FEATURE
Massachusetts Tries to Cut Toxic Chemicals Use An evaluation of statewide effort reveals toxic chemical use and waste generation have declined. MONICA BECKER, KEN GEISER, AND CHERYL KEENAN
T
he Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA), one of the most aggressive pollution prevention laws, is seen by many as a potential model for a federal materials accounting program aimed at cutting toxic chemical use (i3). A tough system in effect since 1990, TURA requires its nearly 600 companies to publicly report toxic chemical use, develop biennial use reduction plans, and pay an annual fee to fund the program. Despite success stories, opposition to the program has grown. This year, the Massachusetts Chemical Technology Alliance, a trade association of the state's chemical manufacturing industries, led an effort supporting legislation that, as an alternative to chemical use reporting, advocated tax breaks for companies that reduce toxic chemical use (3). Industry critics of the program claim that corporate commitments and other environmental regulations, not including TURA, are motivating waste reduction. Other stakeholders, such as the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, favored an opposing bill that would expand program attention beyond toxic chemical use to water and energy use reduction and sustainable products. Both bills died in committee. A recent evaluation of TURA program initiatives has been driven by proponents for more stringent reduction measures, corporate pressure for new program alternatives, and a desire by many stakeholders to see if the law had worked as expected. The study, completed in 1997, revealed that toxic chemical use and byproduct generation have dropped since 1990 and that planning is an important driver for implementation of reduction projects. Established in 1989 by an act of the Massachusetts state legislature, TURA requires covered companies to annually file reports detailing toxic chemical use; prepare a nonbinding, toxics use reduction plan that must be updated every two years and certified by a state-licensed planner; and pay an annual fee, based on number of employees and chemicals, to fund the program. Reporting involves full materials accounting of listed toxic chemical inputs, wastes, and constituents in products. Planning includes a calculation of the cost of using listed chemicals and identification and evaluation of reduction projects. Fees paid are used to support services such as confidential technical assistance, training and education for planners, technical research, data management, compliance assistance, and enforcement. TURA seeks to establish toxics use reduction, rather than endof-pipe controls, as the primary strategy for managing the myriad risks associated with toxic chemicals. Toxics use reduction is defined as "in-plant changes in production processes or raw ma-
5 6 4 A • VOL. 3 1 , NO. 12, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
0013-936X/97/0931-564A$14.00/0 © 1997 American Chemical Society
terials that reduce, avoid, or eliminate the use of toxic or hazardous substances per unit of product" and aims to reduce risk to human health and the environment. Using hazardous waste generated by Massachusetts industries in 1987 as a benchmark, the act has a central goal of applying chemical use reduction techniques to decrease waste by half while enhancing business growth. In 1995, agencies charged with administering the TURA program initiated an evaluation aimed at assessing program performance, informing the public and the Massachusetts legislature about its effectiveness, and guiding program improvements. The evaluation included • analysis of 1990-95 toxic chemical use and waste data collected from firms under authority of the act, • a 1993 survey of filers mat collected data needed to perform the cost-benefit analysis and assessed program effectiveness in promoting toxics use reduction by Massachusetts businesses (4), • an in-depth investigation of 25 randomly chosen manufacturers covered by the act, and • a cost-benefit analysis of the program (5). To maximize data collection, all 1993 filers were contacted. Responses were received from 434 of 645 firms contacted by telephone and from 215 of 434 firms surveyed by facsimile transmission. Analyzed costs and benefits of the program included internal costs and benefits direcdy accrued by filers and public benefits accrued to other members of the Commonwealth (4). Chemical use reduction activities of 25 randomly selected Massachusetts firms were evaluated dirough an in-depth investigation. The study provided further understanding of whether and how those enterprises implemented reduction initiatives at a level over and above what would have been realized without the TURA program, and it assessed specific program component impacts—planning, reporting, technical assistance, training, and education—on environmental practices of firms (i). The investigation included detailed, on-site interviews with company personnel, review of plans, and data analysis. Toxic chemical use and byproduct generation Data collected from TURA firms show that Massachusetts industries have made progress in toxics use reduction. Between 1990 and 1995, the six years for which TURA data exist, production-normalized byproduct generation declined by 30%, and toxic chemical use dropped by 20%. Actual and expected trends in toxic chemical use and byproduct generation were developed from analysis of collected data (Figures 1 and 2). Actual chemical use and byproduct generation data are "raw" quantities reported by filers. Expected quantities (amounts that would be used or generated in the absence of chemical use reduc-
FIGURE 1
Less toxic chemical byproducts generated The influence of toxics use reduction on annual byproduct generation between 1990 and 1995 is indicated as a comparison between expected and actual amounts of toxic chemical byproducts generated. (Actual amounts are quantities reported; expected amounts are actual quantities adjusted for changes in production.)
FIGURE 2
Toxic chemical use declines in state The influence of toxics use reduction on annual toxic chemical use between 1990 and 1995 is indicated as a comparison between expected and actual amounts of toxic chemicals used. (Actual amounts are quantities reported; expected amounts are actual quantities adjusted for changes in production.)
tion) were calculated for each reporting year by using firm-reported indices that reflect year-to-year changes in production (6). Production-normalized changes in use and byproduct generation resulting from chemical use reduction were calculated as percent changes in expected quantities without chemical use reduction and actual reported quantities. For example, for the period 1990-95 the normalized percent change in byproduct generation is calculated from the difference between 124 million pounds (expected generation) and 87 million pounds (actual generation). VOL. 31, NO. 12, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 5 6 5 A
TABLE 1
Facility involvement in toxics use reduction activities grows Between 1990 and mid-1996, the percentage of facilities that reported they were "very involved" in toxics use reduction activities increased significantly. Respondents "very involved" in [activity] Activity
Pre-1990
Mid-1996
Tracking quantities of wastes generated
49%
89%
Tracking quantities of chemicals used Establishing a corporate or facility environmental team Setting goals for waste
48%
90%
24%
68%
24%
73%
Reviewing changes in production processes for their environmental, health, and safety impacts
30%
76%
Allocating environmental costs to processes or products Source: Reference 4.
21%
52%
reduction
Although these data will be used in assessing whether the state will meet the act's 50% statewide byproduct reduction goal for the period 1987-97, it will not be possible to make a definitive determination. Reporting began in 1990; currently data are only available for 1990-95. However, in view of the 30% reduction in byproduct generation that occurred from 1990-95 and uncertainty about changes in byproduct generation between 1987 and 1990, significant additional reductions will have to be realized in 1996 and 1997 to meet the statewide goal.
Reduction practices and implementation Survey results indicate that many companies have increased their involvement in six key areas of environmental management (Table 1). For example, a survey of all firms covered by the program indicates that in 1990 only 30% were "very involved" in reviewing changes in production processes for their environmental, health, and safety impact. Presently, 76% of surveyed firms report being "very involved." Data do not permit an assignment of motivations to these outcomes. TURA does not mandate toxics use reduction by facilities. Rather, a primary aim of the act is to motivate firms to implement toxics use reduction through systematic process evaluation and identification, and assessment of options. Survey and in-depth investigation results provide strong evidence of toxics use reduction implementation at regulated firms. When asked how many of the reduction projects selected for implementation in their plan would be fully implemented, 81% of survey respondents (351 of 434 facilities) indicated they implemented or will implement a few, some, or all projects. Only 9% of respondents (41 facilities) indicated that no projects identified would actually be implemented. 5 6 6 A • VOL. 31, NO. 12, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
The survey revealed reasons why some were not implementing all of their planned projects, by querying firms about implementation barriers. The most significant response identified was company concern about project impact on product quality: 71% of respondents (198 of 434) indicated this was a somewhat or very important concern (Table 2). The most frequently reported benefits of implementing toxic chemical use reduction were cost savings (67% of respondents), and worker health and safety (66% of respondents). Survey data suggest a strong connection between implementation and actual reductions in byproduct generation and toxic chemical use. Respondents were asked if their facility's net byproduct generation and toxic chemical use per unit of total production had increased, decreased, or remained unchanged since 1990. Among facilities reporting that they implemented or will implement at least several projects identified in their chemical use reduction plans, 61% reported that byproduct generation has decreased since 1990, and 67% reported concurrent toxic chemiccil use reduction. Among firms that have not implemented chemical use reduction projects 61% reported that byproduct generation increased or remained unchanged since 1990 and 66% reported that toxics use increased or remained unchanged during the same time frame The in-depth investigation revealed that, between 1990 and 1996, all of the firms studied implemented one or more projects, including product redesign, production process modifications, and improvements in operations and maintenance. Several firms mounted aggressive campaigns aimed at eliminating all TURA chemicals from their facilities. Others set more limited goals, such as finetuning a single production process or reducing byproduct generation associated with production of a single chemical. For example, in its 1994 chemical use reduction plan, a small, 100-person plastics extrusion firm established the following options for reducing use of zinc metal, an activator used in sheet extrusion: enclosing the batch mixing operation where zinc losses are large; improving zinc material handling and processing; and finding a substitute for zinc wherever possible. When implemented, the first two options had only a small impact (less than 5% reduction) on overall zinc use but produced significant worker health and safety benefits because fugitive zinc dust generation was reduced. Once collected, dust could be easily reused. Implementation of the third option reduced zinc use by 20% per batch processed and saved the firm an estimated $25 thousand The in-depth investigation assessed corporate motivations (both TURA and non-TURA factors) for implementing toxic chemical use reduction, allowing firms to offer multiple responses. Of 22 firms that planned and reported under TURA, 15 indicated that planning was a motivator for toxic chemical use reduction, and 6 responded that reporting requirements motivated reductions. Ten of 11 firms that received technical assistance and 10 of 11 that participated in education and training under TURA reported these experiences were motivators. Of the 25 firms studied, non-TURA factors were reported as motivators by companies (number of respondents are
in parentheses) as follows: Clean Air Act Ammendments (9), good business sense (9), improved plant safety (5), reduced compliance burden (4), improved product quality (2), and neighbor concerns (2).
TURA program benefits and costs The study found strong evidence that toxic chemical use reduction planning is an important motivator for project implementation. Seventy percent, 302 of 434 survey respondents, reported they identified reduction opportunities as the result of their 1994 toxics use reduction plan. Eighty-nine percent of the 302 firms that responded affirmatively said that the toxics use reduction planning process itself contributed to implementation of reduction projects; 33% answered "to a great extent," and 56% answered "somewhat." Of 21 firms that had conducted planning activities, the in-depth investigation revealed planning was a major factor in driving 11 to consider and implement toxics use reduction. Four firms stated that planning was important but not a major factor, and six firms failed to implement reduction initiatives. Three of these six companies indicated they did not believe, a priori, that planning would be productive, and they devoted few resources to it. Among the total 22 firms that planned for reduction, 6 identified benefits of annual reporting requirements, including better information about materials in products, processes, and waste streams and establishment of a priority list of chemicals to target reduction efforts. Almost all respondents who interacted with service providers reported that TURA agency services were "very" or "somewhat" useful for implementing toxics use reduction. Training of planners by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute and site visits from the Office of Technical Assistance were regarded as the most useful resources (87% and 85%, respectively, reported that these services were either very or somewhat useful). Cost-benefit study results indicate that, between 1990 and 1997, benefits of TURA to the state exceeded costs. This conclusion is based on identification of total monetized costs ($77 million) and benefits ($91 million) of implementing the act. This analysis provides only a partial picture of total possible benefits of the program. It does not include consideration of benefits that are difficult to monetize, such as human health and ecological benefits of the act and benefits to firms not covered by the act. M o n e t i z e d costs i n c l u d e c o m p l i a n c e costs ($49 million) for firms covered by TURA and capital costs ($27 million) incurred by firms to implement projects. Compliance costs are associated with chemical use reporting, planning, and fees paid to the Commonwealth to support program services. Benefits include net changes in operating costs ($88.2 million) resulting from activities and federal grants ($2.3 million) to the program for chemical use reduction activities in Massachusetts. All costs were estimated from data supplied by surveyed firms.
Implications for the future Responses to an open-ended survey question suggest areas for improvement. Twelve percent of respondents recommended eliminating the program altogether, and 14% recommended leaving it un-
TABLE 2 Barriers to toxics use reduction implementation Among the 281 facilities that did not implement all planned TUR projects, the potential impact of toxics use reduction initiatives on product quality was a major concern. (Row totals may not equal 100% because of "Don't Know" responses or refusal to respond.) How important were each of the following factors in your company's decisions not to implement TUR projects? Factor Very Somewhat Not at all Capital not readily available Lack of customer acceptance of change in the product Lack of management
26%
26%
46%
31%
14%
51%
9%
20%
66%
51%
20%
27%
support for changes Company concern with impact on product quality Source: Reference 4.
changed. The largest response (19%) was a call for paperwork burden reduction and simplification of required procedures. Sixteen percent of the survey respondents recommended changes to the toxic chemical list. Although some firms are finding toxics use reduction difficult, many firms are clearly making good progress. Special attention should be given to firms that have performed chemical use reduction well or for whom there are no further reduction options. Future efforts should concentrate resources on firms that have not yet achieved great success with chemical use reduction and smaller quantity toxics users (not covered by TURA) within the state.
References (1) Greiner, T. In-Depth Investigation of Toxics Use Reduction in 25 Massachusetts Firms; Greiner Environmental: Gloucester, MA, 1997. (2) Becker, M.; Geiser, K. Evaluating Progress: A Report on the Findings of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Program Evaluation; Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Program; University of Massachusetts: Lowell, MA, 1997. (3) Johnson, J. Chem. Eng. News 1997, 75(26), 26. (4) Keenan, C.; Kanner, J. Survey Evaluation of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Program; Abt Associates: Cambridge, MA, 1997. (5) Currier, R.; Van Atten, C. Benefit-cost Analysis of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA); Abt Associates: Cambridge, MA, 1996. (6) Toxics Release Inventory Public Data Release; EPA 749/C95-004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1995.
Monica Becker, now an independent consultant in Rochester, N. Y., was formerly an associate with the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute. Ken Geiser is director of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute. Cheryl Keenan is a senior analyst with Abt Associates Inc. VOL.31, NO. 12, 1997/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE S TECHNOLOGY/NEWS " 5 6 7 A
