From Pollution to Prevention: A Progress

Report on Waste Reduction

June 1987

NTIS order #PB87-208062
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, From Pollution to Prevention: A

Progress 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 Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form on p. 55)
Foreword

Public interest in protecting health and environment by preventing the generation of hazardous wastes and environmental pollutants is rising. Some companies are discovering that prevention is easier than they thought and that its economic benefits come quickly. Much is happening; only eight months after the release

of the Office of Technology Assessment’s report, Serious Reduction of Hazardous

Waste, a great deal of new information is available. In particular, the Environmental

Protection Agency has delivered its report on waste minimization to Congress.

The Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources of the

House Committee on Government Operations requested this special report to bring

into focus congressional policy options on reducing the generation of all hazardous wastes and environmental pollutants. The report examines the effectiveness

of the limited Federal actions taken so far and summarizes what industry and State

and local governments have done to implement waste reduction. These programs

are encouraging, and they help us understand what congressional policy options

might accomplish, This special report discusses in greater detail several options

that first appeared in Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste.

There is agreement between EPA and OTA on the basic benefits of waste reduction. However, OTA sees more waste reduction possible in the near-term and,

if the Federal government is to become more engaged with prevention, more need

for policy development, organizational change, and institutional commitment. OTA

places greater emphasis on the benefits of applying waste reduction in a multimedia fashion to cover all wastes and pollutants regardless of whether or how they

are regulated.

Results from an innovative 2-year waste reduction program in Ventura County,

California, show how government can assist industry to reduce waste generation

and 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 technical assistance is an effective way to overcome obstacles to waste reduction.

Both industry and government benefit economically from waste reduction. The

study shows how the competitiveness of American industry and environmental

protection can be improved by devoting more resources to waste reduction and

thus quickly reducing the costs of pollution control.

Many people in industry and government assisted OTA in the preparation of

this work. A number of people reviewed a draft of this special report. As with all

OTA reports, however, the responsibility for its contents is OTA’s alone.

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Directo r

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

David Allen

National Campaign Against

Toxic Hazards

Lee Dane

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Managememt

Ryan Delcambre

Dow Chemical Co.

Ken Geiser

Tufts University

Greg Hollad

E.I. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

Steven Lester

Citizen’s Clearinghouse for

Hazardous Wastes

David Leu

California Department of Health Services

Richard MacLean

General Electric Co.

Roger Schecter

North Carolina Pollution Prevention

Pays Program

Russell Susag

3M
OTA Project Staff–From Pollution to Prevention:

A Progress Report on Waste Reduction

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Audrey Buyrn, Manager

industry, Technology, and Employment Program

Joel S. Hirschhorn, Project Director

Kirsten U. Oldenburg, Assistant Project Director

Edna M. Thompson, Administrative Assistant

Diane D. White, Secretary
Contents

Page

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Background ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Nature and Primacy of Waste Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

EPA’s Present and Future Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 9

Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Policy Options .. .. .. .. .. .., ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Areas of Agreement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Areas of Disagreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

In Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Ambiguities in the EPA Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Does EPA Regard Waste Reduction as the Option of Choice? . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Does EPA Require a New Congressional Mandate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Has EPA Made a Strong Commitment to a Major Waste Reduction

Effort?. ..,...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Are There Advantages to a Completely New Type of Legislation? ...,.,. 44

What Could New Waste Reduction Legislation Include? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

What Might Be an Effective Level and Source offending? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Boxes

Box Page

A. Summary of Recommendations From EPA Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. Policy Excerpt From OTA Report Brief ....., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

C. Waste Reduction and National Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

D. Unused Results in EPA’s Report Appendices Agree With

OTA’s Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

E. Recent Examples of Obstacles in the Private Sectorto

Waste Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

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

in Waste Reduction . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . , . . , . , . . . . . 28

G. What Language Best Protects the Environment: Volume and Toxicity,

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

Figures

Figure No. Page

1. EPA Organization and Funding for Waste Minimization. . . . . . . . . . . ..., 31

2. End-of-Pipe Approach: Regulating the Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 44

Tables

Table No. Page

I. Definitions Used in the Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2. Wastes Coveredby Reports and HSWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3. Funding Levels and Evaluations of EPA Waste Minimization Activities . 39
SUMMARY

There is now a historic opportunity for the

United States to improve environmental protection while reducing industry’s costs. Applying the concept of prevention to environmental

protection is a major change in thinking for

nearly everyone. The Federal Government, industry, and environmental interests have not

yet committed themselves to preventing rather

than controlling pollutants and wastes.

The conventional approach to improving

environmental protection is to impose more

regulations and enforce them more firmly.

Progress has been made, but overall the environmental results of this strategy have been disappointing. Control technologies have failed to

perform as expected, and human failures have

compounded the problem. For example, it took

a long time to recognize that land disposal of

hazardous waste is usually not a safe option.

Economically, the conventional strategy increases government spending and adds to the

competitive disadvantage of domestic manufacturing industries through high environmental spending. In 1980, for example, capital

investments in pollution control by American

industries as a percent of gross industrial domestic product was nearly four times greater

for the United States than for Japan and France

and nearly three times greater than for West

Germany. Manufacturing industries in newly

industrializing nations such as South Korea and

Brazil have an even larger cost advantage because of far fewer environmental regulatory requirements.

OTA finds that a concerted national effort

to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes

and environmental pollutants at their sources,

whether they are regulated or not, is a logical

next step in the development of a comprehensive environmental protection system for the

United States. According to recent reports by

OTA and the Environmental Protection Agency, waste reduction is the acknowledged environmental option of choice and has unique and

undisputed environmental and economic benefits. Studies by OTA, EPA, and others have

The Reader Is Cautioned To Pay Attention

To The Exact Use of Terms In This Report

Simply put, waste reduction always means

cutting the generation of hazardous waste to

avoid its handling, treatment, or disposal and

waste minimization always is a broad umbrella term that includes waste reduction,

recycling, and possibly waste treatment such

as incineration.

As discussed in this report, definitions have

policy implications.

found that many waste reduction opportuni

ties remain.

Today waste reduction proceeds slowly—not

because of a lack of technology—but because

it is inhibited by human, organizational, and

institutional obstacles in industry and government. Industry’s attention and resources go

chiefly to regulatory compliance. As the government presses companies to fix the mistakes

of the past, it provides little help to prevent problems for the future. Companies having the worst

competitiveness problems are the least likely

to be able to examine and implement waste reduction, even though they need it the most. Potential economic benefits are not being understood or captured systematically in industry.

Moreover, recent changes in the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act and Superfund

send ambiguous and contradictory messages

to EPA and industry about the priority of waste

reduction. Use of the term waste minimization,

broadly interpreted to include waste treatment,

and regulatory restrictions on land disposal are

driving capital investments to new waste treatment capacity (e. g., incineration). These can

inadvertently restrict waste reduction, which

offers better environmental protection at lower

costs. Uncertainty about waste reduction and

concerns about strains on waste management

capacity may lead regulatory officials to relax

requirements for hazardous waste facilities.
2

Can enough waste reduction occur to decrease near-term waste treatment needs? Not

always and probably not under present circumstances. Waste reduction can significantly decrease, but not eliminate, the need for waste

treatment capacity. More explicit attention to

waste reduction can help the public understand

which new waste management facilities are

truly needed.

Congress faces clear but difficult choices.

However, nearly everyone agrees that prescribing waste reduction through regulation is technically infeasible and administratively impractical. The OTA and EPA reports to Congress

help bring three fundamental policy options

into focus:

Policy Option I:

Take no new action to directly help industry to

reduce waste generation

Rely on current industry efforts. This implicitly discounts obstacles to waste reduction

that confront nearly all waste generators, like

poor information on the exact sources of their

wastes and ways to reduce their generation.

The valid basis for congressional and public

criticism of regulatory programs weakens their

positive impacts on waste generators. Regulatory programs that are ineffective for their designed purposes are even more ineffective in

causing comprehensive waste reduction. Waste

reduction does not typically prevail over other

traditional responses to rising environmental

costs and liabilities, such as changes in pollution control technologies, acceptance of high

and avoidable costs, and, in exceptional cases,

plant closings.

Policy Option II:

Institute a small Federal effort through existing

environmental statutes and regulatory programs

This would limit reduction to certain regulated wastes, pose administrative problems because of many other congressionally mandated

tasks to EPA, and have limited credibility because existing environmental programs are not

expert about production processes and have

shown little interest in waste reduction. It might

not significantly change what is now occurring.

Policy Option Ill:

Through new legislation, establish a separate

Federal program within EPA to support waste

reduction and to provide national leadership.

Fund it and State programs by allocating several percent of EPA’s operating budget

A nonregulatory approach would address

many obstacles. It would assist American industry to learn by experience that reducing the

generation of all wastes is technically feasible

and in its own economic self-interest to do as

soon as possible. A 5-year seed grants program

for State efforts could build on existing but

limited State programs. Government funded inplant technical assistance and central sources

of information, for example, could overcome

inertia and smooth a path from sole dependence

on costly end-of-pipe regulations to a dual environmental strategy that includes voluntary,

comprehensive waste reduction. Increased corporate profits from waste reduction savings are

likely to result in sufficiently increased tax revenues to rapidly offset the cost of a Federal program, possibly in as little as 1 year.
INTRODUCTION

Background

After the Office of Technology Assessment

(OTA) released its report Serious Reduction of

Hazardous Waste,1 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delivered its mandated report Minimization of Hazardous Waste2 to Congress. Congressman Mike Synar, the Chairman

of the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy,

and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations subsequently requested OTA to analyze the EPA report and

to describe “how EPA’s findings and conclusions differ from those of OTA” with the emphasis on “differences that either implicitly or

explicitly support different congressional actions” on waste reduction. This OTA special

report not only compares the OTA and EPA

reports but also provides Congress with new

information on waste reduction and a sense of

the quickening national interest in it.

Both previous reports portray waste reduction as: 1) an option with many environmental

and economic benefits compared to management and regulatory options that deal with

waste that is already generated, 2) technically

and economically feasible with current science

and technology, and 3) in limited use by industry because of a number of obstacles in industry and government. Since this special report

focuses on policy options, the policy summaries

from the original reports have been reproduced.

Box A is the summary of recommendations

from the EPA report, and box B is the portion

of the summary of the OTA report that deals

with policy options.

Even though the two reports used different

terms and covered different waste universes,

some general observations about public policy

choices facing Congress can be made. Neither

IU. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Serious Reduction 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 (Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,

October 1986).

report supports the near-term use of a regulatory approach for waste reduction that would,

in some way, prescribe industry actions. Both

reports support the use of a nonregulatory technical assistance program to help industry reduce waste generation. EPA recommends technical and information assistance to industry

and States, implemented by existing EPA programs, as its near-term waste minimization approach. In the long term, EPA recommends an

assessment of the information collected in the

short term so as to better inform Congress by

1990 on the need for authority to mandate ways

to reduce wastes. As part of the next reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA will suggest any

necessary changes in the existing waste minimization reporting requirements. The OTA report provides specific policy options for the implementation of a major Federal nonregulatory

waste reduction program, if the congressional

goal is comprehensive and rapid waste reduction. It is based largely, but not exclusively, on

in-plant technical assistance. The OTA options

include ways to address institutional commitment and implementation at the Federal and

State levels by, for example, establishing: 1) a

Federal grants program to the States to support

technical assistance, information and technology transfer, education and training, and generic R&D on commonly used processes and

materials; and 2) an EPA Office of Waste Reduction with an Assistant Administrator to provide Federal leadership and advocacy within

EPA.

Congress has not explicitly said that EPA’s

low priority for waste reduction is inconsistent with the regulatory programs EPA must

carry out nor has Congress directed EPA to

spend significant resources on waste reduction,

Congress has not yet debated a major program

of the type discussed by OTA, Thus, the purpose of this report is to bring the critical policy

choices into focus. No attempt is made here to

summarize the detailed technical results of the

two studies; the original reports should be consulted for that purpose.
4

Box A.—Summary of Recommendations From EPA Report
5

Box B.—Policy Excerpt

* * * *

So far government has not required waste reduction. OTA finds that it would be extraordinarily

difficult for government to set and enforce waste

reduction standards for a myriad of industrial

processes. The impact on industry, particularly on

troubled manufacturing sectors, could be substantial. Alternatively, the United States could move to

an economically sensible environmental protection

strategy based on both pollution control (waste

management) and pollution prevention (waste reduction) with the Federal Government providing

leadership and assistance in the following ways.

First, through policy development, education,

and oversight, Congress could help industry and the

Nation profit from seeing waste reduction not as

some unique technology, but as a field ready for

innovation engineering and management. These opportunities are embedded in every part of the industrial production system, There is no way to

predetermine the amount of waste reduction that

is possible; its technical and economic feasibility depend on the characteristics, circumstances, and

goals of specific waste generators. Success in reducing waste depends on the ability of organizations

to modernize, innovate, and cut costs, thereby increasing profits and reducing long-term liabilities.

Thus waste reduction could be used as a measure

of performance as energy efficiency and productivity often are.

Second, there are a number of possible legislative actions that could clarify the definition of waste

reduction, spur better collection of information on

waste reduction, and encourage waste generators

to devote more attention to the subject. If the Federal public policy goal is rapid and comprehensive

hazardous waste reduction, then a strategy based

on government leadership and assistance rather

than on prescriptive requirements is likely to be the

most effective. For example, Congress could: 1)

create an Office of Waste Reduction with an Assistant Administrator within EPA, 2) create a grants

program to develop generic or widely transferable

technical support for waste reduction, 3) through

new comprehensive waste reduction legislation require detailed reporting by industry on past reduction actions and plans for future efforts, 4) reward

and facilitate waste reduction by offering industry

From OTA Report Brief

concessions from existing pollution control regulatory requirements, or 5) create and use independent

State Waste Reduction Boards to implement programs. Setting a national waste reduction goal of

perhaps 10 percent annually could help convert the

long stated importance of waste reduction into a

true priority and reduce annual environmental

spending substantially, ultimately by billions of

dollars.

Definitions Used in This Report

Waste Reduction:

In-plant practices that reduce, avoid, or eliminate

the generation of hazardous waste so as to reduce

risks to health and environment. Actions taken

away from the waste generating activity, including waste recycling or treatment of wastes after they

are generated, are not considered waste reduction.

Also, an action that merely concentrates the hazardous content of a waste to reduce waste volume

or dilutes it to reduce degree of hazard is not considered waste reduction. This definition is meant

to be consistent with the goal of preventing the

generation of waste at its source rather than controlling, treating, or managing waste after its

generation.

Hazardous Waste:

All nonproduct hazardous outputs from an industrial operation into all environmental media,

even though they may be within permitted or licensed limits. This is much broader than the legal

definition of hazardous solid waste in the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act, its amendments,

and subsequent regulations. Hazardous refers to

harm to human health or the environment and is

broader than the term “toxic.” For example, wastes

that are hazardous because of their corrosivity,

flammability, explosiveness, or infectiousness are not

normally considered toxic.

Copies of the OTA report, *’Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste: For Pollution Prevention and Industrial

Efficiency, ” are available from the U.S. Government

Printing Office. The GPO stock number is 052-003-

01048-8; the price is $12.00. Copies of the report for congressional use are available by calling 4-8996. Summaries

of reports are available at no charge from the Office of

Technology Assessment.
6

A discussion of agreement and differences

between the two reports follows this introductory section. The third section analyzes some

internal inconsistencies in the EPA report. The

last section of this special report is a discussion of four critical policy choices confronting

Congress. Included is an updated discussion

of the same policy options presented in the OTA

report.

Definitions

One important difference between the OTA

and EPA reports needs to be understood at the

outset. The OTA report on waste reduction defined that term as:

in-plant practices that reduce, avoid, or eliminate the generation of hazardous wastes so

as to reduce risks to health and the environment.

Waste reduction includes actions taken in industrial plants, such as changes in technology

and processes, plant operations and procedures, and raw materials that reduce the

amount and toxicity of waste before it is generated. The OTA definition excludes recycling

as true waste reduction unless it occurs within

the parameters of a specific process so that

waste does not exit the operation. This inprocess recycling, which is an integral part of

a process or operation, is not what most people mean by waste recycling.

Congress directed EPA to report on waste

minimization. EPA said that, for purposes of

its report, waste minimization includes waste

reduction plus recycling of wastes that have

been generated whether on or off the site of

waste generation. That is, conventional waste

recycling includes the handling and transport

of waste to a facility where the waste, or part

of it, is used beneficially as a material or sometimes as an energy source. However, EPA has

interpreted the Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments Act of 1984 (HSWA, also called

the 1984 RCRA Amendments) definition of

waste minimization to include waste reduction,

3

EPA primarily used the term source reduction; its definition

of the term appears in table 1.

plus all forms of recycling and treatment (such

as incineration or other processes that destroy,

detoxify, or reduce the volume of waste

streams) that occur after wastes have been generated. In OTA’s report such post-generation

actions (recycling and treatment) are waste

management. It is generally accepted that even

good, improved, and necessary waste management offers less certain environmental and public health protection than waste reduction. Such

waste management is particularly better than

land disposal of untreated waste. Waste reduction, however, prevents pollution instead of

controlling how much hazardous substance is

released into the environment.

In this special report, waste reduction is used

exactly as the OTA report uses the term. Waste

minimization is used in this special report as

the national policy statement in HSWA defines

it (see box C). That is, the majority of waste

generators believe that waste minimization covers actions that include waste reduction plus

the recycling and treatment of hazardous

wastes after they have been generated. These

terms and their different definitions lead to

different decisions by waste generators and

different policy goals and implications, which

are discussed at length later in this report.

The Nature and Primacy of Waste Reduction

This special report does not address recycling

and waste treatment extensively. In an earlier

report4 OTA supported the shift in policy away

from land disposal toward better waste management, later adopted by Congress in HSWA.

However, in that earlier study OTA acknowledged that waste reduction was the option

generators should pursue first, and only waste

reduction was examined in OTA’s recent report. Both the EPA and OTA reports support,

by analysis and information, the unique benefits of voluntary waste reduction by industry.

In fact, no one disputes waste reduction’s wideranging advantages in principle. The issues are

4U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control,

OTA-M-196 [Springfield, VA: National Technical Information

Service, March 1983).
7

Box C.—Waste Reduction and

National Policy

“The Congress hereby declares it to be national policy of the United States that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous

waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste nevertheless

generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to minimize the present and

future threat to human health and the environment.”

From the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the U.S. Congress

in November 1984. This policy statement is

supported by waste minimization provisions

also added to the act.

all about practice: How much waste reduction

is going on now? How much could go on, and

when? Slow, token, or narrowly applied waste

reduction can lead to a false sense of accomplishment; obstacles remain unaddressed and

opportunities are missed.

Waste reduction is the best choice, when it

is technically and economically feasible. As the

environmental option of choice, waste reduction should be examined first. We need to create the climate in which the best mix of waste

reduction and waste management will grow.

The problem is that generators often assume

rather than ascertain that waste reduction is infeasible and jump to recycling, the next solution to consider, or treatment, the third option

in the hierarchy of choices. Demand for public

accountability 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 now

on the agenda of many grassroots public interest groups. Waste reduction is an opportunity

for public policy to combine the environmentalism of the 1960s with the economic sensibilities of the 1980s.

Waste reduction accomplishes one of the

basic objectives of regulatory reform because

it cuts industry’s costs and reduces the amount

of materials and situations that have to be regulated. Widespread waste reduction alleviates

the negative environmental effects of technical inadequacies of regulations, loopholes in

regulations, and poor compliance with regulations. It also alleviates private and public inefficiencies caused by a complicated web of

different and sometimes inconsistent environmental statutes and programs. These problems

are found in all environmental programs but

are particularly acute for the RCRA program

which every recent examination has found to

be in trouble.’ Problems in the regulatory system limit its ability to induce waste reduction

as an alternative to increasing regulatory costs

and liabilities. If the regulatory system is not

meeting its stated environmental protection

goals effectively, then it is unlikely to be effective in causing generators to comprehensively

reduce waste generation. Decisionmaking often

ignores the economic benefits of waste reduction, partly because they seem uncertain. A potential benefit is not necessarily an effective incentive for waste reduction. Generators stay

in the regulatory system not only because they

have to but also because they do not understand

how to leave it, even if only partially, through

waste reduction.

Waste reduction does not imply either outright or incremental elimination of the current

environmental regulatory system or of hazard-

%ee U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to

Congress—EPA Activities and Accomplishments Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Fiscal Years 1980 to 1985,

EPA/530-SW-86-027 (Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, July 1986); U.S. Congress, General

Accounting Office, Hazardous Waste: EPA Has Made Limited

Progress in Determining the Wastes To Be Regulated,

GAO/RCED-87-27 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting

Office, December 1986); and James E. McCarthy and Mark E.

Anthony Reisch, Library of Congress, Congressional Research

Service, “Hazardous Waste Fact Book,” 87-56 ENR, Jan. 30,1987.

ous waste and pollution. Waste reduction

makes it easier to achieve environmental goals.

Still, waste reduction has received little attention within the context of RCRA (or other environmental programs) by Congress, by EPA, or

by critics. Except for a few pioneering companies, industry seems largely unaware of the immediate feasibility of waste reduction and the

need to reexamine how it can be best used. Individual cases of successful waste reduction

often cited today do not prove comprehensive

waste reduction on a company or industry basis. And, the movement away from land disposal has not necessarily resulted in a broad

or large shift to waste reduction. Despite some

favorable conditions in the marketplace, waste

reduction faces stiff competition from other responses to rising costs and regulations. These

other responses include building incinerators

and not complying, or delayed compliance, with

regulations.

Waste reduction is more than just another

environmental protection option. It offers

American industry a positive return on investments that reduce environmental costs in the

short term and large liabilities in the long term,

but only if costs and liabilities are used correctly

in decisionmaking. A few pioneering companies have shown waste reduction to be an effective way to modernize plants, to improve

profitability and competitiveness, and to enhance the public perception that industry can

act proactively to solve environmental problems. Dow Chemical, for example, in its new

WRAP—Waste Reduction Always Pays—program sends a simple, unambiguous message to

its employees: waste can be reduced, you can

reduce waste, and you will be rewarded if you

do. But waste reduction is a new public policy

concept in the arena of industrial competitiveness.

Although it is not possible to accurately quantify current waste reduction or forecast future

waste reduction, OTA, EPA, and several other

major recent reports6 conclude that substanoNational Academy of Sciences, Reducing Hazardous Waste

Generation (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985);

David Sarokin, et al., Cutting Chemical Wastes (New York: INFORM, 1985); The Environmental Defense Fund, Approaches

to Source Reduction (Berkeley, CA: EDF, June 1986).
9

tial amounts of waste reduction are possible

in the near term. However, with few exceptions,

everybody in industry and government is so

busy trying to manage wastes that are generated that they have little time and money to try

to generate less. Although the environmental

regulatory system contributes to this misplaced

priority, it also results from insufficient focus

on waste reduction by industry as an element

of strategic planning, cost-cutting, and modernization. Government has not been as helpful as it could, Congress has not established the

primacy of waste reduction, even though the

HSWA national policy statement is consistent

with it (see box C). There seems to be a feeling

that waste reduction will happen on its own.

EPA’s Present and Future Commitment

The OTA study found that the Federal Government spends very little money on waste reduction, less than 1 percent of its environmental

budget. Almost all spending goes, instead, to

controlling pollutants that are generated. And

within the context of waste minimization, most

of EPA’s resources go to treatment and recycling as alternatives to land disposal, instead

of supporting waste reduction. Industry follows

EPA’s lead,

The definition of waste minimization used

by EPA (waste reduction and recycling) for the

purposes of its report to Congress differs from

previous EPA actions and from HSWA (waste

reduction, recycling, and treatment). This dual

definition can cause confusion, Waste minimization can include up to three distinctly different activities, and people in industry and government naturally give more attention to

familiar treatment technologies and recycling

than to waste reduction. A critical but often

overlooked fact is that waste reduction must

be implemented by production people and not

by those with environmental responsibilities.

But, not all production people feel pressured

or required or are willing and able to tackle

waste reduction, They are more familiar with

treatment and recycling, which are marketed

commercially as services or equipment. Production people focus on the product not on

waste, and they find pollution control at the end

of the process more convenient than waste reduction in the middle. Moreover, production

people are reluctant—with good reason—to

modify processes that are operating profitably.

Only education and training and better information about the ways to reduce waste generation can overcome this inertia and fear.

Because waste minimization means many

things, people in industry and government are

not necessarily committed to waste reduction.

EPA’s future actions would be clearer if the

EPA report had stated whether a major Federal waste reduction program is necessary because industry is not doing enough or if it had

explicitly requested new statutory authority,

funding, and organizational change in EPA to

implement a waste reduction program.

Although EPA did not explicitly say that a

major Federal waste reduction program was

not necessary, the EPA report’s recommendations are not consistent with a major program.

Moreover, in the absence of a new congressional mandate, EPA is unlikely to undertake

a major waste reduction program with the funding, institutional commitment, and organizational importance that would make it successful. To some extent this impression may be

caused by the direction HSWA gave to EPA for

the waste minimization study. Congress

seemed concerned primarily with whether to

use a traditional prescriptive regulatory approach for waste minimization (e.g., best production technology or percentage waste reduction requirements). HSWA said nothing

explicitly about setting up a major nonregulatory Federal program to encourage and assist

waste reduction or to identify how some government programs and industrial practices may

hinder waste reduction. OTA, guided by specific committee requests for its study, examined these issues closely. EPA, however, guided

by HSWA did not.

In its fiscal year 1988 budget request, EPA

allocates only $398,000 for waste minimization.

This amount is about 0.03 percent of EPA’s total operating budget of $1.5 billion and is less

than the approximate $550,000 that EPA spent

in fiscal year 1986 on its waste minimization
10

report. 7 EPA first noted the environmental

primacy of waste reduction (using that term)

in 1976, but it has relied on the marketplace

to implement the concept.

Although it has recognized the importance

of State efforts, EPA has not concluded that a

separate, comprehensive Federal waste reduction grants program is necessary to support and

enhance those efforts. OTA examined State efforts and concluded that for them to be effective nationwide in reducing the generation of

hazardous waste, there should be more of them,

they should receive more financial support, and

they should be focused on waste reduction

rather than good waste management. State nonregulatory programs recognize important obstacles facing waste generators but would benefit from a Federal policy framework that

provided national leadership focused on waste

reduction.

To sum up, a major Federal program that addresses public and private obstacles to waste

reduction could lead to more expeditious and

comprehensive waste reduction. Many of the

findings in EPA’s report are consistent with results of other studies and could support a serious waste reduction effort.

Policy Issues

Congressional Action

Although waste minimization was added to

RCRA in 1984, not much attention has been

paid to waste reduction. From a public policy

perspective, waste reduction is in the issue development stage at the Federal level, even

though it has moved considerably beyond that

at the State level—at least in a few States. No

major Federal environmental statute or program has ever paid much attention to waste reduction.

Neither Congress nor EPA has integrated

waste reduction with other tactics to achieve

a balanced environmental protection strategy.

There has been no congressional discussion of

whether the Federal Government needs to design waste reduction policy differently from

pollution control policy. In the recent reauthorizations of RCRA (HSWA, 1984) and Superfund

(The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, or SARA), Congress directed

EPA and the States to assess the Nation’s future waste management capabilities. Congress

did not, however, direct them to recognize or

examine the potentially significant contribution of waste reduction.

The most significant Federal actions to date

are the strong policy statement in HSWA on

the merits of waste reduction (see box C) and

several minor actions required of EPA and industry. Waste reduction is nearly entirely in

the hands of the private sector, except in a few

places where local or State governments have

acted to persuade and assist industry to reduce

waste generation.

The founder and director of the National

Roundtable of State Waste Reduction Programs

has 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 federal level. EPA has not met that challenge , . . waste reduction] cannot be approached as a panacea for zero wastes and

should not be entered into without a firm commitment to change the traditional pollution

control mentality in recognition of reduction

options. Government’s role in this regard requires an innovative shift in environmental

protection to include positive technical assistance and financial incentives in addition to

regulations and enforcement. The need for this

shift is particularly acute at the federal level.8

7

0TA estimated in its report that EPA spent a total of $1,8 million on waste minimization in fiscal year 1986. That amount included the cost of the EPA report, plus research funds spent

by the Office of Research and Development or granted to outside research organizations and States, not all of which were

officially labeled “waste minimization” funds. Of this total for

waste minimization, OTA estimated that about $800,000 was

spent by EPA on waste reduction.

8Roger N. Schecter, “Summary of State Waste Reduction Efforts,” Hazardous and Solid Waste Minimization and Recycling

Report, March 1987, p. 12.
11

Legislative Approach

Should Congress now decide to emphasize

waste reduction, the important issues are

whether to consider a legislative initiative and,

if so, whether to do it within the context of

RCRA or through a new statute,

New legislation may be appropriate because

waste reduction is distinctly different from

activities currently authorized and carried out

under existing environmental statutes. Waste

reduction is:

●

●

●

●

an upstream or front-end pollution prevention strategy different technically from the

end-of-pipe pollution control actions required by existing statutes;

most effective when it applies to all hazardous wastes and pollutants, whether they

are regulated or not, otherwise opportunities arise to shift waste among environmental media (air, water, and land) or out

of the regulatory system;

best addressed by policies aimed at assistance, persuasion, and institutional commitment since—as both OTA and EPA

agree—it is not amenable to traditional regulatory or prescriptive approaches; and

a bridge between environmental and industrial competitiveness issues and goals.

Timing of Waste Reduction v. Waste Treatment

The OTA report and—to a lesser extent—the

EPA report draw attention to the importance

for policy makers to unambiguously define

waste reduction and its primacy over other options that manage and control hazardous wastes

and pollutants, There is a choice to be made;

whether to devote essentially all the government’s environmental resources to fix inherent problems in the traditional pollution control system or to use some of those resources

to pay significant attention to waste reduction.

Congress, EPA, and industry worry a lot about

a potential shortfall of waste management capacity because of the current shift away from

land disposal practices under RCRA. As the

EPA and OTA reports recognize, waste reduction could lower waste management needs in

the near term, if it is given a high priority by

government and industry. But what does high

priority mean for waste reduction? Waste reduction has always had high theoretical priority, but its priority has never been made evident by industrywide actions. Industry by itself

cannot overcome all the obstacles to waste reduction. Government’s regulatory programs

cause some of the critical ones. Other obstacles center around limited industrial resources

and management’s short-term perspectives and

strategies.

A window of opportunity is opening for a

historic shift in focus on environmental protection. Government programs dealing with clean

air and water are maturing but have yet to deal

effectively with such problems as air toxics,

nonpoint sources of pollutants (e. g., pesticide

use), and marine wastes.9 The RCRA hazardous waste management program is in a particularly problematic state of flux. Congressional

actions in 1984 directed EPA to move the hazardous waste management system away from

land disposal. However, Congress did not give

EPA specific instructions to move as forcefully

toward waste reduction.

Industry is investing in waste management

techniques (particularly incineration) which are

familiar and which are marketed aggressively

by vendors. Treatment equipment often requires large amounts of waste to operate efficiently, and capital investments in treatment

facilities can take many years to amortize.

Present public policy, therefore, is driving large

investments in waste management facilities that

can preclude, limit, or delay waste reduction.

This incremental strategy of first addressing

waste management needs in order to satisfy regulatory land disposal deadlines appears reasonable at first. However, it could severely and permanently limit waste reduction and the more

certain benefits it offers. Moreover, as important as regulatory deadlines that limit the use

of land disposal are, they are less important in

the long term than encouraging waste reduction. Enough flexibility could be introduced into

%ee, for instance, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA-O-334 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1987).
72

the regulatory system to accommodate and encourage more waste reduction without compromising the environmental benefits of reducing the use of land disposal.

Siting and permitting difficulties, however,

pose great barriers and long delays to new

waste treatment facilities. Shortages in waste

treatment capacity—even with increased investment in treatment facilities—might result.

This situation could lead to pressures from

within industry to restore greater use of land

disposal or to engage in actions that might sacrifice environmental protection in order to

build new waste management facilities. Serious Federal assistance for waste reduction

could help to head off this potential problem.

Waste Reduction and Competitiveness

Waste reduction is more than an environmental issue; it is a way to improve industrial

competitiveness. More environmental regulations and more effective enforcement raise

environmental costs and increase liabilities

(from Superfund, civil and criminal prosecutions, lack of adequate insurance, and limits

on real estate transactions). From 1985 to 1986

there was a 20-percent increase in the number

of pages of Federal environmental regulations

to a total of 8,500 pages. The increase was the

largest annual increase in history. These increased burdens, added to other conditions

(e.g., higher wage rates), can contribute to permanent plant closings and relocation of plants

to foreign countries. If it occurs early enough,

waste reduction can help modernize industry

and provide environmental protection while reducing these burdens and thus increase corporate net income.

Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on industrial environmental spending by the United

States and its competitors seem to indicate a

competitive disadvantage for the United States.

Japanese manufacturing industries’ capital

spending in 1974 on pollution control was 100

percent more than that of American manufacturing industries. By 1977 these environmental

investments were the same in Japan and the

United States, but in 1978 and 1979 the United

States was spending slightly more than the Japanese manufacturing industries.

In 1980, total industrial investments in pollution control as a percent of gross industrial

domestic product were nearly four times

greater for the United States than for Japan or

France and nearly three times greater than for

West Germany.

What data are available on relative reductions

in environmental pollution indicate that our industrialized competitors have done as good or

better than the United States.10 In terms of economic efficiency, environmental protection in

the United States appears more costly than in

other industrialized nations. The reason seems

to be not merely greater government regulation

but less flexible environmental regulations in

the United States that block effective and more

economical and technologically advanced solutions. (Regulatory flexibility to encourage waste

reduction is discussed later in this special report.) The environmental competitive disadvantage of the United States relative to newly industrializing nations, such as South Korea and

Brazil, is even greater because such countries

have fewer environmental requirements.

Another OECD report on the connection between technological innovation and environmental protection is quite significant .11 OECD

concluded that waste reduction is the only environmental protection tactic that directly benefits industry in the broader context of industrial efficiency and technological change but

that so far none of the industrialized nations

had adopted it in a big way. The report also

highlights the results of a French study on waste

reduction that revealed benefits not initially expected, such as, energy savings (in 51 percent

of the 200 cases examined), savings in raw materials (47 percent), and improved working conditions (40 percent). At the present time, most

industrial managers focus only on savings associated with waste management, pollution control, and regulatory compliance costs and lialoor~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, the

conclusion of the OECD report concerning the

role of government is important, The report

said:

[waste reduction] may turn out to become

increasingly an essential part of environmental protection. Public authorities have an

important role to play in the management of

this evolution for the best environmental protection.12

It is difficult for Congress to discuss the link

between waste reduction and industrial competitiveness because the two are provinces of

different committees and subcommittees.

Moreover, environmental protection objectives

have often been seen as counter to economic

interests and a dragon society. However, a Federal program that helps industry to reduce its

environmental costs and liabilities through

waste reduction might avert some decline in

the industrial sector. Marginal plants may be

in particular need. They already have trouble

dealing with production problems and may not

have the technical or economic ability to evaluate and implement waste reduction options. As

a means of improving industrial competitiveness and helping to renovate the American production system, waste reduction

cost legislative option that does

environmental protection.

offers a lownot sacrifice

Policy Options

While the OTA report provides Congress with

three different, detailed broad strategies for a

Federal waste reduction program, the EPA report outlines two parallel efforts, one near term

and one long term, for waste minimization.

The OTA policy analysis examined how to

shift the emphasis in environmental protection

toward waste reduction without adding expensive new programs and how to address the obstacles to waste reduction within government

and—just as importantly-within industry. Public policy must address both sets of obstacles

to be effective in achieving national environmental protection goals.

IZIbid., p. 95

EPA examined the incentives for and disincentives to waste reduction from the current

waste regulatory and management system. EPA

said that regulatory conditions are strong driving forces for waste reduction. But it did not

recognize their indirect character, their role as

obstacles, and that they can easily lead industry to responses other than waste reduction,

such as changing waste management technology, taking advantage of opportunities within

the regulatory system to avoid or delay compliance, or, in extreme cases, closing plants.

EPA’s view of past waste reduction seems

to have affected its policy analysis. OTA believes that EPA has overestimated the amount

of waste reduction that has occurred in the past

and thus underestimates the need for a major

Federal effort to assist industrial waste reduction. New data on RCRA waste that was not

available for use in the EPA or OTA reports

show a higher level of annual generation; from

the 250 million metric tons reported by various studies in the early 1980s to 569 million

metric tons. *a This does not necessarily mean

that waste generation has increased, but by basing its findings on the lower figures, EPA could

have underestimated the potential targets for

waste reduction. Some State data given later

support OTA’s less optimistic interpretation of

past waste reduction.

The EPA report concludes that large companies can and will reduce waste but that smaller

firms will not because of lack of information,

technical knowledge, and access to capital. If

this were the case, large companies should be

able to show evidence of comprehensive waste

reduction. But, by and large they cannot. Firm

size, variations in corporate structure and culture, and the variable nature of production—

inputs, processes, and products—affect what

companies can do to cut waste generation. The

OTA report shows that various obstacles exist

ISU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “1986 National

Screening Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling Facilities: Summary of Results for TSDR

Facilities Active in 1985,” prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning, and Information (Office of Solid Waste) by the Center for

Economics Research by Research Triangle Institute, Research

Triangle Park, NC, December 1986.
14

for all sizes of companies and that Federal waste

reduction efforts can be designed to assist all

of American industry. Individual facilities of

large companies often face the same problems

as small businesses when it comes to carrying

out waste reduction.

The EPA report says that aggressive action

and institutional advocacy are necessary to promote further waste minimization but provides

no insight as to how EPA will provide either.

The agency’s fiscal year 1988 budget request

of $398,000 for waste minimization and its longstanding low priority for waste reduction suggest that it is not prepared to be that advocate

without congressional direction.

In the OTA report three broad policy approaches, each with many specific congressional actions, are described. If the Federal public policy goal is rapid and comprehensive

hazardous waste reduction, then Policy Option

III—to establish a new, highly visible waste reduction program–would be the most likely to

attain that goal without harm to American industry. That approach would assist industry

with voluntary waste reduction and would develop a planning and reporting system to track

industrial progress. It would acknowledge the

primacy of waste reduction over pollution control and would attempt to raise the use of waste

reduction to a parity with pollution control.

While this kind of a Federal program would

firmly establish national policy, provide leadership, and give institutional priority and commitment to waste reduction, the States would

be called on to do most of the work. In order

of importance, major activities supported by

Federal grants would be in-plant technical assistance, information and technology transfer,

education and training, and generic R&D. 14

As discussed later, a new Federal program

might be funded by reallocating a small percent of EPA’s operating budget specifically for

waste reduction. This approach is consistent

with waste reduction’s priority which justifies

liThe OTA study concluded that it was not feasible to give

money to companies for waste reduction, as waste reduction

is linked to so many industrial activities with broader objectives

than waste reduction that government assistance could skyrocket.

shifting resources from less effective strategies

for environmental protection. Two percent of

EPA’s operating budget would equal $3o million in fiscal year 1988—easily the cost of one

Superfund cleanup. This level is low enough

not to threaten or diminish the effectiveness

of ongoing pollution control regulatory programs. However, this amount, which is almost

100 times that requested by EPA for waste minimization, would allow the creation of an effective grants program to be implemented at the

State level. From a cost-benefit perspective encouraging and assisting waste reduction can

pay in improved environmental protection, increased tax revenues, reduced or slower growth

in governmental spending on regulatory programs, and avoided future Superfund cleanup

costs. Information dissemination on alternative

technologies for waste reduction and direct

technical assistance to industries will increase

regulatory compliance, reduce waste generation, and increase industrial efficiency.

Another point to consider is that, with no major Federal commitment to waste reduction,

EPA could come under pressure to take shortcuts in siting, permitting, and delisting RCRA

hazardous wastes to match waste generation

with available waste management capacity. If

this happened, public confidence in government environmental programs—already

shaken—could worsen.

Finally, although congressional action on

waste reduction would be a major change in

environmental policy, it is also a logical next

step in the development of a comprehensive

environmental protection-waste management

system. Governor James J. Blanchard of Michigan recently described the historical nexus of

waste reduction:

It is time for a revolution in our thinking

about protecting the environment from pollution . , , The successful state and federal environmental legislation of the 1960s and 1970s

attacked conventional pollutants by regulating their release into the environment. This

forced the development of new pollution control technologies, but still permitted some discharge of materials . . . To meet the emerging

challenge of toxic pollutants, we must realize
15

that it is far more effective and cheaper to prevent them from ever entering the environment

than it is to clean up our mistakes . . . Our business economy, too, will benefit from the reduced material costs, slashed disposal fees,

and increased efficiency that result from innovative waste reduction technologies . . . I will

charge this [Waste Reduction Program] with

designing programs for providing technical

and financial assistance and information to

businesses to reduce toxic pollutants, focusing initially on hazardous waste reduction , . . We will press for federal action setting national goals for pollution reduction and

prompting this country to advocate pollution

reduction as an international priority .15

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

An examination of the OTA and EPA reports

shows that there are areas of agreement and

disagreement on waste reduction. Both OTA

and EPA agree on a number of technical issues

and that traditional mandatory regulations to

force waste reduction are not now appropriate. OTA and EPA do not agree on terms and

definitions (and thus, the focus of potential Federal efforts), on the hazardous wastes that

should be considered for reduction, or on how

waste reduction is affected by various incentives and obstacles. OTA’s analysis of EPA’s

report relies principally on its summary volume. However, there are discrepancies between the summary and subsequent volumes

of the EPA report. EPA did not use some results of its own analyses that are in more agreement with the findings of OTA and others than

EPA’s highlighted findings and conclusions

would indicate. Box D gives several examples

of such unused EPA results.

Areas of Agreement

Technical

Despite the different waste universes studied by EPA and OTA (as discussed later), both

reports attest to the availability of technology

to reduce waste generation, the basic economic

benefits of waste reduction, and the ability of

industry (and government) to reduce waste generation. Both reports, moreover, give considerable attention to the lack of substantive information on waste generation and reduction:

on what has occurred, is now occurring, or may

occur in the future. The correct way to measure waste reduction, according to EPA and

OTA, is to put changes in waste generation on

a product output basis so that other contributions to changing waste generation levels (e.g.,

production rates) are eliminated. But only a few

companies can supply data of this nature, and

government has not yet clearly stated that there

is a correct way to measure waste reduction

that everyone ought to use.

Optimism about future potential does not

mean that every waste generator can immediately reduce its waste generation. In some

cases, R&D may first be necessary in order for

economic benefits to be attained at specific

plants. Some industries have less potential for

waste reduction than others, either because of

the age or type of their production processes,

because of past reduction efforts, or because

of variable capacity to innovate related to corporate styles, cultures, and strategies. Generally, EPA and OTA conclude that there are a

number of problems, disincentives, and obstacles concerning institutions, organizational

characteristics, information, and human attitudes and behavior that limit the use of technically feasible waste reduction options.

Within the agreements between the EPA and

OTA reports, however, there is a point of disagreement that can have important policy implications. Years of unreliable waste generation data makes accurate accounting for waste

reduction difficult, if not impossible, with current information collection systems. This is important for policy development; the greater the

potential for future waste reduction the greater

is the justification for a major Federal initiative aimed at helping industry reduce waste

generation as soon as possible.

EPA and OTA answered the question of how

much waste reduction has taken place in different ways. OTA discussed waste reduction extensively with industry people and concluded

that while some waste reduction has occurred

and more is occurring today, the bulk of feasible waste reduction (where waste is defined

very broadly) lies ahead. OTA has not even tried

to make exact calculations of past or future

waste reduction, because the data are insufficient for that purpose. EPA calculated numbers that show relatively high reduction in the

past with a methodology that probably overestimates waste reduction. EPA’s calculations

were based necessarily on critical subjective

judgments, rather than actual data, which do

not exist. Other factors (some of which lead to

systematically overestimating the waste reduction that has occurred) cast great uncertainty

on the EPA conclusion that most waste reduc16
17

●

●

●

●

●

tion

tors

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 provide indirect incentives

“Many of the hazardous waste generators subject to these pressures face obstacles to implementing

waste minimizing processes or practices, because they lack awareness of the technical alternatives

available, have inadequate capital to make the necessary investments, lack engineering expertise

to redesign processes, or fail to understand the importance of considering compliance or disposal

costs in time/cash flow calculations. ” [p. A-92]

Current EPA efforts are limited; better organization and a comprehensive grants program are

needed to support State programs

“EPA’s current technical assistance effort is restricted, Few States receive direct support and the

support that is available is limited. Research programs are selected and funded without any systematic 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, not

the largest generators, since the large firms tend to have greatest access to information and capital

to support waste minimization programs. A sustained and well-publicized program would, however, help change the general climate within which firms make waste management decisions, exploiting peer pressure and creating a milieu in which firms can demonstrate technological leadership 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 a

cross media basis, Waste audits and technical assistance provided to companies generally focus

on 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 generation

rates, but the Agency believes it is potentially substantial . . . Technical assistance could potentially

have a significant beneficial effect on the toxicity of wastes produced by large numbers of firms, ”

[P. A-98]

that can happen has happened. Those facinclude:

extrapolation from approximately 20 production processes to the literally hundreds

of thousands of processes in all of U.S. industry;

the picture of U.S. industry used in the estimate was static;*

the assumption of maximum use of best

waste reduction technology is unrealistic

because waste disposal costs were very low

during most of the years used for the esti-

*During the years covered by the estimate, new processes and

new products were introduced in great number, some of which

must have caused more waste to be generated than the processes and products they replaced. This phenomenon was not

factored into the estimates.

4.

mate and there was little incentive for firms

to look beyond waste disposal to waste reduction or to concentrate process modification work on waste reduction rather than

on product improvement; and

even today a waste stream can be counted

as totally reduced when it moves from one

regulatory system to another (e.g., instead

of going to a RCRA facility it goes to a public wastewater treatment plant) or when

it is only partially recycled.

The EPA report on waste minimization estimates that an additional 15 to 30 percent reduction in waste generation is possible in the

next 25 years, over the 60 percent estimated

for the past, In the OTA report, available company data on hazardous waste reduction was
18

used to support an average 10 percent year-toyear level of waste reduction for the next 5 years

as a feasible goal, although individual companies and plants might accomplish less or more.

In other words, the EPA report concludes that

most waste reduction has already occurred; the

OTA report, on the other hand, supported a

greater potential for waste reduction in the

near-term future.

An optimistic view of future waste reduction

potential is supported by the following. First,

the acknowledged leader in waste reduction,

3M, has reduced its hazardous waste generation by about 50 percent over the past 10 years

and has said that it hopes to reduce by about

another 30 percent over the next 5 years. It

seems implausible to suggest, as EPA’s report

does, that all of American industry has been

able to achieve what this large research-oriented

company has done. Companies, such as 3M and

Dow Chemical, that have given a lot of attention to waste reduction publicize the results of

their efforts. These companies are few in number, suggesting that few have equaled 3M’s performance, much less have reached EPA’s 60

percent level.

Second, the OTA report’s survey of people

in 99 companies showed that about 50 percent

believed technology available to them in 1985

could reduce their waste generation (all, not

just RCRA wastes) by more than 25 percent.

This indicates that much more waste generation could be reduced over a longer period with

more extensive information dissemination,

technology transfer, and government support.

Third, a recent OECD report concludes that

penetration of clean technologies (processes

that reduce the generation of wastes) into production has been small in the United States and

elsewhere. 16 It found that 80 percent of U.S.

spending on air and water pollution from 1973

to 1980 was on end-of-pipe pollution control

measures. More detailed data from France,

where the national government has promoted

waste reduction, show that major waste generating industries have introduced clean techl~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 plants

at 72.7 percent and wood at 36 percent). In Denmark, which is very progressive in the environmental area, about one-third of firms adopted

new production processes with environmental

benefits between 1975 and 1980.

Still other recent information is consistent

with OTA’s conclusion that much more reduction in waste generation (broadly defined) is

possible. New Jersey has perhaps the best State

data on waste generation, and new data indicate an increase in waste generation of 50 percent over the past 3 years (when the effect of

a major plant having closed down some operations is taken into account). Increases in production were not likely to have been the cause,

because of a slow economy, but better information reporting could account for it.

New York officials have reported that out of

some 2,OOO biennial waste generator reports

submitted in 1986 only 50 provided any information on waste minimization required by Congress in the 1984 amendments to RCRA. A reasonable interpretation of these numbers is that

most generators did not reduce waste generation, since they could benefit from public acknowledgment of such efforts. The report format was not an obstacle because they could

report their efforts in any narrative form they

chose. According to Illinois officials, annual

reports indicate that 50 percent of large quantity generators and an even greater fraction of

small quantity generators have made no serious progress in waste reduction.

In California, the Metropolitan Water District

of Southern California and the Environmental

Defense Fund have embarked on an innovative

program (supported by $300,000 from each for

the initial program) to assist industry to reduce

the generation of chlorinated solvents by up to

75 percent. This high goal indicates this industry has not pursued much waste reduction in

the past.

Lastly, if EPA was correct about so much past

waste reduction, then there should have been

some observable effects on aggregate waste generation. Unfortunately data for RCRA waste
19

have been undergoing change and remain suspect. Nevertheless, it is important to consider

aggregate waste generation data because from

a waste reduction perspective all generated

wastes establish the potential for waste reduction. There is very little data from EPA’s air

and water regulatory programs on how much

waste is generated. In the initial years of the

RCRA program, EPA said that about 40 million metric tons of hazardous waste were generated annually. Then in the early 1980s, beginning with OTA, the Congressional Budget

Office and an EPA contractor study raised the

estimated level to some 250 million metric tons

annually. However, a survey of 1984 practices

taken by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (C MA) of its members suggested that total

RCRA waste generation for the Nation might

be as high as 1 billion tons annually .17

Now, a new EPA contractor survey has, for

the first time, counted RCRA waste that is exempt from being managed in RCRA regulated

facilities. All RCRA wastes, regardless of how

they are managed, define targets for waste reduction. Preliminary data reported in December 1986 show that a total of 569 million metric tons of RCRA wastes were generated in

1985. While this survey covered more RCRA

wastes (but only currently regulated RCRA

wastes) than those in the past, it did not account

for nonRCRA wastes that are handled exclusively by nonRCRA facilities (e. g, a wastewater treatment plant not requiring a RCRA permit). It should be noted that numbers for total

amounts of waste generation are influenced by

several factors, such as plant closings, changing production levels, or regulatory delistings,

that can mask or distort changes due to waste

reduction.

Data on the generation of hazardous waste

(only RCRA wastes) by the chemical industry

have been presented to show that waste reduction is occurring. 17 The reductions in the

17chemica] Manufacturers Association, “Resu]ts of the 1984

CMA Hazardous Waste Survey,” January 1986. The sample of

companies represented one-half of the chemical industry and

the chemical industry generates about half of the total for the

Nation. 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 Hazardous Waste Survey, ” April 1987.

amounts generated over time for 301 plants

have been correlated with changes in the industry production index published by the Federal Reserve Board. However, this approach

does not necessarily provide an accurate measure of waste reduction. First, the problem is

that the production index is for the entire chemicals industry. This is not the same as relating

the changes in waste generation, on a one-toone basis, to the actual production changes

from those plants. There is considerable diversity in the chemicals industry for different industry segments (e.g., organic, inorganic, specialty) and for different companies within those

segments. Second, the procedure hides changes

other than production levels that can affect

waste generation data.

In conclusion, OTA finds pent-up opportunities throughout industry for waste reduction;

they await the removal of obstacles, the provision of information and technical means, and

clear benefits to be provided by general regulatory and economic conditions. A slow, incremental approach to waste reduction unnecessarily prolongs avoidable environmental costs

in industry and delays environmental benefits

to the Nation.

Use of Regulations

Both reports recognize that a traditional regulatory approach to, in some way, prescribe industrial waste reduction is not now practical

or feasible. Both reports also note the apparent effectiveness of State and foreign government waste reduction programs that have not

been based on a regulatory approach. However

that effectiveness is limited in scope, especially

in the context of affecting national waste generation and management. That is, the nonregulatory approach to waste reduction has been

found effective when used, but has not yet received broad and serious public and private

support anywhere.

Both reports hold up the prospect of regulations

in the future if better information demonstrates

need and justifies the high implementation

costs. This could happen if the nonregulatory

approach is never fully supported or if it is and

is found to be ineffective. EPA plans to con72-675 0 - 87 - 3 QL: 3
20

tinue to examine mandatory controls in order

to reach a final decision in 1990. However, it

does not appear that there is any information

now being collected at the Federal level on industrial practices that could justify, much less

be the basis for, a major new regulatory program. By carefully designing new information

collection within existing regulatory programs,

it might take 5 to 10 years to get reliable systematic data on waste reduction nationwide.

It is not so much that it could not be done faster

but that organizational and administrative factors associated with using existing regulatory

programs would slow down the process. As discussed later, a separate, new waste reduction

office in EPA could perform the job more efficiently.

Areas of Disagreement

The differences between OTA and EPA regarding the use and definition of terms and

whether waste reduction is best applied within

a multimedia context are outlined in tables 1

and 2.

Operative Term and Definition

There is no standard term for actions that reduce the generation of waste and none of the

terms in use cover a standard set of similarly

defined activities. The term waste reduction,

however, has roots in government activities and

policy statements going back many years and

has always referred to cutting down the generation of waste at its source. Therefore, it is consistent with the broad concept of pollution prevention as distinct from pollution control which

deals with wastes and pollutants after they are

generated and leave a production process.

OTA has placed utmost importance on this

distinction because the historical record indicates clearly that there is a tendency in government and industry to opt for post-generation

pollution control solutions instead of prevention. If one accepts the long-standing proposition that waste reduction is without doubt the

option of choice, it is necessary to unambiguously distinguish it from pollution control and

waste management options. Public policy that

does not clearly identify and single out waste

reduction and define it unambiguously is likely

to lead to programs that underemphasize and

undermine waste reduction relative to pollution control.

Waste minimization is the term used in the

EPA report because the report was mandated

under the waste minimization section in the

1984 RCRA Amendments. In the statute a clear

distinction is repeatedly made between waste

reduction, the uncontested option of choice,

and better waste management “of wastes nevertheless generated” as an alternative to land disposal. EPA’s report divides waste minimization

into three categories: source reduction, recycling, and waste treatment. Source reduction,

if it is equivalent to OTA’s waste reduction, is

consistent with the first part of the national policy statement (see box C), while recycling and

treatment processes manage waste that is generated. The EPA report says that “Source reduction measures can include some types of

treatment processes . . . “19 The inclusion of

treatment is difficult to interpret. For example,

if EPA considers in-plant incineration of waste

as source reduction, then there is even greater

disagreement between OTA’s and EPA’s definition. Thus, putting the term waste minimization aside, EPA’s definition of source reduction alone could encourage waste treatment by

industry instead of waste reduction.

However, for purposes of the waste minimization report to Congress, only source reduction and recycling are included because:

. . . this report focuses on source reduction

and recycling, the two aspects of waste minimization where basic options still remain

open. 2o

Basic options here apparently refer to policy

options since Congress has already directed

EPA to consider treatment technology capacity but not waste reduction or recycling capability when implementing the RCRA land disposal 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) OTA

waste minimization:

"Waste minimization means the reduction,

to the extent feasible, of hazardous waste

that is generated or subsequently treated,

stored, or disposed of. It includes any

reduction or recycling activity undertaken by a generator that results in

either: 1) the reduction of total volume or

quantity of hazardous waste; or 2) the reduction

of toxicity of hazardous Waste,

or both, so long as such reduction is consistent with the goal of minimizing

present and future threats to human health and the environment.”[p. 11 and p.

“This report focuses on source reduction

and recycling, the two aspects of waste

Mktmizatlon where b8eio optiona W *

mdn open.” [p. Ivl

WVeete minimization, aa defined In thie

report, Irmludaa the flrat four oaWgodee

Of thi$ hieramhy . . .“ ~ font OatqOttOO

rwrrad 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 mlnirnlzatfon activlttea ooneMewM In thle report

are 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 or

etimfnatlon of waate generation at the

eoume, ueuafly within a pmwae. TMe 18

the type of waete mtnlm@8tion that moat

--~to the oono@?t of

Waate av4anoe. aoume rwtuotfon m

Uma 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. Ae

U* here, eouroe reduotlon Impfbe my

aotion that duoae tha anount of waete

axittng from a pmoaee.” [p. 8. aho p. H

but eantenoe @

W**~“

Not defined, but ueed kttarmtttently

throughout the report. tJao V81b0 and

doee 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#M

w faedatook In *lndueMt piWOsae. ft

ahlo refera to the motamdon of Uaefd

oonatltuent faottone wfthin a waete

material or removal of Contamhwlts ftom

a 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 to

fwMitata 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 Hazardous

Waste, EPA/530 +3 WJ36-033 (Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1986), pages as noted

For 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 minimization

Hazardous 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 minimization

be made that since the report deals wi- permitted or licensed limits. This is much regulations required by HSWA were inthin the context of RCRA and was man- broader than the legal definition of tended to cover only those solid wastes

dated under RCRA that EPA considers hazardous solid waste in the Resource regulated as hazardous wastes under

waste 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 the

wastes under R6RA.

Differing views of a multimedia

Waste 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 provisions

the term ‘toxicity.’ For example, wastes in S. 757, voiced concerns about “. polthat 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 considered

toxic. ” [p. 31]

approach:

Ail incentives/disincentives (barriers) are

framed within the RCRA context. The one

exception is: “Commercial recycling facilities that wish to increase their operations

might be reluctant to do so if the expansion were to require a revision of their

NPDES water pollution permit to authorize

a change in the composition of their discharges or allow for larger flows.” [p. 29]

Almost all information/data reviewed for

report and assessment of needs for future

concerns RCRA hazardous waste generation 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—is

minimization because “. . none of EPA’s the best means of achieving pollution

environmental control programs can fully prevention.” [p. 7]

eliminate all the risks that they attempt to “OTA has concluded that a comprehensive

control.” [p. 9] multimedia (air, water, land) definition for

“To achieve its purpose, waste minimization hazardous waste is necessary . . . 1) to

like other pollution control measures, avoid creating opportunities for shifting

must look comprehensively across all en- waste from one environmental medium to

vironmental media; reductions in another possibly unregulated or less reguhazardous waste must not be made at the Iated medium . . . and 2) to include wastes

expense of increases in air or water pollu- that are not currently regulated, such as

tion . . . Waste minimization programs most toxic air emissions. If the term

must therefore be carefully designed to hazardous waste is defined or applied naravoid cross-media transfers and to protect rowly, waste reduction measures can be

human health and the environment in a ineffective. ” [p. 11]

comphrensive sense. The need to design

a waste minimization program that addresses both of these goals provides a

framework for integrating the objectives

of all environmental programs.” [p. 10]

“EPA believes that waste minimization must

be implemented as a general policy

throughout the hazardous waste management system and, ultimately, more broadly throughout all of EPA’s pollution

control 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 Technology

Assessment, 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 report, includes the first four categories of this

hierarchy . . . Z’

The four categories referred to are those in

EPA’s 1976 hierarchy statement and include

waste reduction, separation and concentration,

waste exchange, and energy/materials recovery but exclude waste treatment and land

disposal.

The EPA report can give the impression that

waste treatment is not part of waste minimization. But there is a clear statement in the report by EPA that waste minimization includes

waste treatment:

That [HSWA] definition includes the concept of waste treatment, which encompasses

such technologies as incineration, chemical

detoxification, biological treatments, and

others. 22

Moreover, subsequent to the EPA report, a

letter on April 24,1987, from a senior EPA official to the EPA Science Advisory Board says

that waste minimization is “generally defined

as any reduction of wastes going to disposal

whether through source reduction, through onsite or off-site recycling or even through treatment of wastes to reduce volume, mass or toxicity.” [emphasis added]

By defining waste minimization in two ways,

confusion results: 1) Does every waste minimization statement in the report exclude waste

treatment? and 2) Does any waste minimization activity by EPA and its commitments to

future activities, outside of the boundaries of

the report, exclude waste treatment? This fundamental uncertainty is highlighted by the EPA

report’s statement of intent to issue “informal

guidance to generators concerning what constitutes waste minimization under the reporting and certification requirements of RCRA. ”23

The importance and consequences of defining

waste minimization are critical, and EPA

should quickly and definitively tell industry

what the government means (see box E).

Z’Ibid., p. 6.

ZZIbid., p. ii.

2JIbid,, p. 129.

The term waste reduction, which is not defined by the EPA report, is widely and unevenly

used in that report. At various times it appears

to be equivalent to: 1) EPA’s source reduction

or OTA’s waste reduction, or 2) waste minimization, sometimes with and sometimes without treatment. For example:

Though some of these treatments, such as

incineration, are very effective at solvent

waste reduction, the costs have been prohibitive.24

In this EPA statement, waste treatment is

clearly considered part of waste reduction, but

the use of the term waste reduction is only sensible in this context if it is equivalent to waste

minimization.

The aforementioned letter to the EPA Science

Advisory Board says that waste reduction is

“defined generally as waste elimination

through in-process changes. ”

To recap, EPA has two definitions for waste

minimization and has not defined but uses the

term waste reduction in a variety of ways. This

confusing pattern of language creates considerable uncertainty for Congress and industry

about EPA’s future policies or programs. EPA

initiatives to expand waste minimization may

not necessarily focus on what OTA calls waste

reduction if waste minimization includes any

type of recycling and waste treatment. Moreover, when EPA says:

. . . mandatory standards of performance and

required management practices are not feasible or desirable at this time.25

does this refer to all three components of waste

minimization? Clearly, waste treatment is already regulated, Recycling of generated waste

that is not a part of an industrial process is and

should be regulated. The OTA report’s statement on the infeasibility of traditional

command-and-control regulations clearly refers

only to waste reduction.

In summary, OTA’s waste reduction includes

a 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 reduction even when the primacy of waste reduction is explicitly recognized.

A major industrial trade association says”. . . while the semiconductor industry recognizes waste

reduction at the source (i.e., source reduction) to be the ultimate goal, current practice still emphasizes end-of-pipe management of hazardous waste. ” Despite this recognition, a definition of waste

minimization that includes waste treatment is used “since it is more reflective of current conditions

in industry. ”

—Steve Pedersen and Mary Ann Keen, “Waste Reduction in the Semiconductor Industry,” Proceedings of Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials (Silver Spring, MD: Hazardous

Materials Control Research Institute, March 1987).

Waste reduction is not undertaken because the generally accepted broad definition of waste

minimization and the way it is promoted encourage generators to satisfy waste minimization reporting regulations with traditional methods of waste management.

A major consulting firm to industry and government acknowledges the unique, critical benefit

of waste reduction—reducing the generation of waste—but attributes lower generation of wastes to

waste 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 toxicity

of hazardous waste. ” With this interpretation, waste treatment that simply concentrates a wastestream’s

hazardous components counts as waste minimization, without lowering risks to public health and

the environment.

—Stephen W. Kahane, “Waste Minimization Audits,” Proceedings of California Solvent Waste

Reduction Alternatives Symposia (Sacramento, CA: Department of Health Services, October 1986).

Analyses, even those now being developed for waste minimization purposes, can be biased

against waste reduction. In addition, such systems are viewed as a less complicated company policy 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 the

best situation of all; no waste, no liability!” Its “approach has been to develop a financial analysis

workbook and companion computer software program which will allow plant personnel to determine

total waste management costs including future liability considerations.” But it is not clear that waste

reduction would be explicitly examined at all. Although the methodology raises the costs of land disposal techniques to better reflect their total long-term costs, it assumes virtually no liability for incineration and, thereby, places incineration on a par with waste reduction. Thus, even though the

direct costs of incineration maybe high, they maybe low relative to total land disposal costs which

is the base case and not waste reduction. This might be the case especially if onsite incineration or

existing industrial furnaces or boilers are chosen (see box F). Plant management can use this dollar

savings to support incineration and other similarly evaluated treatment technologies instead of waste

reduction because there is a focus on reducing liabilities: “Those programs that reduce all liabilities

and are the best according to established financial proceedings are to be implemented. ”

The company financial analysis “method offers several advantages over company policies such

as 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 and

wastes, allocation of resources to other shorter term needs, and a lack of technical expertise at some

plants. Clearly, these conditions exist for many companies and constitute obstacles that must be directly

addressed 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 Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials (Silver Spring, MD: HazardousMaterialsControl Research Institute, March 1987).
25

within the confines of their production operations to cut the generation of waste, This language is consistent with the concept of pollution

prevention. Any activity by which hazardous

waste is handled, managed, or transported poses

risks and costs, requires complicated regulation,

offers less certain environmental protection

than waste reduction, and contributes to industrial inefficiency and heightened public concern

about the environment. EPA has defined waste

minimization to refer to all options other than

land disposal, consistent with statute, but has

excluded waste treatment in its report on waste

minimization, EPA has not clearly stated that

certain actions should be shown infeasible before a generator steps down the hierarchy.

Recycling and treatment, instead of waste reduction, may be emphasized in future waste

minimization activities by EPA. Based on EPA’s

report, it is impossible to predict to what extent future EPA waste minimization actions

will focus on waste reduction.

Appropriate Wastes To Cover

In OTA’s report waste reduction applies to

all hazardous wastes and environmental pollutants whether they are regulated under the

air, water, or RCRA programs or not. (The term

multimedia is often used to describe this broad

coverage,) The alternative, waste reduction applied to any particular category of waste, might

lead to: 1) less waste reduction than is feasible,

and 2) abuse because some actions might do

little more than transfer waste among environmental media or from one regulatory class to

another.

Since all of EPA’s waste minimization activities stem from the 1984 RCRA Amendments,

the EPA report is concerned with hazardous

wastes defined as such under RCRA. There are

two important limitations to this definition.

First, it is not clear that any EPA waste minimization effort would apply, for example, to

discharges to waterways covered by the Clean

Water Act or air emissions covered by the Clean

Air Act, The strongest statement in the EPA

report in this regard is:

EPA believes that waste minimization must

be implemented as a general policy throughout the hazardous waste management system

and, ultimately, more broadly throughout all

of EPA’s pollution control programs. 26

But this statement is not reflected in EPA’s longterm policy option.

Second, it is highly likely that EPA has not

yet officially recognized large amounts of industrial wastes as hazardous. GAO has recently

studied this problem and its findings are consistent with those of other studies, including

OTA’s 1983 report on hazardous waste. In its

report GAO said:

EPA does not know if it has identified 90

percent of the potentially hazardous wastes or

only 10 percent, according to the division director responsible for hazardous waste identification . . . Ten years after the Congress

mandated the identification and control of

hazardous wastes, EPA cannot say what portion of the universe of hazardous wastes it has

identified and brought under regulation, or

even if it is regulating the worst wastes in

terms of potential impact on human health and

the environment.27

This should be borne in mind when figures

on the amount of RCRA generated waste are

considered by policy makers, such as the new

number of 569 million metric tons annually.

All such figures refer to only those wastes EPA

has already officially designated as hazardous

and therefore, underestimate the universe of

hazardous waste that pose risks to health and

environment. Thus, OTA has found it important to say explicitly that waste reduction must

apply to all hazardous wastes, whether regulated

by EPA under RCRA or not. Otherwise, a Federal nonregulatory waste reduction program

will inherit the limitations of the RCRA regulatory program.

Even if a multimedia perspective were eventually adopted by EPA, delay could cause significant environmental and economic costs.

While there might be bureaucratic reasons not

to 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 To

Be Regulated, op. cit., pp. 19 and 23.
26

there is no reason to assume that it would be

harder for industrial production people to apply waste reduction to all of their wastes and

pollutants than only to those regulated under

RCRA. Indeed, some companies already do so.

But systematic adoption of multimedia waste

reduction in industry will require overt government policy support.

The merits of multimedia coverage and the

long time the RCRA program is taking to determine all the wastes that should be regulated

as hazardous support the option of new legislation by Congress rather than a continuation

of waste reduction being confined to RCRA.

Incentives and Disincentives v.

Enhancements and Obstacles

The EPA report devotes considerable attention to market incentives that can drive industry toward waste minimization. However, general conditions that can lead to a range of

responses are not necessarily an effective incentive for any particular response. Intentional

and purposeful design are crucial for developing effective waste reduction incentives and disincentives and in developing public policy

options.

An effective incentive is a specific action or

condition that is likely to elicit a specific desired

response. A disincentive causes parties to purposefully avoid a specific response. A general

condition that elicits a range of positive responses, including the desired response, can

be called an enhancement to the desired response. One that leads people away from the

desired response or makes the desired response

less attractive can be called an obstacle. For

development of policy options it is necessary

to focus on obstacles and problems relative to

a desired outcome, such as waste reduction.

Government is not needed if things are going

well.

In the EPA report the terms incentive and

disincentive are used in confusing ways. The

Federal RCRA regulatory program was emphasized and conclusions drawn about its impacts

on waste minimization instead of examining

the benefits which might accrue from proceeding with waste reduction as a program itself.

This perspective systematically biases decisions

against major new Federal efforts aimed

directly at promoting systematic waste reduction. For example, EPA and others consider rising waste management costs and liabilities,

difficulties in siting waste management facilities, and regulatory burdens as incentives for

waste minimization.28 But none of these conditions were purposefully designed to elicit a

waste reduction response nor is there any evidence that they have done so systematically,

and it is misleading to call them incentives for

waste reduction. Since current regulatory programs are not purposeful incentives, policymakers should be cautious about their value to

increase waste reduction. Increasing regulations and improving their enforcement have

their own merits, but they are unlikely to offer

as effective and efficient a way to increase

waste reduction as do policies designed to promote waste reduction. It is a mistake to believe

that nothing other than attempts to fix the current regulatory system has to be done to spark

a major movement by industry to comprehensively reduce waste generation. Existing regulatory conditions provide motivation and potential benefits for waste reduction but not

necessarily the means to reduce waste generation and reduce the obstacles in the way.

There is also another fundamental problem.

General regulatory conditions are not necessarily effective incentives or enhancements for

waste reduction because many other more familiar, intended, and unwanted responses (e.g.,

waste treatment, regulatory compliance, and

illegal disposal, respectively) can displace or

limit waste reduction. Environmental costs may

rise faster than generators can reduce waste

generation. Responses other than waste reduction by all sizes and types of companies include:

ZaAn example of this perspective in the private sector is: “onCf3

a manufacturer is forced to confront the realities of proper hazardous waste management, and in turn the higher cost associated with that treatment, management, then you will force an

assessment of the production practices and waste reduction. ”

[Richard C. Fortuna, Executive Director, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, testimony before the House of Representatives,

Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources subcommittee,

Sept. 24, 1986].
27

●

●

●

●

•

●

●

regulatory compliance that maintains an

end-of-pipe approach for regulated wastes;

payment of higher waste management

costs to continue use of commercially available pollution control technologies;

plant closings or relocation to foreign sites;

changing waste management technology

because of regulations or to reduce liabilities (see box F);

internalizing waste management to reduce

liabilities and costs by reducing the use of

offsite facilities;

finding regulatory, legal, and political opportunities to avoid or delay compliance;

and

noncompliance, illegal disposal, or acceptance of fines and penalties as a cost of doing business.

Moreover, the regulatory system: 1) does not

apply to all hazardous wastes and environmental pollutants, 2) is unevenly enforced, and

3) often undergoes changes that send contradictory messages to generators that foster a waitand-see attitude,

General regulatory conditions, therefore, may

have positive or negative consequences with

regard to waste reduction and, depending on

specific company circumstances, may be enhancements for or obstacles to achievable waste

reduction. Clearly, some generators will always

be positively affected by regulatory conditions.

However, the regulatory system, by itself, has

and will not motivate widespread waste reduction unless one or more of the following are

found to be valid:

●

●

●

Generators facing rising environmental

costs and liabilities do not at the same time

face significant obstacles to waste reduction.

The current regulatory system is comprehensive and effective.

The merits of waste reduction can be used

to expeditiously expand and fix the regulatory system so that environmental costs

for generators increase and cause them to

reduce waste generation.

Some recent research has verified that concerns about liabilities stimulate responses other

than waste reduction.zg The mere expression

of concern about liabilities does not mean that

it will affect decisions. While 10 of 13 waste

managers interviewed said that their firms were

“very concerned” about hazardous waste liability, only three said that it was a significant

waste reduction factor. In speaking to a large

number of people in industry, including people in large companies who work at the plant

level, OTA has found this situation to be very

prevalent. Decisionmakers seek optimal choices

within the limits of their knowledge and analytical resources.

The EPA report does not include a discussion about the dual nature of general regulatory conditions (of their role as obstacles as well

as enhancements) but concludes that regulations are more effective as enhancements than

as obstacles. While the EPA report appendices

give some attention to industry, there is no discussion in the summary volume of how widely

differing factors (e.g., management style, process type, and age) can affect the way companies adopt waste reduction.

OTA conducted a survey of industry to gain

insight into the duality of general regulatory

conditions. The results served as the basis for

a discussion in the OTA report of why the current regulatory program is likely to act as an

obstacle to waste reduction. Briefly, some of

the key reasons why responses other than waste

reduction are likely are:

• greater familiarity with waste management

and pollution control by workers, managers, and advocates in companies and

trade associations;

● a belief (which is, in fact, incorrect) that

waste recycling and treatment technologies are, or can be made, safe enough to

minimize liabilities as much as waste reduction can;

‘Robert E. Deyle, “Source Reduction by Hazardous Waste Generating Firms in New York State, ” Syracuse University Technology and Information Policy Program Working Paper No. 85-

010, as cited in Robert Deyle and Rosemary O’Leary, “Small

Quantity Generator Liability and Regulatory Compliance,”

Proceedings of the National Conference on Hazardous Wastes

and Hazardous Materials (Silver Spring, MD: Hazardous Materials 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 incinerators

increase interest in using onsite or offsite furnaces and boilers. Interest is especially strong for liquid

organic 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-third

of prices charged for hazardous waste incinerators.1

Government.—EPA and State regulatory officials, for the most part, support and encourage use

of industrial furnaces and boilers. It is seen as a way to allow implementation of land disposal bans

and still allow industry to generate waste.

Regulations

EPA is establishing regulations for burning hazardous waste in industrial furnaces and boilers

which thus far have escaped regulation because they have been considered as recycling or recovery

operations. EPA’s proposed regulations, however, will not pose serious problems. For example, no

test burn may be necessary, no routine measurement of discharged solids for hazardous metals with

regard to leachability, nor testing for specific toxic air emissions will be imposed. Moreover, for small

quantity wastes there will be a regulatory exemption and for many cases the solids discharged will

not be considered hazardous until shown otherwise, as is now the case for incinerators. The net effect

of all this will be to speed up permitting of facilities and to give them a competitive advantage over

conventional 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 that

may 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 necessary for fuel purposes. This could reduce furnace reliability and effectiveness, result in contaminated 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 from

making product. And wastes with no fuel value are also being talked about for burning in industrial

furnaces. 3

Impact on Waste Reduction

The promotion of industrial furnaces and boilers as an environmentally acceptable, low cost, and

convenient 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 attractive, government-sanctioned option for their waste management. Ironically, many of the wastes targeted for industrial furnaces are the easiest to reduce the generation of by in-process recycling and

raw material changes. Moreover, the risk of sham recycling or ineffective burning makes this waste

management 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 A4inimizing 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 simultaneously

devote resources to legally demanded regulatory compliance and to voluntary waste

reduction;

lack of a technical support structure and

rewards for production people who must

implement waste reduction and lack of

time to do it;

a mistaken belief that no waste reduction

opportunities remain;

lack of technical information to pursue

waste reduction, including the exact linkage between waste generation and specific

industrial operations; and

lack of accounting systems that allocate

environmental costs to specific production

operations, where waste reduction must

occur, in order to provide the economic

motivation to assess waste reduction.

These reasons (see box E for recent examples) for nonwaste reduction responses to general regulatory conditions are obstacles and can

be addressed by public policies and corporate

actions, Even though they result in less waste

reduction, they are not disincentives since they

do not purposefully move decisions away from

waste reduction. This may explain why these

obstacles are often ignored or discounted.

Moreover, it is not possible to generalize as to

their presence and effect with regard to company size or type of industry or product. Nor

is OTA suggesting that the above reasons are

caused by the regulatory system. For example,

EPA and others point out that a lack of capital

in smaller companies is a reason why they do

not practice waste reduction. But many companies, both small and large, with capital to invest are more likely to allocate it to product development, plant expansion, or diversification

rather than waste reduction. Moreover, although waste reduction projects may offer attractive paybacks (in the majority of cases in

less than one year), they may still be less than

some product-related projects.

An important new piece of information supports the view that government intervention

must overcome existing obstacles to waste reduction and provide direct assistance to generators. Ventura County in California has just

completed a 2-year innovative program in waste

reduction, It has obtained evidence of substantial waste reduction as a result of a proactive

program that sends county inspectors into

plants to conduct waste reduction audits and

make recommendations to generators. so What

is important for national policy development

is what the Ventura County has concluded:

The government, so far, intends no further

public intervention and assumes that companies have the motivation, finances and informational resources that are necessary to develop and implement their own hazardous

waste reduction program. The Ventura County Program results, however, reveal that this

assumption is not the case and that generators are not fully aware of all waste reduction

methods and opportunities.

Local programs, through established relationships with hazardous waste generators

and involvement in land use processes, can

provide incentives, information and other assistance that is necessary to achieve significant hazardous waste reduction in their communities. 31

Ventura County also conducted a survey of

the 75 companies it worked with and found

that:

A large component of corporate resistance

to volume reduction comes from the managerial level. Attitudes toward changing existing “habits” affect the implementation of

strategies to reduce waste generation. Management, it appears, will often select “proven

methods” of waste disposal rather than trying to innovate new methods to reduce volume of waste generated. Companies, we

3oA]though OTA finds that the definition of waste reduction

used by Ventura County, like the term waste minimization, poses

problems because it includes recycling and treatment and that

the data reported does not measure waste reduction correctly,

there is little doubt that the program has resulted in significant

waste reduction. However, the figure generally quoted of 70 percent waste reduction over the 2-year program may overstate or

understate waste reduction as defined by OTA. It was based on

aggregate generation data of wastes shipped offsite and not waste

reduction data from specific companies on a production output

basis.

Slventura County Environmental Health Department, “Hazardous Waste Reduction Guidelines for Environmental Health

Programs,” draft, prepared for the California Department of

Health Services, March 1987.
30

found, were reluctant to take risks with unproven technologies or recyclers, were not

aware of alternatives and in several cases were

not interested in changing habits.32

In Summary

Recent information and the OTA analysis

provides strong support for a Federal waste reduction initiative designed to address multiple

obstacles through a nonregulatory program.

The Federal Government has done very little

intentionally aimed at promoting waste reduction. This includes the RCRA waste minimization certification and reporting requirements

because their intent is not to encourage waste

reduction but to discourage land disposal practices. Existing EPA programs are chiefly concerned with compliance with end-of-pipe reg-

—. —------ . Szventura county Environmental Health Department, Progress

Report on Ventura County Hazardous Waste Volume Reduction

and Alternative Technology Program, April 1986, p. 26.

ulations. These regulations have incidental and

unintended secondary impacts on waste reduction, which have probably not been sufficiently

positive to justify concluding that nothing more

has to be done by government. Only those companies and individuals with desire, necessary

information, and means can translate potential

benefits created by the regulatory system into

specific waste reduction actions.

Moreover, EPA’s definitions and scope for

a future waste minimization program, as well

as its current regulatory programs, often channel private sector efforts away from waste reduction to traditional pollution control activities. The EPA report assumes effective positive

influences on waste reduction from existing

regulatory programs and has embedded waste

reduction activities within a regulatory framework that has historically given no priority or

serious support to waste reduction. (See figure 1

on EPA organization and waste minimization.)
31

Figure 1 .—EPA Organization and Funding for Waste Minimization

Administrator

lllllllll w

I

$30,000”

I I I

Office of Office of Office of Office of

Underground Emergency Solid Waste

Storage and Remediai Waste Program

Tanks Response Enforcement

. *

1

I

Waste Permits

Management and State

Division Program

Division

Air Research Pesticides

and and and

Radiation Development Toxic

Substances

I 1 . I I

Environmental

Engineering and

Technology

Demonstration

I

Hazardous

Waste Engineering

Research

Laboratory

I l l

Alternative Land

Technologies Pollution

.

Permits

Division Control Branch

Division

Waste

I I

Minlmizatlon

●

Thermal Chemical and

Biological Waste

Destruction

Land

Detoxification Treatment

Branch

Disposal

Branch Branch Branch

1

[

I

Treatment

Technology

Staff

Waste

nlmlzatlo n

Research and

Development

$108,000”

State

Program

Branch

Waste

Minimization

Planning

$280,000’

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment

“ FY88 budget request
AMBIGUITIES IN THE EPA REPORT

EPA’s position on several important waste

reduction issues is unclear, because separate

statements in the EPA report appear to support

either side of questions likely to be posed by

policymakers. These ambiguities can affect congressional policy options and the success of any

national effort to encourage systematic waste

reduction. Three questions are examined:

1. Does EPA regard waste reduction as the

option of choice?

2. Does EPA require a new congressional

mandate?

3. Has EPA made a strong commitment to

a major waste reduction effort?

Does EPA Regard Waste Reduction

as the Option of Choice?

Do those who generate waste and pollution

have a responsibility to fully explore waste reduction before deciding on less environmentally effective and less economically sound

options such as waste treatment? OTA found

that waste reduction has traditionally had

primacy, but more in theory than practice.

Nevertheless, theoretical primacy is a basis for

public policy development. If EPA does not give

such primacy to waste reduction, then the

agency is unlikely to give waste reduction priority in its waste minimization efforts. And, if

EPA does not give primacy to waste reduction,

industry as a whole will not.

A further issue is a subtle change in language

in EPA’s report that would sanction as waste

reduction actions that did not reduce toxicity

(see box G). In changing HSWA’s “volume or

quantity and toxicity” to “volume or toxicity,”

the environmental benefits of waste reduction

are reduced or, in some applications, negated.

In the OTA report actions that merely reduce

waste volume are not waste reduction. An exception is when a generator changes a production process so that less waste of the same concentration (or toxicity) is generated. But, this

differs from volume reduction after waste has

been generated, such as dewatering sludge.

These actions are often attractive to waste

generators because they reduce waste management costs and to government because of lower

use of land disposal, but they do not offer the

same environmental or economic benefits as

waste reduction, as EPA’s report agrees (see

below). Dewatering is not waste reduction, it

is waste concentration.

The American public increasingly sees waste

reduction as key to hazardous waste management. One of the most active groups, the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, has

said:

Of all the ways to manage hazardous waste,

waste reduction is the most logical and attractive with the ideal being waste elimination at

the source. If you don’t produce wastes in the

first place, you don’t have to worry about landfills, incinerators or injection wells. If there’s

no waste disposal problem, nightmares like

Love Canal, Times Beach, MO and Woburn,

MA don’t recur.33

As early as 1976, EPA put waste reduction

at the top of the hierarchy of hazardous waste

options but relied on the marketplace for its

implementation. That early endorsement of the

hierarchy concept is acknowledged in EPA’s

waste minimization report, which contains

statements similar to those in the OTA report

to support the primacy of waste reduction.

EPA’s report says:

Both Congress and EPA believe that preventing the generation of a waste, when feasible,

is inherently preferable to controlling it after

it is generated. 34

Preventing the generation of a waste is the

only way to eliminate risk rather than reduce

it.35

It is clear that the second statement does not

apply to recycling and waste treatment but only

to waste reduction. The following comment

Sscitizen>s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc., “Reduction of Hazardous Waste: The Only Serious Management Option,” 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 Waste

Minimization, Congress used the phrase “reduce

the volume or quantity and toxicity. ” [underline

for emphasis] In one instance, paragraph (a)(3),

the phrase is shortened to “reduce the volume

and toxicity. ” As a consequence of this language,

EPA wrote and promulgated regulations requiring the affected generators and permit holders

to certify and submit reports to EPA that wastes

are being reduced both by volume and toxicity.

In addition, in HSWA Congress requested EPA

to report to Congress on the feasibility y and desirability of establishing standards or other actions

to require generators to “reduce the volume or

quantity and toxicity” of their hazardous wastes.

EPA Report on Waste Minimization

While EPA has not requested Congress to

amend the wording adopted in HSWA, statements are made throughout its report that imply

such a change is appropriate depending on the

goal chosen for waste minimization or to ease

the implementation of a waste minimization

program.

The following statements represent a major

change in language that could substantially alter

the nature of technical activities carried out by

waste generators. Instead of aiming at activities

to reduce the generation of waste, generators

could place emphasis on reducing their waste

management costs by focusing on reducing the

volume of wastes only after they are generated,

without regard to the toxicity of the waste.

Page ii: The definition of waste minimization

for purposes of the report to Congress reads:

. . . activity undertaken by a generator that results in either (I) the reduction of total volume

or quantity of hazardous waste or (2) the reduction of toxicity of hazardous waste, or both, so

long as such reduction is consistent with the goal

of minimizing present and future threats to human health and the environment. ” [underline for

emphasis]

Page iv: “Section 1003 of HSWA [that should

be SDWA; HSWA has no such section] establishes the general national policy in favor of

waste minimization and refers to the need to reduce the ‘volume or quantity and toxicity’ of hazardous wastes. EPA does not interpret this language to indicate that Congress rejected volume

reduction alone (with no change in the toxicity

of hazardous constituents) as being a legitimate

form of waste minimization, A generator that reduces the volume of its hazardous waste, even

if the composition of its waste does not change,

is accomplishing beneficial waste minimization. ”

Page iv: “Because both volume and toxicity of

wastes present dangers to human health and the

environment, measuring the effectiveness of

waste minimization will be complex. ”

Page 13: “. . . the end result [of waste minimization as defined by HSWA] must be a reduction

in the volume, quantity, or toxicity of wastes generated and sent to land disposal, ”

Page 13-14: “By calling for simultaneous reduction in both volume and toxicity, Congress expressed a clear desire to avoid defining dewatering and other processes which merely

concentrate wastes as being primary methods of

waste minimization. EPA supports this Congressional concern, but also believes that Congress

did not intend entirely to disqualify volume reduction by itself (with no change in toxicity) as

a waste minimization technique, For example,

EPA considers it beneficial if a firm can change

its processes to produce less waste per unit production, even if the composition of the waste does

not change. EPA also believes that waste concentration may occasionally be a useful approach

to waste minimization, such as in relation to ameliorating shortages of land disposal or treatment

capacity, or in preparing materials for recycling.

The key concept is that waste minimization must

enhance protection of human health and the environment. ”

Page 39: “Policies that focus on reducing the

overall volume of hazardous waste may not necessarily be best from the point of view of protecting human health and the environment. On

the other hand, if the overriding priority in waste

minimization is to lower burdens on treatment

capacity, the Agency might want to focus on a

different set of waste streams than if the main

goal is to reduce high toxicity streams. ”
34

OTA Report on Waste Reduction

Page 21:”. . . actions that reduce waste volume

by concentrating the hazardous content of a

waste or that reduce hazard level by diluting the

hazardous content are not considered waste reduction in this report.”

Thus, the OTA report concurred with Congress

that both reduction in volume and toxicity was

necessary to reduce risks to health and the environment, But, OTA then expanded the issue of

toxicity by discussing ‘degree of hazard’ so that

those wastes hazardous because of their inflammability, corrosiveness, or explosiveness are also

properly considered. In certain circumstances

such characteristics can be as significant as toxicity if waste is mismanaged.

Page 22: “If a waste is not totally eliminated,

however, actions taken to reduce waste may also

change the chemical composition and the concentrations of the components of the waste.

Therefore, examining changes in just the amount

of waste generated relative to production may

about the limits of regulated pollution control

also supports the primacy of waste reduction:

However, control technologies are never 100

percent efficient, and compliance with regulations under any environmental program can

never be perfect, even with the most stringent

enforcement program.36

Other EPA statements are not as clear because of confusing use of the term waste minimization. For instance, EPA stated:

Waste minimization helps protect human

health and the environment because it reduces

the total amount of waste that is generated and

managed , . . Waste minimization is a constructive approach to avoiding the risks of

breakdowns in the waste management system—wastes not generated cannot be illegally

disposed or emitted by faulty or inefficient

equipment. 37

In a policy context, EPA says:

Waste management deals with wastes after

they are created; waste minimization deals

not reveal whether there has been a change in

the degree of hazard of the waste. Without a decrease in the degree of hazard of the waste, the

action is not considered waste reduction. ” However, OTA does regard a decrease in the amount

of waste generated per unit of output, with no

change in composition, as waste reduction.

Page 23: “The best way to measure waste reduction is to determine the changes in the absolute amounts of hazardous components . . . Without guidance on the relative degrees of hazard

for specific hazardous substances, waste generators could face burdensome analytical costs for

periodic measurements of the complete chemistry of their wastes, which may be highly complex and vary over time. The current regulatory

system has, for the most part, done little to

differentiate hazard levels among the many hundreds of common hazardous substances. Therefore, if the government is to encourage effective

waste reduction, it may have to assist generators

in selecting the most hazardous components of

wastes for measurement and reduction. ”

with avoiding the generation of wastes altogether . . . in the long term, waste minimization must take on a priority of its own.38

These statements are correct, for waste reduction, not waste minimization. Waste minimization for purposes of EPA’s report includes

waste reduction and recycling; the HSWA definition also includes waste treatment. But, only

waste reduction prevents the generation of

waste.

EPA, in its report, examines but does not decide on the primary goal of waste minimization. EPA statements on goals include the following:

. , . if the overriding priority in waste minimization is to lower burdens on treatment capacity, the Agency might want to focus on a different set of waste streams than if the main goal

is to reduce high toxicity streams . . . Actions

may be very different depending upon

whether the goal of waste minimization is to

relieve capacity shortages, reduce risks to human health or the environment, or minimize

economic inefficiencies.39

‘Salbid., p. v.

sTIbid., p. 10.

aeIbid., p. 29.

SeIbid., p. 39.
35

The goal of relieving waste management capacity shortages undercuts the primacy of

waste reduction as a preferred environmental

and economic option. There are other ways of

relieving possible shortages, including: 1) allowing continued use of land disposal, 2) delisting waste as being hazardous, 3) not adding

more wastes to the RCRA system, and 4) speeding up permitting for waste management facilities.

Because it has not decided on the primary

goal of waste minimization, EPA has not been

able to use the primacy of waste reduction to

develop policy options in its report. primacy,

unambiguously stated, could justify significant

levels of commitment and funding for waste

reduction programs, although the regulatory

programs would continue, because of their nature, to require the bulk of EPA’s resources. Although the policy consequences of acknowledging the primacy of waste reduction are missing

in EPA’s report, EPA could still develop policy options comparable to but different from

a major regulatory reform effort, seek comparability with pollution control programs, address

the merits of facilitating a transition from regulated pollution activities to voluntary waste

reduction, and could stress the need to act

quickly when it says:

Once made, these commitments [to waste

management] will be difficult to change.40

In summary, EPA’s report strongly suggests

that waste reduction has primacy over waste

management from an environmental protection

standpoint, This is consistent with the existing congressional statement of national policy.

But the EPA report’s statements about the goals

of waste minimization and its policy options

do not address the fundamental difference between waste reduction and waste management,

The basis for OTA’s waste reduction policy options is an emphasis on the primacy of waste

reduction. Policy direction is needed to clarify

this important issue of the primacy of waste

reduction.

Does EPA Require a New

Congressional Mandate?

Congress is at an early stage of considering

options for waste reduction. Therefore, it is important to know whether EPA is able to make

a strong commitment without further legislative action. EPA’s requirements or goals are not

clear from its report. EPA has not explicitly requested any actions of Congress,

Regarding its “strongest option . . . to promote waste minimization, ”41 EPA says:

It

No new legislative authority would be required to launch such a technical assistance

effort, but adequate and sustained support by

Congress would be necessary over the next ten

years if it were to achieve its potential , . . Unfortunately, non-regulatory programs have

often failed at EPA for lack of statutory or regulatory deadlines and institutional advocacy.

For such a program to work, it must be given

strong organizational support within the

Agency. EPA is willing to make this commitment, and seeks support from Congress to ensure its success . . . but intensive implementation of a strategy relying on nonregulatory

approaches will demand strong support and

direction from Congress.42

is not clear whether these statements are a

request for new legislation or if “strong support and direction” is a request for funds. EPA

may be saying that it needs further congressional policy statements, authorization, and appropriation to give the necessary commitment

to waste reduction.

Regarding waste reduction and recycling, the

focus of its report, EPA says:

These are the areas where national policy

is still evolving and where findings of the

desirability and feasibility of specific options

still need to be made.43

411 bid., p. 116.

4ZIbid., pp. XX , xxvi, and lZ4.

So Ibid., p. xxiii. AsIbid., p. 13.

72-675 0 - 87 - 2 c/L.: 3
36

Again, EPA may feel that it needs further direction from Congress. This may well be true, as

several parts of the 1984 RCRA Amendments

do not directly implement the national policy

statement that gives primacy to waste reduction.

Regarding an EPA option to impose mandatory waste audits:

Requiring a waste audit of all generators

would probably require additional legislative

authority, although it might be argued that authority already exists under Section 8 of

TSCA,44

Mandatory waste reduction audits may or may

not require new legislation. However, EPA has

not committed itself to this option. As with mandatory waste reduction regulations, the agency

will offer “its next formal report on this subject in December of 1990.”45 Depending on what

it has found, it might then seek congressional

authority to pursue mandatory waste reduction

audits.

Thus, it is not clear whether EPA is making

a commitment to waste reduction (or waste

minimization) unconditionally or is asking Congress for more detailed and explicit direction.

EPA’s budget requests suggest that it is waiting for new congressional direction to make

a strong commitment.

OTA’s report presented three major policy

strategies for congressional consideration: one

that requires no new congressional waste reduction action, one that would employ a traditional regulatory approach and would require

congressional action, and one that would create a major new Federal effort through new legislation. A government-supported technical

assistance program makes the last OTA option

the most consistent with what EPA may pursue in the near term. But the OTA report discusses a much wider range of actions and a

much higher level of funding than does EPA.

Has EPA Made a Strong Commitment

to a Major Waste Reduction Effort?

This is a critical question from a congressional viewpoint. If EPA has already embarked

on a program that is broadly supported by Congress, then no further action may be deemed

necessary by Congress (or others) interested in

promoting more waste reduction. If not, then

Congress may need to act if it concludes that

present conditions will not cause industry to

expeditiously reduce waste generation to the

maximum feasible level.

EPA has recommended a core waste minimization program in the near term. This nonregulatory program would principally support

passive information transfer and technical

assistance implemented through the States. But

the report does not discuss several factors important to the program, such as the level of funding, whether—and how much—money would

be available to the States, and whether there

would be changes in EPA’s organization and

structure.

The following representative statements in

the report are not specific enough to answer

these questions.

Aggressive action in favor of waste minimization is clearly needed .. .48

To make a significant impact on waste generation, such [nonregulatory] programs would

have to be intensive and well directed.47

Despite the strong existing incentives for

waste minimization discussed earlier in this

report, EPA’s role could be considerably expanded into an active, aggressive, and sustained program of technical information.48

An expansion of Federal involvement in this

aspect of waste minimization could go far

toward increasing the efficiency and pace of

industry’s natural inclination to reduce waste

generation.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 statement under the heading of “The Outlook for

Federal Waste Minimization Policy”:

EPA still has much to learn about the specifics and potential of waste minimization, and

is only beginning to develop an active strategy for studying and promoting it . . . Because

the data are insufficient and because it is still

too soon to assess the effects of HSWA requirements, EPA can do little more in this report

than to suggest the principal issues of concern. 50

The principal action EPA recommends, a

nonregulatory technical assistance effort, is an

example of “non-regulatory programs [that]

have often failed at EPA for lack of statutory

or regulatory deadlines, and institutional advocacy. ”51 The last factor is crucial to successful implementation of any waste reduction program. However, EPA’s report does not describe

how it will provide institutional advocacy for

waste reduction.

The OTA report examined the pollution control culture, the traditional environmental protection system that has evolved over the past

two decades and found that waste reduction

poses a major shift in thinking—a paradigm

change—about how to best achieve environmental protection. Given natural inclinations

to resist change, institutional advocacy for

waste reduction will be difficult unless waste

reduction has a prominent place in EPA’s organization and significant funding. And industry is unlikely to emphasize waste reduction

unless EPA does.

EPA’s focus on technical assistance consisting of passive information transfer, for the most

part, is inconsistent with its conclusion that

there has been a great deal of waste reduction

in the past. If this were correct, then the easiest waste reduction measures would have been

taken already by many waste generators and

options other than the simplest forms of technical assistance would be needed now. Waste

generators would need help in how to use complex and capital-intensive waste reduction

S’JIbid., p. 29.

SIIbid., p. xxvi.

methods; government might need to support

expensive technology demonstration programs.

The OTA report emphasizes State grants to support in-plant technical assistance and also suggests a way to shift resources from legally mandated regulatory compliance to voluntary waste

reduction.

A recent EPA report, Unfinished Business:

A Comparative Assessment of Environmental

Problems, on environmental problems and EPA

priorities, also bears on EPA’s commitment to

waste reduction. 52 There is a strong indication

in the report that EPA sees its spending on hazardous waste regulatory programs as high when

the risks posed by hazardous waste are compared to those from other environmental problems. Although the methodology used to reach

that conclusion has problems, it suggests the

alternative of shifting spending on hazardous

waste from costly regulatory programs to relatively inexpensive nonregulatory waste reduction efforts.

Although the EPA report has many positive

qualitative statements in favor of waste reduction, they are not backed up by budgetary or

other quantitative measures of EPA’s plans.

Since the release of EPA’s report, the agency

has released its fiscal year 1988 budget request,

Funds for waste minimization total $398,000

for activities in the Office of Solid waste, the

Office of Research and Development, and the

Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation. This

budget request is less than what was spent in

fiscal year 1986 and the same as in fiscal year

1987. It is 0.03 percent of the total EPA operating program budget of $1.5 billion. 53 Four States

(California, Illinois, North Carolina, and New

York) have budgets for waste reduction or minimization programs greater than EPA’s request.

This low level of support for waste minimization—presumably only some fraction is allocated for waste reduction—is in puzzling contrast to the many statements in the EPA report

5ZU, S, Environment] Protection Agency, Unfinished Business:

A Comparative Assessment of En vironmental Problems (Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Policy Analysis, February 1987).

5qThe operating program budget excludes Superfund, the underground storage tank trust fund, and the construction grants

program.
38

about need and commitment for a major Federal waste minimization effort to assist industry and the States. This low funding level may

be particularly troubling since, as EPA states,

actions taken in the near term in the waste management area that are driven by the 1984 RCRA

Amendments are likely to preempt waste reduction actions. Money spent for building or

using waste treatment facilities will not be spent

for waste reduction.

Without a major Federal program to assist

industrial waste reduction, the government

may be pressed to retreat from the policy of

greatly limiting the use of land disposal. Because of extensive problems in siting and permitting new waste management facilities, industry could argue that the government relax

its restrictions on land disposal to avoid disrupting industrial operations or a comeback of

illegal waste disposal. Alternatively, the government could respond by making it easier to

delist wastes as hazardous under RCRA and

by siting and permiting new waste management

facilities over the objections of affected communities. Such actions might be much easier

than implementing a new waste reduction effort, but they do not offer the same level of environmental protection and economic benefit.

One way to begin to prevent such a regressive

situation is to embark rapidly on a major waste

reduction program that aids industry to turn

its attention and resources to waste reduction

as soon as possible. But this cannot be done

on $398,000 per year or even a few million dollars per year. (Table 3 presents statements from

the EPA report on the agency’s past and future

waste minimization activities and compares

those statements with actual budgets and with

the activity evaluations that were included in

the 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 to

Congress on the general subject, the

other two having been submitted in 1973

and 1974 regarding the reduction of nonhazardous ‘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 request

be the strongest option available to pro- OSW ... ... ... .$260,000

mote waste minimization, especially in

the near term.” [p. xx]

ORD . . . . . . . . . . . 108,000

OPPE . . . . . . . . . . 30,000

“Government spending on waste reduction

reflects a general lack of priority for pollution prevention government [Federal,

State, and local] spent almost $16 billion

in 1984 on pollution control. OTA estimates that government spending on

waste reduction totaled only $4 million in

fiscal year 1986.”

Total ., .. .$398,00 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 budget

of Solid Waste (OSW) has, over the past 2 FY 86...$550,000 (est)

years, attempted to design an efficient intergovernmental division of labor among

FY 87 . . . 260,000

EPA Headquarters, the EPA Regional FY 88. , 260,000 (request)

Offices, and the State hazardous waste

programs. ” [p. 65]

“EPA Headquarters and the Regional

Offices are taking a leading role in support of the Federal-State partnership by

conducting three essential functions:

regulatory control; technical and financial

assistance; and information sharing and

management. ” [p. 65]

Regulatory control: “EPA has implemented

[the three regulatory] waste minimization

provisions of HSWA,” [p. 66]

Technical and financial assistance:

EPA’s role has been principally one of

providing financial support through a

number of EPA programs to promising

State waste minimization efforts. It also

provides research support for developing

technologies that might facilitate waste

minimization by selected industries. ” [p.

68]

EPA provides the following as examples of

its technical and financial assistance

efforts:

. “Congress has allocated $4.75 million in

supplemental grant funding to the EPA

Regional Offices for State and local

government hazardous waste management activities. ” [p. 68] EPA lists the eligible activities for these grants; but does not

Iist or evaluate the projects that resulted

from the program.

Section 8001

add on grants

funds

FY 85. , .$4.50 million

FY 86 . . . 4.75 million

FY 87 . . . 0 ●

FY 88 . . . 0 ●

“In keeping with Congress’ initial low-key

approach to waste minimization, OSW has

not assumed a leadership role and considers waste minimization a low-priority

item on its agenda. If considered at all,

waste minimization is something for the

future.” [p. 161]

“It is a reflection of the lack of any focus

on waste minimization that responsibility

for the current requirements of the 1984

RCRA Amendments [HSWA] is shared by

many portions of OSW. ” [p. 162]

“As of March 1986 (8 months after the regulations were promulgated) little oversight

was being provided by EPA. OSW was not

aware of [the extent of adoption of waste

minimization provisions of HSWA at the

State level]” [p. 164]

“Waste minimization research and development is a low-priority item within EPA. It

received about $1.2 million—half of 1 percent of EPA’s fiscal 1986 estimated $213.8

budget for all R&D . . . OTA estimates that

much less than 50 percent of EPA’s funding for waste minimization R&D applies to

waste reduction, even though the agency

has identified waste reduction as one of

two categories of waste minimization. ” [p.

183]

single largest group of projects that

 resulted and most of the funding [for FY

85] went for Small Quantity Generator

(SQG) education and assistance projects.

A review of the summaries of 80 such

projects reveals that most dealt with compliance needs. Only three projects included waste reduction . . it is unlikely that

waste reduction will become a higher priority 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 Development’s Small Business/Small Quantity

Generator’s Research Program provides

financial support . . .“ [to]:

(1) “. . . Government Refuse Collection

and Disposal Association clearinghouses for information on waste

management options . .“

(2) “. State technical assistance and

educational programs for applied

research on waste minimization . . .

Funding is currently provided to

North Carolina and Minnesota. ” [p.

69]

. “The Office of Research and Development also supports research and development or recycling technology and

clean manufacturing processes at the

Industrial Waste Elimination Research

Center at the Illinois Institute of Technology.” [p. 70]

● Other Office of Research and Development activities are listed by EPA as

(1) “The regional support services

staff serves as a clearinghouse . . .

by fielding requests for technical

information or technology

transfer. . .“

(2) “The Hazardous Waste [Engineering] Research Laboratory is undertaking research on waste reduction

and recycling . . .“

(3) ORD “administered funding for applied research recently conducted

for OSW in cooperation with Tufts

University. The Tufts Center for

Environmental Management conducted a [waste minimization] foreign practices study .“ [p. 70]

Information Sharing and Management:

“EPA can draw upon several existing

sources of information in order to further

the dissemination and sharing of knowledge about hazardous waste generation

and waste minimization policy . .“ [p. 70]

ORD

small business/SQG funds

FY 86. . .$326,000

FY 87. , . 103000

FY 88 . . . O*

Contract per year:

FY 66...$126,000

FY 87 . . . 103,000

Contracts per year:

NC: FY 85...$100,000

FY 86 . . . 100,000

MN: FY 86...$100,000

●

OTA did not evaluate this contract because

it was not relevant to reduction.

HWERL “has funded two Small Business Initiative projects in fiscal year 1966

through State waste reduction programs

(North Carolina and Minnesota). Minnesota’s MnTAP will administer $100,000 in

grant on applied research project to assist small business in complying with

regulatory problems. The grant will apply

primarily to RCRA hazardous waste and

will not be restricted to waste minimization.” [p. 209]

The EPA grants to North Carolina’s Pollution Prevention Pays Program are used

along with State funds to create a comprehensive research and education grant

system. [see pp. 218-219]

. . is the EPA center [of Excellence] where

work is most directly related to waste

reduction. Its annual budget is based on

the EPA grant [$540,000 per year] . . .

specific projects have focused on [research with some relevance to waste

reduction] . . . The center would like to

pursue waste reduction more directly but

does not do so because the subject lacks

priority at EPA . . . [p. 185]

OTA did not evaluate these activities.

HWERL’S “Despite claims that HWERL is ‘working to

Alternative Technologies Division foster increased use of . . . waste reducWaste minimization research funding: tion’ OTA could find little work specifically directed toward this objective . . .

FY 86....$235,000 Funding for fiscal year 1986 is . . . being

FY 87 . . . . 108,000 used for one contract . . . [on waste reducFY 88 . . . . 108,000 (request) tion auditing procedures].” [p. 184]

“The Center for Environment Management

at Tufts University is funded principally by

EPA at a cost of $2 million per year

. . . Waste Reduction and Treatment is one

of four ‘clusters of concentration’ [at the

Center]. Two projects [relevant to waste

minimization or waste reduction] have

been completed: a study of foreign

government waste minimization practices

and the organization of a conference.” [p.

188]

OTA did not directly evaluate the information-sharing aspect of EPA’s waste

minimization efforts in its report because

they had little focus on waste reduction.

The activities have concerned EPA’s

Report to Congress or were not contingent 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 information sharing:

(1) Sponsorship of two waste reduction conferences held at Woods Hole in 1985 and

1988.

(2) Co-sponsorship and assistance in coordinating three workshops for State Waste

Reduction Programs,

(3) Waste minimization presentations by EPA

staff at seven conferences.

(4) Support to the Environmental Auditing

Roundtable.

In the information management category,

EPA discusses the value of “existing

mechanisms [that] afford a significant basis upon which to develop a comprehensive overview of the use, movement, and

fate of all chemicals and wastes of concern and to determine the changes resulting from altered economic and regulatory

conditions. ” [p. 73]

OTA devoted a chapter in its report to information needs and availability for waste

reduction in setting policy goals and in

implementing and evaluating potential

regulatory and nonregulatory programs.

Primarily because waste reduction is a

process specific endeavor, little was

found in the existing information gathering capability of EPA that significantly

satisfied 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 Technology

Assessment, 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 assist

the looth” Congress with its deliberations about

waste reduction. In this section the important

conclusions of the first three sections of this

report are drawn together to identify and analyze four critical policy choices on waste reduction:

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 legislation 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 literature now exists extending beyond the EPA and

OTA reports. Waste reduction is seen by nearly

everyone as:

●

●

●

●

offering substantial environmental and

competitiveness benefits;

an option that is technically, economically,

and organizationally feasible in the near

term and that has many opportunities yet

available;

not being amenable to a traditional

prescriptive regulatory approach where the

government tells industry what to do and

when to do it; and

as facing diverse obstacles in both government and industry.

The findings and conclusions of the EPA report to Congress on waste minimization are

consistent with all of the above statements.

Without a congressional directive to do otherwise, however, EPA plans limited activities, no

institutional or organizational change, and very

low funding. This course is consistent with a

historical low priority and support for waste

reduction and EPA’s optimism about the positive effects of its regulatory programs on waste

reduction. EPA’s proposed small effort would

probably not alter substantially the incremental

increases in waste reduction now occurring.

In the meantime, within the next few years actions and investments may occur that could displace waste reduction actions.

Congress itself caused a major reexamination

of waste management and set the stage for this

scenario through some of the 1984 Amendments

to RCRA (HSWA). It directed EPA to move the

Nation’s hazardous waste management system

away from land disposal with very strong mandates to EPA to examine, regulate, and promote

alternative waste management technologies,

such as incineration. The move to widespread

incineration is occurring despite the unknown

environmental risk that may follow. At the same

time, Congress has not given explicit instructions for comparable measures to move industry to waste reduction, even though national

policy states that waste reduction is the preferred environmental option. EPA only considers the availability of waste treatment capacity—not waste reduction potential—in reaching

decisions on land disposal bans, including

whether to delay the bans. This situation probably developed because of concerns about intrusive regulations to encourage reexamination

of and change in upstream processes and operations in industry. Indeed, such concerns are

warranted, but would not apply with a nonregulatory Federal waste reduction program.

This approach was not considered when Congress reauthorized RCRA in 1984.

Superfund was similarly changed in 1986

without considering the potential benefits of

reducing the generation of hazardous waste.

Section 104(k) of the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act of 1986 exerts pressure on States to assure the availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities to

handle all hazardous wastes expected to be generated within the State during the next 20 years.

Again, Congress did not require examination

of waste reduction as a way to help create a

comprehensive waste management system.

However, there is now some discussion of using

capacity credits to recognize State waste reduc42
43

tion programs.54 This is a worthwhile way to

integrate waste reduction into assessments of

hazardous waste management capacity needs.

The ultimate decision not to use a waste-end

tax to help fund the Superfund program may

also be significant. That option had received

considerable analysis, discussion, and support

over some years.55 Several States have large hazardous waste taxes or fees. One of the intended

benefits of imposing a substantial tax on hazardous waste sent to land disposal and perhaps

even waste treatment facilities is the promotion of waste reduction. For example, Judith

Enck, the Executive Director of Environmental

Planning Lobby in New York, said:

Increasing regulatory fees is one way to encourage source reduction, for instance. I think

getting companies to reduce the amount of

toxic waste they generate out of the goodness

of their heart isn’t going to happen, If they can

be convinced on economic grounds that reducing the amount of toxic waste that is generated is in their interest, they’ll come around.

I think the whole key is economics. so

Proponents of waste reduction have seen the

decision to not use a Federal waste-end tax as

a lack of interest in and support for waste reduction.

Moreover, there is rapidly increasing interest in waste reduction within the Nation’s grassroots, citizen-based environmental movement

that merits attention. People concerned about

hazardous waste and environmental pollution

are not concerned with statutory and regulatory subtleties. They focus on goals and results

and recognize waste reduction’s unique ability to offer the most certain and broadly defined

environmental and public health protection.

Such a preventive approach could extend beyond RCRA industrial waste to household haz-

“See, for instance, “Development of State Capacity Certification Requirements under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), ” draft prepared by the Center for Policy Research of the National Governor’s Association,

Mar. 15, 1987.

Sssee, for instance, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Superfund Strategy, OTA-ITE-252 [Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, April 1985).

WJToxjcs jn YOUr Cornrnunjty Coalition Newsletter, February/March 1987, p. 5.

ardous waste and even to the elimination of hazardous materials in products. To these groups,

lack of action on waste reduction signals a difficulty in moving incrementally toward a society with minimal use of and exposure to toxic

and hazardous substances. s’

The EPA report concluded that enough information was available to say that much waste

reduction has already occurred but that not

enough information was available to make a

decision on imposing waste minimization regulations on industry, Meanwhile, the report recommended some type of waste minimization

technical assistance. The likely result of EPA’s

proposed program is a continuation of a SlO W

increase in the reduction of the generation of

hazardous waste; too slow to prevent a potential major shortage in waste management capacity, if it is going to occur. This development

could cause the government to back away from

its goal of greatly restricting land disposal.

The OTA report to Congress offers a range

of broad policy approaches grouped according

to probable outcome. It identified and discussed

abroad range of obstacles that exist in both government and industry which block many companies from examining and thoroughly implementing waste reduction. These obstacles

explain why a bold Federal nonregulatory initiative is necessary if the United States is to gain

the environmental and competitiveness benefits of waste reduction in the near term. If Congress wants to increase the pace and scope of

industrial waste reduction, where hazardous

waste is defined in the broadest terms, it could

adopt a strategy that would establish a strong

Federal nonregulatory program that would not

burden industry. Waste reduction will proceed

even without a major program at the Federal

level, but slowly. Some companies may stop reducing the generation of waste after the easiest, most obvious ways are adopted. Others may

not discover the benefits of waste reduction for

some time.

5Tc)ne major national organization, the National Campaign

Against Toxic Hazards, has already designed model legislation

addressing this broader view of toxics use reduction that includes

waste reduction. It has been introduced in several States.
44

Information and analysis from EPA, OTA,

and several other studies now available to Congress could support a decision to move ahead

with a nonregulatory legislative initiative focused on waste reduction instead of waste minimization, as defined by HSWA. The timing of

government action is just as important as its

nature. Even though waste reduction is a major change in strategy and thinking, it is also

a logical and immediately available next step

in the development of a comprehensive environmental protection-waste management system. Waste reduction combines the environmentalism of the 1960s with the economic

sensibilities of the 1980s.

Are There Advantages to a Completely

New Type of Legislation?

A decision to act legislatively on waste reduction would require a critical choice whether

to act within the framework already existing

under RCRA, the only environmental statute

that has focused some attention on waste reduction, or to establish an entirely new statute.

The following reasons support new legislation:

1.

2.

First and foremost, waste reduction is upstream pollution prevention that is different technically and philosophically from

the end-of-pipe pollution control basis of

existing statutes. Almost all of the governmental and industrial apparatus established over many years for environmental

protection depend on strategies, technologies, principles, policies, and environmental specialists that are not appropriate

for waste reduction.

Tacking waste reduction onto existing legislation, such as RCRA, has not resulted

in waste reduction receiving priority. It has

not been defined clearly nor given focus

in contrast to waste treatment options. (See

figure 2 for an example of how the current

regulatory system shifts pollutants among

media compounding environmental problems and increasing costs to both government and industry.) waste reduction and

even waste minimization are often ignored

Figure 2.—End-of-Pipe Approach:

Regulating the Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part SO

[AD-FRL-3163-61

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources VOC

From Petroleum Refinery Wastewater

systems

AGENCY Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.

SUMMARY: The proposed standards

would limit emissons of volatile organic

compounds (WC) from new, modified,

and reconstructed refinery wastewater

systems. The proposed standards

implement section 111 of the Clean Air

Act and are based on the

Administrator’s determination that VOC

emissions from petroleum refinery

fugitive emission sources cause, or

contribute significantly to, air pollution

which may reasonably be anticipated to

endanger public health or welfare.

Refinery wastewater systems are part of

the refinery fugitive sources category.

The intent is to require new, modified,

and reconstructed refinery wastewater

systems to control emissions to the level

achievable by the best demonstrated

system of continuous emission

reduction, considering costs, nonair

quality health, and environmental and

energy impacts,

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide interested parties

an opportunity for oral presentations of

data. views, or arguments concerning

the proposed standards.

This example of a proposed regulation shows how controlling, rather than reducing, pollutants can shift pollutants

around and become an unending process. In this instance,

the petroleum industry was initially required under the Clean

Water Act to build wastewater treatment facilities to treat

oily water from its refinery process units rather than release

the untreated water into the Nation’s waterways. Subsequently, it has been discovered that the treatment processes

emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air, and now

the VOCs must, in turn, be controlled. Thus, EPA is proposing that new, modified, and reconstructed refinery wastewater systems regulated under the Clean Water Act be further

regulated under the Clean Air Act section 111. This proposal

will not control those VOCs emitted from existing wastewater systems.

A waste reduction approach would have been to conduct

waste audits of the various refinery processes that generate

the oily wastewater and to devise methods of reducing that

generation. Many waste reduction case studies have shown

that substantial amounts of wastewater produced from process cleaning operations can be reduced by relatively simple

changes in those operations. By not generating the oily

wastewaters, the VOC problem would not exist and require

subsequent attention.

SOURCE: Federal Register, vol. 52, No. 65, May 4, 1987, p. 16334.
45

3.

4.

5.

when the RCRA program is examined. The

linkage between waste reduction and what

many people regard as higher RCRA priorities (e. g., enforcement and compliance

issues) is rarely considered. Moreover,

should Congress assign a substantial waste

reduction program to the Office of Solid

Waste (OSW), which implements RCRA,

it is likely either that OSW’s priority for

treatment and disposal programs would interfere with its implementation of waste

reduction or that current programs would

suffer.

Waste reduction must address all hazardous wastes and environmental pollutants

or opportunities will open up to shift waste

between environmental media. While it is

possible to superimpose waste reduction

without conflict on the various environmental programs, it could be difficult to

incorporate a multimedia approach solely

from within RCRA or any other existing

environmental statute. No matter what

might make technical and economic sense,

if the government said that waste reduction only applied to a narrow class of regulated waste, then much of industry’s actions might be similarly focused. The

temptation, and perhaps legal need, to address waste reduction comparably among

all major environmental statutes would

probably delay action.

Waste reduction is best addressed by government policies aimed at assistance, persuasion, and institutional commitment.

Both EPA and OTA have said it is not amenable to traditional regulatory or prescriptive approaches. This is in stark contrast

to existing environmental statutes which

rely, almost exclusively, on command-andcontrol regulations. The success of the Ventura County waste reduction program supports the use of technical assistance.

waste reduction bridges the environmental

and industrial competitiveness areas of national concern. The traditional regulatory

approach to environmental protection results in increasing costs to government and

industry. Waste reduction offers both government and industry a near-term opportunity to reduce their environmental costs

and liabilities even as the government finds

it necessary to promulgate more environmental regulations.

Reasons for maintaining the RCRA context

for a congressional initiative on waste reduction include:

1.

2.

3.

Congress can more easily amend an existing statute than create a new one;

RCRA, which has already dealt with the

subject of waste reduction, is a timely vehicle since it is scheduled for reauthorization in 1988; and

RCRA involves fewer committees and subcommittee whereas a waste reduction statute might result in shared jurisdiction with

committees with an interest in industrial

competitiveness.

Overall, it would seem more effective and efficient for Congress to use new legislation if

it chooses to move ahead with a major waste

reduction initiative. However, a more modest

initiative similar to what now exists could fit

into the RCRA framework.

What Could New Waste Reduction

Legislation Include?

There are a host of potentially effective policy instruments for Congress to consider.

Assistance to Industry

The environmental and economic benefits of

waste reduction can be used to justify technical assistance by government to industry. Such

actions by government include:

●

In-plant technical assistance to deal with

site-specific situations. Experts could provide help to identify waste reduction opportunities and techniques, establish waste

reduction audit and accounting systems,

and suggest organizational changes that

foster waste reduction.

Information and technology transfer

through passive databases and catalogs of

case studies and interactive (expert system)
46

●

●

databases. These would make relevant

waste reduction data and information

available to plant personnel nationwide.

Development and in-plant use of education

and training activities that help build waste

reduction expertise among production

people.

Generic R&D on commonly used processes

and materials that can assist many generators across different industries.

These efforts address existing obstacles in

both government and industry and constitute

purposeful incentives for waste reduction. They

could be funded in part by the Federal Government and implemented mostly through State

governments with the help of Federal grants.

OTA found that State agencies and other parties close to industrial facilities can more efficiently and effectively implement such an assistance program than can EPA. Existing State

and sometimes local waste reduction programs

are a nucleus on which to build a national program. Their focus on waste reduction and their

effectiveness could be rapidly increased

through Federal assistance and a common definition, method of measurement, and policy

framework.

In January 1987, North Carolina researchers

conducted a survey of 50 States. The results

on siting hazardous waste management facilities support OTA’s findings about the need to

stimulate more State activity on waste reduction. Although OTA found only 10 State programs with any focus on waste reduction, this

survey revealed that 28 States believe that they

have a “statutory mandate or program to encourage nonsiting alternatives, such as waste

reduction at the source. ”58 However, when regulatory officials were asked “How much effect

do you expect waste reduction measures will

have in reducing the need for future siting of

facilities?” only 21 States said moderate to significant, 22 said none to very little, and 7 didn’t

know. This result seems an outcome of: 1)

SeRichard N.L. Andrews and Phillip Prete, “Trends in Hazardous Waste Facility Siting and Permitting,” Workshop on Negotiating Hazardous Waste Facility Siting and Permitting Agreements, Conservation Foundation, Mar. 11-13, 1987. Emphasis

in original.

minimally funded State and Federal programs

designed to focus on waste reduction, and 2)

studies that have often underestimated future

waste reduction potential (discussed in detail

in the OTA waste reduction report). A Federal

grants program to States, therefore, could make

waste reduction an ally of siting efforts by reducing siting needs in the near term to publicly acceptable levels.

California has recognized this concept. It recently passed legislation to facilitate the siting

and permitting of hazardous waste facilities.

Known as the Tanner process, it includes a provision for local governments to analyze waste

reduction potential with the State Department

of Health Services providing supporting waste

reduction information. 59

EPA Organization

Creating an Office of Waste Reduction with

an Assistant Administrator in EPA would be

a major change. Independence from existing

EPA pollution control programs is key. This

option takes on more importance because EPA

has said that a nonregulatory waste reduction

program requires institutional advocacy. Waste

reduction is not a new idea, but past history

also makes clear that if waste reduction is to

achieve parity with pollution control as a major means to environmental protection, it must

have organizational commitment, public visibility and accountability, and institutional advocacy at the highest levels. EPA is, like any

other institution that deals with the environment, a member of the pollution control culture that has developed over 20 years in the

United States. If EPA is to implement an effective waste reduction program, its organization

should reflect the primacy of waste reduction.

The lack of such organizational change has

already caused waste reduction to be overshadowed by existing regulatory programs, as

shown in figure 1.

A major new bureaucracy that would add to

the administrative burdens of EPA would be

unacceptable and unwise to many. In terms of

SeCalifornia state Assembly Bill 2948 (Tanner).
47

staff, budget, and responsibilities, however, an

Office of Waste Reduction would always be a

small part of EPA. A nonregulatory program

would not have the kinds of responsibilities that

define most of EPA’s operations. The issue is

not one of size but of providing unambiguous

institutional commitment to a worthy objective.

With people committed to waste reduction and

expert about industrial production, even a small

office can supply critically needed national

leadership. A waste reduction program that is

submerged within EPA is not likely to have

credibility with industry and the public, An Assistant Administrator can explain and promote

not only EPA’s waste reduction effort but that

of the entire Federal Government and of State

programs, Currently, although EPA participates

in many conferences and workshops conducted

on waste reduction, no senior EPA official represents the agency, is a visible advocate of waste

reduction, or is attempting to unite national interest in waste reduction.

Even though EPA has only a small effort on

waste minimization, a lack of coordination and

consistency among different groups has already

surfaced. EPA itself noted that: “Some waste

minimization options may require extensive internal cooperation among EPA programs. ”60

There have already been significant differences

among the Office of Solid Waste, the Office of

Research and Development, and the Office of

Policy Planning and Evaluation that help explain the inconsistencies and ambiguities of

EPA’s report to Congress on waste minimization. Both ORD and OSW seem to acknowledge

the primacy of waste reduction over regulated

pollution control activities more than does

EPA’s policy office. These internal tensions

may explain the small fiscal year 1988 budget

request for waste minimization that is inconsistent with EPA’s report. With the almost inevitable increase in interest in waste reduction,

bureaucratic problems are likely to get worse

in the absence of a central EPA office with overall responsibility for waste reduction.

The activities that an EPA Office of Waste

Reduction might undertake to shift the balance

60U. S. Environment] Protection Agency, RePOrt tO Congress:

A4inimization of Hazardous Waste, op. cit., p, 89.

between the use of waste reduction and traditional pollution control in industry are many

and varied. They are summarized below in order of decreasing priority and need, amplifying

●

●

the discussion in the OTA report:

National Leadership: A key function of the

office would be the administration of waste

reduction grants to the States. Emphasis

could be placed on expanding existing programs that have shown effectiveness and

providing seed money for new programs,

setting necessary policies and criteria for

selection and funding (including perhaps

assisting the formation of State waste reduction boards), establishing standard

methods of measurement and a standard

definition of waste reduction to focus State

actions,

61 evaluating the performance of

funded programs, and transferring successful ideas among State programs. The

chief objective would be to develop and implement a cost-effective national support

system for very large numbers of waste

generators (i.e., many tens of thousands).

Information Analysis: The establishment

and operation of a national waste reduction database would make it possible to assess progress nationwide. Annual reports

could provide information on whether

voluntary goals established by Congress are

being met nationwide and across all industries and analyze unsatisfactory results. Industry waste reduction plans could be analyzed to see if sufficient commitments are

being made to meet national goals. Gross

waste generation and environmental spendBIA need for a standard definition to focus implementation is

made clear by a recent example from New York State. An April

1987 staff report of the Joint Legislative Commission on Toxic

Substances and Hazardous Wastes, “Hazardous Waste Reduction: Obstacles and Incentives, ” contains a clear definition of

waste reduction that is consistent with OTA’s definition and discusses the need to address obstacles to increase waste reduction in the State. Several bills have been introduced in the State

legislature as a result of the report. One bill (S. 5192) sets waste

reduction as the preferred hazardous waste option in New York,

Two others (S. 5190 and S. 5191) establish loan guarantee and

waste audit programs. Their stated purpose is to encourage waste

reduction but the bills are inconsistent with the definition and

priority given waste reduction, They allow appropriated waste

reduction funds to be spent on recycling and treatment, options

that can divert industry’s attention from waste reduction,
48

ing data could be analyzed to detect

whether waste reduction is having a positive impact on waste management nationwide. Use of information gathered from other

EPA programs would also be examined.

● Information Transfer: Industry would be

assisted, directly or through State programs,

either by the establishment of an accessible database of technical information on

waste reduction or by fostering nationwide

use of an existing system. The office could

design an expert system (i.e., an interactive computer system that provides answers to questions) to assist waste generators explore waste reduction options.

Information would be obtained from the

grants program and from past and ongoing technical activities outside the Federal

effort. Information transfer is not a substitute for in-plant technical assistance (provided by States) because the mere availability of information provides no certainty

that a generator will obtain it and be able

or willing to act on it effectively. The first

priority of this Federal information transfer effort would be to provide support for

State (or even county) programs and secondly to assist individual companies.

● Outreach: A major obstacle to waste reduction is convincing people that it is a viable, near-term option. This obstacle would

be overcome if the office played a lead role

in outreach programs, such as workshops,

to educate industry, regulatory officials,

and the public at large about waste reduction. The office could also publicly recognize industries that practice waste reduction and encourage still more waste

reduction by others. An ongoing, high level

industry liaison group to provide major

guidance to the office could be established.

A similar liaison group for the educational

community could promote the introduction of waste reduction principles into

engineering and business management

curricula. A third liaison group of the general public, environmental, public health,

labor, and public interest groups would

provide important input to the Federal

program.

●

●

Regulatory Analysis: Elements of the current environmental regulation system serve

as obstacles to waste reduction but also

sometimes move industry slowly in the

direction of waste reduction. A critical

need is to purposefully seek ways to use

existing regulatory programs to promote

waste reduction. For example, permits

could be made contingent on explicit commitment to waste reduction. Such measures are not likely to be a high priority of

regulatory programs. Independent expertise on waste reduction would be needed

in any event. Regulations to force waste

reduction in industry are a potential for

the future. The office could analyze the impact of the current system on waste reduction, work closely with EPA’s enforcement

and regulatory programs to help define and

analyze opportunities for regulatory concessions to ease the adoption of waste reduction, and study the feasibility of waste

reduction regulations in case information

should show that the nonregulatory efforts

to promote waste reduction are not successful. By analyzing and reporting on the

waste reduction impacts of regulatory actions within the formal regulatory activities of EPA, the office could prevent the

creation of more obstacles to waste reduction. This should be a high priority of EPA,

and the office could provide the necessary

technical expertise and objectivity for this

task. Bias for waste reduction from this office would, at the least, balance the existing bias for pollution control within current regulatory programs. (See box F for

a current example; the agency’s decisions

on regulating industrial furnaces and boilers

for burning hazardous waste).

Research and Development: The office

could provide and monitor funding to

EPA’s Office of Research and Development, as the current regulatory programs

do, for waste reduction research identified

as necessary to reduce significant amounts

of waste. It could also disseminate R&D results from EPA and other sources to industry. R&D would also be possible through

the State grants program.
4 9

●

●

Implementation of Related Federal Activities: Congressionally mandated activities

that relate mostly to waste reduction could

be implemented by the office. An example is the information gathering aspects of

the new Superfund program (Title III of

SARA) having to do with crude mass

balances of some industrial facilities. (Note,

however, that these new data reporting requirements will not provide the government with a measure of national waste reduction because waste generation will be

reported in several broad ranges only.

Moreover, waste generation will not be reported in terms of production output. In

addition, data on only some 300 chemicals

from a fraction of industry are to be collected.) Another example is the Superfund

requirement for State assurances for longterm hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities of State wastes. Implementation will require an ability to review and

assess such assurances and the analytical

bases used. Waste reduction is a key variable that should be included in such State

analysis.

Federal Government Coordination: By

working with other branches of the Federal Government, the office could promote

and measure waste reduction at Federal

facilities; 62 remove obstacles to waste reduction, such as inflexible procurement

and product specification policies of the

Department of Defense and the Food and

Drug Administration that prevent waste reduction; and use waste reduction performance as a criterion to select vendors and

contractors. Coordination with agencies

such as the Department of Commerce

could help to establish waste reduction as

part of economic growth and industrial

competitiveness.

● Issue Development and Liaison: Government has, for the most part, avoided the

issue of toxic and dangerous materials in

non-food and non-drug products. The office could play a lead role in EPA and work

with other Federal agencies and the public on this issue and that of expanding

waste reduction to solid waste (i. e., household and commercial garbage). Toxics use

reduction is rapidly becoming a broadly

supported concept.

As difficult as organizational change can be,

creating an independent Office of Waste Reduction offers advantages over several other

options and what the EPA report says has been

a problem for the agency—the administration

of nonregulatory programs. For example, an

expanded waste reduction effort within EPA’s

Office of Solid Waste would face tough competition from existing OSW programs. Credibility would also be a problem, particularly for

establishing a national database on waste reduction, since in 10 years OSW has not established a reliable database on RCRA waste generation. Establishing a separate waste reduction

division within EPA’s solid and hazardous

waste program comparable to OSW would

hamper developing a multimedia basis for

waste reduction and, here too, would face very

strong competition from existing hazardous

waste management efforts. Creating a waste reduction effort within each major regulatory program (air, water, and waste) would also likely

result in duplication of effort, overwhelming

competition from existing regulatory programs,

and great difficulties in achieving expeditious

and consistent actions.

Another alternative, already receiving some

attention within EPA, merits discussion. The

Office of Research and Development (ORD) has

shown increasing interest in waste reduction. 63

WAS in industry, the Department of Defense readily acknowledges that “the financial and legal incentives to reduce or entirely eliminate the generation of hazardous wastes are becoming more attractive. ” However, it too uses waste minimization

that includes waste treatment and also speaks of the need to reduce “volume or toxicity” of wastes, thus allowing actions that

reduce volume and concentrate hazardous components. [Michael

J. Carricato, et al,, “Department of Defense Hazardous Waste

Minimization, ” Proceedings of the National Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials (Silver Spring, MD: Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, March 1987), p. 328.]

6SAS this specia] report was near completion, the Hazardous

Waste Engineering Research Laboratory of ORD released a proposal in April 1987 to develop a program to “contribute to the

reduction of technical barriers . . . impeding the adoption of

waste minimization , . . “ [U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, “Waste Minimization Strategy, ” undated.] A funding

level of about $3 million for 1988 has been discussed. The major

shortcoming of the ORD proposal is a lack of attention to and

support of in-plant technical assistance to increase the use of

existing waste reduction information and technology.
50

There is undoubtedly a role for ORD in overseeing and carrying out waste reduction research and development and perhaps in the development and establishment of necessary

central information systems, as discussed

above. To have the EPA waste reduction activity centered in ORD, however, is not an effective way to overcome present obstacles to the

use of waste reduction in industry. A program

operated by ORD could not conduct a full range

of activities and would not have the organizational stature of an agencywide Office of Waste

Reduction. ORD has no experience in managing nonregulatory programs, such as in-plant

technical assistance. Some problems and limitations of ORD taking the agency lead in waste

reduction are:

●

●

●

●

technology per se is not the limiting factor

for more widespread industrial waste reduction and ORD has little experience in

addressing nontechnical obstacles and

problems;

no study of waste reduction has revealed

any particular need for a major government technology demonstration program

for waste reduction;

ORD would have difficulty in establishing

credibility and effectiveness for a nonregulatory program aimed at assisting industry, because its experience is mainly in

end-of-pipe pollution control, not in upstream manufacturing processes, and its

work is mostly in support of regulatory programs; and

there could be a tendency for ORD to carry

out lengthy studies on waste reduction,

rather than to actively assist industrial

waste generators of all types to use existing technology through onsite technical

assistance.

Reporting and Planning Requirements

Even though nonregulatory programs do not

require extensive, detailed data to function, information on correctly measured waste reduction and the cost savings relative to pollution

control is necessary. Eventually, EPA will have

to evaluate the effectiveness of a Federal program and will need such data to do so.

One of the key obstacles to waste reduction

within companies is that it is not usually a high

priority with top management. Some people in

industry are troubled by a policy option suggested in OTA’s report that would compel publicly owned companies to inform investors,

through reports filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission, of their waste reduction efforts and progress. It raises the spectre

of yet another burdensome government requirement to gather more detailed information. However, that same information is necessary for

companies to evaluate waste reduction possibilities and, in more detailed form, could be reported to EPA and serve useful purposes for

national policy implementation and evaluation.

New industry reporting requirements—on

past waste reduction actions and detailed plans

for future efforts-is another policy option suggested by OTA that would require new legislation. Government required plans could stimulate the kind of attention that would make waste

reduction a commonly used option in industry. Plans must specify what actions generators will examine and take in the future to maintain the priority of waste reduction.

However, reporting and planning requirements by themselves do not address lack of interest, poor information, and lack of technical

resources to reduce waste. Nor would they be

effective unless there was a standard way of

measuring waste reduction based on the need

to put changes in waste generation on a production output basis for specific processes and

facilities. Without in-plant technical assistance

and other active efforts by government and

other organizations, a generator may be complacent or incorrectly assume that there are no

additional waste reduction opportunities. Therefore, reporting and planning requirements are

best seen as but a part of a more comprehensive government program that identifies and removes obstacles to waste reduction and assists

industry to reduce waste. But reporting and

planning requirements are important for government programs to assess progress and for

motivating and maintaining the interest of

generators.
51

Voluntary Goals

Another option, a 10 percent year-to-year

voluntary goal over 5 years for waste reduction, has not been suggested as a surrogate or

antecedent to regulatory requirements. 64 Setting goals would draw attention to waste reduction and provide a simple way to measure

progress and justify actions.

Some are unconcerned about such a goal because they already use goals for the same reasons. Moreover, OTA arrived at an annual goal

of 10 percent by using data from several companies that showed such a level of performance

over the past few years.

Nevertheless, some people are nervous that

voluntary goals might presage regulations and

might penalize innovative and progressive companies that have already substantially reduced

waste, Since the first waste reduction opportunities tend to be the cheapest and easiest,

companies that have not adopted waste reduction could quickly make progress that might

prove difficult for those with a long-standing

commitment to waste reduction. However,

companies whose commitment to waste reduction preceded the adoption of national goals

would be able to show that they have already

significantly reduced their generation of hazardous waste.

A Long-Term Option: Flexibility in the

Regulatory System

Companies who pursue waste reduction beyond the first easy and inexpensive opportunities face increasing technical complexities and

costs. The current regulatory system imposes

costs and places demands on a company that

can limit its resources for waste reduction. This

may be a significant problem for large compaH4There has been some confusion over the 10 percent annual

voluntary goal figure, Note that over 5 years a year-to-year 10

percent level of waste reduction, where each year’s generation

serves as the basis for the following year’s goal, results in a total

of 41 percent reduction relative to the amount generated at the

start of the 5-year effort and 65 percent after 10 years. Because

the base is declining, waste reduction in terms of amount of waste

per unit of production output is declining also, This means that

if production levels remain constant, progress seen as changes

in the the total amount of waste generated slows down.

nies that generate and manage large amounts

of waste onsite and therefore, can face substantial capital costs for pollution control facilities

to comply with regulatory requirements. To address these two obstacles to continuing, comprehensive waste reduction, OTA presented the

concept of regulatory concessions, an option

that could be implemented in 3 to 5 years, rather

than immediately.

Waste reduction might achieve more of its

technical potential if flexibility were introduced

into the current regulatory system. Trade-offs

between pollution control regulatory requirements and specific waste reduction plans and

actions could facilitate the expenditure of industrial resources on waste reduction, which

provides more certain environmental protection and enhanced industrial competitiveness.

Concessions, such as delayed regulatory compliance, would be granted only for projects that

would provide a net gain in environmental protection and public health. Valid concerns arise

about this policy creating opportunities to avoid

or escape regulatory compliance. These concerns and ways to deal with them are discussed

in the OTA report. 65

In its study of environmental protection and

technological change OECD came to important

conclusions about regulatory flexibility: 66

. . . flexible enforcement of the regulations

according to a time schedule and procedures

negotiated between industry and government

are largely responsible for the firm’s technological reaction.

A certain flexibility and adjustment to the

special circumstances of each industry can

pay in the long run.

It is better to have regulations that are strict

but flexibly enforced, than undemanding regulations hastily enforced.

An exemption which allows industry sufficient time and latitude to develop new technologies is usually favorable for technological change. There may, however, be a conflict

6SConcessions are not a new idea. Both the Clean Water Act

and the Clean Air Act have had such provisions; they are also

discussed in the OTA report.

660rganization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Environmental Policy and Technical Change, op. cit.
52

between the desire to facilitate technical

change [what OTA calls waste reduction] and

the urgent need to protect the environment,

which often means a conflict between urgent

short-term measures and greater efficiency in

the longer term.

OTA concludes that as difficult as it may be

to introduce flexibility into the regulatory system, the long-term environmental and economic

benefits of doing so may more than justify the

attempt. As the earlier discussion of U.S. industry’s relative competitive disadvantage showed,

other nations seem to have done a better job of

introducing regulatory flexibility. Historically,

there have always been reasons for granting

some U.S. companies regulatory concessions,

but waste reduction may be the best reason.

A Long-Term Option: State Waste

Reduction Boards

To deal with concerns about implementing

regulatory concessions and a number of other

waste reduction policies, OTA suggested that

State waste reduction boards, similar to existing State hazardous waste siting and management boards, assess waste reduction benefits

and work with regulatory agencies on regulatory concessions. State boards could also play

a major role in implementing any Federal

grants program and could provide expert

panels to help answer a key question: has a company already made a good faith, documented

effort to reduce generation and does it have a

plan to do more? Since the OTA report, the

Michigan Toxic Substances Control Commission has recommended the creation of a State

waste reduction board.67 Some existing State

waste management boards as well as some

States’ active divisions that focus on waste reduction could, of course, be alternatives to new

organizations.

e~he Michigan Toxic Sustance Control Commission, “White

Paper: Investigations and Recommendations for the Development of a Comprehensive Michigan Program in Hazardous Waste

Reduction,” prepared by Waste Systems Institute of Michigan,

Inc., October 1986.

What Might Be an Effective Level

and Source of Funding?

Even at the earliest stages of discussion about

waste reduction programs, current budget deficits make it necessary to deal with financing

of a Federal waste reduction program. It is important to see a Federal waste reduction program as different from a traditional regulatory

program. To overcome inertia and smooth a

path from pollution control to pollution prevention may not require major, long-term

funding.

Considering the environmental priority of

waste reduction, a small percent of the normal

operating program budget of EPA might be reallocated to establish and operate an Office of

Waste Reduction. As an example, 2 percent of

EPA’s fiscal year 1988 budget request of $1.5

billion (excluding Superfund, underground

storage tanks trust fund, and construction

grants programs) would provide $3o million for

waste reduction.

A funding level of $3o million, achieved by

a 2 percent cut in all of EPA’s existing programs

and operations, would be small enough not to

threaten the effectiveness of those other efforts.

The cut might be across the board, or it might

be made at the discretion of EPA, or Congress

might direct that cuts be made in certain areas.

This method of funding could generate $255

million for a 5-year program by increasing the

figure to 3 percent in the second year and 4

percent ($60 million annually in terms of the

fiscal year 1988 request) in the subsequent three

years. This level of funding might seem too low

in comparison to the benefits of expeditious and

systematic waste reduction. However a new,

separate Federal waste reduction program could

encourage and assist in a national transformation carried out by industry and would not be

an activity where the government has a major

operational role. Thus, these figures are consistent with government action that stimulates

widespread private actions in the public good.

Federal waste reduction grants to States probably would account for most (80 to 90 percent)

of the money appropriated. EPA has said:
53

. . . only the States have the close knowledge

of local industry that would be necessary to

ensure successful implementation of nonregulatory programs.68

This level of funding to States is equal to about

10 percent of current grants to States in pollution control regulatory programs. Yet it would

provide about 10 times the money now being

spent by some States on waste reduction, making a 10 percent matching fund requirement

a feasible option. It would increase in-plant

assistance from a tiny fraction of the Nation’s

waste generators to between 50,000 to 100,000

companies over five years. From the national

perspective, spending $200 million for 5 years

on State waste reduction grants could result

in annual savings by industry of billions of dollars in avoided waste management costs.69 As

has been shown by a federally supported energy

conservation technical assistance program, increased tax revenues from corporate profits resulting from waste management savings would

likely be greater than the Federal cost of the

waste reduction grants.70 Thus, as with the

energy conservation technical assistance prowU.S, Environment] Protection Agency, Report kJ Congress:

Minimization of Hazardous Waste, op. cit., p. 124.

6QThis estimateis based on the 2-year experience of the Ventura Country waste reduction program, which cost the county

$1.50,000 and reduced hazardous wastes by an estimated 40,000

tons. Given land disposal costs of $250 per ton, for every dollar

spent by Ventura County, its industry is saving $67 annually.

An unknown portion of the initial savings was spent on onetime capital investments in waste reduction technology and processes. The estimated savings is conservative, however, since it

is based on only reducing RCRA hazardous wastes and only those

shipped offsite and does not account for other economic benefits that accrue from waste reduction such as avoided liabilities

and energy and raw materials savings. These factors offset the

fact that some wastes probably became treated onsite instead

of being reduced or eliminated and the fact that some of the tonnage decrease came from cuts in industry production. A $10

billion annual savings nationwide would result from only about

10 percent waste reduction for RCRA wastes (50 million tons

annual reduction). See also footnote 30.

TOThe Department of Energy’s Energy Analysis and Diagnostic Centers, which offer similar in-plant technical assistance, have

resulted in a federal government internal rate of return of 56

to 101 percent per year because manufacturers’ savings become

taxable incremental earnings. For every Federal dollar spent industry has saved over $5 annually, Despite the high positive revenue return to the Federal government, in 10 years the program

has only managed to assist 1,750 plants because of its limited

budget, which for fiscal year 1987 totals $1.5 million. [See the

University City Science Center’s “Energy Analysis and Diagnostic Centers Fact Sheet,” January 1987.]

gram, Federal spending on waste reduction

might pay for itself. Moreover, the savings from

waste reduction are more certain than from

energy conservation because waste management costs increase steadily while energy costs

sometimes decrease. Hence, increased tax revenues are more certain from a Federal waste

reduction program.

Spending for other than the State grants could

be limited to $5 million to $10 million annually (including funding of ORD efforts), equivalent to about 10 to 20 fulltime equivalent (FTE)

employees. This FTE level is consistent with

the tasks described above for an Office of Waste

Reduction.

The $255 million total for a 5-year waste reduction program to prevent pollution and, ultimately, the creation of more Superfund sites

amounts to about 3 percent of the $8.5 billion

that Congress has recently appropriated for the

second 5-year Superfund program. Cleaning up

a few major Superfund sites can cost several

hundred million dollars. The Governor of New

Jersey has recently made the connection between the role of government in waste reduction and cleanup costs, saying:

Right now we are spending billions on hazardous waste cleanup and on regulating the

storage and handling of hazardous substances.

Yet we don’t spend anything on programs to

reduce the production of waste in the first

place.71

New Jersey’s recent initiatives to promote waste

reduction include a proposal for fees on waste

generation, creation of an information transfer program, and a review and revision of regulations that limit waste reduction.

Finally, 5 years of Federal grants might be

enough. Once waste generators get direct technical assistance, overcome major obstacles, and

learn how to implement waste reduction, they

will know how beneficial waste reduction is

to them, economically. After 5 years, a smaller

Federal effort (e.g., $10 million annually or less

than 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 be

enough to ensure that waste reduction is pursued to its limits, incorporated into new industrial operations, and perhaps extended to municipal waste and consumer products. In the

initial years, States will also learn how to run

effective waste reduction programs that assist

economic growth. An effective 5-year grants

program, therefore, might permanently alter

how American industry functions. It can be explicitly established as a seed program to demonstrate that waste reduction is an effective

complement to our current regulatory system.

The experiences of companies like 3M and Dow

Chemical indicate that once the waste reduction lesson is learned first-hand by production

people, government can play a smaller role.

EPA has said:

One critical benefit of technical assistance

is that it can be started immediately and can

show at least some benefits within months of

enactment. 72

OTA agrees, because limited State programs

have started to show this. If technical assistance

is good, then should it not be made available

to American industry nationwide as part of a

major Federal effort to encourage waste reduction?

7ZU,S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress:

Minimization of Hazardous Waste, op. cit., p. 117.

72-675 (64) QL: 3