PRODUCT REPORT
POLLUTION REDUCTION Ann M. Thayer, C&EN Northeast News Bureau
by offering "how-to" guidance. Although many in indusLegislation, public concerns, and try are encouraged by EPA's outlook, they also suggest ederal legislation corporate rethinking on waste that regulatory reforms and aimed at pollution incentives are needed to furcontrol has grown production are pushing drive to ther encourage more effecdramatically in the past 20 halt pollution at source tive waste management. years. More recent regulatoEPA estimates the cost of ry initiatives are moving the federally mandated pollufocus away from "end-oftion control and cleanup pipe" thinking and toward reached $115 billion in 1990. pollution prevention at the source. One of the most prominent equipment or technology; process or Chemical industry spending accounts among these is the Pollution Preven- procedural changes; reformulation or re- for $3.8 billion of that, with an estimattion Act of 1990, new provisions of design of products; raw material substi- ed one fifth of new capital expendiwhich went into effect this year. This tutions; or operational improvements in tures going for pollution abatement or act, along with stipulations in the Su- housekeeping, maintenance, training, or control. The increasing costs of waste management, and growing public and perfund Amendments & Reauthoriza- inventory control. tion Act (SARA) that require compaEPA's approach in implementing the regulatory resistance to land disposal nies to report on the fate of more than Pollution Prevention Act, and its 33-50 and incineration, are among the factors 300 chemicals, has compelled the toxics reduction program aimed at vol- causing companies to look in new dichemical industry to publicly report on untary company reduction of 17 target- rections. its waste management efforts. ed chemicals, is seen by many as a Through industrywide programs, In the Pollution Prevention Act, the move away from its previous "com- such as the Chemical Manufacturers Environmental Protection Agency clear- mand and control" attitude toward Association's (CMA's) Responsible ly defines its multimedia waste manage- regulation. (Using 1988 as a baseline Care program, and through individual ment hierarchy aimed at preventing or year, EPA's 33-50 program aims for a corporate programs such as Dow's reducing pollution at the source. At the 33% reduction of the 17 targeted chem- longstanding Waste Reduction Always top of the hierarchy is source reduction, icals by 1992 and a 50% reduction by Pays effort, companies appear to be followed by recycling, treatment, and, as 1995.) For example, EPA has encour- changing their approaches to environa last resort for waste management, dis- aged the pollution prevention ethic by mental management. Company proposal. Pollution prevention can be ac- establishing an Office of Pollution Pre- grams are becoming more strategically complished, says EPA, through in- vention, now merged with the agency's aligned and broader reaching both in creased efficiencies in the use of raw ma- Toxic Substances Office; by setting up terms of company operations and manterials, energy, water or other resources, the American Institute for Pollution agement. Under the pollution prevenor through conservation. These objec- Prevention, whose members represent tion code of Responsible Care, compatives can be met through changes in 25 professional and trade groups; and nies are committing to protecting
F
22
NOVEMBER 16,1992 C&EN
worker and public health and safety, and to protecting the environment by reducing the amount of pollutants released into the environment, by generating less waste, and by managing any remaining waste in a safe manner.
Toxics Release Inventory Since the first Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) for 1987, as required under community right-to-know statutes in SARA Title III, Section 313, companies have been reporting publicly on chemical releases to the environment. Comments Dennis B. Redington, Monsanto's director for regulatory management, "I guess it is fair to say that industry broadly was a bit surprised at some of those numbers and having them aggregated in one place for the first time." In reaction to doing so, many companies have set increasingly specific goals to reduce emissions and "move up the waste management hierarchy/' In the past, industry's response in trying to comply with environmental
mandates often may have been to rapidly implement new disposal or treatment methods. Although many newer regulatory initiatives are promoting the development of new technologies, there has been concern that industry is moving toward more technologically sophisticated methods for waste management—such as deep-well injection and incineration or energy recovery— but is not reducing toxic wastes, only shifting the burden from more traditional methods such as landfilling. Environmentalists have expressed the desire for increased accountability concerning waste management and toxic releases on the part of companies. TRI has become a stepping-off point for measuring the chemical industry's performance toward reducing pollution. TRI provides the public with information on air, water, or land releases, and on off-site transfers for treatment, storage, or disposal of more than 300 chemicals. Although some questions remain as to the accuracy of TRI estimates, EPA has enforced reporting
by conducting more than 2300 site visits, filing nearly 550 complaints, and levying fines of more than $16 million since 1989. The most recent TRI figures are for 1990 and show that of the 4.8 billion lb of chemicals reported as released or transferred by U.S. manufacturers, the chemical industry contributed 1.6 billion lb. CMA members account for more than 90% of chemical production capacity for basic industrial chemicals in the U.S. and, within the chemicals and allied products industrial classification, for 75% of chemicals released and 67% of chemicals transfered in 1989. CMA reports on 320 core chemicals that have remained on EPA's list from 1987 to 1990 to allow for year-toyear comparisons. Reported releases from 1470 CMA members' facilities fell from 2 billion lb in 1987 to 1.2 billion lb in 1990, whereas transfers fell from 574 million lb to 371 million lb. By volume, the top 25 chemicals released by member companies accounted for 88% of total releases NOVEMBER 16,1992 C&EN
23
PRODUCT
REPORT
and 84% of total transfers. At the same time, U.S. chemical production rose 10%, according to Department of Com merce data. About 3% of releases and 4% of transfers, or 37.6 million lb and 15.8 million lb, respectively, were chemicals listed as known or suspected human carcinogens. Since 1987, releas es of these chemicals by CMA mem bers' facilities have dropped 22%, and transfers have dropped 2%. In addition to complying with TRI, CMA also requires all member facilities implementing its pollution prevention code to report on their waste manage ment practices. In 1990, the first data collected from nearly 2100 facilities be longing to 147 companies were made public. These facilities generated and managed 10.9 billion tons of waste of which more than 99% was wastewater. Hazardous waste amounted to almost 16% of total wastes, made up of 1.68 billion tons of wastewater and 5.3 mil lion tons of other wastes. Management practices for these wastes included ma terial recovery, energy recovery, treat ment, incineration, land treatment, un derground injection, storage, and landfilling. CMA's pollution prevention code also encourages companies to reduce wastes and releases through a variety of methods. The code recommends source reduction as preferential in pre venting the generation of wastes and their subsequent release. But, because
implementing source reduction activi ties in the chemical industry can take a long time—often years from the incep tion of the research through develop ment, scaleup, engineering, permitting, and construction to actual operations— CMA considers reuse, recycling, and treatment to be viable approaches to minimizing pollution.
What is pollution prevention? A debate has developed over indus try's and EPA's differing views of pol lution prevention. EPA very narrowly defines pollution prevention as those measures falling into source reduction or other practices that reduce or elimi nate the creation of pollutants prior to any of the other steps in a waste man agement hierarchy. Industry believes in and tends to employ a much broader definition that includes recycling and treatment as means to reduce or pre vent pollution. Although industry's goal is to move up the hierarchy, cor porate environmental managers stress that source reduction is a preferred tool, but not the only tool for reducing the amount or impact of wastes in the environment. "Having said that [CMA] prefers source reduction, we also recognize that for a lot of facilities ... the risks associated with emissions and wastes could be reduced using other manage ment practices," says Ann M. Mason, associate director for CMA's environ-
Source reduction, recycling are top waste cutting methods Waste reduction technique!
ι
-1
Recycling I (on site and oft site) I
Source nxfcjction
Product changés Product substitution Product conservation Change in product composition
Source control
Input material Material purification Material substitution
Technology changes Process changes Equipmerft* piping, or Additional automation
Sources: ABB Environmental Services, Foster Wheeler
24
NOVEMBER 16, 1992 C&EN
Use and reuse Return to original process Raw materia! substitute for another process
Processed for resource recovery Processed as a by-product
Good operating practices Procedural measures Loss prevention : : ; Éilai^miè^:j|i
