry people support these small, non- collect information in a systematic way. Few regulatory programs because they serve as a have even defined their future information bulwark against the advent of waste reduction needs. Thus, even in the near future, it will be programs that could involve standard setting difficult to make objective program evaluations. and regulations. The fact that some State programs have been If there is currently a wait-and-see attitude through and have survived several annual bud- among those who control State purse strings, get processes is an indication of success. But, then the programs may eventually have to pro-- as mentioned before, this has not occurred as vide an objective review of their activities and the result of an objective review. Since these the results of these efforts. California’s program are small budget programs, justification re- staff, with one of the largest budgets among the quirements are not rigorous. Renewals can be current State programs, considers this a likeli- based on the ability of those concerned to ar- hood, They feel that for their third budget re- 220 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste quest they will have to be able to show that Three programs have conducted followup waste streams in California have decreased, and surveys to assess effectiveness, Pennsylvania’s they intend to obtain such information from TAP conducts surveys on a continuing basis. their grants and technical assistance projects. 55 Minnesota’s TAP has surveyed its users twice; Georgia, once. None of these efforts tabulated The Minnesota Waste Management Board or identified occurrences of waste reduction. completed a draft evaluation report in August 58 The Minnesota program’s first survey was in 1986 of its hazardous waste programs, To as- 1985. Fifty percent of the 150 firms to whom sess the effectiveness of its technical assistance a survey was mailed responded, Most of the program, the board reviewed the TAP’s activ- respondents (86 and 76 percent, respectively) ity level and reported the results of a survey were satisfied with the service or thought that of users of the service, While the TAP appears the advice offered had aided their decisionmak- to have a very good image, no evidence was ing, Twelve percent of the respondents (6 per- presented that shows that waste reduction has cent of the survey population) reported that the occurred as a result of its assistance. In fact, assistance offered had resulted in wastes be- the board noted that: “The majority of MnTAP’s ing minimized. It is not known how much of assistance went to help generators understand this minimization has been a reduction in the and comply with hazardous waste regulations generation of wastes or how much has been as well as helping them improve their waste a reduction in the volume of wastes being sent management methods. ” As part of the evalua- offsite for management, Pennsylvania’s and tion of the board’s research grant program, de- Georgia’s numerical evaluations are even less tails of four 1985 projects were compiled. One relevant in terms of waste reduction. Since of the two waste reduction projects funded— waste reduction is not a major focus of either ADC Telecommunications—achieved a reduc- program, the information is not needed for pro- tion of from 36 to 100 percent in wastes gener- gram justification. ated. At the maximum reduction rate, saved costs were estimated at $14,900 per year. The State programs do collect data on their activ- cost of the project, which involved changing ities. In New York, North Carolina, and Min- a process etchant, was $15,300 of which the nesota, TAP activity is tabulated. Thus, in 1984 State contributed $11,300. The second waste to 1985 New York’s program handled 219 tech- reduction project was judged technically fea- nical assistance calls, made 44 onsite consul- sible but not economic on the small scale at- tations, and made 31 promotional contacts. In tempted. 1985, North Carolina’s program staff responded to about 900 telephone and letter requests for The growing number of States that have information, While records are kept of these established and planned programs over the last contacts, no tabulation has yet been made and 2 years is one measure of success. It indicates it is not known how many involved regulatory success in selling the concept; it does not indi- compliance or waste reduction or how many cate a flurry of waste reduction activity. Con- callers needed technical or grants information. sidering the lack of attention given to collect- Most importantly, it is not known whether the ing information, the growth in numbers of State responses by the staff encouraged good waste programs cannot be taken as proof that even management or waste reduction practices. Min- effective waste management is underway. nesota handled 320 telephone calls in 1985 and conducted 35 onsite consultations excluding those related to its intern program, sHKim Wl]helm, waste Reduction Unit, California State De- partment of Health Services, personal communication, Apr. 30, Eventually, more results from the grant pro- 1986. grams will be publicly available; at this point seMinnesota Waste Management Board, “Hazardous Waste it is too early to assess their effectiveness in Programs Evaluation Report, ” draft, August 1986. This is a discussion document, The board’s final report and recommenda- increasing the potential for waste reduction. tions will be made to the State legislature in November 1986. Minnesota’s first grants were awarded in 1985; North Carolina’s Challenge Grants were awarded grants in June 1986. No State has a system in in 1985 and its Research and Education Grants place to aggregate and analyze the information in 1984. California awarded its first research provided by the grants.

WASTE REDUCTION: FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION State programs will need to focus their activ- OTA’S minimum criteria developed to define ities on waste reduction if it is to become a sig- State waste reduction programs, the Federal reg- nificant factor in environmental protection at ulatory system does not qualify as a waste re- the State level and if they are to be effective in duction program. preventing pollution. At the same time, both The current system of regulations appears to the size of these programs and their share of have had little impact on State waste reduction overall State environmental activities will need programs and planning efforts; most were to be increased, Shifts in focus or resources will underway prior to the RCRA 1984 Amendments. require that a stronger political base of support In OTA’S State survey, four States—Massachu- for waste reduction be developed among State setts, Illinois, Tennessee, and Connecticut— elected officials and regulators, industry, local cited the amendments as one of many reasons communities, and environmentalists. Such sup- for their waste reduction efforts. People in- port will be required to overcome the traditional volved in most State programs feel that the pres- attitude that pollution control is the only envi- ence of the regulations has increased RCRA ronmental protection strategy. generators’ awareness of waste minimization The Federal Government now offers limited as an issue. At the same time, however, those support to State waste reduction programs with generators are often confused as to what “hav- its waste minimization regulations and some ing a waste minimization program in place” grant funding, These activities, however, tend means. In Georgia, questions about the Federal to encourage good RCRA hazardous waste waste minimization regulations now come up management among small business rather than during seminars and the regulations are part multimedia waste reduction throughout indus- of that State’s program to assist generators with try. If national policy as stated in the 1984 RCRA RCRA compliance, Minnesota’s TAP has not Amendments is to be the Nation’s goal in actu- noticed any major change in the office’s incom- ality—not only in theory—then the State pro- ing telephone queries. Only about five calls have grams will need a leadership role from the Fed- been received in the last year requesting help eral Government. In that role, the Federal with the Federal “waste minimization plan” Government could advance the primacy of requirement, 57 Those in the California program waste reduction at the State level by a variety feel that the waste minimization manifest cer- of activities, each of which has different politi- tification has prompted telephone calls and cal and budgetary costs (see ch. 2). raised consciousness among generators. In general, the callers are confused as to the require- 58 Current Federal Support ment of the manifest certification. Since the passage of the 1984 RCRA Amend- If the outcomes of the Federal voluntary ments, the Federal role in waste minimization, waste minimization program cannot eventually one component of which is waste reduction, be assessed (see ch. 5), then its potential for be- has been minimal. The Federal role is regula- ing of assistance to State programs will be in tory and comprises the waste minimization regulations, which define certification and reporting or recordkeeping requirements for RCRA hazardous waste generators (see ch, 5). Using 222 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste doubt as well, As mentioned above, States are provided in the Federal biennial reports cov- not collecting relevant waste reduction data. ering 1985 with the intent of developing a waste While the Federal regulations require that some reduction report from all its RCRA hazardous RCRA generators submit certain information, waste generators, as required by the State’s Haz- its content is not relevant to determining the ardous Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Treat- effectiveness of waste reduction. The biennial ment Research and Demonstration Act. Unlike reporting statement is a narrative, is only made the Federal system, California’s will require by generators who ship wastes offsite (ignor- waste reduction statements from generators ing those who produce and manage wastes on- who ship offsite and from those who manage site), and only covers RCRA hazardous wastes, their wastes onsite. Apparently, when EPA set up the reporting sys- Generators in New Jersey who were required tem it did not intend to make any use of the to complete the waste minimization section of incoming information since the statements are the Federal report covering 1985 were provided not to be forwarded to EPA but are to remain 59 with a separate survey designed by the New at the State level, Jersey Department of Environmental Protec- While some State RCRA regulatory or waste tion. The department—like all State RCRA reduction programs are looking into the possi- offices nationwide—had no guidance from its bilities of using or supplementing some of the EPA Region or from headquarters regarding information collected as the result of the Fed- the requirement, The State survey was not de- eral regulations, most are not. In answer to a signed to gain consistent information from question on OTA’S State survey, one State felt generators but was an attempt to forestall what that information sent in response to the report- the department feared would be a deluge of ing regulations should begin to provide them questions from generators asking what the nar- with data to assess the effectiveness of waste rative statement should contain, On the survey reduction. Minnesota’s TAP is now consider- three questions each were asked regarding sep- ing how it might use the next set of waste mini- aration, substitution, efficiency, recycling on- mization statements that result from that State’s site, and treatment onsite,62 The responses, sev- generator reports on 1986 activities.60 North eral thousand completed forms, were stored in Carolina’s RCRA program, which requires an- boxes kept in the department since the waste nual reporting by its generators, is planning to minimization statement is viewed in New Jer- conduct a small number of followup visits to sey, as elsewhere, primarily as a device to in- firms in selected industrial categories that have crease awareness rather than as an informa- reported waste minimization activities to de- tion collection procedure.63 The New Jersey termine whether the statements are justified. Source Reduction and Recycling Task Force The conclusions drawn from these visits will (of the Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Com- be part of a report to the State legislature re- mission), which became aware of the surveys questing State waste minimization funds for the after they were collected, is now planning to regulatory program. These activities will be co- use them as a possible source of information ordinated with the State waste reduction pro- in their planning for a waste reduction program 81 64 gram California is reviewing the statements for the State.

sgThis is true unless a State does not have RCRA authorization. In such cases EPA regions distribute and collect the biennial reporting forms. See ch. 5 for details of this regulation. BoClndy M~Comas, Director, Minnesota Technical Assistance Program, personal communication, Apr. 30, 1986. It should be BzCenerators were warned that in future reports actual, rather noted that while the Federal system only requires biennial report- than estimated, amounts of volume reductions would be required. ing, Minnesota, like many other States, requires annual reports. 6sNancy power, Administrative Analyst, Bureau of Manifest The State, in conducting the 1985 Federal reporting, inadver- and Information Systems, New Jersey Department of Environ- tently failed to include the waste minimization section. mental Protection, personal communication, Apr. 30, 1986. Boyle, Assistant Director, New El Bill Mev, er, Chief, SO1 id and Hazardous Waste Management ~q$jusan B. Jersey Hazardous fjranc;h, N~rth Carolina Department of Human Resources, per- Waste Facilities Siting Commission, personal communication, sonal communication, May 8, 1986. Rfay 1, 1986. Ch. 6—State Activities in Waste Reduction 223

The Federal regulations may help State pro- referred to as an explanation of why there is grams by increasing an awareness of waste no effort directed at program evaluation. minimization—but not necessarily waste reduc- States need publicly expressed support for tion—in industry. This may occur if those who waste reduction from their Governors, but this sign the manifest certification, fill out biennial does not always happen. This need seems anal- reports, and maintain operating records are the ogous to the need expressed by environmental same people who design and maintain waste management people in large corporations for generating processes and equipment. It is more top-down or CEO support. Such backing pro- likely to occur in the small firms that States tar- vides visibility and visibility leads to clout. It get for assistance, firms in which occupational enables small entities to increase their influ- duties are not as narrowly defined as in large ence within their operating environment. How- firms. However, as discussed in chapter 5, the ever, a Governor who publicly supports waste waste minimization regulations lead industry reduction runs a risk of being identified as anti- toward the avoidance of land disposal and not business unless there is broad understanding necessarily to waste reduction. of the environmental and economic benefits In addition to its regulatory support, EPA has waste reduction confers. helped to fund some State programs, Two State people are ambivalent about the pros- sources of funding have been a Small Busi- pects for Federal Government support for waste ness/Small Quantity Generator Initiative pro- reduction. On the one hand they recognize that gram in the Office of Research and Develop- State programs need an infusion of money and ment (ORD) and Add On Grant funds authorized the visibility that a Federal program could pro- by Section 8001 of RCRA, some of which were vide, But, the Federal Government is not seen designated for outreach to SQGs. The ORD pro- as a reliable funding source today. It has been gram gave out about $325,000 in fiscal year 1986 reducing support in many areas, leaving States of which $200,000 went to the North Carolina to provide their own funds for popular pro- and Minnesota programs for research grants. grams, and the prospect of switching from State The Section 8001 funds provided $4.5 million to Federal sources for funding is now seen as in fiscal year 1986 to State and local RCRA risky. Should the Federal Government decide activities. Some of this money was applied to to offer any type of financial support for waste SQG outreach that included waste minimiza- reduction, a system of matching funds could tion projects. (These funding programs are dis- provide continuity by requiring the continuing cussed more fully in ch. 5.] involvement and interest of State legislatures. At the same time State staffs are protective State Program Needs of the gains for which they have fought, In general, these are the people who have guided pro- When State program people are asked what gram development from the conceptual stages. they need to increase their effectiveness they They are proud of their innovations in design- invariably answer: an increase in professional ing programs tailored to State needs and oft he staffs. Programs that offer technical assistance initiatives undertaken to institutionalize them, would like to provide more onsite consultations. States do not want a johnny-come-lately Fed- The number of outreach efforts (e. g., seminars, eral program which will specify program con- brochures) are viewed as too few. Current low tent from a national perspective and require a staff levels, a consequence of low budgets, are redirection of their efforts. Appendixes Appendix A The OTA Industry Survey

mate]jr 50 ])[?rcent of the RCRA haziir(ious \\r;]stf’ ~cnerate(i in the country. Th[; sur~ej form ~lras (]ivide(i into th rf![i ~)tirls, l];~rt 1 requeste(i i nformat ion ahout t hf’ t ~ ])f~. sizf). tl n(i location of the rcs])on(icnt’s (: OITI~)anjI: f);]rt 2 (ioi]]t \\’ith current tlast[; rc(iuct ion (}f’forts ill th(: (:OH- panj: an(i Part 3 ask[;[i for the res})on(it;nts’ [’i[:~~s on future tk’aste rfxiu(; t ion efforts. hot h i 11 t hf: i r ( ;OIIl- pan~ and bj go~ernment. On]} four resl)on(ients, t 11’() from small I)usi IICSS~S aIl(i t \\’() fI’olll la I’:f! l)\lsi- ness, left Part 2 blank on the g rou n(is t II;~ t t h c~ h a \ t; u n(i[!rt i]ken no \\”a stc red u(:t i on f:ff’() rts i 11 t ]I(! i r plants. A cop~ of tb[? sur[r[!~ fol]oi~s” t 11 is (iis(:ussion.

WhcIl qu[;stioll[;(] ahout the im~)ortiln(;[! (If’ (i if ff!l’-

r [: n t factors that a ffcc t t h e pace ii n ( i cx t [! n t (If’ \\ ; I st [; a IT() id a ncc efforts (Q. 2-1 ). respon(l(?n IS (:l(Ii] rl.~’ ri~ ntl (YI the rising costs of ~laste nlanagen]ent ;IIIII (Ilf: j[l - crcasing difficulties in using 1:111(1 [~icsf]u,s:]l ;].s th(: / ti’o n]ost in]porlanf f:l(;tors. S(:ar(;it\’ of tf!(:h ni(:al i n formation about tt’a st e re[iu(:t i () n ;] n (i t hf! f’a i 1 u rf: of top management to mak[! rf!(i u(:t ion :1 high ~)r i- ority were rate(i l(; ast important i n s])u rr i ng () r sio\\r- ing waste rf~[iuct ion. Si milarl~’, Lthcn asked about (:ir(:u mst :~n(:cs that hate an important impact on wrast f; rc(iu(; t ion (ie(:i- sions (Q. 2-8), economic fact ors-[:osts. Iial) il it ics, newi to in(:rease producti~rit~’ an(i i m])ro~[: ~)ro(iuct qLlal ity-an(i regulatorjr requirements lkere ratc(i morf~ important than i mprok’ing ])LIbl i(: and (:on- su mer percept io IIS of the co m pa n}’. Table A-1 .—Distribution of Respondents to When asked specific a]lj’ ahout ohst a(;l[}s t () waste OTA’S Industrial Survey reduction efforts (Q. 2-4), economi(; factors-the do]- Number of lar t’alue of benefits from ~i’aste re[iuction an(i the SIc respondents costs of carry in,g it out-were rated t hc most signi f- In OTA survey n u m ber Short -.SIC title i ca nt barriers b}’ all respondents. H ot~re[rcr, s ITI a]] 22 Textile mill products . ... 2 businesses were almost twice as likely as large com - 26 Paper and allied products. . 1 1)anies to cite other obstacles, such as the nat urc 28 Chemicals and allied of the waste streams (15 percent of’ small bus i nesscs, products ...... 34 29 Petroleum and coal products 5 7 percent of large) and the costs of managing spe- 30 Rubber and miscellaneous cific lvastes (23 percent of sma]] busi nesst?s, 15 per- plastics . . 3 cent of large), 33 Primary metals industries . 3 Among waste reduction acti~ities implemcnte[i 34 Fabricated metal products . . 16 35 Machinery, except electrical . 8 to date (Q. 2-6), in-process recjcling kias ranke(i 36 Electric and electronic first, particularly by large companies. Changes in equipment . . . 10 equipment or technology were rank~!d secon [i, and 37 Transportation equipment 9 i mpro~rerncn ts i n housekeeping and general opera- 38 Instruments and related tions changes ranke(i third. Clearlj the least used products ...... 6 39 Miscellaneous manufacturing 1 a c t i o n o f a 11 c o m p a n i es respond i n g to this su rk’c~’ unknown 1 ~t’as making changes in the final product(s). Total ... . 99 Companies ~~ere di~’ided in their responses to SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment questions about the wrajrs in ~vh ich the}’ plan waste

227 228 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste —

reduction actions and target waste streams (Q. 2- grams, and 3) a mandated Federal waste reduction 5), When asked “are you more likely to focus on schedule. Respondents also clearly indicated (84 the weight or volume of waste rather than the spe- percent) that a Federal information collection pro- cific threat or level of hazard of the waste?” 46 per- gram which would require regular reporting by in- cent replied in the affirmative. Of those, most (76 dustry on toxic chemical generation would not stim- percent) said that lack of information as to the de- ulate more waste reduction (Q. 3-9). gree of hazard of waste(s) was not a problem. While When asked specifically about the possibility of most respondents indicated that they gave “much mandated reduction levels (Q. 3-4), small and large attention” to all different kinds of air and water businesses gave very different responses. Seventy- emissions, responses overall indicated that water five percent of large companies said such a program emissions are somewhat more likely to receive at- ‘‘would be difficult to implement and enforce and, tention than air emissions (Q. 2-7). therefore . . . would be Use have ]ittle ef- Respondents expressed some concern that not all fect, and might hamper our efforts. ” Only 47 per- actions undertaken in industry in the name of waste cent of small companies chose this response. in- reduction are as environmentally beneficial or eco- stead, more than half responded that mandated nomically profitable as they may initially appear. reduction ‘‘would bring more attention to the issue Sixty percent agreed with the statement: “what and motivate industry to avoid the generation of

might be hailed as a successful waste avoidance [re- waste. ” Overallf 62 percent of respondents opposedi duction] effort by a company may be misleading as mandated reduction. to its environmental or economic benefits. ” A similar split appears in responses to a question when asked about existing Federal waste reduc- about further Federal Government action (Q. 3-2): tion activities, specifically EPA’s recent RCRA Overall, wit}] regard to waste avoidance [reciuc- waste minimization certification requirements for t ion], if j’ou had your way would }OU ~~ant the Fed- waste generators which appears on manifests (Q. (:ral government to a) lca~’e things just the ~tra}r t hcy 2-2), virtually all respondents were familiar with a re now’ o r h) take some further action to assist i n- them (only 3 percent not familiar) and 40 percent (lustr~’ to (:arrj’ out more ~~aste ak’() i(iancc [ redu(:- said that these requirements have prompted them tion] actil’ities’? to increase waste reduction. Uncertainty about Sixty-seven percent of small business respond- EPA’s or States’ regulations and enforcement were ents favored further Federal Government ac- not considered likely to hamper future waste reduction; only 50 percent of large businesses did. tion by most respondents (7 I percent), although Overall, 57 percent of respondents favored some small cmpanies were more likely to find that such further action by the Federal Government to as- uncertainies limit their action than were large com- sist industry in waste reduction. panies. Thirty -fite percent of small companies and However, when asked whether this further gov- only 25 percent of large companies said their waste ernent act ion should be carried out by the States rcduct ion efforts would be limited by uncertain ies or h}’ the Federal Environmental Protection Agency about regulations (Q. 3-5). (EPA) (Q.3-3), small busin[?ss respondents (:learly Respondents were then asked to consider a vari- favored State act ion (67 percent in fai’or). The rea- ety of’ types of Federal waste reduction programs son most often cited f’or this preference was that and evaluate their impact on waste red uct ion ef- a State go~ernment has a better understanding of forts in the respondent’s company (Q. 3-l]. Pro- the part icular needs of businesses in the State than grams Which respondents indicated would have the (Ioes the Federal EPA a n(i can he more flexible i n greatest positive impact on waste reduction were, IIealing with probl[?ms. I,arge business respondents first, a tax credit for capital spending on waste re- Jt’ere more evenly (ii~~ ided bet~veen State v. Fe(leral du(:t ion and, second, reduced possibilities for land a Ct i o n. ‘1’]1 ose p r~fe r I-i ng Federal act i 011 Stat d that disposal through enforcement of RCRA programs. thej found it easier to deal with one uniform pro- Follo\ving close behind were such considerations gram for all their operations than \\’ith a ~’ariety of as increasing Superfund liabilities and technical in- Stat c programs. overall. 58 percent of respon(ients formation and assistance programs of various kinds. ])referred State a(:tion to Fcdc?ral action.

Potential programs that were rated as having little whell quest io[led about current State Lviiste rC- positi~e or no significant impact were: 1 ) presiden- duction programs (Q,2-3), 43 percent of’ respond- ial awards for outstanding waste reduction efforts, ents said t ha [ State programs had affected their 2) Federal grants for State waste reduction pro- ~vast e reduction efforts thus f’ar. 13 ut o nljr 24 per- App, A— The OTA Industry Survey ● 229 — — -. cent of these believed that the State program had waste (Q.3- lo). They were asked: “Using best avail- served as some form of subsidy or aid without which able technology in 1980, how much (by weight) of their waste reduction effort would have been less. the hazardous waste (all types in all types of envi- When respondents were asked to rank the impor- ronmental media) generated by your operation in tance of different waste reduction activities in fu- 1980 could have been avoided?” Fifty-nine percent ture waste reduction (Q,3-7), the results were simi- responded “less than 25 percent, ” 30 percent re- lar to the rankings they gave to activities in current sponded “25 to 50 percent, ” and 11 percent re- waste reduction, Housekeeping and operations sponded ‘(50 to 75 percent, ” When asked: changes dropped somewhat in importance, leaving Using best available technology in 1985, how much in-process recycling and equipment and technol- (by weight] of hazardous waste (all types in all types ogy changes as the important strategies for future of environmental media) generated but your opera- reduction. Final product changes and raw materi- tion in 1985 could have been avoided? als changes were still at the bottom of the list. answers shifted slightly upward (15 percent re- A large majority of respondents (84 percent) sponded 50 to 75 percent reduction possible). OTA estimated that current and likely future waste could discern no pattern among the 10 to 15 per- reduction efforts would have no effect on or cent of companies indicating that large amounts of might increase their company’s employment waste reduction were possible. (Q.3-8) Finally, respondents were asked to estimate changes in their capability to avoid generating hazardous 230 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste — -— —-

SAMPLE COPY OF OTA’S INDUSTRY SURVEY

INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON HAZARDOUS WASTE AVOIDANCE

IMPO rtant Definitional Note:

In completing this survey, please keep in mind the following. The OTA project is concerned only with those actions taken by waste generators to avoid the generation of, management of, and introduction into the environment (external to plant operations) of any hazardous materials. In this survey We use the term ‘waste avoidance” to refer to such activities. When a broader scope of activities (including waste avoidance and better ways of managing wastes or the use of offsite recycling/recovery) is meant, we use the term, ‘waste reduction.” Note also that OTA is also concerned with all types of hazardous wastes, emissions, and discharges into all environmental media.

Part 1: Although none of these results will be linked to a specific individual or company, some information about you and your company will allow us to better interpret all the responses:

l-l: Check off one of the following that most closely describes your situation: a) I am a technical person (i.e. , a science or engineering background) involved in plant operations b) I am a technical person in a mid-level management position c) I am a technical person at the corporate rather than plant operations level d) I am a non-technical person at the corporate level e) other. Please explain briefly:

1-2: With regard to your companyts efforts to avoid generating waste: a) I make decisions leading to actions b) I make recommendations to others for decisions c) other. Please explain briefly:

1-3: Your operation is best characterized as: a) small or medium sized company b) large company with corporate technical resources on which to draw c) other. Please explain briefly: App. A—The OTA Industry Survey ● 231

1-4 : With regard to what your company does primarily: a) Its SIC number is b) Its chief products or outputs are:

c) Something else you think relevant:

1-5: Your principal activity is in the State of in which there is, as far as you know (check off as many as apply): no waste reduction program a technical assistance program for waste reduction an information transfer program for waste reduction some type(s) of tax on your hazardous waste some type of awards program for waste reduction some other governmental effort concerning waste reduction, please explain briefly:

1-6: Because Congress required EPA to prepare a report on waste reduction, EPA has had several contractor studies underway. Have you or your company participated in any of these studies or sumeys:

no yes don’t know

part 2; Factors which now are relevant and important to your efforts:

THE FOLLOWING SECTION ASSUMES THAT YOU HAVE UNDERTAKEN WASTE AVOIDANCE EFFORTS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF YOUR PLANT OPERATIONS. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SKIP TO SECTION 3, PAGE 5. 232 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous waste

2-1 : Consider the following nine statements concerning factors that may already have affected the pace and extent of your Waste avoidance efforts and give each statement one of the following evaluations: 1<- usually true in your operation 2’- occasionally true in your operation 3 - rarely true in your operation

the capital costs of major waste avoidance efforts can not now be justified in economic terms in comparison to other capital projects in the company

government environmental regulations accomplish enough, and lead to whatever attention we can give to dealing with hazardous waste issues

we don’t have enough detailed technical information on what to do for waste avoidance nor the resources to get more information

top management hasn’t given waste avoidance a high priority

our technical staff is too small or too preoccupied with other more important jobs to give attention to waste avoidance

the physical nature or age of our operation does not allow us to increase our waste avoidance efforts

the rising costs of managing our wastes have made increasing waste avoidance efforts a high priority

the difficulty of using land disposal for our hazardous waste has been an important catalyst to waste avoidance in our operation.

public awareness and attention to wastes, emissions, discharges, accidental releases to the environment have not been relevant to our decision-making about waste avoidance.

2-2: With regard to EPA’s recent RCRA certification requirements. about waste reduction for-waste generators such as appear on manifests (check those applicable) :

I am not familiar with them they have not posed any problem they have caused us to increase our waste avoidance activities other. Please explain: App A —The OTA Industry Survey ● 233

2-3: Have State programs affected your Waste avoidance efforts?

a) no ye. s b) If yes, please indicate briefly What those program(s) were:

c) If yes, do you believe that the state effort Was in some sense a form of subsidy or aid for your waste avoidance efforts without which your effort would have been less?

yes no

2-4: Have your waste avoidance efforts been held back because you lack enough detailed information on:

a) the nature (e.g. degree of hazard) of your hazardous wastes yes no b) the costs of managing specific wastes c) the costs of carrying out waste avoidance d) the dollar value of benefits (other than avoiding waste management costs)

2-5: In planning your waste avoidance actions and targeting waste streams, are you more likely to focus on the weight or volume of waste rather than the specific threat or level of hazard of the waste?

yes no

If yes, has lack of information on degree of hazard of your waste(s) been a problem?

yes no

2-6: Of the waste avoidance activities which you have implemented to date, rank the following five broad approaches in terms of their importance (1 - the most successful approach) :

changes in process equipment or technology improvements in “housekeeping” or general operations changes in raw materials used in operations in-process recycling/recovery changes in the final product(s) produced 234 Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

2-7: When speaking of waste reduction most people focus on solid, hazardous waste associated with RCRA regulation. Consider the following other types of hazardous ‘wasten and indicate the level of attention your company is giving to reducing them. Use the following:

1 - much attention, action already or specific plans; 2 - a little attention; 3 - no attention at present; x not a relevant waste

a) routine toxic air emissions b) accidental toxic air emissions c) unregulated discharges of hazardous materials to surface waters d) regulated discharges to surface waters e) discharges of hazardous materials to sewers

2-8: Rate the following circumstances with regard to their direct or indirect impact on your waste avoidance decisions and activities to date (1 - most important) :

an interest in improving public and consumer perceptions of the company

overall need to reduce costs, increase productivity, or improve product(s)

actual and perceived regulatory demands, costs, and liabilities

Part 3: Where do we go from here?

3-1: Consider the following eight potential types of Federal programs and, assuming that they would be done well, evaluate their potential impact on your waste avoidance efforts by giving each one of the following: 1 - would have a major positive impact; 2 - would have a small but positive impact; 3 - would not be a significant factor

technical information on specific waste avoidance approaches is made available free to you

free technical assistance especially designed for your operation to help develop your waste avoidance effort is made available to you

some type of tax credit or advantage is made available to you for capital spending on waste avoidance App A — The OTA Industry Survey . 235

a specific Federal requirement iS mandated for a certain amount of waste reduction over a specified time as compared to some base year of waste generation

Presidential’ awards are given annually for outstanding waste reduction efforts

Federal grants are made to states for Whatever programs they want to use to enhance industrial waste avoidance efforts

through RCRA regulatory programs and their enforcement, the use of land disposal is greatly reduced and all waste management costs increase still more

under the Superfund program, waste generators face increasingly greater burdens to pay for cleanups of toxic waste sites either offsite or onsite

3-2: Overall, with regard to waste avoidance, if you had your way would you want the Federal government to:

leave things just the way they are now

take some further action to assist industry to carry out more waste avoidance activities?

3-3: If the government did decide to take some further Federally mandated and funded actions, would you prefer to have them implemented by those States that wanted to have a waste reduction program or by the Federal EPA?

the States Federal EPA

If you prefer a state program, explain briefly:

3-4: If some Federally mandated schedule to carry out specific amounts of waste reduction on a plant or company basis were established, and if that schedule was industry-specific and gave credit for past reduction efforts, do you believe that

it would bring more attention to the issue and motivate industry to avoid the generation of waste

it would be difficult to implement and enforce and, therefore, it would be of little use, have little effect, and might hamper our efforts 236 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

3-5: Will your future waste avoidance activities be limited to a significant extent by your uncertainties about EPA’s and your State’s environmental regulations and their enforcement?

yes no

3-6: What might be hailed as a successful waste avoidance effort by a company may be misleading as to its environmental or economic benefits. Do you agree?

yes no

If yes, could you briefly explain why you agree:

3-7: Considering your future waste avoidance efforts, rank the following five broad approaches as to their expected importance (1 - most important):

changes in process equipment or technology improvements in ‘housekeepingWor general operations changes in raw materials used in operations in-process recycling/recovery changes in the ffnal product produced

3-8: Considering what you have done already and what you might do in the future, which of the following is most correct

waste avoidance in our company will either have no effect on our total employment or might increase it

waste avoidance in our company will reduce employment.

3-9: There is interest i.n adopting at the Federal level some type of requirement to have EPA conduct an inventory of hazardous waste generation (in its broadest multimedia terms) by industry, similar to what New Jersey has done on one occasion. Would such regular reporting by industry of all of its toxic chemical generation stimulate more waste avoidance by your company? yes no App. A —The OTA Industry Survey ● 237 — — —

3-10: Please evaluate the potential for waste avoidance in your industry i n the following two situations:

a) Using best available technology in 1980, how much (by weight) of the hazardous waste (all types in all types of environmental media) generated by your operation in 1980 could have been avoided? less than 25% 25% to 50% 50% to 75%

b) Using best available technology in 1985, how much (by Weight) of the hazardous waste (all types in all types of environmental media) generated by your operation in 1985 could have been avoided?

less than 25% 25% to 50% 50% to 75% Appendix B Waste Reduction: An International Perspective

The actions of other national governments in the ● publication of a compendium of lectures by ex- area of waste reduction may be of interest to Amer- perts in low- and non-waste technology in 1983;3 ican policy makers for two reasons. First, the choices ● holding a European Seminar on Clean Tech- made by other countries can serve as policy models. nologies at the Hague in 1980; The varied experience of countries actively promot- ● setting up a Working Party on Low- and Non- ing waste reduction and those attempting to deal Waste Technology and Re-utilization and Recy- with waste problems in other ways can help Ameri- cling of Wastes which has met annually since cans understand the range of policies available to 1980; and them and, over time, the results of those policies. ● setting up an Environmental Fund for demon- Second, expertise gained by other nations with stration of innovative technologies that are longer experience in waste reduction can present broadly applicable to reducing pollution. A sum a challenge. Many Western European governments of 6,5 million in European Currency Units have actively encouraged waste reduction for many (about 6.1 million U.S. dollars) was set aside years. To the extent that their 10-year lead in waste for this purpose in 1985. reduction results in more efficient processes and The Organization for Economic Cooperation and increased productivity among European industries, Development (OECD) has taken a strong stand in U.S. firms in similar industrial sectors may be favor of waste reduction although no promotional placed in an inferior competitive position. In addi- activities have been taken. An OECD conference tion, to the extent that a profitable worldwide mar- in 1985 on t ransborder movements of hazardous ket for waste reducing technologies and techniques waste concluded that the first basic principle for opens up in the coming decade, U.S. firms may find the management of waste is: “to prevent and recduce, it difficult to sell their waste reduction technologies so far as possible, the generation of wastes, to limit to industrial operations here and overseas if Euro- their hazardous character and to try to improve pro- peans are offering a wider variety of better tech- duction processes. ” Recycling and proper treatment niques, tested over a longer period of time. of wastes are included in the second principle, OECD further recommended that member coun- Multilateral Organizations tries make sure that: “adequate measures are taken for preventing or reducing the generation of haz- Some of the earliest initiatives in waste reduction ardous wastes . . . ‘‘ in new investment or develop- came from international organizations. The United ment projects.4 Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) European industry has also espoused the concept sponsored the first International Conference on of waste reduction. In its recently published “Sum- Non-Waste Technology in Paris in 1976. In 1979 mary of Principles of Industrial Waste Manage- the ECE adopted a detailed “Declaration on Low- ment, the European Council of Chemical Manu- and Non-Waste Technology and Reutilization and facturers’ Federations headed its list of principles Recycling of Wastes. ”1 In this document, the ECE wit h: recommended action on both the national and in- . . Waste reduction: Take all economical]} and ternational levels to develop and promote low- and technically justifiable measures to minimize generation of waste through process optimisation or non-waste technologies. International ECE activi- 5 ties resulting from this declaration have included: redesign. ● publication of a four-volume compendium on low- and non-waste technologies in 1982, list- 1[ i u n~d r]d n .Nat iondi A u t h[)rlt~’ Ior En!’lr{)n ment f)r{)ttv t IIJI1 d mi N’ ,1- t L] r t> ( ;(]n>(!ri a tin]], (:orII~)fJrI(/ILJIII (If I,wfurf,. s on IJOII - dn[j k’(IJI - I%’rf +ff, ing over 80 examples of successful pollution ‘/’f){ /Jrlol[)gJ { IIu(id[)est, }{utlg

tl(~r Alc)vements of H:izi]rd[)l]s W’ast{!s [inclucf]ng ,4ppendix), ]U]J :), 1 !)83 51iur[)ped n (Joun( II of (;hem i{, al hlanufa( tu rcrs’ [:()( i[>i”iit Ions, lfl[lll $tl /()/ Ilrdjtf, ,!fcJrI{lg(~rIItIrI(, (; [l F’[(; , llrus~els, f3elg IUIII, 1 WI,5 ,1~ [ It[.11 III K(j!,I] (;(InlnI is~ion on linl Ironmt, ntdl Pollutlon, EltJL (,1]//1 RtI/xJr- \ fdndgIII,g tl’d$tf, ’ ‘4 l)u/J of (;dr’[, ( [, L) IldoI1. }{t, r \ld}c\ty’\ Stdtlonrr} (){11( (j, 1 )(’( (Jlll- I)t, [ I W5).

238 App. B— Waste Reduction: An International Perspective ● 239 —

Great Britain, Japan, and Canada tion has grown rapidly in Canada and its Federal Government is now becoming involved in a coordi- Among individual governments that have not ac- nating role. The Canadian Council of Resource and tively promoted waste reduction are the British and Energy Ministers, a policy-setting group of all the Japanese. Great Britain has decided to concen- Provincial ministers and the Federal minister in this t rate its efforts on waste management to protect the area, plans to meet in October 1986 to discuss an environment rather than waste reduction. As a action plan for waste reduction. The contents of this member of the European Communities, Britain has plan were being formulated in mid-1986.1° endorsed the principal of waste reduction, and the most recent report of the Royal Commission on Western Europe Environmental Pollution acknowledges its usefulness. However, as the report makes clear, govern- ,Most of the governments in Western Europe have ment action focuses on achieving higher quality been promoting the concept of clean technologies waste management particularly safe and respon- (or low- and non-waste technologies) since the sible land disposal. There are no plans in the Brit- 1970s. These European concepts are broader than ish Government to promote waste reduction in the OTA’S concept of waste reduction because they ap- foreseeable future.7 ply to nonhazardous wastes, to product as well as The Japanese Government, similarly, has not un- process wastes, and include offsite recycling. 1n dertaken any dedicated waste reduction actions but some countries, incineration and other waste treat- has developed and promoted recycling and reuse ment methods have been funded as clean technol- technologies to address environmental concerns. ogies. This broader scope of European definitions The Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing I.aw of makes it difficult to analyze the state of waste re- 1970 specifically identifies recycling and reuse as duction (in the OTA sense) in these countries. Wher- the means to reduce wastes in Japan by stating: “The ever possible, the extent to which European activi- enterprise must endeavor to lessen the amount of ties include waste management as well as waste wastes by regeneration or re-use of wastes. The reduction has been noted.

Japanese do have, however, a number of the com- Among individual governments, several have dis- mon indirect incentives to reduce waste such as a tinctive and interesting approaches to waste reduc- tax on air pollutants. They also have a toxic sub- tion. The French have pursued the development of stances control law, whicch was largely based on the clean technologies primarily to revive productivity y U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, that provides and creativity in industry, thereby increasing its in- the government With authority to gather informa- ternational competitiveness. They also hope to be tion about and place controk on toxic chemicals able to turn a profit marketing their technologies in industry and commerce. As is the case in the in other developed and cieveloping countries. The United States, this law has not been used for waste Dutch, similarly, are promoting research and de- reduction purposes. In addition, the National in- velopment of clean technologies, not only to allevi- stitute of Hygiene has been engaged in research to ate waste problems at home, but as a potentially reduce specific toxics of concern in wastes, for ex- profitable export. a m p 1 e d i ox i n. g In Austria, all new industrial facilities must dem- The Canadian Federal Government has not yet onstrate that they employ state-of-the-art low-waste acted in the area of waste reduction but plans to technology before receiving a permit to commence do so in the near future. In Canada, hazardous waste operation. One drawback to this system is that Aus- is considered to be a natural resource and there- trian facilities never need to be repermitted, so older fore is a Provincial responsibility. Among the Prov- plants are not required to keep up with the latest inces, Ontario has been quite active in promoting technologies .11 waste reduction, but little activity has been under- The Norwegians have taken the unique course of taken elsewhere. However, interest in waste reduc- regulating by industrial sector, rather than by en- viromental medium. Thus, the Norweregiane n vi- fl<{~j ,)1 { :(~t~}i~)~>sl{~~) f~I\ I;rIYIrtjIIIIIi,rIt(Il Pollutl{]n, ,LT[iI~ciglrl,~ L1’{i>l(’ [)11(1 ron mental regulations are multimedia. This is of ~~~ ~’ci( f’, f)~~ [ If II !(] :; I \(J, 1 Ill rri A{ tll)rl f’ro~r

cussed elsewhere in this report, waste reduction ef- wastes. waste management authorities may have forts must be multimedia if they are to avoid shift- responsibility for only certain subsets of wastes, but ing of hazardous substances among media. agencies specifically directed to promote clean tech- In the strongly federal West German system, the nologies deal with a wide variety of wastes, For ex- principal Federal environmental agency, the Um- ample, the French National Agency of the Recov- weltbundesamt (UBA), has no regulatory authority, ery and Disposal of Waste (ANRED) deals only with Regulatory authority rests with the States and the solid and RCRA-type hazardous wastes, but the Federal UBA acts as a broker and facilitator for French Mission for Clean Technologies deals with waste reduction. Some additional Federal waste reall types of pollution. Similarly, the Danish National duction action is currently being considered; the Agency for Environmental Protection is divided proposed Fourth Amendment to the Waste Law of into a large number of waste-specific units, but the 1972 would require that, where technically feasi- Clean Technology Office researches reduction of ble, generation of pollution should be avoided and all kinds of pollution. low-waste technologies be used. This provision has Many European legislatures have empowered already been adopted and implemented in the State their environmental agencies to take mandatory of Hesse. steps to reduce the generation of waste in various Detailed data, particularly budgetary data, on spe- ways, These include legislative provisions allowing cific waste reduction programs in these countries agencies to restrict the importation, use, and sale are not available in the United States,lz However, of certain hazardous substances or products con- a number of generalizations can be drawn about taining those substances.ls However, as in the the type, focus, and duration of clean technologies United States, these provisions have been used very programs in Western Europe and how they com- little. Instead, European governments have relied pare with efforts in the United States. First, there heavily on economic measures. Their efforts have as here, waste reduction activities have grown out mainly taken the form of grants or loans to fund re- of pollution control programs. The Environmental search on new low-waste technologies and tax in- Fund in Austria, the Subsidies for Environmental centives and disincentives to influence the actions Investment in Denmark, grants and loans from of hazardous waste generators. Grant and loan pro- Norway’s Pollution Control Authority, subsidies grams for clean technology R&D, which have not granted under Sweden’s Environmental Protection been widely used in this country, area particularly Act, and the West German UBA’S R&D grants all common feature of European waste reduction ef- began as pollution control assistance programs for forts, Every West European country active in waste industry and now fund waste reduction proposals reduction has had such a program in place at the as well. However, unlike the united States, some national level for at least 5 years, For example: European countries have begun to recognize the ● Austria’s Environmental Fund gives loans and unique production orientation of waste reduction grants for waste reduction and recycling and, consequently, to separate waste reduction activ- projects; ities from those classified as pollution control, Den- ● Denmark provides grant money under the 1984 mark’s Clean Technology Office and France’s Mis- amendments to its Act on Recycling, Reuse and sions for Clean Technologies are examples. Reduction of Waste for projects of those types; Most of the European programs concern them- ● France’s Mission for Clean Technologies pro- selves with pollution in all environmental media. vides funding for waste reduction projects. Even the regional agencies regulating France’s ma- ANRED and the National Agency for Encour- jor river basins have become involved in projects agement of Research (ANVARD) under the to reduce solid wastes destined for landfills because Ministry of Industry and Research provides landfilled wastes may leach into either surface or funding for a wider variety of waste-related groundwater, projects; In addition, European programs usually concern ● France provides rapid depreciation allowances themselves with a broad range of wastes—including for pollution prevention investments; what Americans would call both toxic and conven- ● The Netherlands’ Committee on Environment tional pollutants—as well as nonhazardous solid and Industry provides R&D grants for clean

1~EY,t311 lf su(; h data were available, the ~’arying scope of the programs as well as tarying definitions of “(;lean technologies” and “low- and non- Issee, for example, Denmarks Act 00 Chcm ical Suhstan(; es and Prod- waste technologies’ would make it difficult to separate out the portion ucts (1980), France’s Waste Law (1975), The Netherlands Chemical Waste of each program which deals with wtiste reduction as OTA defines it, Act (1976), Norway’s Product Control I.aw [1977), App, B— Waste Reduction: An Internatlona/ Perspective 241

tm:h n[~l[jgies, At the same tim[; , ~irastc genera- G[!rrnanj) and plan to establish lo~v-w’ast e informa- t ion, treat mcnt, storage, and {Iisposal are taxed; tion centers (The .\’etherlands) an(] national data- ● Nortia}’s Pollution Cent rol Aut horit } pro~’ides bases (Fran(; e) a~’aliable to industrlr. Acti\e onsitc grants tind loans for both (:l[~an technologies technical assistance programs of the t}r[)(; USC(1 in a n(l 1)01 lut ion (:ont rol: the State waste reduction I>rograms here [(;, g., North ● S\i’eden funds ~~raste redu(;tion proje(;ts through Carolina, Nlinnesota, ~enns~liania, and NetI }rork)l” grants un(lt:r its Eni’ironmcntal Protection Act; are rare. ● the lt~est German UBA fun(ls hoth ~faste reduc- Overall, it appears that governmental interest in tion and rwyr(;ling projects. waste reduction is growing among industrialized The fa(:t that t hcse w’ast e reduction progra ITIS arc countries and that Western Europeans have the 1ead oft en a ~Ia rt o ~ pre~’ious]~’ existing grant a n(] loan in developing and implementing the relevant tech- ~)rograrns for recj’cling and/or pollution control nologies, in large part because of government in- equipment enahles them to use existing hureau- volvement. European governments have not relied (;rat i(; frameworks to d isserninate funds. OTA t~’as on regulatory requirements for waste reduction, but unable to (ieterrnine i f this integration of’ pollution have instead used economic measures to encourage (;ont rol and pollution p relrention programs was a n waste reduction, particularly grants programs for ad~’a n t a gc for w’ as t e red uc t i o n p ro g ra m s— h e(: a LIs c innovative low-waste projects. These programs h a~’e it al]o~irs them to use existing hu rcaucra tic frame- tended to include all types of \\’astes in all t}pes of ~%TO1.ks t. dissem inatc funds—or a d isad[’antage- cn\’ironlmental media. It is unclear, ho~t’eicr, ho~~’ hecause it puts ~taste reduction in direct competi- much suc(; ess they have had i n putting t hci r (:lea n tion ~iith cstahl i shed ~vaste management initiatives technologies into wide use, and t hereforc i~’hethcr fc~r funding and attention. government efforts ha~~c actual l!’ red u (;ed nation a 1 Disseminate ion of results oft hese R&D projects in lt’aste ~eneration or i m pro~cd industrial ~lrodu (:- Europe has been almost entirely passi~e. Govern- t ivit }. ments ha~e pub] i shed results i n the form of com-

) ~)endia and reports (France, Denmark, Austria, West 4S[W ( h f) Index Index

Access to waste reduction technology, IO4-105 Caustic soda, recycling of, 79 Acrylonitrile, and reduction of hazardous Center for Environmental Management (Tufts wastewater, 28, 29, 89, 90 University), 188 ADC Telecommunications, 220 Centers for Excellence (EPA), 185 Air and water regulatory programs, 53, 61; see Changing process technology, in waste also Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act reduction, 22, 28 Air Force, 189, 190 Chemical Manufacturers Association, 152 Air pollutants, 135, 140, 151-152, 154, 172-175, Chemicals 186; see also Air and water regulatory EPA regulation of, 181 programs; Clean Air Act Office of Toxic Substances inventory of, 181 Alabama, 188, 204 proposed Federal survey of, 54-55, 72, 182 Alternative Technologies Division (HWERL], State inventories of, 123-124 183-185 stripping, waste reduction technology and, 80 Amoco Chemicals Corp., 79 Toxic Substances and Control Act and, 122, Army, 189, 190 180-181 Aromatic hydrocarbons, 127 see also specific chemicals Auditing waste reduction, 92-94, 114-117, 184 Chesapeake Bay, toxic substances in, 18 Austria, waste reduction efforts by, 19, 239, Clean Air Act (CAA), 9, 11, 45, 46, 53, 65, 66, 240, 241 92, 99, 103, 118, 120, 134, 135, 139, 140, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 168, 169, 172-175 Best available technology economically Clean Water Act (CWA), 9, 11, 12, 45, 46, 53, achievable (BAT), 130, 177, 178, 179, 180 65, 92, 99, 103, 118, 120, 130, 134, 139, 146, Best conventional pollutant control technology 147, 148, 149, 150, 168, 169, 170-171, 173, (BCP), 177, 180 176-180 Best practicable control technology currently Cleo Wrap, 82 available (BPT), 177, 180 Code of Federal Regulations, 180 Bordon Chemical Co., 81, 91 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Bureau of Mines, 121, 183, 193, 194 Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA), see Superfund Cadmium Congressional Budget Office (CBO], 106 case study of, 132, 133-137 Connecticut, 35, 201, 202, 204, 205, 212, 215, industrial use of, 133 221 industry-level information on, 137 Cooling water, 90 legislation and regulations pertaining to, 133, Council on Environmental Quality, 146-147 134, 135-136 Cross-media approach to waste reduction, 18, national materials balance for, 136-137 51, 62, 124, 146, 147-148 substitutes for, 134-135 transport and transformation of, in the Daly-Herring Co,, 81 environment, 135 Data and information, see under Waste California, 35, 159, 198, 201, 202, 205, 206, reduction 207-208, 209, 211, 212, 214, 219-220, 221, Defense Environmental Leadership Project 222 (DELP), 190, 191 California Hazardous Waste Reduction, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), 190 Recycling, and Treatment Research and Denmark, waste reduction efforts by, 240, 241 Demonstration Act, 206, 213, 222 Department of Commerce (DOC), 175, 193 Canada, waste reduction efforts by, 19, 239 Department of Defense (DOD), 16, 27, 57, 97, Capital investment, in waste reduction 182, 189-191 technology, 30, 31, 32 Department of Energy (DOE), 182, 189, 191-192 Carbon adsorption, of solvents, 87-88 Department of Labor (DOL), 183, 192; see also Carrier Air Conditioning Co., 78-79 Occupational Safety and Health Case studies, of waste reduction, 85-86, 91-92, Administration 132-141, 166, 167, 191 Distillation/condensation, of solvents, 87-88

245 246 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Diversified Printing Corp., 79 Florida, 204 Domestic Sewage Exclusion, under RCRA, France, waste reduction efforts by, 19, 239, 240, 170-171 241 Donnelley Printing Co., 79 Dow Chemical, 80, 83 Gallium arsenide (GaAs), 96 Du Pent, 26, 78 General Accounting Office, 151, 181 Georgia, 35, 201, 202, 209, 212, 213, 220, 221 Grants programs, for waste reduction, 59-61, 64, Eaton Corp, 91 Economic considerations, of waste reduction, 70, 184, 185-186, 213-219, 221 Great Britain, waste reduction efforts by, 19, 5-6, 7-8, 14, 16, 18, 33, 38, 48, 50, 59-61, 63, 64, 65, 68-69, 70, 72, 83, 84-85, 93, 94, 96, 239 100-102, 103, 104, 116, 117, 153, 168, 169, 179, 183, 184-188, 191, 192, 209-210, Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of under and 213-215 1984, see Hazardous wastes Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Effluent guidelines, under Clean Water Act, 177 Hazardous Communication Standard, 192-193 End-of-pipe waste management, 62, 71, 83, 99, 113, 159, 176, 180, 186 Hazardous Materials Management and End products (Approach 5), 82-83, 84, 86, 95 Resource Recovery Program (HAMMARR) Environmental control media programs, (University of Alabama), 187-188 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 134, analysis and comparisons of, 168-182 139 Environmental Fund (Europe), 238, 240 Hazardous substances, 11, 24, 54-55, 62, 93, Environmental protection, under pollution 114-116, 118, 119, 121, 123, 132-141, 167, control culture, 151-152 also Environmental Protection Act (Sweden), 240, 182; see Hazardous wastes Hazardous Waste Engineering Research 241 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 5, 12, Laboratory (HWERL), 183-185, 209 Hazardous wastes 14-18, 21, 27, 36, 39, 40, 45-73, 101, 119-123, 130-137, 140-141, 145-166, 169-186, acrylonitrile and reduction of, 28, 29 228 approaches to reducing, 78-85 Environmental Quality Assessors, 212 classification of, 62 Environmental research and development composition of, 125 centers, State, 186-188 Federal policymaking and, 118-124 Europe generic reduction of, 87-91 multilateral organizations in, 238 health effects of, 66-67 waste reduction efforts by, 19-20, 238-241 identification of sources of, 115-116 waste reduction efforts compared to United identification of types of, 114-115 States, 19-20 lack of data on, 21, 113-114 European Council of Chemical Manufacturers’ land, disposal of, 34, 46, 49, 54, 105, 153, 167, Federations, 238 170-171, 183, 227, 228 European Seminar on Clean Technologies, 238 measurement of waste reduction and, 23-24, Exxon Chemical Americas, 81, 89 125-127 multimedia approach to, 4, 11, 18, 34, 50-51, 61, 62, 65 Federal chemical survey, proposed, 54-55, 72, pollution control regulations and, 145-154 182 problems with definitions of, 3, 10-11, 101, Federal Government, see U.S. Congress; U.S. 149, 155, 170 Government; and specific Federal agencies, public attitudes toward, 100 programs, and legislation and RCRA Amendments, 45-47, 102-103, 148, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 149, 162, 163 Act (FIFRA), 147, 174, 181 statutory definitions of terms used for, 149 Federal Register, 157, 159, 178 surveys of State facilities for, 168 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, see Clean taxation of, 56-57, 72 Water Act and waste reduction definitions, 8-10 Financial statements, reporting requirements see also Pollution control; Waste for, 62-64 minimization; Waste reduction Index . 247 —

Hazardous wastewater, acrylonitrile and State waste reduction programs and, 197-223 reduction of, 28, 29 status of clean water pretreatment standards Health effects data in, 178 on cadmium, 135-136 technology and information available to, 98-99 on trichloroethylene, 138, 140 U.S. policy options, and, 37-41, 45-73 Highlights of the Hazardous and Solid Waste use of cadmium in, 133 Amendments of 1984: The New RCRA use of trichloroethylene in, 138 Requirements, 162, 163 use of water in, 89-91 Hill Air Force Base, 80 voluntary waste reduction in, 32-33, 38-39, 40, 45, 55, 71, 73, 94 Illinois, 35, 107, 188, 201, 202, 207, 212, 221 waste minimization plans in, 166-167 Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and waste reduction auditing in, 93-94 Information Center, 188, 207 waste reduction decisionmaking in, 92-103 Impact analyses, for waste reduction, 53-54 waste reduction efforts by, 4-5, 12-16, 24-33, In-process recycling (Approach 1), 78-79, 83, 84, 45-47, 49-50, 60, 166-168 86, 95, 96, 105, 106, 227 waste reduction information needs by, In-process solvent recovery, 87-88 114-117 Incremental implementation of mandatory ways to promote waste reduction in, 13 waste reduction, 56 Industry/University Cooperative Research Industrial Chemical Survey (New York), 54, 124 Center for Hazardous and Toxic Wastes Industrial Waste Elimination Research Center (New Jersey Institute of Technology), (Illinois Institute of Technology and 186-187, 188 University of Notre Dame], 185 Information and technology transfer, 31, Industry 113-141, 182-194, 212-213, 215 air pollutant regulations for, 174-175 Information and waste reduction, see under attitudes and opinions affecting, 100 Waste reduction compliance to waste minimization regulations Inks, waste reduction technology and, 82, 105 by, 166-167 Innovation waivers government procurement policies and, 57-58 under Clean Air Act, 175 government regulation as risk for, 29-32, 58 under Clean Water Act, 178 illustration of pollution control in, 150 International considerations, 1!3-20, 57, 238-241 implementation of waste reduction and Inventory approach to waste reduction, 55 compliance with pollution control Investment-uncertainty barrier, to waste regulations by, 24-25 reduction, 84-85 lack of data as a barrier to action by, 24 new waste reduction legislation and, 60-61 Japan, waste reduction efforts by, 19, 239 OTA survey of waste reduction methods in, Joint Logistics Commanders’ Hazardous Waste 27, 28, 34, 45, 47, 69, 78, 84, 86, 101, 106, Minimization Ad Hoc Working Group [JLC 168, 227-237 Working Group) (DOD), 189, 190-191 potential for adverse effects on, by policy options, 72 Kentucky, 213 potential for waste reduction opportunities in, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 90, 95; see also Case Lancey International, 79 studies Large businesses, OTA industry survey and, problems with measuring waste reduction 227, 228 data in, 20-24 Legislation problems with RCRA waste minimization on cadmium, 133, 134, 135-136 amendments in, 15, 45-47 definitions of hazardous waste terms by, 149 proposed approaches to waste reduction in, example of problems m’ith, in California, Z06 78-83 new, proposed for waste reduction, 61-62 proposed mandatory waste reduction in, 55-56 on pollution control, 145-149 proposed research and dc~reloprnent in, 57 on trichloroethylene, 138, 139, 140 research and development in, 182-194 Superfund reauthorization, 122-123 size, and corporate structure influences on, see also U.S. Congress: U.S. Go\’ernment; and 97-98 specific acts of legislation 248 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Ling, Joseph T., 7 Navy, 189, 190 Liquid processes, of waste reduction, 88-89 Netherlands, waste reduction efforts by, 19, Literature, on waste reduction, 86, 91-92, 99, 240, 241 116, 167 New Jersey, 106, 107, 122, 124, 165, 204, 205, Loan programs, for waste reduction, 212, 215 207 Local governments, waste reduction efforts by, New Jersey Department of Environmental 14, 50, 59, 172, 198 Protection, 222 New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Commission, 207, 222 Management, in waste reduction technology, 30, 31 New Jersey Industrial Chemical Survey, 122, 124 Manifest system, for waste minimization, New Jersey Source Reduction and Recycling 155-156, 157, 158, 159, 164, 172 Task Force, 222 Maryland, 124 New source performance standards (NSPS), Mass balance calculations, 115, 121, 126, 127 172-174, 177 Massachusetts, 201, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211, New York, 35, 106, 108, 197, 198, 201, 202, 205, 212, 221 207, 212, 215, 220, 241 Massachusetts Source Reduction Program, 211 New York Industrial Financing Program, 215 Materials handling, in plant operations, 81 New York Industrial Materials Recycling Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), 99, 121, Program, 207 193 Nonregulatory framework, of State waste Materials substitution, 193 reduction programs, 211-212 Measurement criteria, 125-127 Nonregulatory options, 131, 132 Measurement, of waste reduction, 20-24, North Carolina, 34, 35, 36, 108, 197, 198, 201, 124-130 202, 205, 207, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, Mechanical processes, of waste reduction, 88-89 218-219, 220, 222, 223, 241 Merck, Sharp & Dohme, 87 North Carolina Department of Natural Michigan, 107, 204 Resources and Community Development Mine waste, EPA report to Congress on, 171 (DNRCD), 216-217 Minnesota, 35, 106, 107, 165, 197, 198, 201, 202, North Carolina Pollution Prevention Pays 204, 205-207, 208, 209, 210, 212-213, 214, Program (NC3PP), 36 215, 220, 221, 222, 223, 241 evolution of, 216 Minnesota Hazardous Waste Reduction Grants, financial assistance under, 218 213 future of, 218-219 Minnesota technical assistance program research and education under, 217-218 (MnTAP), 205-207, 208, 209, 214, 220, 221, technical assistance under, 217 222 North Carolina Science and Technology Board, Minnesota Waste Management Board, 204, 214, 217 220 North Carolina Technological Development Monsanto, 83, 89, 125 Authority, 218 Multimedia approach to waste reduction, 4, 11, Norway, waste reduction efforts by, 19, 239-240, 50-51, 61, 62, 65, 72, 73, 103, 152-154, 207, 241 216 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Tennessee), National Ambient Air Quality Standards 191, 192 (NAAQS), 172-175 Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), National Bureau of Standards, 183, 193-194 12, 66, 99, 121, 134, 139, 150, 181 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Pollutants (NESHAP), 172-175 183, 189, 192-193 National inventory of chemicals, 122-123, 124 Off-the-shelf equipment, 99, 101-102 National materials balance Office of Exploratory Research (EPA), 185 for cadmium, 136-137 Office of Research and Development (ORD), for trichloroethylene, 140-141 47-48, 57, 183, 209, 223 National Research Council, 24 Office of Solid Waste (OSW), 47, 48, 64, 145, National Science Foundation, 183, 193 153, 161-164, 183 ——

Index ● 249

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) Policymaking, Federal, information needed for, analysis of waste reduct ion audits by, 93-94, 118-124 99 Pollutants, see Air pollutants; Pollution control; analysis of waste reduction in the Federal Water pollutants; and specific pollutants Government, 145-194 Pollution control analysis of waste reduction literature, 86, 116 air quality criteria for, 173 case studies reviewed by, 132-141, 167 beginnings of, 146-147 classification of types of waste reduction by, Clean Air Act and, 172-175 115, 117-118, 180 Clean Water Act and, 176-180 industry surve~r by, 27, 28, 34, 45, 47, 69, 78, cross-media shifts and, 146, 147-148 84, 86, 101, 106, 168, 227-237 current system of, 148 industry survey questionnaire used by, evolution of a culture of, 145, 146 230-234 efforts by industry, 3, 4, 5, 24, 32, 55, 17LI-175 Industr} Workshops held by, 227 efforts by States, 3, 34, 69, 197-223 issues and findings of, 20-41 environmental protection under cult ure of, summar~ and findings of, 3-41 151-152 results of State waste reduction survey. Federal waste minimization policy and, 156 199-200 government spending on, iersus waste survy of State waste reduction programs by, reduction, 153 197-223 illustration of, in industry, 150 and waste redu[;tion po]icy options, 48-73 primacy of waste reduction and, 7-19, 46, 104 Office of the Secretary (DOD], 190, 191 proposed Office of Waste Reduction and, 64, Office of Toxic Substances (OTS], 136, 181 69 Office of Waste Redu{:tion, proposed in EPA, 5, RCRA and, 145-154, 168-172 40, ,58, 64, 69 regulation, and industrial implementation of Offic:e of Water Regulations a Id Standards waste reduction, 24, 32, 49-50, 51, 58, 102 (OWRS], 135 regulations for air pollutants, 172-175 Opcrating Gui(lan[:e FJ’ 1987 EPA), 126 regulations for water pollutants, 176-180 OIJerations and 1)rI)du(:tion in ~vaste reduction and regulatory concessions for waste technolog}r, 31, 77-78, 95 redu(; t ion compliance, 64-69 Organi(: sol~ents, replacement of, 87 regulatory measures, 3-6, 7-8, 18, 21, 37, 48, Organization for Economic Cooperation and 50, 55, 58, 61, 64-69, 100, 116, 118, 145-154 ]le~reloprnent IO ECII], 238 usefulness of current information on, 119 and waste reduction definitions, ~ P [}11ns },]17:111 ia, ~ 35( , 106, 108, 172, 201, 203, 204, see also Hazardous wastes; Waste 2&J, 212, 215, 220, 241 minimization; Waste reduction Pennsyl\~ania Department of Environmental Pollution Control Financing Guarantee (PCFG), Resources, 172 187 Planning and reporting requirements for waste Pollution prevention, 7-19, 58, 145-147, 152-154, reduction, 52-53, 61, 62-64 156, 173, 192, 197 Plant operations [Approach 3), 80-82, 86, 105 pollution prevention pays program, North Plastic media paint stripping, waste reduction Carolina (NC3PP), 36, 216-219 technology and, 80 Polyethylene, 103 Policy options Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 12, 127, 134 (comparison of, 40-41, 71-73 Pre Manufacturing Notice (Phq N), 181 congressional, 48-71 Preliminary Assessment Information RLIIC (:riteria for evacuating, 71-72 (PAIR), 122 i nlprokr(~ regulator}’ programs (Policy Option Prescriptive approach to ~taste redu(; tion, :32-33, II], SII, 49, 52-58, 72, 73 38, 55, 56, 71, 178, 180 new’ strategy (Po] icy Option I 11 ], 39-40, 49, Pretreatment standards for clean water in 58-71, 72, 73, 187 industry, 178 maintain (:urrent program ( Pol icy Option I], ~]rima( ;},, of ~i[lst{} redu(:tiorl, 7-19, 34* 46 104~ 38-39, 49-52, 72, 73 152, 207 sum marized, ~ 7-4 I Pri\ate organizations, grants program and, 60 250 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

Process chemistry, mass balance calculations Santa Cruz County, California, 198 and, 126 Scovill, Inc., 82 Process inputs (Approach 4), 82, 83, 84, 96, 95 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC], Process-specific waste reduction data, 127, 128 and reporting on waste reduction financial Process technology, 27-29, 30, 67, 77, 90, 95-97, statements, 62-64 103 Small Business Administration (SBA), 188, 187 Process technology and equipment (Approach Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 2), 79-80, 83, 84, 86 Program, 185, 186 Process water, reducing the use of, 89-91 Small Business Innovative Development Act of Product/process redesign, 95-97 1982, 186 Production correlation, of waste reduction data, Small Business Investment Act, 187 125 Small Business Ombudsman Office (EPA), 209 Production technology, 77-78 Small Business/Small Quantity Generator Publicly operated treatment works (POTWs), 12, Initiative Program, 223 170-171, 176, 177 Small businesses OTA industry survey and, 227, 228 Recycling regulations, 171-172; see also Waste as target firms in State waste reduction recycling programs, 207-208 Regulatory concessions versus large businesses, 208 costs and benefits of, 68-69 waste reduction funding assistance for, 186, examples of, 67-68 187 State Waste Reduction Boards and, 69-71 Small quantity generators (SQGS), 159, 172, for waste reduction, 64-71 208-209, 212 Regulatory options, 131 Solvents Reporting procedures, for waste minimization, commercial equipment for recovery of, 87-88 155, 157, 158, 159, 164-165, 172 in-process recovery of, 87-88, 105 Research and development (R&D), in waste replacement of organic, 87 reduction technology, 30, 31, 39, 40, 52, 57, recycling of, 89 77, 83, 99, 173, 182-194, 227, 228 scrubbing of, 88 Research Centers Program (EPA), 185 trichloroethylene, 137-138 Research Grants Office (EPA), 185-186 Source reduction, 160, 172 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC), 86, 227 (RCRA), 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 24, 33, 89, Stanadyne Co., 22, 81, 125 92, 124, 134, 139, 180, 182, 186, 189 State Waste Reduction Boards, proposed, 5, 40, effect of 1984 Amendments on States, 165-166 58-59, 69-71 EPA concern about flexibility in, 66 States highlights of new requirements under the biennial reporting of waste minimization by, 1984 Amendments, 162, 163 164-165, 222 and information collection, 120 budget size of waste reduction programs in, land disposal bans under, 170-171 209-210 pollution control and, 145-154, 168-172 chemical inventories by, 123-124 proposed to strengthen requirements of, 52-53 definitions of waste reduction provided by, recycling regulations under, 171-172 205 State waste reduction programs and, 201-219, effect of RCRA Amendments on, 15, 185-186 221-223 effectiveness of waste reduction programs in, survey on hazardous wastes under, 152 219-221 waste minimization under, 15, 45-47, 49, 52, existing waste reduction programs and 102-103, 105, 113, 132, 154-166, 167, 172, planning efforts by, 197, 198-201 192 facility siting and, 104 waste reduction forecasts and, 106 Federal cooperation in waste reduction programs in, 197, 221-223 Saco, Maine, 198 financial assistance by, 213-215 Safe Drinking Water Act, 12, 134, 139, 147, 150, funding for small businesses in, 209 168, 169 funding for small quantity generators in, 209 Index ● 251 —

generalizations about waste reduction Tax rebates or credit for waste reduction, 57, programs in, 201-215 59, 228 grants program in, ,59-61, 213-219, 221 Taxation. of hazardous wastes, 56-57, 72 i n formation and technical assistance by Technical assistance programs (TAPs), in States, 212-213 205-207, 208, 209, 212-2~3, 214, 220, 221, information collection by, 215 222 i n format ion related t o waste reduction in, Technologies and Management Strategies for 106-108, 132 Hazardous Waste Control, 152, 155 loan programs in, 212, 215 Technology multi media a pp roach to waste reduction i n availability to industry, 98-10(1 207, 216 diffusion of and access to, 104105

nonrcgulator~ fra metvork of waste reduction waste reduction de(; isions all[i , 7~_’109 programs in, 211-212 waste reduction limitations i~~ 27-29, 166 North Carolina Pollution Prevention Pays see also Information and technology transfer Program as example of State programs, 36, Tennessee, 35, 172, 201, 203, 209, 213, 221 216-219 Tennessee Valley Authority (TV.4), 108, 182-183, OTA industry survey and, 228 189, 192 OTA surveyr of State waste reduction Testing, in waste reduction technology, 30, 31 programs, 197-223 Thomas, Lee M., 148 pol]ut ion contro] efforts by, 3, 34, 69, 197-223 Thread mercerization, to recy~lc caustic soda. potential waste reduction programs in, 204 79 proposed Office of Waste Reduction and, 64, 3M, 7, 37, 79, 82-83, 99 69 Toxic Substances Control Act (’I’SCA), 120, RCRA and, 201-219, 221-223 121-122, 147, 149, 150, 168, 169, 174, research and develop ment activities in, 180-181, 193, 239 186-188 Toxic Substances Registry (Maryland), 124 results of OTA survey, 199-200 Training, in waste production technology’, 31 siting issues in, 204 Treatnlent, storage, and disposal facilities surveys of hazardous waste facilities in, 168 (’I’SDFS), 117, 120, 157, 158, 159, 160, 1[;4, target firms for waste reduction programs in, 165, 172 207-208 Trichl~jroethylene (TCE), 11, 12, 128 technical assistance programs (TAPs) in, cnvi ;onmental emissions of, 141 205-207, 208, 209, 212-213, 214, 220, 221, haz,irdous characteristics and health effects 222 of, 138, 140 waste reduction definitions by, 205 ind[ strial use of, 138 waste reduction efforts by, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, ind~stry-level information on, 141 33-37, 49, 50, 51, 60, 69-71, 105, 106-108, legislation and regulations pertaining to, 138, 118, 162-163, 168, 172, 186-188, 197-223 .39, 140 waste reduction grants programs in, 213-214 national materials balance for, I qO waste reduction program needs by, 223 release of, into the en~ironrnent, I LI I waste reduction regulation attempts by su~]stitutes for, 138 California and Massachusetts, 206, 211-212 tr~lnsport and transformation of, in the see a)so State Waste Reduction Boards and environment, 138-139 specific States Substance-specific waste reduction data, Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, 157, 164 125-126, 128, 129 United Kingdom, see Great Britain Superfund, 3, 11, 12, 47, 49, 54, 56-57, 61, 63, University Hazardous Substance Research 102, 116, 118, 121, 122-123, 124, 134, 139, Centers, 185 147, 149, 168, 169, 170, 182, 210 United Nations Economic Commission for Surveys, of waste reduction, 27, 28, 34, 45, 47, Europe [ECE), 238 69, 78, 84, 86, 101, 106, 167-168, 197-223, U.S. Congress 227-237 EPA mine wastes report to, 171 Sweden, waste reduction efforts by, 19, 241 EPA waste minimization study for, 156, 160 252 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

poIicy options of, 37-41, 48-71 Vapor Iosses, prevention of, 89 and RCRA Amendments, 45-47, 154-156, 170 Volatile organic compounds (VOC), 137, 147, reasons for no waste reduction action by, 151, 152, 175 49-50 Voluntary approach to waste reduction and recommendations for waste reduction efforts waste minimization, 32-33, 38-39, 40, 45, 55, by, 4-5 71, 73, 94, 102, 103, 145, 159, 161, 166-168, Toxic Substances and Control Act and, 180 211 waste minimization and, 154-160, 161-162 waste reduction policy of, 5, 10, 13 Washington, 59, 204 see also U.S. Government and specific Waste-end taxes, 56-57 government agencies, programs, and Waste generation, see Hazardous wastes; Waste legislation reduction U.S. Government Waste management, 9-10, 17-19, 31, 33, 34, 38, change in procurement policies of, 57-58 46, 49, 50, 62, 86, 94, 98, 100-101, 103, 104, collection of waste reduction data by, 129-130 105-106, 116, 152, 155, 157, 167, 168-172, cooperation in State waste reduction 182, 192, 197, 201, 204-205, 227; see also programs, 197, 221-223 Pollution control; Waste minimization costs of environmental regulation by, 7-8 Waste minimization European waste reduction efforts compared Air Force plans for, 189, 190 to, 19-20 Army plans for, 189, 190 grants program by, 58, 59-61 corporate plans for, 166-167 information and technology transfer in, defined, 9, 14, 105, 152, 160, 164, 166, 167 182-194 Department of Energy plans for, 189, 191-192 information needs for policymaking by, Department of Defense plans for, 189-191 118-124 EPA implementation of, 48, 161-166, 183-186 information needs for waste reduction action EPA study of, 156, 160 by, 130-132 as low-priority issue, 161-162, 183 lack of waste generation data and, 24, 113, manifest system for, 155-156, 157, 158, 159, 119-121 164, 172 and measurement of waste reduction, 20-24 Navy plans for, 189, 190 new waste reduction legislation by, 58, 61-62 Oak Ridge National Laboratory plans for, 191, policy options for, 37-41, 45-73 192 poliution control regulation by, 146-154 Office of the Secretary (DOD) plans for, 190, problems with current efforts, 51-52 191 and proposed Office of Waste Reduction, 5, oversight of, 161, 162-164 40, 58, 64 permits, condition of, 156, 157, 158, 159, and proposed State Waste Reduction Boards, 165-166, 172 5, 40, 58-59, 69-71 under RCRA, 15, 45-47, 49, 52, 102-103, 105, regulatory concessions for compliance by, 58, 113, 132, 145, 153, 154-166, 172, 192 64-69 reporting procedures for, 155, 157, 158, 159, reporting requirements for financial 164-165, 172 statements by, 58, 62-64 State waste reduction programs and, 204-207 research and development activities of, Tennessee Valley Authority efforts on, 189, 182-194 192 spending by, on pollution control versus regulations and requirements, 154-160 waste reduction, 153 surveys of, 167-168 and State programs in waste reduction, 5, U.S. Congress and, 154-160, 161-162 33-37, 40, 58-59, 69-71 voluntary nature of Federal program for, 94, State waste reduction budgets and, 209-210 159, 166-168 waste reduction decisionmaking and, 94-95 see also Hazardous wastes; Pollution control; waste reduction efforts and regulatory Waste reduction measures by, 4-7, 11-12, 14, 15-18, 21, 26, Waste recycling, 9, 10, 17, 19, 27, 34, 65, 87-88, 29-33, 37-41, 45-73, 94-97, 102-103, 118, 89, 91 171-172, 184, 187, 206, 227 145-194 Waste reduction USS Chemicals, 127 alternative methods of, 105-106 Index ● 253

analysis of feasible techniques for, 116 expanding literature on, 85-86 auditing, 92-94, 114-117, 184 facility siting bias and, 104 building toward an ethic on, 145-154 Federal and State cooperation in, 197, 221-223 case studies of, 85-86, 91-92, 132-141, 166, financial aid to small businesses, 186, 187 167, 191 formulas for measuring, 23 classes of, 27; see also End products; In- generalizations about State programs in, process recycling; Plant operations; Process 201-215 inputs; Process technology and equipment generic opportunities in, 87-91 Clean Air Act and, 174-175 goals for, 16-17, 62, 63, 109 Clean Water Act and, 178-180 government procurement policies and, 57-58 collection of data on, 127, 128-130 government spending on, versus pollution comparison of alternatives with waste control, 153 management options, 116 grants programs for, 59-61, 64, 70, 184, comparison of European and U.S, efforts in, 185-186, 213-219, 221 19-20 illustrations of, 85-92 constraints and incentives affecting decisions imperfect data on, 129-130 on, 94-95 industry decisionmaking on, 92-103 corporate waste minimization plans and, influence of public opinion on, 100 166-167 information and technology transfer in, 31, cross-media approach to, 18, 51, 62, 124, 146, 113-141, 182-194, 212-212, 215 147-148 information available to Federal Government, current EPA plans for, 47-48 119, 120-121 data and information for, 21, 22, 113-141 information, types of economic considerations, 5-6, 7-8, 14, 16, 18, economic, 115, 117, 118, 120, 131 33, 38, 48, 50, 59-61, 63, 64, 65, 68-69, 70, health and environmental, 115, 118, 120, 72, 83, 84-85, 93, 94, 96, 100-102, 103, 104, 121, 131 116, 117, 153, 168, 169, 179, 183, 184-188, production, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 131 191, 192, 209-210, 213-215 regulatory, 115, 118, 120, 131 effectiveness of State programs in, 219-221 technology, 115, 117-118, 120, 121, 131 efforts and regulation by U.S. Government, waste stream, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 129, 4-7, 11-12, 14, 15-18, 21, 26, 29-33, 37-41, 131, 227, 228 45-73, 94-97, 102-103, 105, 118, 145-194 international considerations, 19-20, 57, efforts by Austria, 19, 239, 240, 241 238-241 efforts by Canada, 19, 239 investment-uncertainty barrier to, 84-85 efforts by Denmark, 19, 240, 241 lack of data on, 4, 20-21, 24, 62, 91-92, 103, efforts by Europe, 19-20, 238-241 104, 113-114, 119-121, 180 efforts by France, 19, 239, 240, 241 lack of expertise in estimating, 104 efforts by Great Britain, 19, 239 literature on, 86, 91-92, 99, 167 efforts by industry, 4-5, 12-16, 24-33, 45-47, loan programs for, 215 49-50, 60, 166-168, 197-223 mandatory increased information collection efforts by Japan, 19, 239 on, 131-132 efforts by local governments, 14, 50, 59, 172, mandatory levels of, 130-131 198 measurement of, 20-24, 124-130 efforts by Norway, 19, 239-240, 241 model for standards and guidelines on, efforts by States, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16, 15, 33-37, 49, 178-180 50, 51, 60, 69-71, 105, 106-108, 118, 162-163, multimedia approach to, 4, 11, 50-51, 61, 62, 168, 172, 186-188 65, 72, 73, 103, 152-154, 207, 216 efforts by Sweden, 19, 241 new EPA office proposed for, 5, 40, 58, 64 efforts by West Germany, 19, 240, 241 new legislation proposed for, 60-62 efforts by The Netherlands, 19, 240-241 nonregulator y framework in States, 211-212 environmental compliance and, 102 objectives, 6-7 establishment of targets for, 56 opportunities and problems with existing evaluation of the progress and success of media programs, 168-182 measures in, 117 OTA industry survey of, 27, 28, 34, 45, 47, 69, existing programs and planning efforts by 78, 84, 86, 101, 106, 168, 227-237 States in, 197, 198-201 percentages, 128-129 254 ● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste

policy options for, see Policy options technological limitations as obstacle to, 27-29 pooling data on, 128-129 technology and, 77-109 potential sources of research and development theoretical requirements for measuring, for, 193-194 125-127 potential State programs in, 204 types of, classified, 115, 117-118, 180 prescriptive approach to, 32-33, 38, 55, 56, 71, usefulness of current data on, 119-121 178, 180 voluntary approach to, 32-33, 38-39, 40, 45, primacy of, 7-19, 34, 46, 104, 152, 206 55, 71, 73, 94, 102, 103, 145, 159, 161, problems with assessing costs and benefits of, 166-168, 211 31 voluntary versus prescriptive approaches to, problems with definition of and terms used to 32-33, 38, 55, 71, 73, 102, 103, 145, 159, 161 describe, 3-5, 8-10, 61, 85-86, 155, 161, 164, see also Hazardous wastes; Pollution control; 201, 205 Waste minimization problems with forecasting, 103-104, 109 Waste reduction technology, 77-109, 106; see problems with measurement of, 20-24, 127-128 also Information and technology transfer; process-specific, 127, 128 Technology product quality and, 83 Waste treatment, 17, 18, 19, 30, 46, 62, 65, 183, proposal to mandate levels of, 55-58, 72 206 proposed grants program for, 59-61, 64, 70 Wastewater, 28, 29, 81, 89-91, 129, 146, 147, 186 proposed impact analyses of, 53-54 Water, use in industry, 89-91 proposed planning and reporting Water pollutants, 152, 154, 176-180; see also Air requirements, 52-53, 61, 62-64 and water regulatory programs; Clean public and private roles in, 11-16; see aZso Water Act; Wastewater Industry; Local governments; States; U.S. Water regulatory programs, see Air and water Government regulatory programs regulatory concessions for compliance to, West Germany, waste reduction efforts by, 19, 64-71 240, 241 research and development in, 30, 31, 39, 40, Westat Survey, 120 52, 57, 77, 83, 99, 173, 182-194 Wisconsin, 35, 108, 201, 203, 205, 210, 214, 215 review of current forecasts on, 106 Wisconsin Waste Reduction and Recycling setting priorities for, 116 Demonstration Grant program, 214 spectrum of approaches to, 78-85 Worker health and safety, regulatory site-specific, 29-32, 66-67 concessions in, 66 State technical assistance programs in, Working Party on Low- and Non-Waste 205-207, 208, 209, 212-213, 214, 220, 221, Technology and Re-utilization and 222 Recycling of Wastes (Europe), 238 substance-specific, 125-126, 128, 129 surveys of, 27, 28, 34, 45, 47, 69, 78, 84, 86, 101, 106, 167-168, 197-223, 227-237