From Pollution to Prevention: A ProgressReport on Waste Reduction

June 1987

NTIS order #PB87-208062

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, From Pollution to Prevention: AProgress Report on Waste Reduction–Special Report OTA-ITE-347 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1987).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619838

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form on p. 55)

Foreword

Public interest in protecting health and environment by preventing the gener-ation of hazardous wastes and environmental pollutants is rising. Some compa-nies are discovering that prevention is easier than they thought and that its eco-nomic benefits come quickly. Much is happening; only eight months after the releaseof the Office of Technology Assessment’s report, Serious Reduction of HazardousWaste, a great deal of new information is available. In particular, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency has delivered its report on waste minimization to Congress.

The Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources of theHouse Committee on Government Operations requested this special report to bringinto focus congressional policy options on reducing the generation of all hazard-ous wastes and environmental pollutants. The report examines the effectivenessof the limited Federal actions taken so far and summarizes what industry and Stateand local governments have done to implement waste reduction. These programsare encouraging, and they help us understand what congressional policy optionsmight accomplish, This special report discusses in greater detail several optionsthat first appeared in Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste.

There is agreement between EPA and OTA on the basic benefits of waste re-duction. However, OTA sees more waste reduction possible in the near-term and,if the Federal government is to become more engaged with prevention, more needfor policy development, organizational change, and institutional commitment. OTAplaces greater emphasis on the benefits of applying waste reduction in a multi-media fashion to cover all wastes and pollutants regardless of whether or how theyare regulated.

Results from an innovative 2-year waste reduction program in Ventura County,California, show how government can assist industry to reduce waste generationand demonstrate that success in waste reduction is possible without traditional,prescriptive regulations, This program, several State waste reduction programs,and a lo-year-old Federal energy conservation program prove that in-plant techni-cal assistance is an effective way to overcome obstacles to waste reduction.

Both industry and government benefit economically from waste reduction. Thestudy shows how the competitiveness of American industry and environmentalprotection can be improved by devoting more resources to waste reduction andthus quickly reducing the costs of pollution control.

Many people in industry and government assisted OTA in the preparation ofthis work. A number of people reviewed a draft of this special report. As with allOTA reports, however, the responsibility for its contents is OTA’s alone.

JOHN H. GIBBONSDi re c t o r

Ill

Reviewers–From Pollution to Prevention: A Progress Report on Waste Reduction

David AllenNational Campaign Against

Toxic Hazards

Lee DaneMassachusetts Department of

Environmental Managememt

Ryan DelcambreDow Chemical Co.

Ken GeiserTufts University

Greg HolladE.I. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

Steven LesterCitizen’s Clearinghouse for

Hazardous Wastes

David LeuCalifornia Department of Health Services

Richard MacLeanGeneral Electric Co.

Roger SchecterNorth Carolina Pollution Prevention

Pays Program

Russell Susag3M

OTA Project Staff–From Pollution to Prevention:A Progress Report on Waste Reduction

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

Audrey Buyrn, Managerindustry, Technology, and Employment Program

Joel S. Hirschhorn, Project Director

Kirsten U. Oldenburg, Assistant Project Director

Edna M. Thompson, Administrative Assistant

Diane D. White, Secretary

Contents

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Background ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6The Nature and Primacy of Waste Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6EPA’s Present and Future Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 9Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Policy Options .. .. .. .. .. .., ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Areas of Agreement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Areas of Disagreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20In Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Ambiguities in the EPA Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Does EPA Regard Waste Reduction as the Option of Choice? . . . . . . . . . . . 32Does EPA Require a New Congressional Mandate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Has EPA Made a Strong Commitment to a Major Waste Reduction

Effort?. ..,...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Are There Advantages to a Completely New Type of Legislation? ...,.,. 44What Could New Waste Reduction Legislation Include? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45What Might Be an Effective Level and Source offending? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

BoxesBox Page

A. Summary of Recommendations From EPA Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4B. Policy Excerpt From OTA Report Brief ....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C. Waste Reduction and National Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7D. Unused Results in EPA’s Report Appendices Agree With

OTA’s Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17E. Recent Examples of Obstacles in the Private Sectorto

Waste Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24F. Burning Waste in Industrial Furnaces and Boilers Can Reduce Interest

in Waste Reduction . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . , . . , . , . . . . . 28G. What Language Best Protects the Environment: Volume and Toxicity,

Volume or Toxicity, or Degree of Hazard? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

FiguresFigure No. Page

1. EPA Organization and Funding for Waste Minimization. . . . . . . . . . . ..., 312. End-of-Pipe Approach: Regulating the Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 44

TablesTable No. Page

I. Definitions Used in the Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212. Wastes Coveredby Reports and HSWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223. Funding Levels and Evaluations of EPA Waste Minimization Activities . 39

SUMMARY

There is now a historic opportunity for theUnited States to improve environmental pro-tection while reducing industry’s costs. Apply-ing the concept of prevention to environmentalprotection is a major change in thinking fornearly everyone. The Federal Government, in-dustry, and environmental interests have notyet committed themselves to preventing ratherthan controlling pollutants and wastes.

The conventional approach to improvingenvironmental protection is to impose moreregulations and enforce them more firmly.Progress has been made, but overall the envi-ronmental results of this strategy have been dis-appointing. Control technologies have failed toperform as expected, and human failures havecompounded the problem. For example, it tooka long time to recognize that land disposal ofhazardous waste is usually not a safe option.

Economically, the conventional strategy in-creases government spending and adds to thecompetitive disadvantage of domestic manu-facturing industries through high environ-mental spending. In 1980, for example, capitalinvestments in pollution control by Americanindustries as a percent of gross industrial do-mestic product was nearly four times greaterfor the United States than for Japan and Franceand nearly three times greater than for WestGermany. Manufacturing industries in newlyindustrializing nations such as South Korea andBrazil have an even larger cost advantage be-cause of far fewer environmental regulatory re-quirements.

OTA finds that a concerted national effortto reduce the generation of hazardous wastesand environmental pollutants at their sources,whether they are regulated or not, is a logicalnext step in the development of a comprehen-sive environmental protection system for theUnited States. According to recent reports byOTA and the Environmental Protection Agen-cy, waste reduction is the acknowledged envi-ronmental option of choice and has unique andundisputed environmental and economic bene-fits. Studies by OTA, EPA, and others have

The Reader Is Cautioned To Pay AttentionTo The Exact Use of Terms In This Report

Simply put, waste reduction always meanscutting the generation of hazardous waste toavoid its handling, treatment, or disposal andwaste minimization always is a broad um-brella term that includes waste reduction,recycling, and possibly waste treatment suchas incineration.

As discussed in this report, definitions havepolicy implications.

found that many waste reduction opportunities remain.

Today waste reduction proceeds slowly—notbecause of a lack of technology—but becauseit is inhibited by human, organizational, andinstitutional obstacles in industry and govern-ment. Industry’s attention and resources gochiefly to regulatory compliance. As the gov-ernment presses companies to fix the mistakesof the past, it provides little help to prevent prob-lems for the future. Companies having the worstcompetitiveness problems are the least likelyto be able to examine and implement waste re-duction, even though they need it the most. Po-tential economic benefits are not being under-stood or captured systematically in industry.

Moreover, recent changes in the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act and Superfundsend ambiguous and contradictory messagesto EPA and industry about the priority of wastereduction. Use of the term waste minimization,broadly interpreted to include waste treatment,and regulatory restrictions on land disposal aredriving capital investments to new waste treat-ment capacity (e. g., incineration). These caninadvertently restrict waste reduction, whichoffers better environmental protection at lowercosts. Uncertainty about waste reduction andconcerns about strains on waste managementcapacity may lead regulatory officials to relaxrequirements for hazardous waste facilities.

2

Can enough waste reduction occur to de-crease near-term waste treatment needs? Notalways and probably not under present circum-stances. Waste reduction can significantly de-crease, but not eliminate, the need for wastetreatment capacity. More explicit attention towaste reduction can help the public understandwhich new waste management facilities aretruly needed.

Congress faces clear but difficult choices.However, nearly everyone agrees that prescrib-ing waste reduction through regulation is tech-nically infeasible and administratively imprac-tical. The OTA and EPA reports to Congresshelp bring three fundamental policy optionsinto focus:

Policy Option I:Take no new action to directly help industry toreduce waste generation

Rely on current industry efforts. This im-plicitly discounts obstacles to waste reductionthat confront nearly all waste generators, likepoor information on the exact sources of theirwastes and ways to reduce their generation.The valid basis for congressional and publiccriticism of regulatory programs weakens theirpositive impacts on waste generators. Regula-tory programs that are ineffective for their de-signed purposes are even more ineffective incausing comprehensive waste reduction. Wastereduction does not typically prevail over othertraditional responses to rising environmentalcosts and liabilities, such as changes in pollu-tion control technologies, acceptance of highand avoidable costs, and, in exceptional cases,plant closings.

Policy Option II:Institute a small Federal effort through existingenvironmental statutes and regulatory programs

This would limit reduction to certain regu-lated wastes, pose administrative problems be-cause of many other congressionally mandatedtasks to EPA, and have limited credibility be-cause existing environmental programs are notexpert about production processes and haveshown little interest in waste reduction. It mightnot significantly change what is now occurring.

Policy Option Ill:Through new legislation, establish a separateFederal program within EPA to support wastereduction and to provide national leadership.Fund it and State programs by allocating sev-eral percent of EPA’s operating budget

A nonregulatory approach would addressmany obstacles. It would assist American in-dustry to learn by experience that reducing thegeneration of all wastes is technically feasibleand in its own economic self-interest to do assoon as possible. A 5-year seed grants programfor State efforts could build on existing butlimited State programs. Government funded in-plant technical assistance and central sourcesof information, for example, could overcomeinertia and smooth a path from sole dependenceon costly end-of-pipe regulations to a dual envi-ronmental strategy that includes voluntary,comprehensive waste reduction. Increased cor-porate profits from waste reduction savings arelikely to result in sufficiently increased tax rev-enues to rapidly offset the cost of a Federal pro-gram, possibly in as little as 1 year.

INTRODUCTION

Background

After the Office of Technology Assessment(OTA) released its report Serious Reduction ofHazardous Waste,1 the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) delivered its mandated re-port Minimization of Hazardous Waste2 to Con-gress. Congressman Mike Synar, the Chairmanof the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy,and Natural Resources of the House Commit-tee on Government Operations subsequently re-quested OTA to analyze the EPA report andto describe “how EPA’s findings and conclu-sions differ from those of OTA” with the em-phasis on “differences that either implicitly orexplicitly support different congressional ac-tions” on waste reduction. This OTA specialreport not only compares the OTA and EPAreports but also provides Congress with newinformation on waste reduction and a sense ofthe quickening national interest in it.

Both previous reports portray waste reduc-tion as: 1) an option with many environmentaland economic benefits compared to manage-ment and regulatory options that deal withwaste that is already generated, 2) technicallyand economically feasible with current scienceand technology, and 3) in limited use by indus-try because of a number of obstacles in indus-try and government. Since this special reportfocuses on policy options, the policy summariesfrom the original reports have been reproduced.Box A is the summary of recommendationsfrom the EPA report, and box B is the portionof the summary of the OTA report that dealswith policy options.

Even though the two reports used differentterms and covered different waste universes,some general observations about public policychoices facing Congress can be made. Neither

IU. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Serious Re-duction of Hazardous Waste, OTA-lTE-317 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1986).

‘U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress:Minimization of Hazardous Waste, EPA1530-SW-033 (Washing-ton, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,October 1986).

report supports the near-term use of a regula-tory approach for waste reduction that would,in some way, prescribe industry actions. Bothreports support the use of a nonregulatory tech-nical assistance program to help industry re-duce waste generation. EPA recommends tech-nical and information assistance to industryand States, implemented by existing EPA pro-grams, as its near-term waste minimization ap-proach. In the long term, EPA recommends anassessment of the information collected in theshort term so as to better inform Congress by1990 on the need for authority to mandate waysto reduce wastes. As part of the next reauthor-ization of the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA), EPA will suggest anynecessary changes in the existing waste mini-mization reporting requirements. The OTA re-port provides specific policy options for the im-plementation of a major Federal nonregulatorywaste reduction program, if the congressionalgoal is comprehensive and rapid waste reduc-tion. It is based largely, but not exclusively, onin-plant technical assistance. The OTA optionsinclude ways to address institutional commit-ment and implementation at the Federal andState levels by, for example, establishing: 1) aFederal grants program to the States to supporttechnical assistance, information and technol-ogy transfer, education and training, and ge-neric R&D on commonly used processes andmaterials; and 2) an EPA Office of Waste Re-duction with an Assistant Administrator to pro-vide Federal leadership and advocacy withinEPA.

Congress has not explicitly said that EPA’slow priority for waste reduction is inconsist-ent with the regulatory programs EPA mustcarry out nor has Congress directed EPA tospend significant resources on waste reduction,Congress has not yet debated a major programof the type discussed by OTA, Thus, the pur-pose of this report is to bring the critical policychoices into focus. No attempt is made here tosummarize the detailed technical results of thetwo studies; the original reports should be con-sulted for that purpose.

4

Box A.—Summary of Recommendations From EPA Report

5

Box B.—Policy Excerpt

* * * *

So far government has not required waste reduc-tion. OTA finds that it would be extraordinarilydifficult for government to set and enforce wastereduction standards for a myriad of industrialprocesses. The impact on industry, particularly ontroubled manufacturing sectors, could be substan-tial. Alternatively, the United States could move toan economically sensible environmental protectionstrategy based on both pollution control (wastemanagement) and pollution prevention (waste re-duction) with the Federal Government providingleadership and assistance in the following ways.

First, through policy development, education,and oversight, Congress could help industry and theNation profit from seeing waste reduction not assome unique technology, but as a field ready forinnovation engineering and management. These op-portunities are embedded in every part of the in-dustrial production system, There is no way topredetermine the amount of waste reduction thatis possible; its technical and economic feasibility de-pend on the characteristics, circumstances, andgoals of specific waste generators. Success in reduc-ing waste depends on the ability of organizationsto modernize, innovate, and cut costs, thereby in-creasing profits and reducing long-term liabilities.Thus waste reduction could be used as a measureof performance as energy efficiency and productivi-ty often are.

Second, there are a number of possible legisla-tive actions that could clarify the definition of wastereduction, spur better collection of information onwaste reduction, and encourage waste generatorsto devote more attention to the subject. If the Fed-eral public policy goal is rapid and comprehensivehazardous waste reduction, then a strategy basedon government leadership and assistance ratherthan on prescriptive requirements is likely to be themost effective. For example, Congress could: 1)create an Office of Waste Reduction with an Assis-tant Administrator within EPA, 2) create a grantsprogram to develop generic or widely transferabletechnical support for waste reduction, 3) throughnew comprehensive waste reduction legislation re-quire detailed reporting by industry on past reduc-tion actions and plans for future efforts, 4) rewardand facilitate waste reduction by offering industry

From OTA Report Brief

concessions from existing pollution control regula-tory requirements, or 5) create and use independentState Waste Reduction Boards to implement pro-grams. Setting a national waste reduction goal ofperhaps 10 percent annually could help convert thelong stated importance of waste reduction into atrue priority and reduce annual environmentalspending substantially, ultimately by billions ofdollars.

Definitions Used in This Report

Waste Reduction:In-plant practices that reduce, avoid, or eliminate

the generation of hazardous waste so as to reducerisks to health and environment. Actions takenaway from the waste generating activity, includ-ing waste recycling or treatment of wastes after theyare generated, are not considered waste reduction.Also, an action that merely concentrates the haz-ardous content of a waste to reduce waste volumeor dilutes it to reduce degree of hazard is not con-sidered waste reduction. This definition is meantto be consistent with the goal of preventing thegeneration of waste at its source rather than con-trolling, treating, or managing waste after itsgeneration.

Hazardous Waste:All nonproduct hazardous outputs from an in-

dustrial operation into all environmental media,even though they may be within permitted or li-censed limits. This is much broader than the legaldefinition of hazardous solid waste in the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act, its amendments,and subsequent regulations. Hazardous refers toharm to human health or the environment and isbroader than the term “toxic.” For example, wastesthat are hazardous because of their corrosivity,flammability, explosiveness, or infectiousness are notnormally considered toxic.

Copies of the OTA report, *’Serious Reduction of Haz-ardous Waste: For Pollution Prevention and IndustrialEfficiency, ” are available from the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. The GPO stock number is 052-003-01048-8; the price is $12.00. Copies of the report for con-gressional use are available by calling 4-8996. Summariesof reports are available at no charge from the Office ofTechnology Assessment.

6

A discussion of agreement and differencesbetween the two reports follows this introduc-tory section. The third section analyzes someinternal inconsistencies in the EPA report. Thelast section of this special report is a discus-sion of four critical policy choices confrontingCongress. Included is an updated discussionof the same policy options presented in the OTAreport.

Definitions

One important difference between the OTAand EPA reports needs to be understood at theoutset. The OTA report on waste reduction de-fined that term as:

in-plant practices that reduce, avoid, or elim-inate the generation of hazardous wastes soas to reduce risks to health and the envi-ronment.

Waste reduction includes actions taken in in-dustrial plants, such as changes in technologyand processes, plant operations and proce-dures, and raw materials that reduce theamount and toxicity of waste before it is gen-erated. The OTA definition excludes recyclingas true waste reduction unless it occurs withinthe parameters of a specific process so thatwaste does not exit the operation. This in-process recycling, which is an integral part ofa process or operation, is not what most peo-ple mean by waste recycling.

Congress directed EPA to report on wasteminimization. EPA said that, for purposes ofits report, waste minimization includes wastereduction plus recycling of wastes that havebeen generated whether on or off the site ofwaste generation. That is, conventional wasterecycling includes the handling and transportof waste to a facility where the waste, or partof it, is used beneficially as a material or some-times as an energy source. However, EPA hasinterpreted the Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments Act of 1984 (HSWA, also calledthe 1984 RCRA Amendments) definition ofwaste minimization to include waste reduction,

3EPA primarily used the term source reduction; its definitionof the term appears in table 1.

plus all forms of recycling and treatment (suchas incineration or other processes that destroy,detoxify, or reduce the volume of wastestreams) that occur after wastes have been gen-erated. In OTA’s report such post-generationactions (recycling and treatment) are wastemanagement. It is generally accepted that evengood, improved, and necessary waste manage-ment offers less certain environmental and pub-lic health protection than waste reduction. Suchwaste management is particularly better thanland disposal of untreated waste. Waste reduc-tion, however, prevents pollution instead ofcontrolling how much hazardous substance isreleased into the environment.

In this special report, waste reduction is usedexactly as the OTA report uses the term. Wasteminimization is used in this special report asthe national policy statement in HSWA definesit (see box C). That is, the majority of wastegenerators believe that waste minimization cov-ers actions that include waste reduction plusthe recycling and treatment of hazardouswastes after they have been generated. Theseterms and their different definitions lead todifferent decisions by waste generators anddifferent policy goals and implications, whichare discussed at length later in this report.

The Nature and Primacy of Waste Reduction

This special report does not address recyclingand waste treatment extensively. In an earlierreport4 OTA supported the shift in policy awayfrom land disposal toward better waste man-agement, later adopted by Congress in HSWA.However, in that earlier study OTA acknowl-edged that waste reduction was the optiongenerators should pursue first, and only wastereduction was examined in OTA’s recent re-port. Both the EPA and OTA reports support,by analysis and information, the unique bene-fits of voluntary waste reduction by industry.In fact, no one disputes waste reduction’s wide-ranging advantages in principle. The issues are

4U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technol-ogies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control,OTA-M-196 [Springfield, VA: National Technical InformationService, March 1983).

7

Box C.—Waste Reduction andNational Policy

“The Congress hereby declares it to be na-tional policy of the United States that, wher-ever feasible, the generation of hazardouswaste is to be reduced or eliminated as expe-ditiously as possible. Waste neverthelessgenerated should be treated, stored, or di-sposed of so as to minimize the present andfuture threat to human health and the en-vironment.”

From the Resource Conservation and Re-covery Act, as amended by the U.S. Congressin November 1984. This policy statement issupported by waste minimization provisionsalso added to the act.

all about practice: How much waste reductionis going on now? How much could go on, andwhen? Slow, token, or narrowly applied wastereduction can lead to a false sense of accom-plishment; obstacles remain unaddressed andopportunities are missed.

Waste reduction is the best choice, when itis technically and economically feasible. As theenvironmental option of choice, waste reduc-tion should be examined first. We need to cre-ate the climate in which the best mix of wastereduction and waste management will grow.The problem is that generators often assumerather than ascertain that waste reduction is in-feasible and jump to recycling, the next solu-tion to consider, or treatment, the third optionin the hierarchy of choices. Demand for publicaccountability for decisions on waste reduction

Photo credit’ Copyright 1985 Greenpeace/Lawrence (used with permission)

Example of public’s concerns about toxic waste and reduction

8

is bound to increase because the issue is nowon the agenda of many grassroots public inter-est groups. Waste reduction is an opportunityfor public policy to combine the environmen-talism of the 1960s with the economic sensibil-ities of the 1980s.

Waste reduction accomplishes one of thebasic objectives of regulatory reform becauseit cuts industry’s costs and reduces the amountof materials and situations that have to be reg-ulated. Widespread waste reduction alleviatesthe negative environmental effects of techni-cal inadequacies of regulations, loopholes inregulations, and poor compliance with regula-tions. It also alleviates private and public in-efficiencies caused by a complicated web ofdifferent and sometimes inconsistent environ-mental statutes and programs. These problemsare found in all environmental programs butare particularly acute for the RCRA programwhich every recent examination has found tobe in trouble.’ Problems in the regulatory sys-tem limit its ability to induce waste reductionas an alternative to increasing regulatory costsand liabilities. If the regulatory system is notmeeting its stated environmental protectiongoals effectively, then it is unlikely to be effec-tive in causing generators to comprehensivelyreduce waste generation. Decisionmaking oftenignores the economic benefits of waste reduc-tion, partly because they seem uncertain. A po-tential benefit is not necessarily an effective in-centive for waste reduction. Generators stayin the regulatory system not only because theyhave to but also because they do not understandhow to leave it, even if only partially, throughwaste reduction.

Waste reduction does not imply either out-right or incremental elimination of the currentenvironmental regulatory system or of hazard-

%ee U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report toCongress—EPA Activities and Accomplishments Under the Re-source Conservation and Recovery Act: Fiscal Years 1980 to 1985,EPA/530-SW-86-027 (Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Wasteand Emergency Response, July 1986); U.S. Congress, GeneralAccounting Office, Hazardous Waste: EPA Has Made LimitedProgress in Determining the Wastes To Be Regulated,GAO/RCED-87-27 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General AccountingOffice, December 1986); and James E. McCarthy and Mark E.Anthony Reisch, Library of Congress, Congressional ResearchService, “Hazardous Waste Fact Book,” 87-56 ENR, Jan. 30,1987.

ous waste and pollution. Waste reductionmakes it easier to achieve environmental goals.Still, waste reduction has received little atten-tion within the context of RCRA (or other envi-ronmental programs) by Congress, by EPA, orby critics. Except for a few pioneering compa-nies, industry seems largely unaware of the im-mediate feasibility of waste reduction and theneed to reexamine how it can be best used. In-dividual cases of successful waste reductionoften cited today do not prove comprehensivewaste reduction on a company or industry ba-sis. And, the movement away from land dis-posal has not necessarily resulted in a broador large shift to waste reduction. Despite somefavorable conditions in the marketplace, wastereduction faces stiff competition from other re-sponses to rising costs and regulations. Theseother responses include building incineratorsand not complying, or delayed compliance, withregulations.

Waste reduction is more than just anotherenvironmental protection option. It offersAmerican industry a positive return on invest-ments that reduce environmental costs in theshort term and large liabilities in the long term,but only if costs and liabilities are used correctlyin decisionmaking. A few pioneering compa-nies have shown waste reduction to be an ef-fective way to modernize plants, to improveprofitability and competitiveness, and to en-hance the public perception that industry canact proactively to solve environmental prob-lems. Dow Chemical, for example, in its newWRAP—Waste Reduction Always Pays—pro-gram sends a simple, unambiguous message toits employees: waste can be reduced, you canreduce waste, and you will be rewarded if youdo. But waste reduction is a new public policyconcept in the arena of industrial competi-tiveness.

Although it is not possible to accurately quan-tify current waste reduction or forecast futurewaste reduction, OTA, EPA, and several othermajor recent reports6 conclude that substan-

oNational Academy of Sciences, Reducing Hazardous WasteGeneration (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985);David Sarokin, et al., Cutting Chemical Wastes (New York: IN-FORM, 1985); The Environmental Defense Fund, Approachesto Source Reduction (Berkeley, CA: EDF, June 1986).

9

tial amounts of waste reduction are possiblein the near term. However, with few exceptions,everybody in industry and government is sobusy trying to manage wastes that are gener-ated that they have little time and money to tryto generate less. Although the environmentalregulatory system contributes to this misplacedpriority, it also results from insufficient focuson waste reduction by industry as an elementof strategic planning, cost-cutting, and mod-ernization. Government has not been as help-ful as it could, Congress has not established theprimacy of waste reduction, even though theHSWA national policy statement is consistentwith it (see box C). There seems to be a feelingthat waste reduction will happen on its own.

EPA’s Present and Future Commitment

The OTA study found that the Federal Gov-ernment spends very little money on waste re-duction, less than 1 percent of its environmentalbudget. Almost all spending goes, instead, tocontrolling pollutants that are generated. Andwithin the context of waste minimization, mostof EPA’s resources go to treatment and recy-cling as alternatives to land disposal, insteadof supporting waste reduction. Industry followsEPA’s lead,

The definition of waste minimization usedby EPA (waste reduction and recycling) for thepurposes of its report to Congress differs fromprevious EPA actions and from HSWA (wastereduction, recycling, and treatment). This dualdefinition can cause confusion, Waste minimi-zation can include up to three distinctly differ-ent activities, and people in industry and gov-ernment naturally give more attention tofamiliar treatment technologies and recyclingthan to waste reduction. A critical but oftenoverlooked fact is that waste reduction mustbe implemented by production people and notby those with environmental responsibilities.But, not all production people feel pressuredor required or are willing and able to tacklewaste reduction, They are more familiar withtreatment and recycling, which are marketedcommercially as services or equipment. Pro-duction people focus on the product not onwaste, and they find pollution control at the end

of the process more convenient than waste re-duction in the middle. Moreover, productionpeople are reluctant—with good reason—tomodify processes that are operating profitably.Only education and training and better infor-mation about the ways to reduce waste gener-ation can overcome this inertia and fear.

Because waste minimization means manythings, people in industry and government arenot necessarily committed to waste reduction.EPA’s future actions would be clearer if theEPA report had stated whether a major Fed-eral waste reduction program is necessary be-cause industry is not doing enough or if it hadexplicitly requested new statutory authority,funding, and organizational change in EPA toimplement a waste reduction program.

Although EPA did not explicitly say that amajor Federal waste reduction program wasnot necessary, the EPA report’s recommenda-tions are not consistent with a major program.Moreover, in the absence of a new congres-sional mandate, EPA is unlikely to undertakea major waste reduction program with the fund-ing, institutional commitment, and organiza-tional importance that would make it success-ful. To some extent this impression may becaused by the direction HSWA gave to EPA forthe waste minimization study. Congressseemed concerned primarily with whether touse a traditional prescriptive regulatory ap-proach for waste minimization (e.g., best pro-duction technology or percentage waste reduc-tion requirements). HSWA said nothingexplicitly about setting up a major nonregula-tory Federal program to encourage and assistwaste reduction or to identify how some gov-ernment programs and industrial practices mayhinder waste reduction. OTA, guided by spe-cific committee requests for its study, exam-ined these issues closely. EPA, however, guidedby HSWA did not.

In its fiscal year 1988 budget request, EPAallocates only $398,000 for waste minimization.This amount is about 0.03 percent of EPA’s to-tal operating budget of $1.5 billion and is lessthan the approximate $550,000 that EPA spentin fiscal year 1986 on its waste minimization

10

report. 7 EPA first noted the environmentalprimacy of waste reduction (using that term)in 1976, but it has relied on the marketplaceto implement the concept.

Although it has recognized the importanceof State efforts, EPA has not concluded that aseparate, comprehensive Federal waste reduc-tion grants program is necessary to support andenhance those efforts. OTA examined State ef-forts and concluded that for them to be effec-tive nationwide in reducing the generation ofhazardous waste, there should be more of them,they should receive more financial support, andthey should be focused on waste reductionrather than good waste management. State non-regulatory programs recognize important ob-stacles facing waste generators but would ben-efit from a Federal policy framework thatprovided national leadership focused on wastereduction.

To sum up, a major Federal program that ad-dresses public and private obstacles to wastereduction could lead to more expeditious andcomprehensive waste reduction. Many of thefindings in EPA’s report are consistent with re-sults of other studies and could support a seri-ous waste reduction effort.

Policy Issues

Congressional Action

Although waste minimization was added toRCRA in 1984, not much attention has beenpaid to waste reduction. From a public policyperspective, waste reduction is in the issue de-velopment stage at the Federal level, eventhough it has moved considerably beyond thatat the State level—at least in a few States. Nomajor Federal environmental statute or pro-gram has ever paid much attention to waste re-duction.

Neither Congress nor EPA has integratedwaste reduction with other tactics to achievea balanced environmental protection strategy.There has been no congressional discussion ofwhether the Federal Government needs to de-sign waste reduction policy differently frompollution control policy. In the recent reauthor-izations of RCRA (HSWA, 1984) and Superfund(The Superfund Amendments and Reauthori-zation Act of 1986, or SARA), Congress directedEPA and the States to assess the Nation’s fu-ture waste management capabilities. Congressdid not, however, direct them to recognize orexamine the potentially significant contribu-tion of waste reduction.

The most significant Federal actions to dateare the strong policy statement in HSWA onthe merits of waste reduction (see box C) andseveral minor actions required of EPA and in-dustry. Waste reduction is nearly entirely inthe hands of the private sector, except in a fewplaces where local or State governments haveacted to persuade and assist industry to reducewaste generation.

The founder and director of the NationalRoundtable of State Waste Reduction Programshas addressed the need for Federal action:

The states are clearly the leaders in this[waste reduction] effort and require high-level,well-funded and focused programs at the fed-eral level. EPA has not met that chal-lenge , . . waste reduction] cannot be ap-proached as a panacea for zero wastes andshould not be entered into without a firm com-mitment to change the traditional pollutioncontrol mentality in recognition of reductionoptions. Government’s role in this regard re-quires an innovative shift in environmentalprotection to include positive technical assis-tance and financial incentives in addition toregulations and enforcement. The need for thisshift is particularly acute at the federal level.8

70TA estimated in its report that EPA spent a total of $1,8 mil-lion on waste minimization in fiscal year 1986. That amount in-cluded the cost of the EPA report, plus research funds spentby the Office of Research and Development or granted to out-side research organizations and States, not all of which wereofficially labeled “waste minimization” funds. Of this total forwaste minimization, OTA estimated that about $800,000 wasspent by EPA on waste reduction.

8Roger N. Schecter, “Summary of State Waste Reduction Ef-forts,” Hazardous and Solid Waste Minimization and RecyclingReport, March 1987, p. 12.

11

Legislative Approach

Should Congress now decide to emphasizewaste reduction, the important issues arewhether to consider a legislative initiative and,if so, whether to do it within the context ofRCRA or through a new statute,

New legislation may be appropriate becausewaste reduction is distinctly different fromactivities currently authorized and carried outunder existing environmental statutes. Wastereduction is:

●

●

●

●

an upstream or front-end pollution preven-tion strategy different technically from theend-of-pipe pollution control actions re-quired by existing statutes;most effective when it applies to all haz-ardous wastes and pollutants, whether theyare regulated or not, otherwise opportuni-ties arise to shift waste among environ-mental media (air, water, and land) or outof the regulatory system;best addressed by policies aimed at assis-tance, persuasion, and institutional com-mitment since—as both OTA and EPAagree—it is not amenable to traditional reg-ulatory or prescriptive approaches; anda bridge between environmental and indus-trial competitiveness issues and goals.

Timing of Waste Reduction v. Waste Treatment

The OTA report and—to a lesser extent—theEPA report draw attention to the importancefor policy makers to unambiguously definewaste reduction and its primacy over other op-tions that manage and control hazardous wastesand pollutants, There is a choice to be made;whether to devote essentially all the govern-ment’s environmental resources to fix inher-ent problems in the traditional pollution con-trol system or to use some of those resourcesto pay significant attention to waste reduction.Congress, EPA, and industry worry a lot abouta potential shortfall of waste management ca-pacity because of the current shift away fromland disposal practices under RCRA. As theEPA and OTA reports recognize, waste reduc-tion could lower waste management needs inthe near term, if it is given a high priority by

government and industry. But what does highpriority mean for waste reduction? Waste re-duction has always had high theoretical pri-ority, but its priority has never been made evi-dent by industrywide actions. Industry by itselfcannot overcome all the obstacles to waste re-duction. Government’s regulatory programscause some of the critical ones. Other obsta-cles center around limited industrial resourcesand management’s short-term perspectives andstrategies.

A window of opportunity is opening for ahistoric shift in focus on environmental protec-tion. Government programs dealing with cleanair and water are maturing but have yet to dealeffectively with such problems as air toxics,nonpoint sources of pollutants (e. g., pesticideuse), and marine wastes.9 The RCRA hazard-ous waste management program is in a particu-larly problematic state of flux. Congressionalactions in 1984 directed EPA to move the haz-ardous waste management system away fromland disposal. However, Congress did not giveEPA specific instructions to move as forcefullytoward waste reduction.

Industry is investing in waste managementtechniques (particularly incineration) which arefamiliar and which are marketed aggressivelyby vendors. Treatment equipment often re-quires large amounts of waste to operate effi-ciently, and capital investments in treatmentfacilities can take many years to amortize.Present public policy, therefore, is driving largeinvestments in waste management facilities thatcan preclude, limit, or delay waste reduction.

This incremental strategy of first addressingwaste management needs in order to satisfy reg-ulatory land disposal deadlines appears reason-able at first. However, it could severely and per-manently limit waste reduction and the morecertain benefits it offers. Moreover, as impor-tant as regulatory deadlines that limit the useof land disposal are, they are less important inthe long term than encouraging waste reduc-tion. Enough flexibility could be introduced into

%ee, for instance, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1987).

72

the regulatory system to accommodate and en-courage more waste reduction without com-promising the environmental benefits of reduc-ing the use of land disposal.

Siting and permitting difficulties, however,pose great barriers and long delays to newwaste treatment facilities. Shortages in wastetreatment capacity—even with increased in-vestment in treatment facilities—might result.This situation could lead to pressures fromwithin industry to restore greater use of landdisposal or to engage in actions that might sac-rifice environmental protection in order tobuild new waste management facilities. Seri-ous Federal assistance for waste reductioncould help to head off this potential problem.

Waste Reduction and Competitiveness

Waste reduction is more than an environ-mental issue; it is a way to improve industrialcompetitiveness. More environmental regula-tions and more effective enforcement raiseenvironmental costs and increase liabilities(from Superfund, civil and criminal prosecu-tions, lack of adequate insurance, and limitson real estate transactions). From 1985 to 1986there was a 20-percent increase in the numberof pages of Federal environmental regulationsto a total of 8,500 pages. The increase was thelargest annual increase in history. These in-creased burdens, added to other conditions(e.g., higher wage rates), can contribute to per-manent plant closings and relocation of plantsto foreign countries. If it occurs early enough,waste reduction can help modernize industryand provide environmental protection while re-ducing these burdens and thus increase cor-porate net income.

Data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on indus-trial environmental spending by the UnitedStates and its competitors seem to indicate acompetitive disadvantage for the United States.Japanese manufacturing industries’ capitalspending in 1974 on pollution control was 100percent more than that of American manufac-turing industries. By 1977 these environmentalinvestments were the same in Japan and theUnited States, but in 1978 and 1979 the United

States was spending slightly more than the Jap-anese manufacturing industries.

In 1980, total industrial investments in pol-lution control as a percent of gross industrialdomestic product were nearly four timesgreater for the United States than for Japan orFrance and nearly three times greater than forWest Germany.

What data are available on relative reductionsin environmental pollution indicate that our in-dustrialized competitors have done as good orbetter than the United States.10 In terms of eco-nomic efficiency, environmental protection inthe United States appears more costly than inother industrialized nations. The reason seemsto be not merely greater government regulationbut less flexible environmental regulations inthe United States that block effective and moreeconomical and technologically advanced solu-tions. (Regulatory flexibility to encourage wastereduction is discussed later in this special re-port.) The environmental competitive disadvan-tage of the United States relative to newly in-dustrializing nations, such as South Korea andBrazil, is even greater because such countrieshave fewer environmental requirements.

Another OECD report on the connection be-tween technological innovation and environ-mental protection is quite significant .11 OECDconcluded that waste reduction is the only envi-ronmental protection tactic that directly bene-fits industry in the broader context of indus-trial efficiency and technological change butthat so far none of the industrialized nationshad adopted it in a big way. The report alsohighlights the results of a French study on wastereduction that revealed benefits not initially ex-pected, such as, energy savings (in 51 percentof the 200 cases examined), savings in raw ma-terials (47 percent), and improved working con-ditions (40 percent). At the present time, mostindustrial managers focus only on savings asso-ciated with waste management, pollution con-trol, and regulatory compliance costs and lia-

loor~anization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

OECD Environmental Data–Compendium 1985 (Paris: OECD,June 1985).

llorganization for Economic Cooperation and Development,Environmental Policy and Technical Change (Paris: OECD, 1985).

13

bilities. From a public policy perspective, theconclusion of the OECD report concerning therole of government is important, The reportsaid:

[waste reduction] may turn out to becomeincreasingly an essential part of environ-mental protection. Public authorities have animportant role to play in the management ofthis evolution for the best environmental pro-tection.12

It is difficult for Congress to discuss the linkbetween waste reduction and industrial com-petitiveness because the two are provinces ofdifferent committees and subcommittees.Moreover, environmental protection objectiveshave often been seen as counter to economicinterests and a dragon society. However, a Fed-eral program that helps industry to reduce itsenvironmental costs and liabilities throughwaste reduction might avert some decline inthe industrial sector. Marginal plants may bein particular need. They already have troubledealing with production problems and may nothave the technical or economic ability to evalu-ate and implement waste reduction options. Asa means of improving industrial competitive-ness and helping to renovate the American pro-duction system, waste reductioncost legislative option that doesenvironmental protection.

offers a low-not sacrifice

Policy Options

While the OTA report provides Congress withthree different, detailed broad strategies for aFederal waste reduction program, the EPA re-port outlines two parallel efforts, one near termand one long term, for waste minimization.

The OTA policy analysis examined how toshift the emphasis in environmental protectiontoward waste reduction without adding expen-sive new programs and how to address the ob-stacles to waste reduction within governmentand—just as importantly-within industry. Pub-lic policy must address both sets of obstaclesto be effective in achieving national environ-mental protection goals.

IZIbid., p. 95

EPA examined the incentives for and disin-centives to waste reduction from the currentwaste regulatory and management system. EPAsaid that regulatory conditions are strong driv-ing forces for waste reduction. But it did notrecognize their indirect character, their role asobstacles, and that they can easily lead indus-try to responses other than waste reduction,such as changing waste management technol-ogy, taking advantage of opportunities withinthe regulatory system to avoid or delay com-pliance, or, in extreme cases, closing plants.

EPA’s view of past waste reduction seemsto have affected its policy analysis. OTA be-lieves that EPA has overestimated the amountof waste reduction that has occurred in the pastand thus underestimates the need for a majorFederal effort to assist industrial waste reduc-tion. New data on RCRA waste that was notavailable for use in the EPA or OTA reportsshow a higher level of annual generation; fromthe 250 million metric tons reported by vari-ous studies in the early 1980s to 569 millionmetric tons. *a This does not necessarily meanthat waste generation has increased, but by bas-ing its findings on the lower figures, EPA couldhave underestimated the potential targets forwaste reduction. Some State data given latersupport OTA’s less optimistic interpretation ofpast waste reduction.

The EPA report concludes that large compa-nies can and will reduce waste but that smallerfirms will not because of lack of information,technical knowledge, and access to capital. Ifthis were the case, large companies should beable to show evidence of comprehensive wastereduction. But, by and large they cannot. Firmsize, variations in corporate structure and cul-ture, and the variable nature of production—inputs, processes, and products—affect whatcompanies can do to cut waste generation. TheOTA report shows that various obstacles exist

ISU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “1986 NationalScreening Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Dis-posal, and Recycling Facilities: Summary of Results for TSDRFacilities Active in 1985,” prepared for the Office of Policy, Plan-ning, and Information (Office of Solid Waste) by the Center forEconomics Research by Research Triangle Institute, ResearchTriangle Park, NC, December 1986.

14

for all sizes of companies and that Federal wastereduction efforts can be designed to assist allof American industry. Individual facilities oflarge companies often face the same problemsas small businesses when it comes to carryingout waste reduction.

The EPA report says that aggressive actionand institutional advocacy are necessary to pro-mote further waste minimization but providesno insight as to how EPA will provide either.The agency’s fiscal year 1988 budget requestof $398,000 for waste minimization and its long-standing low priority for waste reduction sug-gest that it is not prepared to be that advocatewithout congressional direction.

In the OTA report three broad policy ap-proaches, each with many specific congres-sional actions, are described. If the Federal pub-lic policy goal is rapid and comprehensivehazardous waste reduction, then Policy OptionIII—to establish a new, highly visible waste re-duction program–would be the most likely toattain that goal without harm to American in-dustry. That approach would assist industrywith voluntary waste reduction and would de-velop a planning and reporting system to trackindustrial progress. It would acknowledge theprimacy of waste reduction over pollution con-trol and would attempt to raise the use of wastereduction to a parity with pollution control.While this kind of a Federal program wouldfirmly establish national policy, provide leader-ship, and give institutional priority and com-mitment to waste reduction, the States wouldbe called on to do most of the work. In orderof importance, major activities supported byFederal grants would be in-plant technical assis-tance, information and technology transfer,education and training, and generic R&D. 14

As discussed later, a new Federal programmight be funded by reallocating a small per-cent of EPA’s operating budget specifically forwaste reduction. This approach is consistentwith waste reduction’s priority which justifies

liThe OTA study concluded that it was not feasible to givemoney to companies for waste reduction, as waste reductionis linked to so many industrial activities with broader objectivesthan waste reduction that government assistance could skyrocket.

shifting resources from less effective strategiesfor environmental protection. Two percent ofEPA’s operating budget would equal $3o mil-lion in fiscal year 1988—easily the cost of oneSuperfund cleanup. This level is low enoughnot to threaten or diminish the effectivenessof ongoing pollution control regulatory pro-grams. However, this amount, which is almost100 times that requested by EPA for waste mini-mization, would allow the creation of an effec-tive grants program to be implemented at theState level. From a cost-benefit perspective en-couraging and assisting waste reduction canpay in improved environmental protection, in-creased tax revenues, reduced or slower growthin governmental spending on regulatory pro-grams, and avoided future Superfund cleanupcosts. Information dissemination on alternativetechnologies for waste reduction and directtechnical assistance to industries will increaseregulatory compliance, reduce waste genera-tion, and increase industrial efficiency.

Another point to consider is that, with no ma-jor Federal commitment to waste reduction,EPA could come under pressure to take short-cuts in siting, permitting, and delisting RCRAhazardous wastes to match waste generationwith available waste management capacity. Ifthis happened, public confidence in govern-ment environmental programs—alreadyshaken—could worsen.

Finally, although congressional action onwaste reduction would be a major change inenvironmental policy, it is also a logical nextstep in the development of a comprehensiveenvironmental protection-waste managementsystem. Governor James J. Blanchard of Mich-igan recently described the historical nexus ofwaste reduction:

It is time for a revolution in our thinkingabout protecting the environment from pollu-tion . , , The successful state and federal envi-ronmental legislation of the 1960s and 1970sattacked conventional pollutants by regulat-ing their release into the environment. Thisforced the development of new pollution con-trol technologies, but still permitted some dis-charge of materials . . . To meet the emergingchallenge of toxic pollutants, we must realize

15

that it is far more effective and cheaper to pre-vent them from ever entering the environmentthan it is to clean up our mistakes . . . Our busi-ness economy, too, will benefit from the re-duced material costs, slashed disposal fees,and increased efficiency that result from inno-vative waste reduction technologies . . . I willcharge this [Waste Reduction Program] withdesigning programs for providing technicaland financial assistance and information to

businesses to reduce toxic pollutants, focus-ing initially on hazardous waste reduc-tion , . . We will press for federal action set-ting national goals for pollution reduction andprompting this country to advocate pollutionreduction as an international priority .15

IsGovernor James J. Blanc hard, The Michigan Strategy: Re-port to the People of Michigan and the Legislature, 1987, pp. 39-43.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

An examination of the OTA and EPA reportsshows that there are areas of agreement anddisagreement on waste reduction. Both OTAand EPA agree on a number of technical issuesand that traditional mandatory regulations toforce waste reduction are not now appropri-ate. OTA and EPA do not agree on terms anddefinitions (and thus, the focus of potential Fed-eral efforts), on the hazardous wastes thatshould be considered for reduction, or on howwaste reduction is affected by various incen-tives and obstacles. OTA’s analysis of EPA’sreport relies principally on its summary vol-ume. However, there are discrepancies be-tween the summary and subsequent volumesof the EPA report. EPA did not use some re-sults of its own analyses that are in more agree-ment with the findings of OTA and others thanEPA’s highlighted findings and conclusionswould indicate. Box D gives several examplesof such unused EPA results.

Areas of Agreement

Technical

Despite the different waste universes stud-ied by EPA and OTA (as discussed later), bothreports attest to the availability of technologyto reduce waste generation, the basic economicbenefits of waste reduction, and the ability ofindustry (and government) to reduce waste gen-eration. Both reports, moreover, give consid-erable attention to the lack of substantive in-formation on waste generation and reduction:on what has occurred, is now occurring, or mayoccur in the future. The correct way to meas-ure waste reduction, according to EPA andOTA, is to put changes in waste generation ona product output basis so that other contribu-tions to changing waste generation levels (e.g.,production rates) are eliminated. But only a fewcompanies can supply data of this nature, andgovernment has not yet clearly stated that thereis a correct way to measure waste reductionthat everyone ought to use.

Optimism about future potential does notmean that every waste generator can immedi-

ately reduce its waste generation. In somecases, R&D may first be necessary in order foreconomic benefits to be attained at specificplants. Some industries have less potential forwaste reduction than others, either because ofthe age or type of their production processes,because of past reduction efforts, or becauseof variable capacity to innovate related to cor-porate styles, cultures, and strategies. Gener-ally, EPA and OTA conclude that there are anumber of problems, disincentives, and obsta-cles concerning institutions, organizationalcharacteristics, information, and human atti-tudes and behavior that limit the use of techni-cally feasible waste reduction options.

Within the agreements between the EPA andOTA reports, however, there is a point of dis-agreement that can have important policy im-plications. Years of unreliable waste genera-tion data makes accurate accounting for wastereduction difficult, if not impossible, with cur-rent information collection systems. This is im-portant for policy development; the greater thepotential for future waste reduction the greateris the justification for a major Federal initia-tive aimed at helping industry reduce wastegeneration as soon as possible.

EPA and OTA answered the question of howmuch waste reduction has taken place in differ-ent ways. OTA discussed waste reduction ex-tensively with industry people and concludedthat while some waste reduction has occurredand more is occurring today, the bulk of feasi-ble waste reduction (where waste is definedvery broadly) lies ahead. OTA has not even triedto make exact calculations of past or futurewaste reduction, because the data are insuffi-cient for that purpose. EPA calculated num-bers that show relatively high reduction in thepast with a methodology that probably over-estimates waste reduction. EPA’s calculationswere based necessarily on critical subjectivejudgments, rather than actual data, which donot exist. Other factors (some of which lead tosystematically overestimating the waste reduc-tion that has occurred) cast great uncertaintyon the EPA conclusion that most waste reduc-

16

17

●

●

●

●

●

tiontors

1.

2,

3.

Box D.—Unused Results in EPA’s Report Appendices Agree With OTA’s Findings

Policy should address obstacles to waste reduction rather than rely on the marketplace to pro-vide indirect incentives“Many of the hazardous waste generators subject to these pressures face obstacles to implementingwaste minimizing processes or practices, because they lack awareness of the technical alternativesavailable, have inadequate capital to make the necessary investments, lack engineering expertiseto redesign processes, or fail to understand the importance of considering compliance or disposalcosts in time/cash flow calculations. ” [p. A-92]

Current EPA efforts are limited; better organization and a comprehensive grants program areneeded to support State programs“EPA’s current technical assistance effort is restricted, Few States receive direct support and thesupport that is available is limited. Research programs are selected and funded without any system-atic determination as to whether their research might duplicate efforts of other States. ” [p. A-108]

All sizes of firms face obstacles to waste reduction“Direct financial assistance would presumably focus on small and medium-sized companies, notthe largest generators, since the large firms tend to have greatest access to information and capitalto support waste minimization programs. A sustained and well-publicized program would, how-ever, help change the general climate within which firms make waste management decisions, ex-ploiting peer pressure and creating a milieu in which firms can demonstrate technological leader-ship and innovation in a field where public anxieties are great.” [p, A-98]

Waste reduction is a multimedia environmental protection strategy“[Technical assistance programs] could encourage thinking about environmental problems on across media basis, Waste audits and technical assistance provided to companies generally focuson the entire pollution generation profile of a company—not just RCRA wastes. ” [p. A-99]

Substantial unused waste reduction opportunities still exist“It will be difficult to predict or to measure the impact of technical programs on waste generationrates, but the Agency believes it is potentially substantial . . . Technical assistance could potentiallyhave a significant beneficial effect on the toxicity of wastes produced by large numbers of firms, ”[P. A-98]

that can happen has happened. Those fac-include:

extrapolation from approximately 20 pro-duction processes to the literally hundredsof thousands of processes in all of U.S. in-dustry;the picture of U.S. industry used in the esti-mate was static;*the assumption of maximum use of bestwaste reduction technology is unrealisticbecause waste disposal costs were very lowduring most of the years used for the esti-

*During the years covered by the estimate, new processes andnew products were introduced in great number, some of whichmust have caused more waste to be generated than the proc-esses and products they replaced. This phenomenon was notfactored into the estimates.

4.

mate and there was little incentive for firmsto look beyond waste disposal to waste re-duction or to concentrate process modifi-cation work on waste reduction rather thanon product improvement; andeven today a waste stream can be countedas totally reduced when it moves from oneregulatory system to another (e.g., insteadof going to a RCRA facility it goes to a pub-lic wastewater treatment plant) or whenit is only partially recycled.

The EPA report on waste minimization esti-mates that an additional 15 to 30 percent re-duction in waste generation is possible in thenext 25 years, over the 60 percent estimatedfor the past, In the OTA report, available com-pany data on hazardous waste reduction was

18

used to support an average 10 percent year-to-year level of waste reduction for the next 5 yearsas a feasible goal, although individual compa-nies and plants might accomplish less or more.In other words, the EPA report concludes thatmost waste reduction has already occurred; theOTA report, on the other hand, supported agreater potential for waste reduction in thenear-term future.

An optimistic view of future waste reductionpotential is supported by the following. First,the acknowledged leader in waste reduction,3M, has reduced its hazardous waste genera-tion by about 50 percent over the past 10 yearsand has said that it hopes to reduce by aboutanother 30 percent over the next 5 years. Itseems implausible to suggest, as EPA’s reportdoes, that all of American industry has beenable to achieve what this large research-orientedcompany has done. Companies, such as 3M andDow Chemical, that have given a lot of atten-tion to waste reduction publicize the results oftheir efforts. These companies are few in num-ber, suggesting that few have equaled 3M’s per-formance, much less have reached EPA’s 60percent level.

Second, the OTA report’s survey of peoplein 99 companies showed that about 50 percentbelieved technology available to them in 1985could reduce their waste generation (all, notjust RCRA wastes) by more than 25 percent.This indicates that much more waste genera-tion could be reduced over a longer period withmore extensive information dissemination,technology transfer, and government support.

Third, a recent OECD report concludes thatpenetration of clean technologies (processesthat reduce the generation of wastes) into pro-duction has been small in the United States andelsewhere. 16 It found that 80 percent of U.S.spending on air and water pollution from 1973to 1980 was on end-of-pipe pollution controlmeasures. More detailed data from France,where the national government has promotedwaste reduction, show that major waste gen-erating industries have introduced clean tech-

l~organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,l’nvironmental Policy and Technical Change, op. cit.

nologies into only 1 to 3 percent of their plants(major exceptions were gas and electric plantsat 72.7 percent and wood at 36 percent). In Den-mark, which is very progressive in the environ-mental area, about one-third of firms adoptednew production processes with environmentalbenefits between 1975 and 1980.

Still other recent information is consistentwith OTA’s conclusion that much more reduc-tion in waste generation (broadly defined) ispossible. New Jersey has perhaps the best Statedata on waste generation, and new data indi-cate an increase in waste generation of 50 per-cent over the past 3 years (when the effect ofa major plant having closed down some opera-tions is taken into account). Increases in pro-duction were not likely to have been the cause,because of a slow economy, but better infor-mation reporting could account for it.

New York officials have reported that out ofsome 2,OOO biennial waste generator reportssubmitted in 1986 only 50 provided any infor-mation on waste minimization required by Con-gress in the 1984 amendments to RCRA. A rea-sonable interpretation of these numbers is thatmost generators did not reduce waste genera-tion, since they could benefit from public ac-knowledgment of such efforts. The report for-mat was not an obstacle because they couldreport their efforts in any narrative form theychose. According to Illinois officials, annualreports indicate that 50 percent of large quan-tity generators and an even greater fraction ofsmall quantity generators have made no seri-ous progress in waste reduction.

In California, the Metropolitan Water Districtof Southern California and the EnvironmentalDefense Fund have embarked on an innovativeprogram (supported by $300,000 from each forthe initial program) to assist industry to reducethe generation of chlorinated solvents by up to75 percent. This high goal indicates this indus-try has not pursued much waste reduction inthe past.

Lastly, if EPA was correct about so much pastwaste reduction, then there should have beensome observable effects on aggregate waste gen-eration. Unfortunately data for RCRA waste

19

have been undergoing change and remain sus-pect. Nevertheless, it is important to consideraggregate waste generation data because froma waste reduction perspective all generatedwastes establish the potential for waste reduc-tion. There is very little data from EPA’s airand water regulatory programs on how muchwaste is generated. In the initial years of theRCRA program, EPA said that about 40 mil-lion metric tons of hazardous waste were gen-erated annually. Then in the early 1980s, be-ginning with OTA, the Congressional BudgetOffice and an EPA contractor study raised theestimated level to some 250 million metric tonsannually. However, a survey of 1984 practicestaken by the Chemical Manufacturers Associa-tion (C MA) of its members suggested that totalRCRA waste generation for the Nation mightbe as high as 1 billion tons annually .17

Now, a new EPA contractor survey has, forthe first time, counted RCRA waste that is ex-empt from being managed in RCRA regulatedfacilities. All RCRA wastes, regardless of howthey are managed, define targets for waste re-duction. Preliminary data reported in Decem-ber 1986 show that a total of 569 million met-ric tons of RCRA wastes were generated in1985. While this survey covered more RCRAwastes (but only currently regulated RCRAwastes) than those in the past, it did not accountfor nonRCRA wastes that are handled exclu-sively by nonRCRA facilities (e. g, a wastewa-ter treatment plant not requiring a RCRA per-mit). It should be noted that numbers for totalamounts of waste generation are influenced byseveral factors, such as plant closings, chang-ing production levels, or regulatory delistings,that can mask or distort changes due to wastereduction.

Data on the generation of hazardous waste(only RCRA wastes) by the chemical industryhave been presented to show that waste re-duction is occurring. 17 The reductions in the

17chemica] Manufacturers Association, “Resu]ts of the 1984CMA Hazardous Waste Survey,” January 1986. The sample ofcompanies represented one-half of the chemical industry andthe chemical industry generates about half of the total for theNation. The CMA total of about 247 million tons can, therefore,be roughly extrapolated to about 1 billion tons nationally.

Iechemical Manufacturers Association, ‘‘ 1985 C MA Hazard-ous Waste Survey, ” April 1987.

amounts generated over time for 301 plantshave been correlated with changes in the in-dustry production index published by the Fed-eral Reserve Board. However, this approachdoes not necessarily provide an accurate meas-ure of waste reduction. First, the problem isthat the production index is for the entire chem-icals industry. This is not the same as relatingthe changes in waste generation, on a one-to-one basis, to the actual production changesfrom those plants. There is considerable diver-sity in the chemicals industry for different in-dustry segments (e.g., organic, inorganic, spe-cialty) and for different companies within thosesegments. Second, the procedure hides changesother than production levels that can affectwaste generation data.

In conclusion, OTA finds pent-up opportuni-ties throughout industry for waste reduction;they await the removal of obstacles, the provi-sion of information and technical means, andclear benefits to be provided by general regula-tory and economic conditions. A slow, incre-mental approach to waste reduction unneces-sarily prolongs avoidable environmental costsin industry and delays environmental benefitsto the Nation.

Use of Regulations

Both reports recognize that a traditional reg-ulatory approach to, in some way, prescribe in-dustrial waste reduction is not now practicalor feasible. Both reports also note the appar-ent effectiveness of State and foreign govern-ment waste reduction programs that have notbeen based on a regulatory approach. Howeverthat effectiveness is limited in scope, especiallyin the context of affecting national waste gen-eration and management. That is, the nonregu-latory approach to waste reduction has beenfound effective when used, but has not yet re-ceived broad and serious public and privatesupport anywhere.

Both reports hold up the prospect of regulationsin the future if better information demonstratesneed and justifies the high implementationcosts. This could happen if the nonregulatoryapproach is never fully supported or if it is andis found to be ineffective. EPA plans to con-

72-675 0 - 87 - 3 QL: 3

20

tinue to examine mandatory controls in orderto reach a final decision in 1990. However, itdoes not appear that there is any informationnow being collected at the Federal level on in-dustrial practices that could justify, much lessbe the basis for, a major new regulatory pro-gram. By carefully designing new informationcollection within existing regulatory programs,it might take 5 to 10 years to get reliable sys-tematic data on waste reduction nationwide.It is not so much that it could not be done fasterbut that organizational and administrative fac-tors associated with using existing regulatoryprograms would slow down the process. As dis-cussed later, a separate, new waste reductionoffice in EPA could perform the job more effi-ciently.

Areas of Disagreement

The differences between OTA and EPA re-garding the use and definition of terms andwhether waste reduction is best applied withina multimedia context are outlined in tables 1and 2.

Operative Term and Definition

There is no standard term for actions that re-duce the generation of waste and none of theterms in use cover a standard set of similarlydefined activities. The term waste reduction,however, has roots in government activities andpolicy statements going back many years andhas always referred to cutting down the gener-ation of waste at its source. Therefore, it is con-sistent with the broad concept of pollution pre-vention as distinct from pollution control whichdeals with wastes and pollutants after they aregenerated and leave a production process.

OTA has placed utmost importance on thisdistinction because the historical record indi-cates clearly that there is a tendency in gov-ernment and industry to opt for post-generationpollution control solutions instead of preven-tion. If one accepts the long-standing proposi-tion that waste reduction is without doubt theoption of choice, it is necessary to unambigu-ously distinguish it from pollution control andwaste management options. Public policy that

does not clearly identify and single out wastereduction and define it unambiguously is likelyto lead to programs that underemphasize andundermine waste reduction relative to pollu-tion control.

Waste minimization is the term used in theEPA report because the report was mandatedunder the waste minimization section in the1984 RCRA Amendments. In the statute a cleardistinction is repeatedly made between wastereduction, the uncontested option of choice,and better waste management “of wastes never-theless generated” as an alternative to land dis-posal. EPA’s report divides waste minimizationinto three categories: source reduction, recy-cling, and waste treatment. Source reduction,if it is equivalent to OTA’s waste reduction, isconsistent with the first part of the national pol-icy statement (see box C), while recycling andtreatment processes manage waste that is gen-erated. The EPA report says that “Source re-duction measures can include some types oftreatment processes . . . “19 The inclusion oftreatment is difficult to interpret. For example,if EPA considers in-plant incineration of wasteas source reduction, then there is even greaterdisagreement between OTA’s and EPA’s defi-nition. Thus, putting the term waste minimi-zation aside, EPA’s definition of source reduc-tion alone could encourage waste treatment byindustry instead of waste reduction.

However, for purposes of the waste minimi-zation report to Congress, only source reduc-tion and recycling are included because:

. . . this report focuses on source reductionand recycling, the two aspects of waste mini-mization where basic options still remainopen. 2o

Basic options here apparently refer to policyoptions since Congress has already directedEPA to consider treatment technology capac-ity but not waste reduction or recycling capa-bility when implementing the RCRA land dis-posal bans. Later the report states:

IQU, S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress:Minimization of Hazardous Waste, op. cit., p. ii.

ZOIbid,, p. iv.

21

Table 1 .—Definitions Used in the Reports

EPA (for the report) SPA (Interpreting HSWA) OTAwaste minimization:"Waste minimization means the reduction,

to the extent feasible, of hazardous wastethat is generated or subsequently treated,stored, or disposed of. It includes any

reduction or recycling activity un-dertaken by a generator that results ineither: 1) the reduction of total volume orquantity of hazardous waste; or 2) the reductionof toxicity of hazardous Waste,or both, so long as such reduction is con-sistent with the goal of minimizingpresent and future threats to humanhealth and the environment.”[p. 11 and p.

“This report focuses on source reductionand recycling, the two aspects of wasteMktmizatlon where b8eio optiona W *mdn open.” [p. Ivl

WVeete minimization, aa defined In thiereport, Irmludaa the flrat four oaWgodeeOf thi$ hieramhy . . .“ ~ font OatqOttOOrwrrad to above am Waete ra@OnWl,w*e eewMOO and oowentratlon,waate exohango, wd eneqy/mataM~.1 [P. al

‘The two ma@ categortea of waete mlnirnl-zatfon activlttea ooneMewM In thle reportare aourca rMUIWon and moyolhlg.” fp.w

soww~”“Any aottvtty that raduoa or ethmatee the~~no:~ hamiouo waeta within a

%louroe IwM@on refera to the mduobon oretimfnatlon of waate generation at theeoume, ueuafly within a pmwae. TMe 18the type of waete mtnlm@8tion that moat- -~to the oono@?t ofWaate av4anoe. aoume rwtuotfon mUma Oan Inolude $ome typea of Wstmsnt

%%&iOne o r~~ts m -took PUX, Vwtoue~n9 m mnagammt pmotioee,Inomaaea In the emienoy of memnery,and @ven faoydng wlthln a pmoaee. AeU* here, eouroe reduotlon Impfbe myaotion that duoae tha anount of waeteaxittng from a pmoaee.” [p. 8. aho p. Hbut eantenoe @

W** ~“Not defined, but ueed kttarmtttently

throughout the report. tJao V81b0 anddoee not naoeaeMy urea with WA%definition.

“A matertd 1$ ‘myofaf’ if It to Ueed, ?weed?0? reWmed (40 cm Zel.f {b) ~“ @. q

‘WWoM?9 fefefa to tha Uee or rewe of ●waete aa an effeotlw eubetttut* fur ●

oommamid produot, or ae afI hl#MH#Mw faedatook In * lndueMt piWOsae. ftahlo refera to the motamdon of Uaefdoonatltuent faottone wfthin a waetematerial or removal of Contamhwlts ftoma wasto to dtow it to be muaad. Ae uaat$*ml Wb u- - or

%?reoWmtion a waete after It fa ganefet.ed by a pmioulm pmcaee. It, too, m in.Volvo Vartoua typeB of treatmaot tofwMitata the raoyoli@g prWeee.” (p, ?;abo p. II but Without the f108t WMencq

SOURCES: Complied by OTA, 1987. For columns 1 and 2, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Reporf to Corrgress: Minirnizat/on of HazardousWaste, EPA/530 +3 WJ36-033 (Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1986), pages as notedFor column 3, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste, OTA.ITE.317 (Washington,DC U S. Government Printing Off Ice, September 1986), pages as noted,

22

Table 2.–Wastes Covered by Reports and HSWA

EPA OTA HSWA on waste minimizationHazardous Waste:EPA does not explicitly say which wastes “All nonproduct hazardous outputs from an The phrase used in HSWA was “hazardous

are covered by its use of the term industrial operation into all environmental wastes. ” The assumption can be made,“hazardous wastes.” An assumption can media, even though they may be within therefore, that the waste minimizationbe made that since the report deals wi- permitted or licensed limits. This is much regulations required by HSWA were in-thin the context of RCRA and was man- broader than the legal definition of tended to cover only those solid wastesdated under RCRA that EPA considers hazardous solid waste in the Resource regulated as hazardous wastes underwaste minimization to cover only those Conservation and Recovery Act, its RCRA.solid wastes regulated as hazardous amendments, and subsequent regulations. Some ambiguit exists, however, due to thewastes under R6RA.

Differing views of a multimediaWaste minimization is RCRA:

Hazardous refers to harm to human health legislative history. Senate Report No.or the environment and is broader than 98-284 on waste minimization provisionsthe term ‘toxicity.’ For example, wastes in S. 757, voiced concerns about “. pol-that are hazardous because of their corro- Iutants contained in effluents, emissions,sive, flammability, explosiveness, or infec- wastes or other pollution streams. ”tiousness are not normally consideredtoxic. ” [p. 31]

approach:

Ail incentives/disincentives (barriers) areframed within the RCRA context. The oneexception is: “Commercial recycling facili-ties that wish to increase their operationsmight be reluctant to do so if the expan-sion were to require a revision of theirNPDES water pollution permit to authorizea change in the composition of their dis-charges or allow for larger flows.” [p. 29]

Almost all information/data reviewed forreport and assessment of needs for futureconcerns RCRA hazardous waste genera-tion and management.

Waste minimization is multimedia: Waste reduction is multimedia:EPA lists protecting human health and the “Reduction-applied to a broad universe of

environment as a key role for waste emissions, discharges, and wastes—isminimization because “. . none of EPA’s the best means of achieving pollutionenvironmental control programs can fully prevention.” [p. 7]eliminate all the risks that they attempt to “OTA has concluded that a comprehensivecontrol.” [p. 9] multimedia (air, water, land) definition for

“To achieve its purpose, waste minimization hazardous waste is necessary . . . 1) tolike other pollution control measures, avoid creating opportunities for shiftingmust look comprehensively across all en- waste from one environmental medium tovironmental media; reductions in another possibly unregulated or less regu-hazardous waste must not be made at the Iated medium . . . and 2) to include wastesexpense of increases in air or water pollu- that are not currently regulated, such astion . . . Waste minimization programs most toxic air emissions. If the termmust therefore be carefully designed to hazardous waste is defined or applied nar-avoid cross-media transfers and to protect rowly, waste reduction measures can behuman health and the environment in a ineffective. ” [p. 11]comphrensive sense. The need to designa waste minimization program that ad-dresses both of these goals provides aframework for integrating the objectivesof all environmental programs.” [p. 10]

“EPA believes that waste minimization mustbe implemented as a general policythroughout the hazardous waste manage-ment system and, ultimately, more broad-ly throughout all of EPA’s pollutioncontrol programs.” [p. 121]

SOURCES: Complied by OTA, 1987. For column 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ffeporf to Corrgress: ~lrrlmlzatiofl of lkuar~ous VVaste, EPN530-SW-S8-033(Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 19S8), pages as noted. For column 2, U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste, OTA-ITE-317 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988), pages as noted.

23

Waste minimization, as defined in this re-port, includes the first four categories of thishierarchy . . . Z’

The four categories referred to are those inEPA’s 1976 hierarchy statement and includewaste reduction, separation and concentration,waste exchange, and energy/materials recov-ery but exclude waste treatment and landdisposal.

The EPA report can give the impression thatwaste treatment is not part of waste minimiza-tion. But there is a clear statement in the re-port by EPA that waste minimization includeswaste treatment:

That [HSWA] definition includes the con-cept of waste treatment, which encompassessuch technologies as incineration, chemicaldetoxification, biological treatments, andothers. 22

Moreover, subsequent to the EPA report, aletter on April 24,1987, from a senior EPA offi-cial to the EPA Science Advisory Board saysthat waste minimization is “generally definedas any reduction of wastes going to disposalwhether through source reduction, through on-site or off-site recycling or even through treat-ment of wastes to reduce volume, mass or tox-icity.” [emphasis added]

By defining waste minimization in two ways,confusion results: 1) Does every waste minimi-zation statement in the report exclude wastetreatment? and 2) Does any waste minimiza-tion activity by EPA and its commitments tofuture activities, outside of the boundaries ofthe report, exclude waste treatment? This fun-damental uncertainty is highlighted by the EPAreport’s statement of intent to issue “informalguidance to generators concerning what con-stitutes waste minimization under the report-ing and certification requirements of RCRA. ”23

The importance and consequences of definingwaste minimization are critical, and EPAshould quickly and definitively tell industrywhat the government means (see box E).

Z’Ibid., p. 6.ZZIbid., p. ii.2JIbid,, p. 129.

The term waste reduction, which is not de-fined by the EPA report, is widely and unevenlyused in that report. At various times it appearsto be equivalent to: 1) EPA’s source reductionor OTA’s waste reduction, or 2) waste minimi-zation, sometimes with and sometimes with-out treatment. For example:

Though some of these treatments, such asincineration, are very effective at solventwaste reduction, the costs have been prohibi-tive.24

In this EPA statement, waste treatment isclearly considered part of waste reduction, butthe use of the term waste reduction is only sen-sible in this context if it is equivalent to wasteminimization.

The aforementioned letter to the EPA ScienceAdvisory Board says that waste reduction is“defined generally as waste eliminationthrough in-process changes. ”

To recap, EPA has two definitions for wasteminimization and has not defined but uses theterm waste reduction in a variety of ways. Thisconfusing pattern of language creates consid-erable uncertainty for Congress and industryabout EPA’s future policies or programs. EPAinitiatives to expand waste minimization maynot necessarily focus on what OTA calls wastereduction if waste minimization includes anytype of recycling and waste treatment. More-over, when EPA says:

. . . mandatory standards of performance andrequired management practices are not feasi-ble or desirable at this time.25

does this refer to all three components of wasteminimization? Clearly, waste treatment is al-ready regulated, Recycling of generated wastethat is not a part of an industrial process is andshould be regulated. The OTA report’s state-ment on the infeasibility of traditionalcommand-and-control regulations clearly refersonly to waste reduction.

In summary, OTA’s waste reduction includesa host of actions taken by waste generators

ZqIbid., p, 17.ZsIbid., unnumbered first summary page.

24

Box E.—Recent Examples of Obstacles in the Private Sector to Waste Reduction

Current, traditional attitudes in industry keep attention and resources away from waste reduc-tion even when the primacy of waste reduction is explicitly recognized.

A major industrial trade association says”. . . while the semiconductor industry recognizes wastereduction at the source (i.e., source reduction) to be the ultimate goal, current practice still empha-sizes end-of-pipe management of hazardous waste. ” Despite this recognition, a definition of wasteminimization that includes waste treatment is used “since it is more reflective of current conditionsin industry. ”

—Steve Pedersen and Mary Ann Keen, “Waste Reduction in the Semiconductor Industry,” Proceed-ings of Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials (Silver Spring, MD: HazardousMaterials Control Research Institute, March 1987).

Waste reduction is not undertaken because the generally accepted broad definition of wasteminimization and the way it is promoted encourage generators to satisfy waste minimization report-ing regulations with traditional methods of waste management.

A major consulting firm to industry and government acknowledges the unique, critical benefitof waste reduction—reducing the generation of waste—but attributes lower generation of wastes towaste minimization, which is defined, “in order of preference [as] (1) source reduction, (z) recycling,and (3) treatment. ” But the firm says that waste minimization reduces the “volume and/or toxicityof hazardous waste. ” With this interpretation, waste treatment that simply concentrates a wastestream’shazardous components counts as waste minimization, without lowering risks to public health andthe environment.

—Stephen W. Kahane, “Waste Minimization Audits,” Proceedings of California Solvent WasteReduction Alternatives Symposia (Sacramento, CA: Department of Health Services, October 1986).

Analyses, even those now being developed for waste minimization purposes, can be biasedagainst waste reduction. In addition, such systems are viewed as a less complicated company pol-icy than direct policies to remove recognized, but diverse, obstacles to waste reduction.

One of the country’s leading, large, diversified manufacturers says “. . . waste reduction is thebest situation of all; no waste, no liability!” Its “approach has been to develop a financial analysisworkbook and companion computer software program which will allow plant personnel to determinetotal waste management costs including future liability considerations.” But it is not clear that wastereduction would be explicitly examined at all. Although the methodology raises the costs of land dis-posal techniques to better reflect their total long-term costs, it assumes virtually no liability for in-cineration and, thereby, places incineration on a par with waste reduction. Thus, even though thedirect costs of incineration maybe high, they maybe low relative to total land disposal costs whichis the base case and not waste reduction. This might be the case especially if onsite incineration orexisting industrial furnaces or boilers are chosen (see box F). Plant management can use this dollarsavings to support incineration and other similarly evaluated treatment technologies instead of wastereduction because there is a focus on reducing liabilities: “Those programs that reduce all liabilitiesand are the best according to established financial proceedings are to be implemented. ”

The company financial analysis “method offers several advantages over company policies suchas an end-tax on waste or a five-year waste reduction plan. ” The company believes that such direct“policy approaches are difficult to administer” for large, highly decentralized and diversified firms.Why? Because of differences between corporate divisions, differences among treatment options andwastes, allocation of resources to other shorter term needs, and a lack of technical expertise at someplants. Clearly, these conditions exist for many companies and constitute obstacles that must be directlyaddressed if waste reduction is to be systematically chosen instead of traditional waste management.

—Richard W, MacLean, “Financial Analysis of Waste Management Alternatives, ” Proceedings of Conference on Hazard-ous Wastes and Hazardous Materials (Silver Spring, MD: Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, March 1987).

25

within the confines of their production opera-tions to cut the generation of waste, This lan-guage is consistent with the concept of pollutionprevention. Any activity by which hazardouswaste is handled, managed, or transported posesrisks and costs, requires complicated regulation,offers less certain environmental protectionthan waste reduction, and contributes to indus-trial inefficiency and heightened public concernabout the environment. EPA has defined wasteminimization to refer to all options other thanland disposal, consistent with statute, but hasexcluded waste treatment in its report on wasteminimization, EPA has not clearly stated thatcertain actions should be shown infeasible be-fore a generator steps down the hierarchy.Recycling and treatment, instead of waste re-duction, may be emphasized in future wasteminimization activities by EPA. Based on EPA’sreport, it is impossible to predict to what ex-tent future EPA waste minimization actionswill focus on waste reduction.

Appropriate Wastes To Cover

In OTA’s report waste reduction applies toall hazardous wastes and environmental pol-lutants whether they are regulated under theair, water, or RCRA programs or not. (The termmultimedia is often used to describe this broadcoverage,) The alternative, waste reduction ap-plied to any particular category of waste, mightlead to: 1) less waste reduction than is feasible,and 2) abuse because some actions might dolittle more than transfer waste among environ-mental media or from one regulatory class toanother.

Since all of EPA’s waste minimization activ-ities stem from the 1984 RCRA Amendments,the EPA report is concerned with hazardouswastes defined as such under RCRA. There aretwo important limitations to this definition.First, it is not clear that any EPA waste mini-mization effort would apply, for example, todischarges to waterways covered by the CleanWater Act or air emissions covered by the CleanAir Act, The strongest statement in the EPAreport in this regard is:

EPA believes that waste minimization mustbe implemented as a general policy through-

out the hazardous waste management systemand, ultimately, more broadly throughout allof EPA’s pollution control programs. 26

But this statement is not reflected in EPA’s long-term policy option.

Second, it is highly likely that EPA has notyet officially recognized large amounts of in-dustrial wastes as hazardous. GAO has recentlystudied this problem and its findings are con-sistent with those of other studies, includingOTA’s 1983 report on hazardous waste. In itsreport GAO said:

EPA does not know if it has identified 90percent of the potentially hazardous wastes oronly 10 percent, according to the division di-rector responsible for hazardous waste iden-tification . . . Ten years after the Congressmandated the identification and control ofhazardous wastes, EPA cannot say what por-tion of the universe of hazardous wastes it hasidentified and brought under regulation, oreven if it is regulating the worst wastes interms of potential impact on human health andthe environment.27

This should be borne in mind when figureson the amount of RCRA generated waste areconsidered by policy makers, such as the newnumber of 569 million metric tons annually.All such figures refer to only those wastes EPAhas already officially designated as hazardousand therefore, underestimate the universe ofhazardous waste that pose risks to health andenvironment. Thus, OTA has found it impor-tant to say explicitly that waste reduction mustapply to all hazardous wastes, whether regulatedby EPA under RCRA or not. Otherwise, a Fed-eral nonregulatory waste reduction programwill inherit the limitations of the RCRA regu-latory program.

Even if a multimedia perspective were even-tually adopted by EPA, delay could cause sig-nificant environmental and economic costs.While there might be bureaucratic reasons notto consider multimedia waste reduction now,

Z81bid., p. 121.Z7U. S. congress, General Accounting Office, ~azi?rdous was~e.’

EPA Has Made Limited Progress in Determining the Wastes ToBe Regulated, op. cit., pp. 19 and 23.

26

there is no reason to assume that it would beharder for industrial production people to ap-ply waste reduction to all of their wastes andpollutants than only to those regulated underRCRA. Indeed, some companies already do so.But systematic adoption of multimedia wastereduction in industry will require overt govern-ment policy support.

The merits of multimedia coverage and thelong time the RCRA program is taking to de-termine all the wastes that should be regulatedas hazardous support the option of new legis-lation by Congress rather than a continuationof waste reduction being confined to RCRA.

Incentives and Disincentives v.Enhancements and Obstacles

The EPA report devotes considerable atten-tion to market incentives that can drive indus-try toward waste minimization. However, gen-eral conditions that can lead to a range ofresponses are not necessarily an effective in-centive for any particular response. Intentionaland purposeful design are crucial for develop-ing effective waste reduction incentives and dis-incentives and in developing public policyoptions.

An effective incentive is a specific action orcondition that is likely to elicit a specific desiredresponse. A disincentive causes parties to pur-posefully avoid a specific response. A generalcondition that elicits a range of positive re-sponses, including the desired response, canbe called an enhancement to the desired re-sponse. One that leads people away from thedesired response or makes the desired responseless attractive can be called an obstacle. Fordevelopment of policy options it is necessaryto focus on obstacles and problems relative toa desired outcome, such as waste reduction.Government is not needed if things are goingwell.

In the EPA report the terms incentive anddisincentive are used in confusing ways. TheFederal RCRA regulatory program was empha-sized and conclusions drawn about its impactson waste minimization instead of examiningthe benefits which might accrue from proceed-

ing with waste reduction as a program itself.This perspective systematically biases decisionsagainst major new Federal efforts aimeddirectly at promoting systematic waste reduc-tion. For example, EPA and others consider ris-ing waste management costs and liabilities,difficulties in siting waste management facil-ities, and regulatory burdens as incentives forwaste minimization.28 But none of these con-ditions were purposefully designed to elicit awaste reduction response nor is there any evi-dence that they have done so systematically,and it is misleading to call them incentives forwaste reduction. Since current regulatory pro-grams are not purposeful incentives, policy-makers should be cautious about their value toincrease waste reduction. Increasing regula-tions and improving their enforcement havetheir own merits, but they are unlikely to offeras effective and efficient a way to increasewaste reduction as do policies designed to pro-mote waste reduction. It is a mistake to believethat nothing other than attempts to fix the cur-rent regulatory system has to be done to sparka major movement by industry to comprehen-sively reduce waste generation. Existing regu-latory conditions provide motivation and po-tential benefits for waste reduction but notnecessarily the means to reduce waste genera-tion and reduce the obstacles in the way.

There is also another fundamental problem.General regulatory conditions are not neces-sarily effective incentives or enhancements forwaste reduction because many other more fa-miliar, intended, and unwanted responses (e.g.,waste treatment, regulatory compliance, andillegal disposal, respectively) can displace orlimit waste reduction. Environmental costs mayrise faster than generators can reduce wastegeneration. Responses other than waste reduc-tion by all sizes and types of companies include:

ZaAn example of this perspective in the private sector is: “onCf3a manufacturer is forced to confront the realities of proper haz-ardous waste management, and in turn the higher cost associ-ated with that treatment, management, then you will force anassessment of the production practices and waste reduction. ”[Richard C. Fortuna, Executive Director, Hazardous Waste Treat-ment Council, testimony before the House of Representatives,Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources subcommittee,Sept. 24, 1986].

27

●

●

●

●

•

●

●

regulatory compliance that maintains anend-of-pipe approach for regulated wastes;payment of higher waste managementcosts to continue use of commercially avail-able pollution control technologies;plant closings or relocation to foreign sites;changing waste management technologybecause of regulations or to reduce liabili-ties (see box F);internalizing waste management to reduceliabilities and costs by reducing the use ofoffsite facilities;finding regulatory, legal, and political op-portunities to avoid or delay compliance;andnoncompliance, illegal disposal, or accept-ance of fines and penalties as a cost of do-ing business.

Moreover, the regulatory system: 1) does notapply to all hazardous wastes and environ-mental pollutants, 2) is unevenly enforced, and3) often undergoes changes that send contradic-tory messages to generators that foster a wait-and-see attitude,

General regulatory conditions, therefore, mayhave positive or negative consequences withregard to waste reduction and, depending onspecific company circumstances, may be en-hancements for or obstacles to achievable wastereduction. Clearly, some generators will alwaysbe positively affected by regulatory conditions.However, the regulatory system, by itself, hasand will not motivate widespread waste reduc-tion unless one or more of the following arefound to be valid:

●

●

●

Generators facing rising environmentalcosts and liabilities do not at the same timeface significant obstacles to waste re-duction.The current regulatory system is compre-hensive and effective.The merits of waste reduction can be usedto expeditiously expand and fix the regu-latory system so that environmental costsfor generators increase and cause them toreduce waste generation.

Some recent research has verified that con-cerns about liabilities stimulate responses other

than waste reduction.zg The mere expressionof concern about liabilities does not mean thatit will affect decisions. While 10 of 13 wastemanagers interviewed said that their firms were“very concerned” about hazardous waste lia-bility, only three said that it was a significantwaste reduction factor. In speaking to a largenumber of people in industry, including peo-ple in large companies who work at the plantlevel, OTA has found this situation to be veryprevalent. Decisionmakers seek optimal choiceswithin the limits of their knowledge and ana-lytical resources.

The EPA report does not include a discus-sion about the dual nature of general regula-tory conditions (of their role as obstacles as wellas enhancements) but concludes that regula-tions are more effective as enhancements thanas obstacles. While the EPA report appendicesgive some attention to industry, there is no dis-cussion in the summary volume of how widelydiffering factors (e.g., management style, proc-ess type, and age) can affect the way compa-nies adopt waste reduction.

OTA conducted a survey of industry to gaininsight into the duality of general regulatoryconditions. The results served as the basis fora discussion in the OTA report of why the cur-rent regulatory program is likely to act as anobstacle to waste reduction. Briefly, some ofthe key reasons why responses other than wastereduction are likely are:

• greater familiarity with waste managementand pollution control by workers, man-agers, and advocates in companies andtrade associations;

● a belief (which is, in fact, incorrect) thatwaste recycling and treatment technol-ogies are, or can be made, safe enough tominimize liabilities as much as waste re-duction can;

‘Robert E. Deyle, “Source Reduction by Hazardous Waste Gen-erating Firms in New York State, ” Syracuse University Tech-nology and Information Policy Program Working Paper No. 85-010, as cited in Robert Deyle and Rosemary O’Leary, “SmallQuantity Generator Liability and Regulatory Compliance,”Proceedings of the National Conference on Hazardous Wastesand Hazardous Materials (Silver Spring, MD: Hazardous Mate-rials Control Research Institute, March 1987).

28

Box F.—Burning Waste in Industrial Furnaces and Boilers Can Reduce Interest in Waste Reduction

Premise

Land disposal restrictions in RCRA and limited availability of high-cost commercial incineratorsincrease interest in using onsite or offsite furnaces and boilers. Interest is especially strong for liquidorganic hazardous waste such as spent solvents. The waste serves as a substitute for fuel.

Level of Interest

Industry .—Waste generators want to use either their own furnaces or commercial cement kilns,lime kilns, and iron-making blast furnaces. For the latter costs are said to be one-quarter to one-thirdof prices charged for hazardous waste incinerators.1

Government.—EPA and State regulatory officials, for the most part, support and encourage useof industrial furnaces and boilers. It is seen as a way to allow implementation of land disposal bansand still allow industry to generate waste.

Regulations

EPA is establishing regulations for burning hazardous waste in industrial furnaces and boilerswhich thus far have escaped regulation because they have been considered as recycling or recoveryoperations. EPA’s proposed regulations, however, will not pose serious problems. For example, notest burn may be necessary, no routine measurement of discharged solids for hazardous metals withregard to leachability, nor testing for specific toxic air emissions will be imposed. Moreover, for smallquantity wastes there will be a regulatory exemption and for many cases the solids discharged willnot be considered hazardous until shown otherwise, as is now the case for incinerators. The net effectof all this will be to speed up permitting of facilities and to give them a competitive advantage overconventional incinerators whose only function is to burn hazardous waste. z

Issues and Concerns●

●

●

Government regulation may be ineffective. For example, solid products produced by furnaces thatmay contain hazardous substances, such as lead, may pose risks when in use.

Generators may have more liability than proponents suggest due to handling and storage of waste,residual waste in product, and toxic air emissions.

There is a strong economic motivation for furnace operators to use far more waste than is neces-sary for fuel purposes. This could reduce furnace reliability and effectiveness, result in contami-nated products, and cause unsafe storage and handling which has often occurred in the past at“sham” recycling facilities. More money can sometimes be made from burning waste than frommaking product. And wastes with no fuel value are also being talked about for burning in industrialfurnaces. 3

Impact on Waste Reduction

The promotion of industrial furnaces and boilers as an environmentally acceptable, low cost, andconvenient alternative to land disposal is an obstacle to waste reduction. Compared to land disposal,generators with insufficient interest in or knowledge of waste reduction see an economically attrac-tive, government-sanctioned option for their waste management. Ironically, many of the wastes tar-geted for industrial furnaces are the easiest to reduce the generation of by in-process recycling andraw material changes. Moreover, the risk of sham recycling or ineffective burning makes this wastemanagement option a particularly poor alternative compared to the benefits of waste reduction.

I Michael Benoit, “The Use of Industrial Furnaces for the Destruction of Organic Hazardous Wastes, ” proceedings of conference on A4inimiz-ing Liability for Hazardous Waste Management (Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute and American Bar Association, April 1987).

ZLisa Friedman, oral comments at conference on Minimizing Liability for Hazardous Waste Management, Apr. 3, 1987.3Benoit, op. cit.

29

●

●

●

●

●

inability of companies to simultaneouslydevote resources to legally demanded reg-ulatory compliance and to voluntary wastereduction;lack of a technical support structure andrewards for production people who mustimplement waste reduction and lack oftime to do it;a mistaken belief that no waste reductionopportunities remain;lack of technical information to pursuewaste reduction, including the exact link-age between waste generation and specificindustrial operations; andlack of accounting systems that allocateenvironmental costs to specific productionoperations, where waste reduction mustoccur, in order to provide the economicmotivation to assess waste reduction.

These reasons (see box E for recent exam-ples) for nonwaste reduction responses to gen-eral regulatory conditions are obstacles and canbe addressed by public policies and corporateactions, Even though they result in less wastereduction, they are not disincentives since theydo not purposefully move decisions away fromwaste reduction. This may explain why theseobstacles are often ignored or discounted.Moreover, it is not possible to generalize as totheir presence and effect with regard to com-pany size or type of industry or product. Noris OTA suggesting that the above reasons arecaused by the regulatory system. For example,EPA and others point out that a lack of capitalin smaller companies is a reason why they donot practice waste reduction. But many com-panies, both small and large, with capital to in-vest are more likely to allocate it to product de-velopment, plant expansion, or diversificationrather than waste reduction. Moreover, al-though waste reduction projects may offer at-tractive paybacks (in the majority of cases inless than one year), they may still be less thansome product-related projects.

An important new piece of information sup-ports the view that government interventionmust overcome existing obstacles to waste re-duction and provide direct assistance to gener-ators. Ventura County in California has just

completed a 2-year innovative program in wastereduction, It has obtained evidence of substan-tial waste reduction as a result of a proactiveprogram that sends county inspectors intoplants to conduct waste reduction audits andmake recommendations to generators. so Whatis important for national policy developmentis what the Ventura County has concluded:

The government, so far, intends no furtherpublic intervention and assumes that com-panies have the motivation, finances and in-formational resources that are necessary to de-velop and implement their own hazardouswaste reduction program. The Ventura Coun-ty Program results, however, reveal that thisassumption is not the case and that genera-tors are not fully aware of all waste reductionmethods and opportunities.

Local programs, through established rela-tionships with hazardous waste generatorsand involvement in land use processes, canprovide incentives, information and other as-sistance that is necessary to achieve signifi-cant hazardous waste reduction in their com-munities. 31

Ventura County also conducted a survey ofthe 75 companies it worked with and foundthat:

A large component of corporate resistanceto volume reduction comes from the man-agerial level. Attitudes toward changing ex-isting “habits” affect the implementation ofstrategies to reduce waste generation. Man-agement, it appears, will often select “provenmethods” of waste disposal rather than try-ing to innovate new methods to reduce vol-ume of waste generated. Companies, we

3oA]though OTA finds that the definition of waste reductionused by Ventura County, like the term waste minimization, posesproblems because it includes recycling and treatment and thatthe data reported does not measure waste reduction correctly,there is little doubt that the program has resulted in significantwaste reduction. However, the figure generally quoted of 70 per-cent waste reduction over the 2-year program may overstate orunderstate waste reduction as defined by OTA. It was based onaggregate generation data of wastes shipped offsite and not wastereduction data from specific companies on a production outputbasis.

Slventura County Environmental Health Department, “Haz-ardous Waste Reduction Guidelines for Environmental HealthPrograms,” draft, prepared for the California Department ofHealth Services, March 1987.

30

found, were reluctant to take risks with un-proven technologies or recyclers, were notaware of alternatives and in several cases werenot interested in changing habits.32

In Summary

Recent information and the OTA analysisprovides strong support for a Federal waste re-duction initiative designed to address multipleobstacles through a nonregulatory program.The Federal Government has done very littleintentionally aimed at promoting waste reduc-tion. This includes the RCRA waste minimiza-tion certification and reporting requirementsbecause their intent is not to encourage wastereduction but to discourage land disposal prac-tices. Existing EPA programs are chiefly con-cerned with compliance with end-of-pipe reg-—. —------ .

Szventura county Environmental Health Department, ProgressReport on Ventura County Hazardous Waste Volume Reductionand Alternative Technology Program, April 1986, p. 26.

ulations. These regulations have incidental andunintended secondary impacts on waste reduc-tion, which have probably not been sufficientlypositive to justify concluding that nothing morehas to be done by government. Only those com-panies and individuals with desire, necessaryinformation, and means can translate potentialbenefits created by the regulatory system intospecific waste reduction actions.

Moreover, EPA’s definitions and scope fora future waste minimization program, as wellas its current regulatory programs, often chan-nel private sector efforts away from waste re-duction to traditional pollution control activi-ties. The EPA report assumes effective positiveinfluences on waste reduction from existingregulatory programs and has embedded wastereduction activities within a regulatory frame-work that has historically given no priority orserious support to waste reduction. (See figure 1on EPA organization and waste minimization.)

31

Figure 1 .—EPA Organization and Funding for Waste Minimization

Administrator

l l l l l l l l l w

I $30,000”

I I IOffice of Office of Office of Office of

Underground Emergency Solid WasteStorage and Remediai Waste ProgramTanks Response Enforcement

. *

1I

Waste PermitsManagement and State

Division ProgramDivision

Air Research Pesticidesand and and

Radiation Development ToxicSubstances

I 1 . I IEnvironmental

Engineering andTechnology

Demonstration

IHazardous

Waste EngineeringResearch

Laboratory

I l l

Alternative LandTechnologies Pollution

.

PermitsDivision Control Branch

Division

Waste

I I

Minlmizatlon

●

Thermal Chemical andBiological Waste

DestructionLand

DetoxificationTreatment

BranchDisposal

BranchBranch Branch

1

[I

TreatmentT e c h n o l o g y

Staf f

Wasten l m l z a t l o nResearch andDevelopment

$108,000”

StateProgramBranch

WasteMinimization

Planning$280,000’

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment

“ FY88 budget request

AMBIGUITIES IN THE EPA REPORT

EPA’s position on several important wastereduction issues is unclear, because separatestatements in the EPA report appear to supporteither side of questions likely to be posed bypolicymakers. These ambiguities can affect con-gressional policy options and the success of anynational effort to encourage systematic wastereduction. Three questions are examined:

1. Does EPA regard waste reduction as theoption of choice?

2. Does EPA require a new congressionalmandate?

3. Has EPA made a strong commitment toa major waste reduction effort?

Does EPA Regard Waste Reductionas the Option of Choice?

Do those who generate waste and pollutionhave a responsibility to fully explore waste re-duction before deciding on less environ-mentally effective and less economically soundoptions such as waste treatment? OTA foundthat waste reduction has traditionally hadprimacy, but more in theory than practice.Nevertheless, theoretical primacy is a basis forpublic policy development. If EPA does not givesuch primacy to waste reduction, then theagency is unlikely to give waste reduction pri-ority in its waste minimization efforts. And, ifEPA does not give primacy to waste reduction,industry as a whole will not.

A further issue is a subtle change in languagein EPA’s report that would sanction as wastereduction actions that did not reduce toxicity(see box G). In changing HSWA’s “volume orquantity and toxicity” to “volume or toxicity,”the environmental benefits of waste reductionare reduced or, in some applications, negated.In the OTA report actions that merely reducewaste volume are not waste reduction. An ex-ception is when a generator changes a produc-tion process so that less waste of the same con-centration (or toxicity) is generated. But, thisdiffers from volume reduction after waste hasbeen generated, such as dewatering sludge.These actions are often attractive to waste

generators because they reduce waste manage-ment costs and to government because of loweruse of land disposal, but they do not offer thesame environmental or economic benefits aswaste reduction, as EPA’s report agrees (seebelow). Dewatering is not waste reduction, itis waste concentration.

The American public increasingly sees wastereduction as key to hazardous waste manage-ment. One of the most active groups, the Citi-zens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, hassaid:

Of all the ways to manage hazardous waste,waste reduction is the most logical and attrac-tive with the ideal being waste elimination atthe source. If you don’t produce wastes in thefirst place, you don’t have to worry about land-fills, incinerators or injection wells. If there’sno waste disposal problem, nightmares likeLove Canal, Times Beach, MO and Woburn,MA don’t recur.33

As early as 1976, EPA put waste reductionat the top of the hierarchy of hazardous wasteoptions but relied on the marketplace for itsimplementation. That early endorsement of thehierarchy concept is acknowledged in EPA’swaste minimization report, which containsstatements similar to those in the OTA reportto support the primacy of waste reduction.EPA’s report says:

Both Congress and EPA believe that prevent-ing the generation of a waste, when feasible,is inherently preferable to controlling it afterit is generated. 34

Preventing the generation of a waste is theonly way to eliminate risk rather than reduceit.35

It is clear that the second statement does notapply to recycling and waste treatment but onlyto waste reduction. The following comment

Sscitizen>s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc., “Reduc-tion of Hazardous Waste: The Only Serious Management Op-tion,” December 1986, p. 2.

WU. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress.’Minimization of Hazardous Waste, op. cit., p. v.

351bid<, p. 7. Italics in original.

32

33

Box G.—What Language Best Protects the Environment:Volume and Toxicity, Volume or Toxicity, or Degree of Hazard?

HSWA on Waste Minimization

Throughout HSWA Section 224 on WasteMinimization, Congress used the phrase “reducethe volume or quantity and toxicity. ” [underlinefor emphasis] In one instance, paragraph (a)(3),the phrase is shortened to “reduce the volumeand toxicity. ” As a consequence of this language,EPA wrote and promulgated regulations requir-ing the affected generators and permit holdersto certify and submit reports to EPA that wastesare being reduced both by volume and toxicity.In addition, in HSWA Congress requested EPAto report to Congress on the feasibility y and desira-bility of establishing standards or other actionsto require generators to “reduce the volume orquantity and toxicity” of their hazardous wastes.

EPA Report on Waste Minimization

While EPA has not requested Congress toamend the wording adopted in HSWA, state-ments are made throughout its report that implysuch a change is appropriate depending on thegoal chosen for waste minimization or to easethe implementation of a waste minimizationprogram.

The following statements represent a majorchange in language that could substantially alterthe nature of technical activities carried out bywaste generators. Instead of aiming at activitiesto reduce the generation of waste, generatorscould place emphasis on reducing their wastemanagement costs by focusing on reducing thevolume of wastes only after they are generated,without regard to the toxicity of the waste.

Page ii: The definition of waste minimizationfor purposes of the report to Congress reads:

. . . activity undertaken by a generator that re-sults in either (I) the reduction of total volumeor quantity of hazardous waste or (2) the reduc-tion of toxicity of hazardous waste, or both, solong as such reduction is consistent with the goalof minimizing present and future threats to hu-man health and the environment. ” [underline foremphasis]

Page iv: “Section 1003 of HSWA [that shouldbe SDWA; HSWA has no such section] estab-lishes the general national policy in favor of

waste minimization and refers to the need to re-duce the ‘volume or quantity and toxicity’ of haz-ardous wastes. EPA does not interpret this lan-guage to indicate that Congress rejected volumereduction alone (with no change in the toxicityof hazardous constituents) as being a legitimateform of waste minimization, A generator that re-duces the volume of its hazardous waste, evenif the composition of its waste does not change,is accomplishing beneficial waste minimization. ”

Page iv: “Because both volume and toxicity ofwastes present dangers to human health and theenvironment, measuring the effectiveness ofwaste minimization will be complex. ”

Page 13: “. . . the end result [of waste minimi-zation as defined by HSWA] must be a reductionin the volume, quantity, or toxicity of wastes gen-erated and sent to land disposal, ”

Page 13-14: “By calling for simultaneous reduc-tion in both volume and toxicity, Congress ex-pressed a clear desire to avoid defining dewater-ing and other processes which merelyconcentrate wastes as being primary methods ofwaste minimization. EPA supports this Congres-sional concern, but also believes that Congressdid not intend entirely to disqualify volume re-duction by itself (with no change in toxicity) asa waste minimization technique, For example,EPA considers it beneficial if a firm can changeits processes to produce less waste per unit pro-duction, even if the composition of the waste doesnot change. EPA also believes that waste concen-tration may occasionally be a useful approachto waste minimization, such as in relation to ame-liorating shortages of land disposal or treatmentcapacity, or in preparing materials for recycling.The key concept is that waste minimization mustenhance protection of human health and the envi-ronment. ”

Page 39: “Policies that focus on reducing theoverall volume of hazardous waste may not nec-essarily be best from the point of view of pro-tecting human health and the environment. Onthe other hand, if the overriding priority in wasteminimization is to lower burdens on treatmentcapacity, the Agency might want to focus on adifferent set of waste streams than if the maingoal is to reduce high toxicity streams. ”

34

OTA Report on Waste Reduction

Page 21:”. . . actions that reduce waste volumeby concent ra t ing the hazardous content of awaste or that reduce hazard level by diluting thehazardous content are not considered waste re-duction in this report.”

Thus, the OTA report concurred with Congressthat both reduction in volume and toxicity wasnecessary to reduce risks to health and the envi-ronment, But, OTA then expanded the issue oftoxicity by discussing ‘degree of hazard’ so thatthose wastes hazardous because of their inflam-mability, corrosiveness, or explosiveness are alsoproperly considered. In certain circumstancessuch characteristics can be as significant as tox-icity if waste is mismanaged.

Page 22: “If a waste is not totally eliminated,however, actions taken to reduce waste may alsochange the chemical composition and the con-centrations of the components of the waste.Therefore, examining changes in just the amountof waste generated relative to production may

about the limits of regulated pollution controlalso supports the primacy of waste reduction:

However, control technologies are never 100percent efficient, and compliance with regu-lations under any environmental program cannever be perfect, even with the most stringentenforcement program.36

Other EPA statements are not as clear be-cause of confusing use of the term waste mini-mization. For instance, EPA stated:

Waste minimization helps protect humanhealth and the environment because it reducesthe total amount of waste that is generated andmanaged , . . Waste minimization is a con-structive approach to avoiding the risks ofbreakdowns in the waste management sys-tem—wastes not generated cannot be illegallydisposed or emitted by faulty or inefficientequipment. 37

In a policy context, EPA says:

Waste management deals with wastes afterthey are created; waste minimization deals

not reveal whether there has been a change inthe degree of hazard of the waste. Without a de-crease in the degree of hazard of the waste, theaction is not considered waste reduction. ” How-ever, OTA does regard a decrease in the amountof waste generated per unit of output, with nochange in composition, as waste reduction.

Page 23: “The best way to measure waste re-duction is to determine the changes in the abso-lute amounts of hazardous components . . . With-out guidance on the relative degrees of hazardfor specific hazardous substances, waste gener-ators could face burdensome analytical costs forperiodic measurements of the complete chemis-try of their wastes, which may be highly com-plex and vary over time. The current regulatorysystem has, for the most part, done little todifferentiate hazard levels among the many hun-dreds of common hazardous substances. There-fore, if the government is to encourage effectivewaste reduction, it may have to assist generatorsin selecting the most hazardous components ofwastes for measurement and reduction. ”

with avoiding the generation of wastes al-together . . . in the long term, waste minimi-zation must take on a priority of its own.38

These statements are correct, for waste reduc-tion, not waste minimization. Waste minimi-zation for purposes of EPA’s report includeswaste reduction and recycling; the HSWA def-inition also includes waste treatment. But, onlywaste reduction prevents the generation ofwaste.

EPA, in its report, examines but does not de-cide on the primary goal of waste minimiza-tion. EPA statements on goals include the fol-lowing:

. , . if the overriding priority in waste minimi-zation is to lower burdens on treatment capac-ity, the Agency might want to focus on a differ-ent set of waste streams than if the main goalis to reduce high toxicity streams . . . Actionsmay be very different depending uponwhether the goal of waste minimization is torelieve capacity shortages, reduce risks to hu-man health or the environment, or minimizeeconomic inefficiencies.39

‘Salbid., p. v.sTIbid., p. 10.

aeIbid., p. 29.SeIbid., p. 39.

35

The goal of relieving waste management ca-pacity shortages undercuts the primacy ofwaste reduction as a preferred environmentaland economic option. There are other ways ofrelieving possible shortages, including: 1) al-lowing continued use of land disposal, 2) delist-ing waste as being hazardous, 3) not addingmore wastes to the RCRA system, and 4) speed-ing up permitting for waste management fa-cilities.

Because it has not decided on the primarygoal of waste minimization, EPA has not beenable to use the primacy of waste reduction todevelop policy options in its report. primacy,unambiguously stated, could justify significantlevels of commitment and funding for wastereduction programs, although the regulatoryprograms would continue, because of their na-ture, to require the bulk of EPA’s resources. Al-though the policy consequences of acknowledg-ing the primacy of waste reduction are missingin EPA’s report, EPA could still develop pol-icy options comparable to but different froma major regulatory reform effort, seek compara-bility with pollution control programs, addressthe merits of facilitating a transition from reg-ulated pollution activities to voluntary wastereduction, and could stress the need to actquickly when it says:

Once made, these commitments [to wastemanagement] will be difficult to change.40

In summary, EPA’s report strongly suggeststhat waste reduction has primacy over wastemanagement from an environmental protectionstandpoint, This is consistent with the exist-ing congressional statement of national policy.But the EPA report’s statements about the goalsof waste minimization and its policy optionsdo not address the fundamental difference be-tween waste reduction and waste management,The basis for OTA’s waste reduction policy op-tions is an emphasis on the primacy of wastereduction. Policy direction is needed to clarifythis important issue of the primacy of wastereduction.

Does EPA Require a NewCongressional Mandate?

Congress is at an early stage of consideringoptions for waste reduction. Therefore, it is im-portant to know whether EPA is able to makea strong commitment without further legisla-tive action. EPA’s requirements or goals are notclear from its report. EPA has not explicitly re-quested any actions of Congress,

Regarding its “strongest option . . . to pro-mote waste minimization, ”41 EPA says:

It

No new legislative authority would be re-quired to launch such a technical assistanceeffort, but adequate and sustained support byCongress would be necessary over the next tenyears if it were to achieve its potential , . . Un-fortunately, non-regulatory programs haveoften failed at EPA for lack of statutory or reg-ulatory deadlines and institutional advocacy.For such a program to work, it must be givenstrong organizational support within theAgency. EPA is willing to make this commit-ment, and seeks support from Congress to en-sure its success . . . but intensive implemen-tation of a strategy relying on nonregulatoryapproaches will demand strong support anddirection from Congress.42

is not clear whether these statements are arequest for new legislation or if “strong sup-port and direction” is a request for funds. EPAmay be saying that it needs further congres-sional policy statements, authorization, and ap-propriation to give the necessary commitmentto waste reduction.

Regarding waste reduction and recycling, thefocus of its report, EPA says:

These are the areas where national policyis still evolving and where findings of thedesirability and feasibility of specific optionsstill need to be made.43

411 bid., p. 116.4ZIbid., pp. XX , xxv i , a n d lZ4.AsIbid., p. 13.So Ibid., p. xxiii.

72-675 0 - 87 - 2 c/L.: 3

36

Again, EPA may feel that it needs further direc-tion from Congress. This may well be true, asseveral parts of the 1984 RCRA Amendmentsdo not directly implement the national policystatement that gives primacy to waste re-duction.

Regarding an EPA option to impose manda-tory waste audits:

Requiring a waste audit of all generatorswould probably require additional legislativeauthority, although it might be argued that au-thority already exists under Section 8 ofTSCA,44

Mandatory waste reduction audits may or maynot require new legislation. However, EPA hasnot committed itself to this option. As with man-datory waste reduction regulations, the agencywill offer “its next formal report on this sub-ject in December of 1990.”45 Depending on whatit has found, it might then seek congressionalauthority to pursue mandatory waste reductionaudits.

Thus, it is not clear whether EPA is makinga commitment to waste reduction (or wasteminimization) unconditionally or is asking Con-gress for more detailed and explicit direction.EPA’s budget requests suggest that it is wait-ing for new congressional direction to makea strong commitment.

OTA’s report presented three major policystrategies for congressional consideration: onethat requires no new congressional waste re-duction action, one that would employ a tradi-tional regulatory approach and would requirecongressional action, and one that would cre-ate a major new Federal effort through new leg-islation. A government-supported technicalassistance program makes the last OTA optionthe most consistent with what EPA may pur-sue in the near term. But the OTA report dis-cusses a much wider range of actions and amuch higher level of funding than does EPA.

Has EPA Made a Strong Commitmentto a Major Waste Reduction Effort?

This is a critical question from a congres-sional viewpoint. If EPA has already embarkedon a program that is broadly supported by Con-gress, then no further action may be deemednecessary by Congress (or others) interested inpromoting more waste reduction. If not, thenCongress may need to act if it concludes thatpresent conditions will not cause industry toexpeditiously reduce waste generation to themaximum feasible level.

EPA has recommended a core waste mini-mization program in the near term. This non-regulatory program would principally supportpassive information transfer and technicalassistance implemented through the States. Butthe report does not discuss several factors im-portant to the program, such as the level of fund-ing, whether—and how much—money wouldbe available to the States, and whether therewould be changes in EPA’s organization andstructure.

The following representative statements inthe report are not specific enough to answerthese questions.

Aggressive action in favor of waste minimi-zation is clearly needed .. .48

To make a significant impact on waste gen-eration, such [nonregulatory] programs wouldhave to be intensive and well directed.47

Despite the strong existing incentives forwaste minimization discussed earlier in thisreport, EPA’s role could be considerably ex-panded into an active, aggressive, and sus-tained program of technical information.48

An expansion of Federal involvement in thisaspect of waste minimization could go fartoward increasing the efficiency and pace ofindustry’s natural inclination to reduce wastegeneration.49

~41bid., p. 114.4SIbid., p. 132.

*Ibid., p. xxv.4TIbid., p. 124.4eIbid., p. 115.QoIbid., p. 11.

37

EPA intent is not clear in the following state-ment under the heading of “The Outlook forFederal Waste Minimization Policy”:

EPA still has much to learn about the spe-cifics and potential of waste minimization, andis only beginning to develop an active strat-egy for studying and promoting it . . . Becausethe data are insufficient and because it is stilltoo soon to assess the effects of HSWA require-ments, EPA can do little more in this reportthan to suggest the principal issues of con-cern. 50

The principal action EPA recommends, anonregulatory technical assistance effort, is anexample of “non-regulatory programs [that]have often failed at EPA for lack of statutoryor regulatory deadlines, and institutional ad-vocacy. ”51 The last factor is crucial to success-ful implementation of any waste reduction pro-gram. However, EPA’s report does not describehow it will provide institutional advocacy forwaste reduction.

The OTA report examined the pollution con-trol culture, the traditional environmental pro-tection system that has evolved over the pasttwo decades and found that waste reductionposes a major shift in thinking—a paradigmchange—about how to best achieve environ-mental protection. Given natural inclinationsto resist change, institutional advocacy forwaste reduction will be difficult unless wastereduction has a prominent place in EPA’s orga-nization and significant funding. And indus-try is unlikely to emphasize waste reductionunless EPA does.

EPA’s focus on technical assistance consist-ing of passive information transfer, for the mostpart, is inconsistent with its conclusion thatthere has been a great deal of waste reductionin the past. If this were correct, then the easi-est waste reduction measures would have beentaken already by many waste generators andoptions other than the simplest forms of tech-nical assistance would be needed now. Wastegenerators would need help in how to use com-plex and capital-intensive waste reduction

S’JIbid., p. 29.SIIbid., p. xxvi.

methods; government might need to supportexpensive technology demonstration programs.The OTA report emphasizes State grants to sup-port in-plant technical assistance and also sug-gests a way to shift resources from legally man-dated regulatory compliance to voluntary wastereduction.

A recent EPA report, Unfinished Business:A Comparative Assessment of EnvironmentalProblems, on environmental problems and EPApriorities, also bears on EPA’s commitment towaste reduction. 52 There is a strong indicationin the report that EPA sees its spending on haz-ardous waste regulatory programs as high whenthe risks posed by hazardous waste are com-pared to those from other environmental prob-lems. Although the methodology used to reachthat conclusion has problems, it suggests thealternative of shifting spending on hazardouswaste from costly regulatory programs to rela-tively inexpensive nonregulatory waste reduc-tion efforts.

Although the EPA report has many positivequalitative statements in favor of waste reduc-tion, they are not backed up by budgetary orother quantitative measures of EPA’s plans.Since the release of EPA’s report, the agencyhas released its fiscal year 1988 budget request,Funds for waste minimization total $398,000for activities in the Office of Solid waste, theOffice of Research and Development, and theOffice of Policy Planning and Evaluation. Thisbudget request is less than what was spent infiscal year 1986 and the same as in fiscal year1987. It is 0.03 percent of the total EPA operat-ing program budget of $1.5 billion. 53 Four States(California, Illinois, North Carolina, and NewYork) have budgets for waste reduction or mini-mization programs greater than EPA’s request.

This low level of support for waste minimiza-tion—presumably only some fraction is allo-cated for waste reduction—is in puzzling con-trast to the many statements in the EPA report

5ZU, S, Environment] Protection Agency, Unfinished Business:A Comparative Assessment of En vironmental Problems (Wash-ington, DC: EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, February 1987).

5qThe operating program budget excludes Superfund, the un-derground storage tank trust fund, and the construction grantsprogram.

38

about need and commitment for a major Fed-eral waste minimization effort to assist indus-try and the States. This low funding level maybe particularly troubling since, as EPA states,actions taken in the near term in the waste man-agement area that are driven by the 1984 RCRAAmendments are likely to preempt waste re-duction actions. Money spent for building orusing waste treatment facilities will not be spentfor waste reduction.

Without a major Federal program to assistindustrial waste reduction, the governmentmay be pressed to retreat from the policy ofgreatly limiting the use of land disposal. Be-cause of extensive problems in siting and per-mitting new waste management facilities, in-dustry could argue that the government relaxits restrictions on land disposal to avoid dis-rupting industrial operations or a comeback ofillegal waste disposal. Alternatively, the gov-

ernment could respond by making it easier todelist wastes as hazardous under RCRA andby siting and permiting new waste managementfacilities over the objections of affected com-munities. Such actions might be much easierthan implementing a new waste reduction ef-fort, but they do not offer the same level of envi-ronmental protection and economic benefit.One way to begin to prevent such a regressivesituation is to embark rapidly on a major wastereduction program that aids industry to turnits attention and resources to waste reductionas soon as possible. But this cannot be doneon $398,000 per year or even a few million dol-lars per year. (Table 3 presents statements fromthe EPA report on the agency’s past and futurewaste minimization activities and comparesthose statements with actual budgets and withthe activity evaluations that were included inthe OTA report.)

39

Table 3.—Funding Levels and Evaluations of EPA Waste Minimization Activities

EPA report: descriptions of activities Budget commitments: past and future OTA report: evaluations of EPA activities

General commitment:“Reduction of waste has long been a goal

of EPA. This is, in fact, the third report toCongress on the general subject, theother two having been submitted in 1973and 1974 regarding the reduction of non-hazardous ‘post-consumer’ wastes .“ [p.15]

Looking ahead: EPA FY 88“An active, aggressive, and sustained pro- waste minimization

gram for technical assistance appears to budget requestbe the strongest option available to pro- OSW ... ... ... .$260,000mote waste minimization, especially inthe near term.” [p. xx]

ORD . . . . . . . . . . . 108,000OPPE . . . . . . . . . . 30,000

“Government spending on waste reductionreflects a general lack of priority for pollu-tion prevention government [Federal,State, and local] spent almost $16 billionin 1984 on pollution control. OTA esti-mates that government spending onwaste reduction totaled only $4 million infiscal year 1986.”

T o t a l . , . . . $ 3 9 8 , 0 0 0

Existing waste minimization activities:Office of Solid Waste and Office of Research and Development“Consistent with HSWA objectives to foster OSW’s

waste minization practices The Office waste minimization budgetof Solid Waste (OSW) has, over the past 2 FY 86...$550,000 (est)years, attempted to design an efficient in-tergovernmental division of labor among

FY 87 . . . 260,000

EPA Headquarters, the EPA RegionalFY 88. , 260,000 (request)

Offices, and the State hazardous wasteprograms. ” [p. 65]

“EPA Headquarters and the RegionalOffices are taking a leading role in sup-port of the Federal-State partnership byconducting three essential functions:regulatory control; technical and financialassistance; and information sharing andmanagement. ” [p. 65]

Regulatory control: “EPA has implemented[the three regulatory] waste minimizationprovisions of HSWA,” [p. 66]

Technica l and f inanc ia l ass is tance:EPA’s role has been principally one of

providing financial support through anumber of EPA programs to promisingState waste minimization efforts. It alsoprovides research support for developingtechnologies that might facilitate wasteminimization by selected industries. ” [p.68]

EPA provides the following as examples ofits technical and financial assistanceefforts:. “Congress has allocated $4.75 million in

supplemental grant funding to the EPARegional Offices for State and localgovernment hazardous waste manage-ment activities. ” [p. 68] EPA lists the eligi-ble activities for these grants; but does notIist or evaluate the projects that resultedfrom the program.

Section 8001add on grants

funds

FY 85. , .$4.50 millionFY 86 . . . 4.75 millionFY 87 . . . 0 ●

FY 88 . . . 0 ●

“In keeping with Congress’ initial low-keyapproach to waste minimization, OSW hasnot assumed a leadership role and con-siders waste minimization a low-priorityitem on its agenda. If considered at all,waste minimization is something for thefuture.” [p. 161]

“It is a reflection of the lack of any focuson waste minimization that responsibilityfor the current requirements of the 1984RCRA Amendments [HSWA] is shared bymany portions of OSW. ” [p. 162]

“As of March 1986 (8 months after the regu-lations were promulgated) little oversightwas being provided by EPA. OSW was notaware of [the extent of adoption of wasteminimization provisions of HSWA at theState level]” [p. 164]

“Waste minimization research and develop-ment is a low-priority item within EPA. Itreceived about $1.2 million—half of 1 per-cent of EPA’s fiscal 1986 estimated $213.8budget for all R&D . . . OTA estimates thatmuch less than 50 percent of EPA’s fund-ing for waste minimization R&D applies towaste reduction, even though the agencyhas identified waste reduction as one oftwo categories of waste minimization. ” [p.183]

single largest group of projects that resulted and most of the funding [for FY85] went for Small Quantity Generator(SQG) education and assistance projects.A review of the summaries of 80 suchprojects reveals that most dealt with com-pliance needs. Only three projects includ-ed waste reduction . . it is unlikely thatwaste reduction will become a higher pri-ority during [FY 86).” [P. 172]

“EPA did not request funds for program

—————.

40

Table 3.—Funding Levels and Evacuations of EPA Waste Minimization Activities—continued

EPA report: descriptions of activities Budget commitments: past and future OTA report: evaluations of EPA activities

● “The Office of Research and Develop-ment’s Small Business/Small QuantityGenerator’s Research Program providesfinancial support . . .“ [to]:

(1) “. . . Government Refuse Collectionand Disposal Association clearing-houses for information on wastemanagement options . .“

(2) “. State technical assistance andeducational programs for appliedresearch on waste minimization . . .Funding is currently provided toNorth Carolina and Minnesota. ” [p.69]

. “The Office of Research and Develop-ment also supports research and de-velopment or recycling technology andclean manufacturing processes at theIndustrial Waste Elimination ResearchCenter at the Illinois Institute of Tech-nology.” [p. 70]

● Other Office of Research and Develop-ment activities are listed by EPA as

(1) “The regional support servicesstaff serves as a clearinghouse . . .by fielding requests for technicalinformation or technologytransfer. . .“

(2) “The Hazardous Waste [Engineer-ing] Research Laboratory is under-taking research on waste reductionand recycling . . .“

(3) ORD “administered funding for ap-plied research recently conductedfor OSW in cooperation with TuftsUniversity. The Tufts Center forEnvironmental Management con-ducted a [waste minimization] for-eign practices study .“ [p. 70]

Information Sharing and Management:“EPA can draw upon several existing

sources of information in order to furtherthe dissemination and sharing of knowl-edge about hazardous waste generationand waste minimization policy . .“ [p. 70]

ORDsmall business/SQG funds

FY 86. . .$326,000FY 87. , . 103000FY 88 . . . O*

Contract per year:FY 66...$126,000FY 87 . . . 103,000

Contracts per year:NC: FY 85...$100,000

FY 86 . . . 100,000MN: FY 86...$100,000

●

OTA did not evaluate this contract becauseit was not relevant to reduction.

HWERL “has funded two Small Business In-itiative projects in fiscal year 1966through State waste reduction programs(North Carolina and Minnesota). Minneso-ta’s MnTAP will administer $100,000 ingrant on applied research project to as-sist small business in complying withregulatory problems. The grant will applyprimarily to RCRA hazardous waste andwill not be restricted to waste minimiza-tion.” [p. 209]

The EPA grants to North Carolina’s Pollu-tion Prevention Pays Program are usedalong with State funds to create a com-prehensive research and education grantsystem. [see pp. 218-219]

. . is the EPA center [of Excellence] wherework is most directly related to wastereduction. Its annual budget is based onthe EPA grant [$540,000 per year] . . .specific projects have focused on [re-search with some relevance to wastereduction] . . . The center would like topursue waste reduction more directly butdoes not do so because the subject lackspriority at EPA . . . [p. 185]

OTA did not evaluate these activities.

HWERL’S “Despite claims that HWERL is ‘working toAlternative Technologies Division foster increased use of . . . waste reduc-

Waste minimization research funding: tion’ OTA could find little work specifical-ly directed toward this objective . . .

FY 86....$235,000 Funding for fiscal year 1986 is . . . beingFY 87 . . . . 108,000 used for one contract . . . [on waste reduc-FY 88 . . . . 108,000 (request) tion auditing procedures].” [p. 184]

“The Center for Environment Managementat Tufts University is funded principally byEPA at a cost of $2 million per year. . . Waste Reduction and Treatment is oneof four ‘clusters of concentration’ [at theCenter]. Two projects [relevant to wasteminimization or waste reduction] havebeen completed: a study of foreigngovernment waste minimization practicesand the organization of a conference.” [p.188]

OTA did not directly evaluate the informa-tion-sharing aspect of EPA’s wasteminimization efforts in its report becausethey had little focus on waste reduction.The activities have concerned EPA’sReport to Congress or were not contin-gent on EPA funding.

“EPA did not request funds for program

41

Table 3.—Funding Levels and Evaluations of EPA Waste Minimization Activities—Continued

EPA report: descriptions of activities Budget commitments: past and future OTA report: evaluations of EPA activities

EPA lists the following examples of informa-t ion shar ing:

(1) Sponsorship of two waste reduction con-ferences held at Woods Hole in 1985 and1988.

(2) Co-sponsorship and assistance in coor-dinating three workshops for State WasteReduction Programs,

(3) Waste minimization presentations by EPAstaff at seven conferences.

(4) Support to the Environmental AuditingRoundtable.

In the information management category,EPA discusses the value of “existingmechanisms [that] afford a significant ba-sis upon which to develop a comprehen-sive overview of the use, movement, andfate of all chemicals and wastes of con-cern and to determine the changes result-ing from altered economic and regulatoryconditions. ” [p. 73]

OTA devoted a chapter in its report to infor-mation needs and availability for wastereduction in setting policy goals and inimplementing and evaluating potentialregulatory and nonregulatory programs.Primarily because waste reduction is aprocess specific endeavor, little wasfound in the existing information gather-ing capability of EPA that significantlysatisfied those needs.

SOURCES For column 1, U S, Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress Minimization of Hazardous Waste, EPA/530-SW-88-033 (Washington, DC: EPA,Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1988), pages as noted. For column 2, OTA 1987. For column 3, U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Ser/ous Reductiorr of Hazardous Waste, OTA-ITE-317 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988), pages as noted

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The main purpose of this report is to assistthe looth” Congress with its deliberations aboutwaste reduction. In this section the importantconclusions of the first three sections of thisreport are drawn together to identify and ana-lyze four critical policy choices on waste re-duction:

1. Is there a need for legislative action?2. Are there advantages to a completely new

type of legislation?3. What could new waste reduction legisla-

tion include?4. What might be an effective level and source

of funding?

Is There a Need for Legislative Action?

A significant body of waste reduction litera-ture now exists extending beyond the EPA andOTA reports. Waste reduction is seen by nearlyeveryone as:

●

●

●

●

offering substantial environmental andcompetitiveness benefits;an option that is technically, economically,and organizationally feasible in the nearterm and that has many opportunities yetavailable;not being amenable to a traditionalprescriptive regulatory approach where thegovernment tells industry what to do andwhen to do it; andas facing diverse obstacles in both govern-ment and industry.

The findings and conclusions of the EPA re-port to Congress on waste minimization areconsistent with all of the above statements.Without a congressional directive to do other-wise, however, EPA plans limited activities, noinstitutional or organizational change, and verylow funding. This course is consistent with ahistorical low priority and support for wastereduction and EPA’s optimism about the posi-tive effects of its regulatory programs on wastereduction. EPA’s proposed small effort wouldprobably not alter substantially the incrementalincreases in waste reduction now occurring.

In the meantime, within the next few years ac-tions and investments may occur that could dis-place waste reduction actions.

Congress itself caused a major reexaminationof waste management and set the stage for thisscenario through some of the 1984 Amendmentsto RCRA (HSWA). It directed EPA to move theNation’s hazardous waste management systemaway from land disposal with very strong man-dates to EPA to examine, regulate, and promotealternative waste management technologies,such as incineration. The move to widespreadincineration is occurring despite the unknownenvironmental risk that may follow. At the sametime, Congress has not given explicit instruc-tions for comparable measures to move indus-try to waste reduction, even though nationalpolicy states that waste reduction is the pre-ferred environmental option. EPA only consid-ers the availability of waste treatment capac-ity—not waste reduction potential—in reachingdecisions on land disposal bans, includingwhether to delay the bans. This situation prob-ably developed because of concerns about in-trusive regulations to encourage reexaminationof and change in upstream processes and oper-ations in industry. Indeed, such concerns arewarranted, but would not apply with a non-regulatory Federal waste reduction program.This approach was not considered when Con-gress reauthorized RCRA in 1984.

Superfund was similarly changed in 1986without considering the potential benefits ofreducing the generation of hazardous waste.Section 104(k) of the Superfund Amendmentsand Reauthorization Act of 1986 exerts pres-sure on States to assure the availability of haz-ardous waste treatment or disposal facilities tohandle all hazardous wastes expected to be gen-erated within the State during the next 20 years.Again, Congress did not require examinationof waste reduction as a way to help create acomprehensive waste management system.However, there is now some discussion of usingcapacity credits to recognize State waste reduc-

42

43

tion programs.54 This is a worthwhile way tointegrate waste reduction into assessments ofhazardous waste management capacity needs.

The ultimate decision not to use a waste-endtax to help fund the Superfund program mayalso be significant. That option had receivedconsiderable analysis, discussion, and supportover some years.55 Several States have large haz-ardous waste taxes or fees. One of the intendedbenefits of imposing a substantial tax on haz-ardous waste sent to land disposal and perhapseven waste treatment facilities is the promo-tion of waste reduction. For example, JudithEnck, the Executive Director of EnvironmentalPlanning Lobby in New York, said:

Increasing regulatory fees is one way to en-courage source reduction, for instance. I thinkgetting companies to reduce the amount oftoxic waste they generate out of the goodnessof their heart isn’t going to happen, If they canbe convinced on economic grounds that re-ducing the amount of toxic waste that is gen-erated is in their interest, they’ll come around.I think the whole key is economics. so

Proponents of waste reduction have seen thedecision to not use a Federal waste-end tax asa lack of interest in and support for waste re-duction.

Moreover, there is rapidly increasing inter-est in waste reduction within the Nation’s grass-roots, citizen-based environmental movementthat merits attention. People concerned abouthazardous waste and environmental pollutionare not concerned with statutory and regula-tory subtleties. They focus on goals and resultsand recognize waste reduction’s unique abil-ity to offer the most certain and broadly definedenvironmental and public health protection.Such a preventive approach could extend be-yond RCRA industrial waste to household haz-

“See, for instance, “Development of State Capacity Certifica-tion Requirements under the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act of 1986 (SARA), ” draft prepared by the Cen-ter for Policy Research of the National Governor’s Association,Mar. 15, 1987.

Sssee, for instance, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Superfund Strategy, OTA-ITE-252 [Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, April 1985).

WJToxjcs jn YOUr Cornrnunjty Coalition Newsletter, Febru-ary/March 1987, p. 5.

ardous waste and even to the elimination of haz-ardous materials in products. To these groups,lack of action on waste reduction signals a dif-ficulty in moving incrementally toward a soci-ety with minimal use of and exposure to toxicand hazardous substances. s’

The EPA report concluded that enough in-formation was available to say that much wastereduction has already occurred but that notenough information was available to make adecision on imposing waste minimization reg-ulations on industry, Meanwhile, the report rec-ommended some type of waste minimizationtechnical assistance. The likely result of EPA’sproposed program is a continuation of a SlO W

increase in the reduction of the generation ofhazardous waste; too slow to prevent a poten-tial major shortage in waste management ca-pacity, if it is going to occur. This developmentcould cause the government to back away fromits goal of greatly restricting land disposal.

The OTA report to Congress offers a rangeof broad policy approaches grouped accordingto probable outcome. It identified and discussedabroad range of obstacles that exist in both gov-ernment and industry which block many com-panies from examining and thoroughly im-plementing waste reduction. These obstaclesexplain why a bold Federal nonregulatory ini-tiative is necessary if the United States is to gainthe environmental and competitiveness bene-fits of waste reduction in the near term. If Con-gress wants to increase the pace and scope ofindustrial waste reduction, where hazardouswaste is defined in the broadest terms, it couldadopt a strategy that would establish a strongFederal nonregulatory program that would notburden industry. Waste reduction will proceedeven without a major program at the Federallevel, but slowly. Some companies may stop re-ducing the generation of waste after the easi-est, most obvious ways are adopted. Others maynot discover the benefits of waste reduction forsome time.

5Tc)ne major national organization, the National CampaignAgainst Toxic Hazards, has already designed model legislationaddressing this broader view of toxics use reduction that includeswaste reduction. It has been introduced in several States.

44

Information and analysis from EPA, OTA,and several other studies now available to Con-gress could support a decision to move aheadwith a nonregulatory legislative initiative fo-cused on waste reduction instead of waste mini-mization, as defined by HSWA. The timing ofgovernment action is just as important as itsnature. Even though waste reduction is a ma-jor change in strategy and thinking, it is alsoa logical and immediately available next stepin the development of a comprehensive envi-ronmental protection-waste management sys-tem. Waste reduction combines the environ-mentalism of the 1960s with the economicsensibilities of the 1980s.

Are There Advantages to a CompletelyNew Type of Legislation?

A decision to act legislatively on waste re-duction would require a critical choice whetherto act within the framework already existingunder RCRA, the only environmental statutethat has focused some attention on waste reduc-tion, or to establish an entirely new statute.

The following reasons support new legis-lation:

1.

2.

First and foremost, waste reduction is up-stream pollution prevention that is differ-ent technically and philosophically fromthe end-of-pipe pollution control basis ofexisting statutes. Almost all of the govern-mental and industrial apparatus estab-lished over many years for environmentalprotection depend on strategies, technol-ogies, principles, policies, and environ-mental specialists that are not appropriatefor waste reduction.Tacking waste reduction onto existing leg-islation, such as RCRA, has not resultedin waste reduction receiving priority. It hasnot been defined clearly nor given focusin contrast to waste treatment options. (Seefigure 2 for an example of how the currentregulatory system shifts pollutants amongmedia compounding environmental prob-lems and increasing costs to both govern-ment and industry.) waste reduction andeven waste minimization are often ignored

Figure 2.—End-of-Pipe Approach:Regulating the Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part SO

[AD-FRL-3163-61

Standards of Performance for NewStat ionary Sources VOC From Petroleum Refinery Wastewatersystems

AGENCY Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed rule and notice ofpublic hearing.

SUMMARY: The proposed standardswould limit emissons of volatile organiccompounds (WC) from new, modified,and reconstructed refinery wastewatersystems. The proposed standardsimplement section 111 of the Clean AirAct and are based on theAdministrator’s determination that VOCemissions from petroleum refineryfugitive emission sources cause, orcontribute significantly to, air pollutionwhich may reasonably be anticipated toendanger public health or welfare.Refinery wastewater systems are part ofthe refinery fugitive sources category.The intent is to require new, modified,and reconstructed refinery wastewatersystems to control emissions to the levelachievable by the best demonstratedsystem of continuous emissionreduction, considering costs, nonairquality health, and environmental andenergy impacts,

A public hearing will be held, ifrequested, to provide interested partiesan opportunity for oral presentations ofdata. views, or arguments concerning

the proposed standards.

This example of a proposed regulation shows how control-ling, rather than reducing, pollutants can shift pollutantsaround and become an unending process. In this instance,the petroleum industry was initially required under the CleanWater Act to build wastewater treatment facilities to treatoily water from its refinery process units rather than releasethe untreated water into the Nation’s waterways. Subse-quently, it has been discovered that the treatment processesemit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air, and nowthe VOCs must, in turn, be controlled. Thus, EPA is propos-ing that new, modified, and reconstructed refinery wastewa-ter systems regulated under the Clean Water Act be furtherregulated under the Clean Air Act section 111. This proposalwill not control those VOCs emitted from existing wastewa-ter systems.

A waste reduction approach would have been to conductwaste audits of the various refinery processes that generatethe oily wastewater and to devise methods of reducing thatgeneration. Many waste reduction case studies have shownthat substantial amounts of wastewater produced from proc-ess cleaning operations can be reduced by relatively simplechanges in those operations. By not generating the oilywastewaters, the VOC problem would not exist and requiresubsequent attention.SOURCE: Federal Register, vol. 52, No. 65, May 4, 1987, p. 16334.

45

3.

4.

5.

when the RCRA program is examined. Thelinkage between waste reduction and whatmany people regard as higher RCRA pri-orities (e. g., enforcement and complianceissues) is rarely considered. Moreover,should Congress assign a substantial wastereduction program to the Office of SolidWaste (OSW), which implements RCRA,it is likely either that OSW’s priority fortreatment and disposal programs would in-terfere with its implementation of wastereduction or that current programs wouldsuffer.Waste reduction must address all hazard-ous wastes and environmental pollutantsor opportunities will open up to shift wastebetween environmental media. While it ispossible to superimpose waste reductionwithout conflict on the various environ-mental programs, it could be difficult toincorporate a multimedia approach solelyfrom within RCRA or any other existingenvironmental statute. No matter whatmight make technical and economic sense,if the government said that waste reduc-tion only applied to a narrow class of reg-ulated waste, then much of industry’s ac-tions might be similarly focused. Thetemptation, and perhaps legal need, to ad-dress waste reduction comparably amongall major environmental statutes wouldprobably delay action.Waste reduction is best addressed by gov-ernment policies aimed at assistance, per-suasion, and institutional commitment.Both EPA and OTA have said it is not ame-nable to traditional regulatory or prescrip-tive approaches. This is in stark contrastto existing environmental statutes whichrely, almost exclusively, on command-and-control regulations. The success of the Ven-tura County waste reduction program sup-ports the use of technical assistance.waste reduction bridges the environmentaland industrial competitiveness areas of na-tional concern. The traditional regulatoryapproach to environmental protection re-sults in increasing costs to government andindustry. Waste reduction offers both gov-

ernment and industry a near-term oppor-tunity to reduce their environmental costsand liabilities even as the government findsit necessary to promulgate more environ-mental regulations.

Reasons for maintaining the RCRA contextfor a congressional initiative on waste reduc-tion include:

1.

2.

3.

Congress can more easily amend an exist-ing statute than create a new one;RCRA, which has already dealt with thesubject of waste reduction, is a timely ve-hicle since it is scheduled for reauthoriza-tion in 1988; andRCRA involves fewer committees and sub-committee whereas a waste reduction stat-ute might result in shared jurisdiction withcommittees with an interest in industrialcompetitiveness.

Overall, it would seem more effective and ef-ficient for Congress to use new legislation ifit chooses to move ahead with a major wastereduction initiative. However, a more modestinitiative similar to what now exists could fitinto the RCRA framework.

What Could New Waste ReductionLegislation Include?

There are a host of potentially effective pol-icy instruments for Congress to consider.

Assistance to Industry

The environmental and economic benefits ofwaste reduction can be used to justify techni-cal assistance by government to industry. Suchactions by government include:

●

In-plant technical assistance to deal withsite-specific situations. Experts could pro-vide help to identify waste reduction op-portunities and techniques, establish wastereduction audit and accounting systems,and suggest organizational changes thatfoster waste reduction.Information and technology transferthrough passive databases and catalogs ofcase studies and interactive (expert system)

46

●

●

databases. These would make relevantwaste reduction data and informationavailable to plant personnel nationwide.Development and in-plant use of educationand training activities that help build wastereduction expertise among productionpeople.Generic R&D on commonly used processesand materials that can assist many gener-ators across different industries.

These efforts address existing obstacles inboth government and industry and constitutepurposeful incentives for waste reduction. Theycould be funded in part by the Federal Govern-ment and implemented mostly through Stategovernments with the help of Federal grants.OTA found that State agencies and other par-ties close to industrial facilities can more effi-ciently and effectively implement such an assis-tance program than can EPA. Existing Stateand sometimes local waste reduction programsare a nucleus on which to build a national pro-gram. Their focus on waste reduction and theireffectiveness could be rapidly increasedthrough Federal assistance and a common def-inition, method of measurement, and policyframework.

In January 1987, North Carolina researchersconducted a survey of 50 States. The resultson siting hazardous waste management facil-ities support OTA’s findings about the need tostimulate more State activity on waste reduc-tion. Although OTA found only 10 State pro-grams with any focus on waste reduction, thissurvey revealed that 28 States believe that theyhave a “statutory mandate or program to en-courage nonsiting alternatives, such as wastereduction at the source. ”58 However, when reg-ulatory officials were asked “How much effectdo you expect waste reduction measures willhave in reducing the need for future siting offacilities?” only 21 States said moderate to sig-nificant, 22 said none to very little, and 7 didn’tknow. This result seems an outcome of: 1)

SeRichard N.L. Andrews and Phillip Prete, “Trends in Haz-ardous Waste Facility Siting and Permitting,” Workshop on Ne-gotiating Hazardous Waste Facility Siting and Permitting Agree-ments, Conservation Foundation, Mar. 11-13, 1987. Emphasisin original.

minimally funded State and Federal programsdesigned to focus on waste reduction, and 2)studies that have often underestimated futurewaste reduction potential (discussed in detailin the OTA waste reduction report). A Federalgrants program to States, therefore, could makewaste reduction an ally of siting efforts by re-ducing siting needs in the near term to pub-licly acceptable levels.

California has recognized this concept. It re-cently passed legislation to facilitate the sitingand permitting of hazardous waste facilities.Known as the Tanner process, it includes a pro-vision for local governments to analyze wastereduction potential with the State Departmentof Health Services providing supporting wastereduction information. 59

EPA Organization

Creating an Office of Waste Reduction withan Assistant Administrator in EPA would bea major change. Independence from existingEPA pollution control programs is key. Thisoption takes on more importance because EPAhas said that a nonregulatory waste reductionprogram requires institutional advocacy. Wastereduction is not a new idea, but past historyalso makes clear that if waste reduction is toachieve parity with pollution control as a ma-jor means to environmental protection, it musthave organizational commitment, public visi-bility and accountability, and institutional ad-vocacy at the highest levels. EPA is, like anyother institution that deals with the environ-ment, a member of the pollution control cul-ture that has developed over 20 years in theUnited States. If EPA is to implement an effec-tive waste reduction program, its organizationshould reflect the primacy of waste reduction.The lack of such organizational change hasalready caused waste reduction to be over-shadowed by existing regulatory programs, asshown in figure 1.

A major new bureaucracy that would add tothe administrative burdens of EPA would beunacceptable and unwise to many. In terms of

SeCalifornia state Assembly Bill 2948 (Tanner).

47

staff, budget, and responsibilities, however, anOffice of Waste Reduction would always be asmall part of EPA. A nonregulatory programwould not have the kinds of responsibilities thatdefine most of EPA’s operations. The issue isnot one of size but of providing unambiguousinstitutional commitment to a worthy objective.With people committed to waste reduction andexpert about industrial production, even a smalloffice can supply critically needed nationalleadership. A waste reduction program that issubmerged within EPA is not likely to havecredibility with industry and the public, An As-sistant Administrator can explain and promotenot only EPA’s waste reduction effort but thatof the entire Federal Government and of Stateprograms, Currently, although EPA participatesin many conferences and workshops conductedon waste reduction, no senior EPA official rep-resents the agency, is a visible advocate of wastereduction, or is attempting to unite national in-terest in waste reduction.

Even though EPA has only a small effort onwaste minimization, a lack of coordination andconsistency among different groups has alreadysurfaced. EPA itself noted that: “Some wasteminimization options may require extensive in-ternal cooperation among EPA programs. ”60

There have already been significant differencesamong the Office of Solid Waste, the Office ofResearch and Development, and the Office ofPolicy Planning and Evaluation that help ex-plain the inconsistencies and ambiguities ofEPA’s report to Congress on waste minimiza-tion. Both ORD and OSW seem to acknowledgethe primacy of waste reduction over regulatedpollution control activities more than doesEPA’s policy office. These internal tensionsmay explain the small fiscal year 1988 budgetrequest for waste minimization that is incon-sistent with EPA’s report. With the almost in-evitable increase in interest in waste reduction,bureaucratic problems are likely to get worsein the absence of a central EPA office with over-all responsibility for waste reduction.

The activities that an EPA Office of WasteReduction might undertake to shift the balance

60U. S. Environment] P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y , RePOrt tO Congress:A4inimization of Hazardous Waste, op. cit., p, 89.

between the use of waste reduction and tradi-tional pollution control in industry are manyand varied. They are summarized below in or-der of decreasing priority and need, amplify-ing

●

●

the discussion in the OTA report:

National Leadership: A key function of theoffice would be the administration of wastereduction grants to the States. Emphasiscould be placed on expanding existing pro-grams that have shown effectiveness andproviding seed money for new programs,setting necessary policies and criteria forselection and funding (including perhapsassisting the formation of State waste re-duction boards), establishing standardmethods of measurement and a standarddefinition of waste reduction to focus Stateactions,61 evaluating the performance offunded programs, and transferring suc-cessful ideas among State programs. Thechief objective would be to develop and im-plement a cost-effective national supportsystem for very large numbers of wastegenerators (i.e., many tens of thousands).Information Analysis: The establishmentand operation of a national waste reduc-tion database would make it possible to as-sess progress nationwide. Annual reportscould provide information on whethervoluntary goals established by Congress arebeing met nationwide and across all indus-tries and analyze unsatisfactory results. In-dustry waste reduction plans could be ana-lyzed to see if sufficient commitments arebeing made to meet national goals. Grosswaste generation and environmental spend-

BIA need for a standard definition to focus implementation ismade clear by a recent example from New York State. An April1987 staff report of the Joint Legislative Commission on ToxicSubstances and Hazardous Wastes, “Hazardous Waste Reduc-tion: Obstacles and Incentives, ” contains a clear definition ofwaste reduction that is consistent with OTA’s definition and dis-cusses the need to address obstacles to increase waste reduc-tion in the State. Several bills have been introduced in the Statelegislature as a result of the report. One bill (S. 5192) sets wastereduction as the preferred hazardous waste option in New York,Two others (S. 5190 and S. 5191) establish loan guarantee andwaste audit programs. Their stated purpose is to encourage wastereduction but the bills are inconsistent with the definition andpriority given waste reduction, They allow appropriated wastereduction funds to be spent on recycling and treatment, optionsthat can divert industry’s attention from waste reduction,

48

ing data could be analyzed to detectwhether waste reduction is having a posi-tive impact on waste management nation-wide. Use of information gathered from otherEPA programs would also be examined.

● Information Transfer: Industry would beassisted, directly or through State programs,either by the establishment of an accessi-ble database of technical information onwaste reduction or by fostering nationwideuse of an existing system. The office coulddesign an expert system (i.e., an interac-tive computer system that provides an-swers to questions) to assist waste genera-tors explore waste reduction options.Information would be obtained from thegrants program and from past and ongo-ing technical activities outside the Federaleffort. Information transfer is not a substi-tute for in-plant technical assistance (pro-vided by States) because the mere availabil-ity of information provides no certaintythat a generator will obtain it and be ableor willing to act on it effectively. The firstpriority of this Federal information trans-fer effort would be to provide support forState (or even county) programs and sec-ondly to assist individual companies.

● Outreach: A major obstacle to waste reduc-tion is convincing people that it is a via-ble, near-term option. This obstacle wouldbe overcome if the office played a lead rolein outreach programs, such as workshops,to educate industry, regulatory officials,and the public at large about waste reduc-tion. The office could also publicly recog-nize industries that practice waste reduc-tion and encourage sti l l more wastereduction by others. An ongoing, high levelindustry liaison group to provide majorguidance to the office could be established.A similar liaison group for the educationalcommunity could promote the introduc-tion of waste reduction principles intoengineering and business managementcurricula. A third liaison group of the gen-eral public, environmental, public health,labor, and public interest groups wouldprovide important input to the Federalprogram.

●

●

Regulatory Analysis: Elements of the cur-rent environmental regulation system serveas obstacles to waste reduction but alsosometimes move industry slowly in thedirection of waste reduction. A criticalneed is to purposefully seek ways to useexisting regulatory programs to promotewaste reduction. For example, permitscould be made contingent on explicit com-mitment to waste reduction. Such meas-ures are not likely to be a high priority ofregulatory programs. Independent exper-tise on waste reduction would be neededin any event. Regulations to force wastereduction in industry are a potential forthe future. The office could analyze the im-pact of the current system on waste reduc-tion, work closely with EPA’s enforcementand regulatory programs to help define andanalyze opportunities for regulatory con-cessions to ease the adoption of waste re-duction, and study the feasibility of wastereduction regulations in case informationshould show that the nonregulatory effortsto promote waste reduction are not suc-cessful. By analyzing and reporting on thewaste reduction impacts of regulatory ac-tions within the formal regulatory activi-ties of EPA, the office could prevent thecreation of more obstacles to waste reduc-tion. This should be a high priority of EPA,and the office could provide the necessarytechnical expertise and objectivity for thistask. Bias for waste reduction from this of-fice would, at the least, balance the exist-ing bias for pollution control within cur-rent regulatory programs. (See box F fora current example; the agency’s decisionson regulating industrial furnaces and boilersfor burning hazardous waste).Research and Development: The officecould provide and monitor funding toEPA’s Office of Research and Develop-ment, as the current regulatory programsdo, for waste reduction research identifiedas necessary to reduce significant amountsof waste. It could also disseminate R&D re-sults from EPA and other sources to indus-try. R&D would also be possible throughthe State grants program.

4 9

●

●

Implementation of Related Federal Activ-ities: Congressionally mandated activitiesthat relate mostly to waste reduction couldbe implemented by the office. An exam-ple is the information gathering aspects ofthe new Superfund program (Title III ofSARA) having to do with crude massbalances of some industrial facilities. (Note,however, that these new data reporting re-quirements will not provide the govern-ment with a measure of national waste re-duction because waste generation will bereported in several broad ranges only.Moreover, waste generation will not be re-ported in terms of production output. Inaddition, data on only some 300 chemicalsfrom a fraction of industry are to be col-lected.) Another example is the Superfundrequirement for State assurances for long-term hazardous waste treatment or dis-posal facilities of State wastes. Implemen-tation will require an ability to review andassess such assurances and the analyticalbases used. Waste reduction is a key vari-able that should be included in such Stateanalysis.Federal Government Coordination: B yworking with other branches of the Fed-eral Government, the office could promoteand measure waste reduction at Federalfacilities; 62 remove obstacles to waste re-duction, such as inflexible procurementand product specification policies of theDepartment of Defense and the Food andDrug Administration that prevent waste re-duction; and use waste reduction perform-ance as a criterion to select vendors andcontractors. Coordination with agenciessuch as the Department of Commercecould help to establish waste reduction aspart of economic growth and industrialcompetitiveness.

● Issue Development and Liaison: Govern-ment has, for the most part, avoided theissue of toxic and dangerous materials innon-food and non-drug products. The of-fice could play a lead role in EPA and workwith other Federal agencies and the pub-lic on this issue and that of expandingwaste reduction to solid waste (i. e., house-hold and commercial garbage). Toxics usereduction is rapidly becoming a broadlysupported concept.

As difficult as organizational change can be,creating an independent Office of Waste Re-duction offers advantages over several otheroptions and what the EPA report says has beena problem for the agency—the administrationof nonregulatory programs. For example, anexpanded waste reduction effort within EPA’sOffice of Solid Waste would face tough com-petition from existing OSW programs. Credi-bility would also be a problem, particularly forestablishing a national database on waste re-duction, since in 10 years OSW has not estab-lished a reliable database on RCRA waste gen-eration. Establishing a separate waste reductiondivision within EPA’s solid and hazardouswaste program comparable to OSW wouldhamper developing a multimedia basis forwaste reduction and, here too, would face verystrong competition from existing hazardouswaste management efforts. Creating a waste re-duction effort within each major regulatory pro-gram (air, water, and waste) would also likelyresult in duplication of effort, overwhelmingcompetition from existing regulatory programs,and great difficulties in achieving expeditiousand consistent actions.

Another alternative, already receiving someattention within EPA, merits discussion. TheOffice of Research and Development (ORD) hasshown increasing interest in waste reduction.63

WAS in industry, the Department of Defense readily acknowl-edges that “the financial and legal incentives to reduce or en-tirely eliminate the generation of hazardous wastes are becom-ing more attractive. ” However, it too uses waste minimizationthat includes waste treatment and also speaks of the need to re-duce “volume or toxicity” of wastes, thus allowing actions thatreduce volume and concentrate hazardous components. [MichaelJ. Carricato, et al,, “Department of Defense Hazardous WasteMinimization, ” Proceedings of the National Conference on Haz-ardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials (Silver Spring, MD: Haz-ardous Materials Control Research Institute, March 1987), p. 328.]

6SAS this specia] report was near completion, the HazardousWaste Engineering Research Laboratory of ORD released a pro-posal in April 1987 to develop a program to “contribute to thereduction of technical barriers . . . impeding the adoption ofwaste minimization , . . “ [U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, “Waste Minimization Strategy, ” undated.] A fundinglevel of about $3 million for 1988 has been discussed. The majorshortcoming of the ORD proposal is a lack of attention to andsupport of in-plant technical assistance to increase the use ofexisting waste reduction information and technology.

50

There is undoubtedly a role for ORD in over-seeing and carrying out waste reduction re-search and development and perhaps in the de-velopment and establishment of necessarycentral information systems, as discussedabove. To have the EPA waste reduction activ-ity centered in ORD, however, is not an effec-tive way to overcome present obstacles to theuse of waste reduction in industry. A programoperated by ORD could not conduct a full rangeof activities and would not have the organiza-tional stature of an agencywide Office of WasteReduction. ORD has no experience in manag-ing nonregulatory programs, such as in-planttechnical assistance. Some problems and limi-tations of ORD taking the agency lead in wastereduction are:

●

●

●

●

technology per se is not the limiting factorfor more widespread industrial waste re-duction and ORD has little experience inaddressing nontechnical obstacles andproblems;no study of waste reduction has revealedany particular need for a major govern-ment technology demonstration programfor waste reduction;ORD would have difficulty in establishingcredibility and effectiveness for a non-regulatory program aimed at assisting in-dustry, because its experience is mainly inend-of-pipe pollution control, not in up-stream manufacturing processes, and itswork is mostly in support of regulatory pro-grams; andthere could be a tendency for ORD to carryout lengthy studies on waste reduction,rather than to actively assist industrialwaste generators of all types to use exist-ing technology through onsite technicalassistance.

Reporting and Planning Requirements

Even though nonregulatory programs do notrequire extensive, detailed data to function, in-formation on correctly measured waste reduc-tion and the cost savings relative to pollutioncontrol is necessary. Eventually, EPA will haveto evaluate the effectiveness of a Federal pro-gram and will need such data to do so.

One of the key obstacles to waste reductionwithin companies is that it is not usually a highpriority with top management. Some people inindustry are troubled by a policy option sug-gested in OTA’s report that would compel pub-licly owned companies to inform investors,through reports filed with the Securities andExchange Commission, of their waste reduc-tion efforts and progress. It raises the spectreof yet another burdensome government require-ment to gather more detailed information. How-ever, that same information is necessary forcompanies to evaluate waste reduction possi-bilities and, in more detailed form, could be re-ported to EPA and serve useful purposes fornational policy implementation and evaluation.

New industry reporting requirements—onpast waste reduction actions and detailed plansfor future efforts-is another policy option sug-gested by OTA that would require new legisla-tion. Government required plans could stimu-late the kind of attention that would make wastereduction a commonly used option in indus-try. Plans must specify what actions genera-tors will examine and take in the future to main-tain the priority of waste reduction.

However, reporting and planning require-ments by themselves do not address lack of in-terest, poor information, and lack of technicalresources to reduce waste. Nor would they beeffective unless there was a standard way ofmeasuring waste reduction based on the needto put changes in waste generation on a pro-duction output basis for specific processes andfacilities. Without in-plant technical assistanceand other active efforts by government andother organizations, a generator may be com-placent or incorrectly assume that there are noadditional waste reduction opportunities. There-fore, reporting and planning requirements arebest seen as but a part of a more comprehen-sive government program that identifies and re-moves obstacles to waste reduction and assistsindustry to reduce waste. But reporting andplanning requirements are important for gov-ernment programs to assess progress and formotivating and maintaining the interest ofgenerators.

51

Voluntary Goals

Another option, a 10 percent year-to-yearvoluntary goal over 5 years for waste reduc-tion, has not been suggested as a surrogate orantecedent to regulatory requirements. 64 Set-ting goals would draw attention to waste re-duction and provide a simple way to measureprogress and justify actions.

Some are unconcerned about such a goal be-cause they already use goals for the same rea-sons. Moreover, OTA arrived at an annual goalof 10 percent by using data from several com-panies that showed such a level of performanceover the past few years.

Nevertheless, some people are nervous thatvoluntary goals might presage regulations andmight penalize innovative and progressive com-panies that have already substantially reducedwaste, Since the first waste reduction oppor-tunities tend to be the cheapest and easiest,companies that have not adopted waste reduc-tion could quickly make progress that mightprove difficult for those with a long-standingcommitment to waste reduction. However,companies whose commitment to waste reduc-tion preceded the adoption of national goalswould be able to show that they have alreadysignificantly reduced their generation of haz-ardous waste.

A Long-Term Option: Flexibility in theRegulatory System

Companies who pursue waste reduction be-yond the first easy and inexpensive opportuni-ties face increasing technical complexities andcosts. The current regulatory system imposescosts and places demands on a company thatcan limit its resources for waste reduction. Thismay be a significant problem for large compa-

H4There has been some confusion over the 10 percent annualvoluntary goal figure, Note that over 5 years a year-to-year 10percent level of waste reduction, where each year’s generationserves as the basis for the following year’s goal, results in a totalof 41 percent reduction relative to the amount generated at thestart of the 5-year effort and 65 percent after 10 years. Becausethe base is declining, waste reduction in terms of amount of wasteper unit of production output is declining also, This means thatif production levels remain constant, progress seen as changesin the the total amount of waste generated slows down.

nies that generate and manage large amountsof waste onsite and therefore, can face substan-tial capital costs for pollution control facilitiesto comply with regulatory requirements. To ad-dress these two obstacles to continuing, com-prehensive waste reduction, OTA presented theconcept of regulatory concessions, an optionthat could be implemented in 3 to 5 years, ratherthan immediately.

Waste reduction might achieve more of itstechnical potential if flexibility were introducedinto the current regulatory system. Trade-offsbetween pollution control regulatory require-ments and specific waste reduction plans andactions could facilitate the expenditure of in-dustrial resources on waste reduction, whichprovides more certain environmental protec-tion and enhanced industrial competitiveness.Concessions, such as delayed regulatory com-pliance, would be granted only for projects thatwould provide a net gain in environmental pro-tection and public health. Valid concerns ariseabout this policy creating opportunities to avoidor escape regulatory compliance. These con-cerns and ways to deal with them are discussedin the OTA report. 65

In its study of environmental protection andtechnological change OECD came to importantconclusions about regulatory flexibility: 66

. . . flexible enforcement of the regulationsaccording to a time schedule and proceduresnegotiated between industry and governmentare largely responsible for the firm’s techno-logical reaction.

A certain flexibility and adjustment to thespecial circumstances of each industry canpay in the long run.

It is better to have regulations that are strictbut flexibly enforced, than undemanding reg-ulations hastily enforced.

An exemption which allows industry suffi-cient time and latitude to develop new tech-nologies is usually favorable for technologi-cal change. There may, however, be a conflict

6SConcessions are not a new idea. Both the Clean Water Actand the Clean Air Act have had such provisions; they are alsodiscussed in the OTA report.

660rganization for Economic Cooperation and Development,Environmental Policy and Technical Change, op. cit.

52

between the desire to facilitate technicalchange [what OTA calls waste reduction] andthe urgent need to protect the environment,which often means a conflict between urgentshort-term measures and greater efficiency inthe longer term.

OTA concludes that as difficult as it may beto introduce flexibility into the regulatory sys-tem, the long-term environmental and economicbenefits of doing so may more than justify theattempt. As the earlier discussion of U.S. indus-try’s relative competitive disadvantage showed,other nations seem to have done a better job ofintroducing regulatory flexibility. Historically,there have always been reasons for grantingsome U.S. companies regulatory concessions,but waste reduction may be the best reason.

A Long-Term Option: State WasteReduction Boards

To deal with concerns about implementingregulatory concessions and a number of otherwaste reduction policies, OTA suggested thatState waste reduction boards, similar to exist-ing State hazardous waste siting and manage-ment boards, assess waste reduction benefitsand work with regulatory agencies on regu-latory concessions. State boards could also playa major role in implementing any Federalgrants program and could provide expertpanels to help answer a key question: has a com-pany already made a good faith, documentedeffort to reduce generation and does it have aplan to do more? Since the OTA report, theMichigan Toxic Substances Control Commis-sion has recommended the creation of a Statewaste reduction board.67 Some existing Statewaste management boards as well as someStates’ active divisions that focus on waste re-duction could, of course, be alternatives to neworganizations.

e~he Michigan Toxic Sustance Control Commission, “WhitePaper: Investigations and Recommendations for the Develop-ment of a Comprehensive Michigan Program in Hazardous WasteReduction,” prepared by Waste Systems Institute of Michigan,Inc., October 1986.

What Might Be an Effective Leveland Source of Funding?

Even at the earliest stages of discussion aboutwaste reduction programs, current budget def-icits make it necessary to deal with financingof a Federal waste reduction program. It is im-portant to see a Federal waste reduction pro-gram as different from a traditional regulatoryprogram. To overcome inertia and smooth apath from pollution control to pollution pre-vention may not require major, long-termfunding.

Considering the environmental priority ofwaste reduction, a small percent of the normaloperating program budget of EPA might be real-located to establish and operate an Office ofWaste Reduction. As an example, 2 percent ofEPA’s fiscal year 1988 budget request of $1.5billion (excluding Superfund, undergroundstorage tanks trust fund, and constructiongrants programs) would provide $3o million forwaste reduction.

A funding level of $3o million, achieved bya 2 percent cut in all of EPA’s existing programsand operations, would be small enough not tothreaten the effectiveness of those other efforts.The cut might be across the board, or it mightbe made at the discretion of EPA, or Congressmight direct that cuts be made in certain areas.

This method of funding could generate $255million for a 5-year program by increasing thefigure to 3 percent in the second year and 4percent ($60 million annually in terms of thefiscal year 1988 request) in the subsequent threeyears. This level of funding might seem too lowin comparison to the benefits of expeditious andsystematic waste reduction. However a new,separate Federal waste reduction program couldencourage and assist in a national transforma-tion carried out by industry and would not bean activity where the government has a majoroperational role. Thus, these figures are con-sistent with government action that stimulateswidespread private actions in the public good.

Federal waste reduction grants to States prob-ably would account for most (80 to 90 percent)of the money appropriated. EPA has said:

53

. . . only the States have the close knowledgeof local industry that would be necessary toensure successful implementation of non-regulatory programs.68

This level of funding to States is equal to about10 percent of current grants to States in pollu-tion control regulatory programs. Yet it wouldprovide about 10 times the money now beingspent by some States on waste reduction, mak-ing a 10 percent matching fund requirementa feasible option. It would increase in-plantassistance from a tiny fraction of the Nation’swaste generators to between 50,000 to 100,000companies over five years. From the nationalperspective, spending $200 million for 5 yearson State waste reduction grants could resultin annual savings by industry of billions of dol-lars in avoided waste management costs.69 Ashas been shown by a federally supported energyconservation technical assistance program, in-creased tax revenues from corporate profits re-sulting from waste management savings wouldlikely be greater than the Federal cost of thewaste reduction grants.70 Thus, as with theenergy conservation technical assistance pro-

wU.S, Environment] Protection Agency, Report kJ Congress:Minimization of Hazardous Waste, op. cit., p. 124.

6QThis estimate is based on the 2-year experience of the Ven-tura Country waste reduction program, which cost the county$1.50,000 and reduced hazardous wastes by an estimated 40,000tons. Given land disposal costs of $250 per ton, for every dollarspent by Ventura County, its industry is saving $67 annually.An unknown portion of the initial savings was spent on one-time capital investments in waste reduction technology and proc-esses. The estimated savings is conservative, however, since itis based on only reducing RCRA hazardous wastes and only thoseshipped offsite and does not account for other economic bene-fits that accrue from waste reduction such as avoided liabilitiesand energy and raw materials savings. These factors offset thefact that some wastes probably became treated onsite insteadof being reduced or eliminated and the fact that some of the ton-nage decrease came from cuts in industry production. A $10billion annual savings nationwide would result from only about10 percent waste reduction for RCRA wastes (50 million tonsannual reduction). See also footnote 30.

TOThe Department of Energy’s Energy Analysis and Diagnos-tic Centers, which offer similar in-plant technical assistance, haveresulted in a federal government internal rate of return of 56to 101 percent per year because manufacturers’ savings becometaxable incremental earnings. For every Federal dollar spent in-dustry has saved over $5 annually, Despite the high positive rev-enue return to the Federal government, in 10 years the programhas only managed to assist 1,750 plants because of its limitedbudget, which for fiscal year 1987 totals $1.5 million. [See theUniversity City Science Center’s “Energy Analysis and Diag-nostic Centers Fact Sheet,” January 1987.]

gram, Federal spending on waste reductionmight pay for itself. Moreover, the savings fromwaste reduction are more certain than fromenergy conservation because waste manage-ment costs increase steadily while energy costssometimes decrease. Hence, increased tax rev-enues are more certain from a Federal wastereduction program.

Spending for other than the State grants couldbe limited to $5 million to $10 million annu-ally (including funding of ORD efforts), equiva-lent to about 10 to 20 fulltime equivalent (FTE)employees. This FTE level is consistent withthe tasks described above for an Office of WasteReduction.

The $255 million total for a 5-year waste re-duction program to prevent pollution and, ulti-mately, the creation of more Superfund sitesamounts to about 3 percent of the $8.5 billionthat Congress has recently appropriated for thesecond 5-year Superfund program. Cleaning upa few major Superfund sites can cost severalhundred million dollars. The Governor of NewJersey has recently made the connection be-tween the role of government in waste reduc-tion and cleanup costs, saying:

Right now we are spending billions on haz-ardous waste cleanup and on regulating thestorage and handling of hazardous substances.Yet we don’t spend anything on programs toreduce the production of waste in the firstplace.71

New Jersey’s recent initiatives to promote wastereduction include a proposal for fees on wastegeneration, creation of an information trans-fer program, and a review and revision of reg-ulations that limit waste reduction.

Finally, 5 years of Federal grants might beenough. Once waste generators get direct tech-nical assistance, overcome major obstacles, andlearn how to implement waste reduction, theywill know how beneficial waste reduction isto them, economically. After 5 years, a smallerFederal effort (e.g., $10 million annually or lessthan 1 percent of EPA’s operating budget for

TIThornas H. Kean, Annual Nfessage to the New )6WW3J’ state

Legislature, Jan, 13, 1987, p. 23.

54

nongrant activities including R&D) might beenough to ensure that waste reduction is pur-sued to its limits, incorporated into new indus-trial operations, and perhaps extended to mu-nicipal waste and consumer products. In theinitial years, States will also learn how to runeffective waste reduction programs that assisteconomic growth. An effective 5-year grantsprogram, therefore, might permanently alterhow American industry functions. It can be ex-plicitly established as a seed program to dem-onstrate that waste reduction is an effectivecomplement to our current regulatory system.The experiences of companies like 3M and DowChemical indicate that once the waste reduc-tion lesson is learned first-hand by production

people, government can play a smaller role.EPA has said:

One critical benefit of technical assistanceis that it can be started immediately and canshow at least some benefits within months ofenactment. 72

OTA agrees, because limited State programshave started to show this. If technical assistanceis good, then should it not be made availableto American industry nationwide as part of amajor Federal effort to encourage waste re-duction?

7ZU,S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress:Minimization of Hazardous Waste, op. cit., p. 117.

7 2 - 6 7 5 ( 6 4 ) Q L : 3