United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
OffceO!
The Administrator
(A101F)
EPA171-R-92-018
PB-92-182435
July 1992
cxEPA
An Analysis Of Pollution
Prevention As An
Environmental Policy
9 Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
AN ANALYSIS OF POLLUTION PREVENTION
AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Tamara Jo Green
August 1991
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5.Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
HICSKO, IL 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the student identified on the cover page, under a National
Network for Environmental Management Studies fellowship.
The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
Executive Summary
As greater attention is given to the quality of environmental resources, more is
understood concerning the complex functioning of the natural systems that comprise our
environment. More is also understood about the role humans play within these natural
systems. Environmental policy serves as a set of rules to guide human behavior. This
increased knowledge about the human relationship to the environment illuminates
fundamental weaknesses within our basic environmental policy framework.
This paper will address the merits of pollution prevention both as a general
environmental theory and as a solution to problems within the Environmental Protection
Agency. The paper discusses the origins and benefits of pollution prevention, and
provides analysis of a program that forms the basis for all current pollution prevention
programs. The paper concludes with an overview of current State and Federal pollution
prevention implementation.
The Problem of Single Medium Environmental Policy within the EPA
The program structure of the Environmental Protection Agency promotes a
tendency to view each environmental medium and each specific environmental problem
as discrete elements in env, •nmental policy. The agency is comprised of divisions that
give individual attention to air, water, solid and hazardous waste, and toxic substances.
Within each of these divisions there are several other individual programs that further
focus in on aspects of environmental policy, such as wetlands protection, underground
storage tanks, indoor air pollution, and pesticides. With this increasingly narrow focus,
attention is not given to the broader topic of environmental quality as a whole.
1
-------
This may result in a loss of efficiency within the EPA. Oftentimes when there
appears to be an improvement in the quality of one medium, it is really only a shift of
the problem to another medium. This transfer of pollutants is not readily apparent
because no program addresses ^U media and internal communication is limited between
divisions and individual programs. Therefore, the EPA ends up fixing problems in a
piecemeal fashion as these problems move from medium to medium, division to division.
An understanding is needed that all components of the environment, as well as
environmental problems, are actually fundamentally interrelated. Pollutants do not
abide by the media and program boundaries that currently guide the EPA Thus, there
must be a policy that addresses pollutants on a multi-media basis. This would allow the
EPA to work together as one agency for total environmental protection, instead of as
many smaller narrowly focussed agencies.
POLLUTION PREVENTION AS A SOLUTION
This need has not gone unnoticed by the EPA and was reflected in EPA
Administrator William Reilly's September 1990 speech to the National Press Club. In
this speech, Reilly pointed to a genuine need for multi-media policy in order to assure
overall total environmental quality. The vehicle for this is pollution prevention, a well-
known concept in environmental policy for which American biologist and environmental
thinker Barry Commoner is credited. Basically, pollution prevention is the practice of
preventing pollution before it is created. This requires identification of the substance
that creates the pollution within a production process. Then that substance is eliminated
and replaced with one that has no polluting effects.
-------
Pollution prevention can promote multi-media environmental policy. It requires a
change from simply trying to "fix" each individual medium affected after the pollutant is
already there, resulting in narrow single-medium policy. Now the focus shifts to the
pollutants themselves, how they are generated, the risks associated with them, and
methods of preventing them from ever entering any part of the environment in the first
place.
This is very different from the typical approach to environmental policy, which
gives attention only to the minimization of waste that is generated from a production
process. Under this policy, the EPA develops standards for the acceptable levels of
pollutant emissions into each environmental medium. Specific requirements are then
prescribed to reduce how much pollution is released, not how much pollution is created.
Since these EPA standards may be different for each medium because of single-medium
/
policy, a company that emits pollutants concentrates upon cleaning upon one medium at
a time. This results in simply moving the pollution from medium to medium. For
instance, in order to comply with water standards, the company may remove the
pollutant from the water and release it in the air, where it may not be detected as easily.
This type of approach never really addresses the real problem, the pollution. It only
addresses where the pollution goes.
However, by concentrating on industrial processes instead, pollution prevention
enables a company to see how pollutants are originally generated based upon the types
and amounts of raw materials used. After discovering the origins and characteristics of
pollutants, it is easier to understand the negative effects upon humans and the
environment. This could lead to an increased awareness of how pollutants may travel
through all environmental media, and thus, of the relationships and dynamics of natural
3
-------
systems. From this knowledge and enlarged view of the environment, choices can be
made concerning the elimination or reduction of the use of toxic chemicals within the
production process.
Pollution prevention also supports a multi-media approach simply because if
pollution is prevented at the source, then it is automatically prevented across all media.
Thus, even if a company does not dwell on the more philosophical concept of the
environment as a set of interrelating systems, pollution prevention can still fulfill its
purpose.
The alternative to pollution prevention is source reduction. This is accomplished
by using less of the substance that creates pollution and involves the discovery of more
efficient production processes. Although not as beneficial, source reduction may be an
important first step towards actual pollution prevention.
The Pollution Prevention Act
In order to confirm a preference for a mult-media policy that focusses on the
sources of pollution, the Pollution Prevention Act was passed in October of 1990.
However, here it appears that the fine line between pollution prevention and source
reduction disappears. Instead of differentiating between the two, the legislation directs
pollution prevention to be accomplished through source reduction as well as the
elimination of the source. Pollution prevention was elevated from a specific practice to
a position of broad national policy. Thus it now has a looser, weaker definition which
includes the actual practice of pollution prevention and source reduction.
The act delineated the following hierarchy of priorities for the implementation of
the pollution prevention policy:
4
-------
'Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source wherever feasible;
•Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally
sound manner whenever feasible;
•Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an
environmentally sound manner whenever feasible; and
•Disposal or other releases into the environment should be employed only as a
last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.
The act also sets guidelines for achieving pollution prevention. The EPA now
has specific duties to analyze and promote pollution prevention efforts. Grants to states
for technical assistance and the establishment of an information clearinghouse for
pollution prevention methods are required. In addition, those industries required to
report under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
of 1986 are now subject to mandatory pollution prevention reporting.
The Benefits of Pollution Prevention in Environmental Policy
Even though the Federal version of pollution prevention is not strictly defined to
mean only the complete elimination of pollution sources, it can still promote multi-
media environmental policy. Both source elimination and source reduction require the
basic shift in focus to the pollutants and production processes that promotes a multi-
media approach.
In practice, this pollution prevention policy can help the economic health of
industry while promoting the health of the environment. Because the new policy of the
EPA encourages voluntary initiatives from companies, they can tailor pollution
prevention methods to their own needs. Instead of spending money on prescribed waste
5
-------
minimization technologies to meet emissions standards, companies have the opportunity
to alter their production processes to prevent or reduce the pollution in the first place.
Companies can tackle the problems of cleaning up their production processes in ways
that work best for them economically.
Implementing source elimination and reduction results in cleaner, cost-effective,
and efficient business. The costs of waste treatment and disposal are currently rising.
Thus, the more waste that is generated, the more money that is spent trying to mitigate
the effects of this waste. Even with source reduction methods, less of the raw materials
that generate polluting waste would be used. Because of this, more efficient methods of
business would have to be pursued. Also, there would be less need for uncertain and
expensive "end-of-pipe" treatment technologies to mitigate the effects of pollutants
generated from the raw material. Lastly, because the source of pollution is diminished
or eliminated, the source of potential danger to the health and welfare of the community
and environment is also reduced or eliminated. This means that long-term liability on
the part of the company is minimized, and with it additional monetary expenditures.
Implementation of Pollution Prevention as an Environmental Policy
Pollution prevention is rapidly becoming incorporated in policy initiatives on both
the State and Federal levels of government. However, before addressing the programs
promulgated directly from the pollution prevention policy, it is important to discuss
another program. The Toxic Release Inventory forms the basis for all existing and
anticipated pollution prevention policy, yet was not created by or for that policy.
-------
The Toxic Release Inventory
Under the provisions of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 and Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community-Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), the EPA was required to establish
an inventory of routine toxic chemicals emitted from manufacturing facilities. This
database, created in 1986, has become an important part of pollution prevention. It is
the only database that tracks releases of toxic chemicals on a multi-media basis. Thus,
the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) can promote pollution prevention by serving as a tool
for measuring pollutant emissions in State and Federal pollution prevention programs.
The basis -of the program is that citizens have a "right to know" about toxic
chemicals that are stored, manufactured, processed, or released in their comrmmities.
This information must be reported by the following facilities: those that have Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39, that have ten or more full-time
employees, and that manufacture, process, or otherwise use specific toxic chemicals in
excess of certain thresholds determined by the EPA.
The facilities which meet these guidelines, such as steel, chemical, and paper
manufacturers, must annually report releases of listed chemicals if they manufacture or
process greater than 25,000 pounds of any such chemical, and/or if they otherwise use
greater than 10,000 pounds of any such chemical. These reports from the facilities
contain information on any releases directly into air, water, and land, as well as the
amount of chemical transported to off-site facilities. The reports also show the
maximum amount of the chemicals stored at reporting facilities during the year, the
names and locations of off-site facilities to which toxic wastes were shipped, and the
treatment or disposal methods used for waste. The EPA maintains this inventory, and
7
-------
the information is available to the public through published EPA reports and a variety
of other readily accessible sources.
In order to specify which chemicals must be reported by facilities, Congress gave
the EPA an initial list of chemicals. This list was based upon chemical release reports
from the states of New Jersey and Maryland. The EPA was granted the authority to
add or delete chemicals from this list. While the purpose of the TRI program is to
provide information on toxic chemical releases, the original list taken from the two
states recorded chemicals that were most commonly released. Since those chemicals
may not necessarily be toxic, the EPA is adding and deleting certain chemicals to
develop a list that directly works to fulfill the objectives of the TRI program. In order
for a chemical to be on the Section 313 list, that chemical must be known to cause or
can be reasonably anticipated to cause one of the following:
* Significant adverse acute health effects at concentration levels that are
reasonably likely to exist beyond facility boundaries as a result of
continuing or frequently recurring releases;
* in humans - cancer or teratogenic effects, or serious or irreversible
reproductive dysfunction, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or
other chronic health effects; or
* because of its toxicity, its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or its
toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment of sufficient
seriousness to warrant release reporting under EPCRA Section 313.
Currently, the list of chemicals that must be reported contains over 300 chemicals and
over 20 chemical classes.
Although this program is mandatory in the sense that companies subject to TRI
reporting must report, these industries are not required to reduce any releases. The
TRI database is merely a gauge of what types and quantities of chemicals are being
8
-------
released. However, the Pollution Prevention Act will require facilities reporting under
TRI to document their pollution prevention strategies, information on the quantities of
each toxic chemical entering the waste stream prior to any type of treatment or
recycling, and the quantities of chemicals that are recycled and treated. Facilities will
also be required to report source reduction practices and techniques, production levels
for the facility, and amounts of chemicals released through one-time events such as
catastrophes.
It is hoped that the use of TRI data alone, and not in conjunction with any other
pollution prevention program, can also help fulfill the objectives of pollution prevention.
This could be accomplished directly and indirectly. When manufacturing industries are
required to report releases of toxic chemicals to all media, they may become directly
aware of pollution that was previously unknown to them. Because of this potential
realization, the industries may voluntarily reduce their releases into the environment by
reducing the amount of toxic chemical used, based solely on the TRI data.
The enforcement of the TRI program may provide indirect pollution prevention
support. If a facility is required to report its releases and fails to do so, that facility is
subject to civil penalties of up to $25,000 a day. The fines are based upon several
factors, including the previous compliance of that facility with the TRI program, the size
of the facility, the number of chemicals that the facility is required to report, and the
amounts of those chemicals used. Under usual circumstances of non-reporting, the EPA
would send an administrative complaint. The facility would then complete a report of
releases as required and settle the fine.
However, pollution prevention can be achieved by deviating a bit from this simple
regulatory procedure. Instead of merely asking the facility to pay the fine, the EPA
9
-------
encourages the use of environmentally beneficial expenditures (EBEs) by facilities. This
indirect, incentive-based method allows a facility to "buy down" a fine. The facility can
use some of the money they would have used to pay the fine and invest it in in-house
pollution prevention devices and programs. Thus, facilities can volunteer to do more
than just pay money to the federal government; with EBEs they can learn about
pollution prevention, improve the long-term efficiency of their facility, and at the same
time promote a healthier environment.
It is apparent that the TRI database can be helpful, perhaps even instrumental, in
furthering the goals of pollution prevention. The TRI is the only database that permits
the tracking of chemical releases on a multi-media basis in a comprehensive manner.
This new source of information offers a "big picture" analysis of releases into all parts of
the environment and thereby increases facility awareness. Also, the information found
in the database can arm the public with information and the ability to speak out
effectively against environmental and human health risks in their communities.
However, since the TRI database is a tool that existed before the pollution
prevention "campaign", it does not completely fulfill the objectives of the anticipated
policy shift towards pollution prevention. One potential problem that remains to be an
issue of some debate is that only chemical releases, not the amounts of chemicals used,
are required to be reported under the TRI. Pollution prevention deals with reducing
the source of the pollution. Therefore the TRI may be more helpful if it required
facilities to report the amounts of each chemical used and the amount released.
Another problem with the database is that it is limited in the number of chemicals that
are required to be reported. In order for the multi-media approach to really work, the
chemicals that are regulated by all of the various single medium laws must be included
10
-------
on the TRI list. Currently, the TRI list excludes hundreds of chemicals listed as toxics
under various environmental laws. Thus, in order to have TRI become an ideal
comprehensive database for not only all media, but for all dangerous regulated
chemicals, it needs to include those chemicals that are regulated by other environmental
laws. This would also lessen the confusion within the EPA that is created by a patchy
overlap between TRI reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements. This is
an issue not unnoticed by the EPA, and there are activities underway to expand the TRI
chemical list, although to what degree is yet unclear.
There are other criticisms concerning the limitations of the TRI database in
terms of what industries and facilities are required to report. There have been
recommendations to drop the employee number and chemical release thresholds,
thereby requiring smaller facilities to report releases. There have also been suggestions
to expand the Standard Industrial Classification code requirements to include other
industries in addition to manufacturing facilities. Basically what these criticisms amount
to is a demand that all facilities should report releases of listed chemicals under this law.
The recommendation that SIC codes be expanded to include industries in
addition to manufacturers could improve the TRI program. It would provide a more
comprehensive database on releases by large industries such as waste management
facilities, industrial drycleaners, mining, federal facilities, and others which are known to
contribute substantially to the chemical releases in the environment.
The recommendation that employee number and chemical release thresholds be
lowered so as to include smaller facilities may not be implemented easily under the TRI
format. Such a change would require an amendment to the Community-Right-to-Know
law. In fact, there is some debate over whether or not the information from these
11
-------
smaller sources is necessary in the first place and there are several factors that must be
investigated closely.
First, one reason that small businesses are exempted from reporting requirements
is a sensitivity to paperwork burdens. While critics may take this reason lightly, it merits
serious consideration. The Form R required to be submitted under the Right-to-Know
law for the TRI database takes a substantial amount of time, 32 hours per form, per
chemical, according to an EPA estimate. This will significantly increase with the
additional information required under the new Pollution Prevention Act. For a small
facility, such as a privately owned dry cleaning company or a local gas station, the
limited staff would not have the time to put that much effort into completing forms.
Also to be taken into consideration is the amount of expertise needed in filling
out release forms. Oftentimes employees and even owners of the smaller facilities do
not have sufficient knowledge of the chemicals and their properties to be able to
accurately assess their releases. These factors will undoubtedly lead to a large number
of non-reporting facilities and inaccurate assessments. This would ultimately lead to a
weaker database. Thus, instead of trying to assess releases from everyone and ending up
with a patchy, unreliable database, perhaps it would be better to document releases from
a selected group of industries and their facilities. This would yield a more complete and
usable set of data.
However, the combined releases of toxins from each of these smaller industries
do amount to a substantial percentage of overall environmental releases. Thus, their
effects upon the environment are not unimportant. These smaller companies are
currently not sufficiently regulated, and without numeric release reports, it is very
difficult to impose any type of regulatory authority upon them. Also, implementing the
12
-------
concept of pollution prevention requires the translation of source elimination and
reduction to all levels of society. This would require all industries and facilities to work
to reduce their environmental impacts.
But, if it is indeed necessary to require every facility, big and small, to report
their toxic chemical releases, there needs to be a mechanism that can "fit" the reporting
needs of both. Unfortunately, the TRI database is not designed to document the
chemical releases of every facility that emits listed chemicals. The federal TRI reporting
process does not really apply to small facilities with only a handful of employees. It is
designed to work with larger industries who are more knowledgeable and practiced with
federal regulations and individually have substantial chemical releases. TRI data is
intended to help make the facilities more aware of their releases and to allow citizens to
be informed of chemical hazards in their communities. Thus, TRI is not a means and
an end, but merely a step in a larger process.
This small industry information may be better collected under another federal
program. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments will require the control of toxic air
pollutants by source categories, which will include both major sources and area sources.
These area sources are the many small sources that the TRI database is currently
lacking, such as gasoline station and dry cleaners. Before any source can be regulated,
however, there must be a database collected on that source's emissions. Therefore, the
new Clean Air Act will essentially create a single medium TRI database for these small
facilities.
One idea to obtain small industry data would be to require all those reporting
under the Clean Air Act to also report releases to other media. The premise for this
idea is that since these small companies will already be reporting emissions into one
13
-------
medium, they might as well report on .all media. This would allow the collection of
important data without having to undertake a massive change to the Community-Right-
to-Know law. The information collected under the Clean Air Act would still be
included on the TRI database and be public knowledge. The small facilities that would
be required to report this data would greatly benefit from the knowledge gained by
examining their chemical releases, and may take steps to reduce these releases. At the
same time, the additional multi-media data from smaller sources serves the purposes of
pollution prevention. It would provide documentation of the transfer of pollutants from
air to other media, thus potentially lessening the burden of the EPA's job on the whole.
This type of approach, in which the separate programs within the EPA work
together to accomplish several goals, is critical to the pollution prevention strategy.
Cross program/cross media efforts will eventually result in regulatory programs and data
collection programs that can complement each other instead of working to opposite
ends. Creating a truly comprehensive multi-media database may be the important first
step to this by providing the umbrella under which all single medium programs can
come together.
State Pollution Prevention
The EPA is not alone in its push for pollution prevention. Actually, the federal
government is not even the first level of government to make pollution prevention an
established policy. The states of Oregon and Massachusetts had pollution prevention
laws enacted before the federal pollution prevention policy was announced. Since then,
a growing number of state governments have passed various forms of pollution
prevention legislation, the current number at 25 states.
14
-------
Looking specifically at EPA Region 10, only Washington has joined Oregon in
promoting pollution prevention. The two states have taken slightly different approaches,
however.
The Oregon Toxic Use Reduction and Hazardous Waste Reduction Act of 1989
is somewhat lenient, although thorough in its provisions. The act sets a top priority of
eliminating or reducing the use of toxic substances. If that cannot be achieved, the
reduction of hazardous waste, and then treatment of hazardous waste by the industry
follow in the hierarchy of goals.
The Oregon law affects a substantial range of businesses and requires a
substantive amount of planning from them. All facilities required to report under the
TRI, all hazardous waste generators that generate 200 pounds or more of hazardous
waste per month, and those that generate more than 2.2 pounds of acutely hazardous
waste per month must submit toxic use reduction and hazardous waste reduction plans.
The plan requirements are extensive. There must be a written policy statement in
support of the company's pollution prevention plan, a statement of goals and objectives
including numeric reduction goals, an analysis of toxic chemical use and hazardous waste
streams, identification of reduction opportunities, employee awareness and training
programs, and institutionalization of company pollution prevention programs to ensure
continued pollution prevention efforts. Annual reports from the companies documenting
progress are also required.
The Oregon program has no overall reduction goal, nor does it require specific
reductions from individual facilities. This allows the companies to maintain a degree of
flexibility in the program. This flexibility is necessary because companies in Oregon are
at various stages in pollution prevention development. Some companies had begun to
15
-------
voluntarily reduce toxic substances use before the state law, and some had not.
Therefore, Oregon asks only that each company document where they are starting in
their reduction strategy, and establish goals from that starting place. This allows Oregon
to see what the company has already done, and gives the company credit for any
previous voluntary initiatives.
There is no penalty for failing to meet reduction goals; in fact, the facility may
adjust their goals over time. However, if a company fails to abide by their plan, or fails
to submit a plan, a public hearing may be held. In these hearings, sensitive technical
information from the industry becomes open to the public. It is hoped that this "tar and
feathering" will prove more compelling for the companies than monetary penalties.
Oregon is pursuing this more relaxed approach in an effort to compromise with
companies; to meet them halfway. The law dictates the goals of the Oregon
policymakers, but will allow the companies freedom and flexibility in accomplishing
those goals. By making pollution prevention simple, Oregon hopes to encourage better
response from the companies. However, it is up to those companies to take the
initiative and make the program work for them now. If they fail, there is a threat of
increased stringency in the Oregon law. New requirements may be imposed, such as the
imposition of numeric goals and monetary penalties and fees.
The Washington Hazardous Waste Reduction Act of 1990 also established a
policy to encourage the reduction of toxic or hazardous substance use and hazardous
waste. This program proposes a statewide goal of a 50% reduction of hazardous waste
by the year 1995, and requires companies affected by the law to set numeric, measurable
performance goals. The Washington law applies to almost the same businesses as the
Oregon law. Those reporting under the TRI, and hazardous waste generators who
16
-------
generate more than 2,640 pounds per year (over 220 pounds per month) are required to
prepare reduction plans.
The Washington law is more stringent than the Oregon law, since monetary fees
and penalties are assessed. A fee is charged of all those facilities that generate
hazardous waste, and a second fee is assessed for those required to prepare a plan
under the new law. A monetary penalty is levied for those facilities that fail to submit a
plan, that fail to submit an adequate plan, or that fail to accomplish their reduction
goals due to an inadequate plan.
Although the Washington law has stronger enforcement, the pollution prevention
plans that are required of companies may be a bit less comprehensive than those
required under the Oregon law. The Washington law does not require employee
awareness programs or institutionalization of company pollution prevention programs.
The plans submitted under the Washington law must, however, include an analysis of
hazardous substance use and waste generation, the current recycling and treatment
techniques practiced by the company, and five year performance plans that outline goals
and describe opportunities and barriers for reduction. Annual reports are required as
well in order to assure the success of the program and the actuality of reductions.
Both state programs offer technical assistance to those businesses affected by
reporting requirements. This conveys the message that the goal of the states is not
simply to place additional requirements upon industry. Instead, the goal is a healthy
environment as a result of environmentally motivated changes in production. The best
method of achieving this is to teach businesses how to accomplish these changes and to
educate them about the long-term benefits of preventing pollution.
17
-------
Federal Pollution Prevention
The 33/50 Program
In conjunction with the launching of the pollution prevention campaign, the EPA
developed the Industrial Toxics Project, now known as the 33/50 program. The EPA is
seeking to achieve a 33% reduction of national releases of seventeen toxic chemicals by
the end of 1992, and a 50% reduction by the end of 1995.
This initiative best incorporates all components of the pollution prevention
strategy. Participation in the program is completely voluntary, it has a multi-media
focus, and it promotes the reduction of toxic releases through source elimination and
reduction practices. The idea for the 33/50 program has its origins in Administrator
Reilly's September 1990 speech discussed earlier. However, the actual 33/50 program
was not officially announced until February 1991.
The seventeen chemicals chosen for the program were taken from the TRI
chemical list, and the 1988 TRI data will be used as a baseline to track reductions on a
facility, company, and a national level. These chemicals were chosen for high priority
reduction status because they satisfied three important criteria: the chemicals are
produced in large quantities; the chemicals are generally identified as toxic or hazardous
pollutants and thus there may be significant environmental and health benefits from
reducing releases to the environment; and there exists a substantial potential to reduce
releases through pollution prevention practices. These criteria for choosing the
chemicals help illustrate the main goal of the program. By reducing emissions of toxic
chemicals on a national level through pollution prevention practices, the EPA hopes to
foster a pollution prevention ethic.
18
-------
The main thrust of this program is its voluntary, neutral nature. Companies that
choose to participate in 33/50 create their own specific reduction goals and must make
good faith efforts to implement pollution prevention measures. The only information
required from the companies by the EPA is a numeric reduction goal, and there is no
formal deadline for participation in the program. There are no disincentives for the
companies. There is no penalty for not participating, or for participating and then
failing to meet reduction goals, and no measures in the program are enforceable unless
otherwise required by law.
All companies with facilities that have reported releases of one or more of the
seventeen chemicals under TRI are to be invited by the EPA to participate in the 33/50
program. This amounts to about 11,000 facilities out of over 20,000 who report annually
under TRI. These 11,000 facilities are owned by approximately 6,000 parent companies.
In January 1991 Administrator Reilly formally invited 600 of the largest
companies which either reported the largest amounts of a certain chemical, or the
largest amounts of all of the seventeen chemicals combined. The remaining 33/50
invitation letters are addressed to the companies with somewhat smaller releases. Of
the 600 companies first contacted, there is evidence of a definite interest and willingness
to implement pollution prevention strategies, and many companies have responded with
substantial numeric reduction commitments. Coupled with this positive response, and
also in the program's favor, is the fact that every company invited to this program must
report under the TRI. Since the TRI data will be used as a measuring tool, any
reductions, be they from participating companies or not, will count towards the overall
reduction goal.
19
-------
However, the success of the program is far from being assured. There are still
many companies that wish to participate but cannot specify numeric commitments, as
well as companies that simply do not want to participate in 33/50 at all. The reasons
given for refusing to participate have included the inability to maintain competitive
production with source reduction or elimination techniques, and general disagreement
with the EPA concerning the actual existence of toxic discharge from the company.
Basically, more companies, especially those in the first 600, need to join the
program. Based upon informal analysis using simplified averages instead of facility
specific data, it was recently determined that only one-half of the needed company
commitments from the group of 600 major toxic releasers have been received. The
emissions of the 600 first-round companies amount to approximately 79% of total TRI
emissions. As of mid-July, 1991, about 215 of these companies responded with numeric
commitments. Assuming that the other 5,500 companies not invited in the first mailing
completely eliminate all emissions, the potential reduction of emissions is only 21%. In
order to reach the nationwide goal of 50% reduction, approximately 200 more of the
first 600 companies must join the 33/50 program. Without these additional
commitments, it is somewhat doubtful that the nationwide goal of 50% reduction in
toxic emissions will be achieved.
In addition, simple participation in the program is not the only important factor
for success of the program. The EPA will have to efficiently track the industries that
.aie participating in order to assess true release reductions and whether or not these
companies are accomplishing those reductions by pollution prevention measures. Since
the goal of 33/50 is reducing releases, in order for it to serve the purposes of pollution
20
-------
prevention the EPA must be able to determine when companies use pollution
prevention measures to achieve release reductions.
The program is also battling a great deal of skepticism, since 33/50 is based upon
completely voluntary participation by industry. The success of this program is important
because it will serve as the test for assessing the adequacy of voluntary initiatives in
comparison to the usual prescriptive command-and-control approach, and whether or not
a relationship of trust between industry and government can be achieved.
The success of the 33/50 program may finally rest at the feet of the EPA and not
the companies, surprisingly enough. Many of the companies that responded with
numeric reduction commitments were very careful to describe their ongoing efforts and
successes in source and emission reductions. This reflects the general attitude of the
industry, characterized by a willingness to work with the EPA, but only if the agency can
v
be as flexible as the companies. The industrial community wants clear and concise goals
delineating the EPA expectations, as well as an assurance that all reduction efforts,
occurring both before and during the 33/50 program, are recognized by the EPA. The
companies also want assurance that reductions achieved under other mandatory
programs within the EPA will count towards the 33/50 goal, and vice versa. It would be
for the benefit of both industry and the pollution prevention effort if the EPA can be
sensitive to these issues. •
Weaknesses in the Federal Implementation of Pollution Prevention
This worry on the part of industry reveals a substantial problem in the
implementation of the pollution prevention policy: lack of cross-program coordination.
Admittedly, pollution prevention is new as an environmental policy, and new policies
21
-------
take time to implement. There are many complex programs within the EPA that cannot
be changed immediately. However, at the present time the EPA is projecting very
conflicting images to the public and to industry.
Through the lenient and voluntary approach of pollution prevention the EPA is
projecting an image of an agency that desires a "kinder, gentler" relationship with
industry, a partner in achieving a mutually beneficial goal. In contrast, elsewhere in the
agency stringent single medium programs continue to be promulgated. For example,
hundreds of new regulations are in the process of creation under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Under this program, the EPA is projecting an image of a tough and
powerful enforcement agency. The end result of these two very different approaches
within the same agency is a set of programs that have the same long-term goal of
reducing the amount of pollution that reaches the environment, but have very different
short-term goals for how that is to be achieved.
Currently, a company may make reductions under the .33/50 program that will not
"count" as reductions under other programs within the agency. Likewise, there is no
guarantee that reductions achieved under other mandatory programs within the same
agency will count for the 33/50 program. Thus, even if a company substantially reduces
the source of its pollution, it can still "fail" in an EPA program due to this lack of cross-
program coordination.
The important point that the EPA needs to recognize is that if a company
reduces the use of raw material and thus reduces their releases of pollution, that
reduction is the most important goal. If a company decides to voluntarily practice
pollution prevention, that must be respected by the EPA and be recognized by all
programs within that agency. To address this issue, the EPA must develop programs
22
-------
whose goals are coordinated. If this is accomplished, then there will be an opportunity
for mutual trust between the EPA and industry.
Recommendations
The current policy of the EPA amounts to a pollution prevention strategy that
carries no enforcement stick at all, and single medium programs that carry a club. The
result is an inability for companies to understand what is required, what is optional, and
how these programs with such disparity in regulatory stringency are supposed to work
together.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the EPA will be to determine the future of
pollution prevention in environmental policy. The agency must decide whether pollution
prevention is merely a supplemental technique for strict single-medium policy, or
whether it is actually the ultimate goal for the overall EPA policy.
If it is only a supplement, then the EPA will have a difficult task promoting two
opposing policies. It is doubtful that the agency can be both prescriptive and
collaborative at the same time. The EPA must not use both methods to try to please
the environmentalists who want very stringent environmental regulations, and the
industrial community who desires less stringent regulations. The pollution prevention
theory will not provide any benefits if it is applied in such a superficial manner. This
type of approach by the EPA will promote nothing but confusion and distrust.
If pollution prevention is the ultimate goal, then there is a genuine need for the
promotion and firm establishment jof the ideas that characterize it There has been
established a toehold on this environmental policy through the 33/50 program, and these
types of programs must continue. However, adopting a policy of pollution prevention
23
-------
requires more than voluntary programs. It requires a fundamental change in the
Environmental Protection Agency. Because of the current decentralized structure of the
EPA, pollution prevention will require either intensive cross-program coordination or a
restructuring of programs to centralize environmental policy.
Pollution Prevention as a Societal Ethic
Over the years there have been many environmental philosophers and writers
who find themselves on the "other side" of environmental policy. These environmental
philosophers are those who take the time and effort to try to understand humans in
relation to the environment. However, frustration occurs because these people are not
the same people making the decisions that shape how we as humans actually treat our
natural surroundings. Thus, it seems as though there has always been a conflict between
environmentalists ruled by emotion and policymakers ruled by economics; the idealists
and the realists. The policy of preventing pollution is potentially greater than some may
realize. It can bring these two opposing forces together because it satisfies the demands
of both.
Thus pollution prevention, in theory, lessens the compromise between the quality
of the economy and the quality of the environment typically found in the policy of the
EPA. In the ethic of "environmental protection" as practiced by the agency, the
objective is not to improve the quality of the environment, but only not to make it
measurably worse. Greater economic benefit outweighs the negative ramifications of
environmental degradation. By adopting pollution prevention policy, the EPA is
challenging this old ethic. In his September speech Administrator Reilly stated,
24
-------
"...we in this Administration are profoundly conscious of the need to achieve
continued environmental progress in harmony with the nation's economic
aspirations. The Administration's policies are firmly grounded in the recognition
that we do not have to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy
economy. We can, and must, have both."
By proposing that the quality of both the environment and the economy must be
furthered. Reilly abandons the paradigm of environmental protection. He enters a new
paradigm in which the environment is now elevated to a position equal to that of the
economy. This ideological venture changes the ethic of the EPA to one of a deeper
sense of environmentalism, simply because now there is no promotion of the economy
over the environment; theoretically, there should no longer be any compromise of
environmental quality in return for economic growth.
The pollution prevention policy can avoid this compromise and address both
environmental and economic needs by incorporating a balance of ideological and
practical principles. On the side of environmentalism, Administrator Reilly took an
important step by acknowledging a basic relationship between the health of the
environment and the health of humans. This relationship proposes that the health of
the natural systems of the environment is the foundation for the economic health and
the well-being of society at large. This concept is crucial, because in order to
understand it, one must understand how the natural systems that comprise our
environment work, how they are interrelated, and how this interrelationship can affect
the health of mankind. If humans degrade those natural resources that we require for
our survival, then human health will suffer. That idea must then be carried further to
forge a link from the basic health of mankind to the greater functioning of society.
Since our society depends upon economic health, which depends upon the quality and
25
-------
abundance of natural resources, those natural resources must be maintained in order for
our society to be optimally functional.
Once all of this is understood, a viable argument can easily be developed against
the degradation of the environment. If human health depends upon a healthy
environment, then any environmental policy that compromises environmental quality will
negatively affect human health and the greater society.
On the side of economics, pollution prevention recognizes the needs of industry
by promoting more cost-effective production processes. Therefore, industry is not forced
into environmental practices that will undermine its efficiency and ultimately, the
economic health of society. In the practice of pollution prevention, industry is given an
opportunity to initiate voluntary pollution prevention methods, since more innovative
strategies will result. There is an opportunity for companies to try to work with the
EPA in order to be able to develop pollution prevention methods that work best for
them. They can begin to understand how pollution prevention can be more cost-
effective. Because of this relaxed approach, companies may no longer view
environmental controls as something negative that is forced upon them. Instead,
companies may see them as something they should incorporate in their business, and
may be willing to be environmentally sensitive.
If given incentives and the proper relationship with a regulatory agency,
companies can attain environmental quality standards that are more stringent than
statutory requirements. Added to this, companies have the ability to accomplish
environmental quality improvements more quickly than if they were abiding by an
enforceable regulatory time frame. Therefore, not only does pollution prevention offer
potential for a deeper sense of environmentalism on the part of the EPA, but perhaps
26
-------
even on the part of industry. A strong pollution prevention policy can be the impetus
for a new corporate ethic that gives equal priority to environmental quality and
economics.
Furthermore, if pollution prevention is properly and successfully implemented, the
Environmental Protection Agency may become a leader in forging a new societal
environmental ethic. The theory of pollution prevention closely parallels the ethical
models proposed by some deep thinkers of environmentalism. Through pollution
prevention, environmentalism can become something that is practiced by government,
industry and the general public, and not be something only upon which to
philosophically expound. Perhaps there may finally be a tenuous union of idealism and
pragmatism; perhaps environmentalists and policymakers can be on the same side.
This is a critical point for the EPA. The Administration must fully comprehend
the magnitude of the policy shift that can potentially happen, and what is necessary to
achieve it. If not, then there will be a failure to translate this potential shift into
substantive, coordinated policy initiatives, and the full meaning of pollution prevention
will never reach the level of practical application. The success of the policy shift to
pollution prevention will rely on the ability of the EPA to coordinate all of its disparate
divisions and programs. All parts of the agency must work together in the name of
pollution prevention under an umbrella of clear goals and objectives.
27
------- |