National Academies Press: OpenBook

Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development (1991)

Chapter: Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences

« Previous: General Conclusions and Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Appendix A
Waste Reduction: Research Needs In Applied Social Sciences

A Workshop Report

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Summary

How is it possible to reduce the mounts of waste that we generate and the environmental pollution that they cause, rather than continuing to spend vast sums to dispose of them, move them somewhere else, treat them, or dean up contaminated sites? A growing consensus now argues that it would be more effective and cheaper to prevent pollution and reduce wastes at their sources instead. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently undertook major new policy and research initiatives and created a new office to address these issues.

This report summarizes a workshop on applied social science research needs in waste reduction held May 8-9, 1989, in Annapolis, Maryland, under the auspices of the National Research Council's Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. The workshop was one of four held at the request of EPA, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The committee organized the workshops with the goal of assessing the state of the science in each area and recommending long-term research needs and opportunities for advancing the state of the science. This workshop focused on specific research needs in measurement of waste reduction, institutional and behavioral barriers to waste reduction, and policy incentives for waste reduction, recognizing that considerable thought already has been given to technological research needs. It also addressed research needs for waste reduction in several specific nonindustrial sectors (agriculture, counties and municipalities, and municipal wastewater management). The workshop identified a serious deficiency in federal research attention to the societal (as opposed to technological) choices necessary for waste reduction and to the relative effectiveness of public policies that influence such choices.

WASTE REDUCTION

Waste reduction is defined by EPA w include industrial input substitution; product reformulation; process modification; improved housekeeping;, and on-site, dosed-loop recycling. It also includes "environmentally sound recycling" and waste-reduction opportunities beyond the industrial sector through individual behavior patterns, such as consumption or disposal habits, driving patterns, and on-the-job practices. In practice, however, EPA's waste reduction research program to date has emphasized engineering research aimed at the efficiency of industrial processes.

In the view of workshop participants, waste reduction must be rooted more broadly in a systematic approach to human use of materials and energy, not just in improvements in engineering or regulatory efficiency, nor in ad hoc campaigns to reduce particular materials or change particular behavior patterns. Participants noted that waste reduction is enhanced, for example, by such measures as reducing the number of processing steps between extraction and end use and the concomitant use of intermediate products such as packaging, increasing the life span and reusability of end products, conserving energy, and substituting more benign for highly toxic materials.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH NEEDS

In the view of workshop participants, the achievement of waste reduction requires not only research on low-waste technologies and their relative impacts on the environment, but also research on the human causes of waste and pollution and on the relative effectiveness of public policies intended to promote waste reduction and pollution prevention. Effective waste reduction cannot be achieved, for instance, without operational and consistent measurement concepts that are dearly linked to environmental protection purposes and to the realities of the production and consumption processes in which they are used. It cannot be achieved without systematic understanding of human behavior toward the environment, by individuals and by organizations, and of the factors that influence those behavior patterns either toward or against waste reduction and environmental protection. Finally, it cannot be achieved without empirical evaluation of the effects of public policy incentives, existing and proposed, toward advancing or retarding the achievement of environmental protection and other public policy goals. Understanding of environmental processes, health effects, and pollution control technologies is also necessary, but, without the information gained from applied social science research, this understanding will not be sufficient to meet waste reduction goals.

Three specific examples of such opportunities and needs in applied social science research identified by the workshop are (1) the measurement of waste reduction, (2) the investigation of institutional and behavioral barriers to it, and (3) the comparative study of public policy options for encouraging it.

Despite the importance of these social science issues, however, most of them remain virtually unaddressed by federal programs for applied environmental research and development. In the view of workshop participants, a key reason for this lies not only in the relative novelty of waste reduction as a policy objective, but also in the institutional barriers toward the types of research questions that exist within the field of applied environmental research, within the federal environmental research programs that support it, and within the research budget oversight process.

The research programs of EPA's Office of Research and Development and its laboratories, in particular, have focused almost exclusively on the technical aspects of environmental management—environmental fate and transport of pollutants, health and ecological effects, and control technologies. EPA's staff of research program managers and scientists reflects those disciplines and priorities. Some studies of policy effectiveness and economic impacts have been sponsored by EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, but, in the view of workshop participants, these do not provide an adequate substitute for a coherent and adequately supported program on the social science and management aspects of waste reduction research.

To carry out an effective policy of waste reduction and pollution prevention, therefore, workshop participants concluded that it is important that federal environmental research programs make applied social science research on environmental management an explicit and integral element of their agendas. Participants asserted that sustained research on these social science issues will be just as important to the achievement of waste reduction and pollution prevention as will research on the more technical aspects of environmental science and technology. Important opportunities exist for the integrated pursuit of applied social science and technical research on environmental management, as well as a serious need to redress the relative lack of attention to the former.

MEASUREMENT

Participants agreed that, as a public policy goal, waste reduction must be defined and measured at the level of the individual waste generator or manager (business firm or operation, household or institution, urban jurisdiction, etc.) and across the aggregate of human involvement in processes of materials and energy extraction, conversion, use, and disposal. No single definition or measurement will serve all waste reduction purposes and needs; multiple measurements are needed. Workshop participants suggested the following specific research topics:

  1. Identifying useful indicators and measurement units for each purpose and

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

identifying relevant differences in their applicability to industry, government, and other waste-generating sectors, such as minerals extraction, agriculture, commercial and institutional activities, and consumption;

  1. Measuring the postproduction waste implications of major commodity chemicals and other products as incipient wastes over their life cycles and evaluating claims that particular products are ''environmentally friendly";

  2. Measuring the waste reduction effects of complex capital investment decisions, such as future wastes that are avoided, in addition to incremental reductions within existing production processes;

  3. Relating plant-level measurements of waste reduction to the combined effects of waste reduction by multiple sources at regional and national scales and developing aggregate estimates of the quantifies of waste that might prove reducible; and

  4. Attempting to develop consensual definitions for terms related to waste reduction.

INSTITUTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS

When presented with information showing the benefits of waste reduction, many waste generators show surprisingly little interest in change, even if their own apparent economic interests would be served. Important institutional and behavioral barriers to waste reduction appear to exist even within the business sector, and it seems likely that the perception of similar or additional barriers affects the behavior of other waste generators, such as agriculture, government and other nonprofit institutions, and households.

Institutional and behavioral research efforts on waste reduction are in their infancy, but workshop participants identified substantial bodies of related theoretical and empirical evidence that could be applied to this task. Such evidence includes business research on accounting and financial analysis methods; on management of technological innovations; on organizational behavior and corporate strategic decision making; and on the behavior of other organizations and individuals, including recycling, energy and water conservation, and others. Workshop participants suggested the following specific research topics:

  1. Refining accounting rules to more accurately reflect waste management costs and value recovered materials and to define uniform minimum standards for disclosure of environmental impairment risks;

  2. Developing methods for incorporating waste reduction into technological innovation and capital investment decisions and for identifying the advantages waste reduction offers in strategic corporate decision issues;

  3. Systematically evaluating the anecdotal literature of waste reduction innovations to identify measures of success and major influences on waste reduction behavior (e.g., type of incentives, size of organization, type of technology, and organizational goals and internal structures); and

  4. Identifying incentives that might be most effective in influencing waste reduction behavior outside the business production sector, such as by government agencies, nonprofit institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals, and universities), households, and others.

POLICY INCENTIVES

Governments are the source of many initiatives intended to encourage waste reduction, such as regulations and enforcement, taxes and subsidies, and information and technical assistance programs. Governments are the largest procurers of materials and energy in society as well as major generators of wastes and, in most communities, they are also the primary providers of waste collection and disposal services and can create additional incentives through the management and pricing of those services. Nonetheless, governments also provide incentives for other purposes that might contact with waste reduction, such as subsidizing raw materials extraction.

A third important set of research needs, therefore, concerns the effects of public policy incentives on promoting or retarding waste reduction. Three particular needs were distinguished by the workshop participants: documentation of existing policy incentives regarding waste reduction, including legislative and administrative mandates, and comparative evaluation of their effects; refinement of the economics of waste management to include the implications of waste reduction; and

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

implementation and compliance issues. Workshop participants suggested the following specific research topics:

  1. Identifying existing government policies that encourage or discourage waste reduction behavior, including the effects of programs intended to promote waste reduction in the United States and abroad, and assessing the magnitude of their effects;

  2. Identifying differences in policy incentives needed to affect the waste reduction behavior of small businesses, not-for-profit institutions, and households, as opposed to large business organizations;

  3. Advancing understanding of the economics of waste reduction, especially by determining how economic analysis can be properly applied to waste reduction and used to compare it with alternative approaches to waste management;

  4. Evaluating impacts of alternative waste reduction incentives on illegal dumping and other compliance problems; and

  5. Identifying what types of educational programs or other incentives are effective in encouraging end users to make waste reduction a priority in their decisions regarding purchases and disposal

NONINDUSTRIAL SECTORS: THREE EXAMPLES

Beyond the general research needs identified above, workshop discussion groups identified three types of waste sources outside the industrial sector to which additional research attention should be devoted: agriculture, counties and municipalities, and public wastewater treatment operations. Other important sectors were also noted, such as building construction and the packaging of consumer products, but given the limited time available, the groups devoted their efforts to these three sectors.

Agriculture

Often overlooked in the focus on industrial waste reduction, the agricultural sector is a large and important source of waste discharges and consequent environmental pollution, ranging from pesticides and fertilizers to soil erosion, salination, and animal wastes. The participants thought that, in principle, waste reduction in agriculture could be advanced by a shift from chemical-and energy-intensive agricultural practices, which combine high crop yields with high costs, to ''low-input" agriculture, which combines somewhat lower crop yields with lower costs and more efficient use of chemical inputs. However, careful research is needed on the actual waste reduction benefits resulting from changes in agricultural practices. Workshop participants suggested the following specific research topics:

  1. Investigating how well low-input agriculture is working—on what crops, at what scales, and with what effects on yields, costs, and environmental impacts compared with more intensive alternatives;

  2. Identifying what factors have most strongly influenced farmers to adopt low-input practices and what policy incentives most effectively encourage these forms of agricultural waste reduction;

  3. Identifying appropriate and effective waste reduction practices for animal and other operations and for new configurations of integrated farm businesses;

  4. Identifying the waste implications of existing agricultural policies such as pesticide regulations, federal grading standards for agricultural products, grazing fees, and commodity price supports; and

  5. Determining how farmers and other consumers (such as golf-course operators, parks departments, utility firms, and homeowners) actually use high-risk pesticides and fertilizers.

County and Municipal Governments

Local governments are not only regulators but also sources and primary managers of many waste streams, and as a group, they represent a large number of decision makers who face similar problems in managing wastes. However, they have not received the attention and research support for waste reduction that industry has. Most have relied heavily on traditional landfilling practices, the rapidly rising costs of which now make source reduction and recycling far more attractive as alternatives than in the past. Applied

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

research is urgently needed, therefore, on policy and technological options for waste reduction by county and municipal governments. Workshop participants suggested the following specific research topics:

  1. Developing generic protocols for identifying waste reduction opportunities for county and municipal governments, in their own operations and in the waste streams that they regulate and manage;

  2. Evaluating how well existing local waste reduction initiatives are working: their effectiveness in reducing wastes, their cost, their applicability to larger scales or more general use, and other implications;

  3. Evaluating public willingness to participate in new management programs, to comply with new costs and requirements, and more generally, to modify the material and energy intensities of the public's lifestyles; and

  4. Evaluating the economics of waste reduction for local governments, including particularly the costs and benefits of alternative methods for waste reduction and the economics of marketing and procuring recovered materials by local governments.

Waste Reduction in Municipal Wastewater Management

Public wastewater treatment plants discharge wastes themselves and receive wastes from others. Through such instruments as pretreatment requirements, pricing policies, and sludge management activities, treatment plants have important opportunities to further waste reduction; but by the same token, they might also be affected by chemical substitutions and other waste reduction activities of their dischargers. Workshop participants suggested the following specific research topics:

  1. Determining the effects of chemical substitutions and other waste reduction initiatives by dischargers on the operation of wastewater treatment plants and on the quantity and quality of wastewater sludges; and

  2. Identifying new waste reduction opportunities in the management of municipal wastewater sludges.

The following report provides a more detailed accounting of the waste reduction research needs in applied social sciences identified by workshop participants.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences

INTRODUCTION

Background

This report summarizes a workshop on applied social science research needs in waste reduction held May 8-9, 1989, in Annapolis, Maryland. The workshop was one of four held under the auspices of the National Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST) at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). BEST established the Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development to organize the workshops with the goal of assessing the state of the science in each area and recommending long-term research needs and opportunities for advancing the state of the science. The other workshop topics were ecosystem and landscape change, research needs in anticipation of future problems, and research to improve predictions of long-term chemical toxicity. The workshop that developed this report identified a general need for applied social science research on waste reduction strategies, including specific research needs in measurement of waste reduction, institutional and behavioral barriers to waste reduction, and policy incentives for waste reduction.

A root cause of most environmental pollution problems is the emission of waste materials and energy (in economic terms, residuals) from human activities to the air, water, and land. Policies to control such pollution focused initially on "safe" disposal (increased dilution in air and water and sanitary landfills instead of open burning in dumps) and subsequently on waste treatment technologies, which changed the physical or chemical form of the waste materials before discharging them to the environment. The effect of such policies was sometimes to reduce the quantity or toxicity of some waste streams. More often, however, it simply displaced them to other places, future times, or other environmental media, used additional material and energy inputs in the treatment processes, and left other waste streams unchecked (Andrews, 1989). These problems were well characterized by researchers in the late 1960s but were not widely popularized until a decade or more later (Kneese and Bower, 1968, 1979; Royston, 1979).

At least as far back as 1968, researchers in environmental management proposed a hierarchy of waste management options in which waste reduction was identified as the preferred approach, before treatment or disposal (Kneese and Bower, 1968). EPA adopted this hierarchy of preferences in concept in 1976 (EPA, 1976); and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act of 1984 contained an explicit policy directive "that wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible." In 1986, EPA authored a "waste minimization strategy" that advocated waste reduction but characterized it loosely to include all waste management approaches, including subsequent treatment, storage, and disposal as well as reduction at the source. This strategy also focused on materials legally defined as hazardous wastes and addressed only technical, rather than regulatory and economic, barriers to reduction (EPA, 1986).

In a review of the 1986 strategy document, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) urged that

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

EPA take a broader view of waste minimization, not limited to hazardous wastes or even to substances traditionally viewed as wastes. The SAB recommended that this view include "any non-product substance that leaves a production process or a site of product handling or use." The SAB also urged special emphasis on "waste prevention (source reduction)," which it defined as a subset of waste minimization practices that includes in-process practices, as well as waste generation practices by product users and consumers that prevent or reduce waste generation per se (EPA, 1987a). The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) also criticized the narrowness of EPA's approach (OTA, 1986, 1987).

In 1987-1988, the SAB sponsored a committee study on environmental research strategies for the 1990s, and the report of this committee included major emphasis on research needs for "risk reduction" (EPA, 1988a,b). This report urged that risk reduction be adopted as the central goal of EPA generally and of its research and development activities specifically;, it reaffirmed waste prevention (source reduction) as the preferred strategy for risk reduction and urged that EPA develop a strong program of research related to questions in these areas that were unlikely to be undertaken by or to duplicate the research of the private sector. The report noted explicitly that such research should include technology-based strategies and strategies involving disciplines other than the physical and biological sciences and engineering. Examples of the latter included policy and economic incentives for risk reduction, risk communication and perception, environmental management and control systems, and education and training programs.

In January 1989, EPA issued a draft policy statement adopting pollution prevention through source reduction and "environmentally sound recycling" as an agency-wide commitment and establishing a new Pollution Prevention Office to develop and implement this goal across all EPA programs (EPA, 1989a). Key components of this program are to include the creation of incentives and elimination of barriers to pollution prevention, efforts at cultural change emphasizing the opportunities and benefits of pollution prevention, and related research and educational activities. A pollution prevention research plan has also been prepared by EPA's Office of Research and Development. The deliberations of this workshop may thus assist EPA, as well as other federal and state agencies, in identifying important research topics as they pursue their pollution prevention initiatives.

Previous Studies by the National Research Council

Study committees of the National Research Council (NRC) have addressed related topics in several reports. A 1983 report on management of hazardous industrial wastes endorsed source reduction and noted the importance of nontechnical as well as technical factors but did not offer research recommendations on these topics (NRC, 1983). A 1985 report addressed institutional factors in reducing waste generation, but it was limited to hazardous wastes, and its research recommendations were limited to technological methodologies (NRC, 1985). Other recent studies on related topics include alternative agriculture (NRC, 1989), multimedia pollution control (NRC, 1987), and the use of mass-balance information in environmental management (NRC, 1990).

Workshop Focus

The purpose of this workshop was to provide recommendations on applied social science research needs and opportunities in the field of waste reduction. Recognizing the substantial numbers of similar workshops and reports already addressing engineering and industrial process research needs in this field, this workshop focused on research questions involving three other domains:

  • The definition and measurement of waste reduction;

  • Institutional and behavioral barriers to it; and

  • Policy incentives for waste reduction.

All these domains are important, transcend particular industrial processes or user activities, are unlikely to be addressed adequately by the private sector alone, and might therefore be

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

strong candidates for research attention by EPA and other agencies.

As a modus operandi, a set of six background papers was commissioned, and a substantial set of additional background materials was also distributed before the workshop. During the workshop, participants were divided into three working groups, each directed toward one of the three domains; the suggestions generated by each group were then discussed in plenary session. The charge to these groups was to identify as specifically as possible the questions related to their topic that deserve research attention, and why; to suggest methods by which these questions might usefully be approached; and insofar as possible, to recommend priorities among them.

In the course of their discussions, the workshop participants also generated suggestions in two other domains:

  • Waste reduction in nonindustrial sectors (e.g., agriculture, municipalities, and municipal wastewater); and

  • Research implementation issues, in particular the general need for more attention to applied social science aspects of waste reduction.

Additional suggestions were also provided by several participants after the workshop.

A draft report was prepared by the chairman, incorporating what appeared to be the most valuable research suggestions both from the workshop discussions themselves and from the background papers and postworkshop comments from participants. All participants were given the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report, and the revised report was further reviewed and approved by the sponsoring NRC committee.

A workshop is by nature primarily an idea-surfacing mechanism. It is not in the nature of such a process, especially one addressing a large and heterogeneous field, to generate an exhaustive or definitive list of all important research needs. This report does, however, reflect the best suggestions of a diverse and knowledgeable group of participants and is endorsed by the sponsoring committee; it will be a useful source of research ideas, examples, and priorities to the sponsoring agencies and to the larger research community.

WASTE REDUCTION

Current Definitions

The concept of waste reduction has now been widely adopted, and EPA has defined it specifically to include "industrial input substitution, product reformulation, process modification, improved housekeeping, and on-site, dosed-loop recycling" (EPA, 1989a).

EPA's proposed policy is specific to industrial waste reduction, although it does note that "individuals as well as industrial facilities or organizations can practice source reduction and recycling through changes in their consumption or disposal habits, their driving patterns, and their on-the-job practices."

At the same time, the EPA proposal acknowledged that "there are varying views among representatives of industry, public interest groups, state and local governments and others over the role of recycling in pollution prevention," and it invited comment on the appropriate role of environmentally sound recycling in its pollution prevention program. This variance among viewpoints is due in part to semantic confusion (waste reduction, source reduction, toxic use reduction, risk reduction, waste minimization, pollution prevention, etc.), in part to restrictive definitions (hazardous waste reduction versus all materials and energy, volume versus toxicity reduction), and in part to differences among the goals and perspectives of its interpreters.

From the perspective of many businesses, for instance, waste reduction means incremental steps taken in enlightened self-interest to increase the efficiency of use of materials and energy in their production processes (Royston, 1979). It might include, therefore, such activities as sale of waste materials as byproducts and on-site (not just dosed-loop) reclamation of waste materials for recycling. In contrast, to some environmental groups, it means a far more fundamental effort to reduce the overall production and use of toxic chemicals, excess packaging materials, and other harmful or wasteful products (National Toxics Campaign, 1989). From EPA's perspective, it appears. to mean a new synthesis of earlier policy reform efforts toward integrated pollution control across all environmental media, by means of

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

economic incentives rather than mandated treatment technologies (EPA, 1989a).

Two examples illustrate the limits of current definitions of waste reduction with particular force. The first is the narrow emphasis to date on industrial process wastes, with little attention to other significant waste-generating sectors: minerals extraction, agriculture and forestry, water supply, energy conversion, military facilities, and product packaging and consumption, for instance. Waste reduction must be directed toward strategic priorities, not simply toward opportunities for anecdotal or localized success stories.

The second example is the inherently dissipative use of all energy and many materials: combustion, agricultural chemicals, detergents and cleaning agents, lubricants and solvents, paints and dyes, packaging materials, and others. These uses traditionally are not counted as "wastes" because they are intentional and economically valued, in contrast to the economically useless wastes defined more narrowly above. However, their environmental effects are qualitatively identical and often quantitatively greater. Waste reduction priorities have begun with obvious concerns such as hazardous industrial wastes and are now being extended to include discharges of unwanted materials to air and water, but sensible priorities must ultimately be based on the relative harm of all human discharges of materials and energy to the environment, whether as wastes or for economically valued purposes.

Basic Concepts

Waste reduction in principle, therefore, must be rooted not simply in incremental improvements in engineering or regulatory efficiency, nor in ad hoc campaigns to reduce particular materials, but in a systematic approach to understanding of human uses of materials and energy. These use patterns are simultaneously ecological and cultural acts, although the cultural incentives that drive them frequently fail to incorporate adequate acknowledgement of their ecological consequences.

All living things, including humans, are ultimately sustained by natural accumulations of materials and energy resources and by natural processes of dispersion and purification of the waste products. Every human use of materials or energy involves a process of extraction, materials processing, intermediate and final uses (sometimes recycling and reuses), and discard or dispersion back into the processes of the natural environment (see Fig. 1, p. 57). Most ubiquitous of these processes are respiration, by which humans and other organisms extract oxygen and emit carbon dioxide, and combustion, which produces large mounts of carbon and nitrogen oxides (and, in the case of fossil fuels in particular, reintroduces into the biosphere large quantities of carbon and nitrogen long stored out of circulation by natural processes). Also important are the extraction and use of water, petrochemicals, mineral ores, and plants and animals. Ayres, writing in another recent NRC report, recently characterized these processes as the "metabolism" of an industrial society (NRC, 1989).

Most materials pass through the economic system rather quickly, within a few months to a few years. In ecological terms, these processes can be defined as wasteful whenever they convert concentrated resources into dispersed, and thus less accessible, forms at a rate faster than these resources are reconcentrated by natural processes; the more rapid the conversion, the more wasteful are the cycles. They are especially wasteful when they cause cumulative degradation of those natural regeneration processes themselves (e.g., NRC, 1986, pp. 93-100). More than just "wasteful," such processes can cause serious adverse impacts on ecological processes and human health. Such practices often are characterized more colloquially as drawing down the capital rather than living off the interest of our ecological endowment or—to borrow another business metaphor—taking short-term profits rather than maintaining the capital "plant" that produces them.

From their producer's point of view, however, materials and energy become wastes in economic terms at any point in this cycle when the costs of repairing them (in the case of products), or of recovering, collecting, and transporting them for input to another use are greater than their value as inputs (Bower, 1989). They become wastes from society's point of view when their value as inputs to any other use is lower than the cost of discarding them to the environment. Key terms in this equation are the relative costs of alternative input materials (or energy sources); the real costs

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

to society of environmental disposal (including not only management costs, but the opportunity costs of damaging other services the environment provides); and the fraction of those real costs that is actually charged to the waste producers. The underlying purpose of waste reduction must therefore be not just to pursue enlightened self-interest in production efficiency, but to reduce those human uses of materials and energy that have the most serious damaging effects on ecological regeneration processes. This purpose has two components: quantitative waste reduction, or reduction of the total discharges of materials and energy to the environment, and qualitative waste reduction, or beneficial substitution of less damaging materials for those wastes that have the most seriously disruptive impact on the environment when charged. Both these components must be pursued, moreover, not merely through technological changes, but through changes in the whole range of cultural and economic influences that drive waste-generating or waste-reducing behavior. Waste reduction is enhanced, for example, by such initiatives as reducing the number of processing steps between extraction and end use and the concomitant use of intermediate products such as packaging; increasing the usable life span and reusability of end products; conserving energy; substituting more benign for highly toxic materials; and on the part of consumers, purchasing less-material-intensive and less-toxic products.

THE NEED FOR APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

In the view of workshop participants, the achievement of waste reduction requires not only research on low-waste technologies and their relative impacts on the environment, but also research on the human causes of waste and pollution and on the relative effectiveness of public policies intended to promote waste reduction and pollution prevention. Effective waste reduction cannot be achieved, for instance, without operational and consistent measurement concepts that are dearly linked to environmental protection purposes and to the realities of the production and consumption processes in which they are used. It cannot be achieved without systematic understanding of human behavior toward the environment, by individuals and by organizations, and of the factors that influence those behavior patterns either toward or against waste redaction and environmental protection. Finally, it cannot be achieved without empirical evaluation of the effects of public policy incentives, existing and proposed, toward advancing or retarding the achievement of environmental protection and other public policy goals. Understanding of environmental processes, health effects, and pollution control technologies is also necessary, but, without the information gained from applied social science research, this understanding will not be sufficient to meet waste reduction goals.

Barriers to Waste Reduction Research

Despite the importance of these social science issues, however, most of them remain virtually unaddressed by federal programs for applied environmental research and development. In the view of workshop participants, a key reason for this lies not only in the relative novelty of waste reduction as a policy objective, but also in the institutional barriers toward the types of research questions that exist within the field of applied environmental research, within the federal environmental research programs that support it, and within the research budget oversight process.

EPA's draft research strategy for the 1990s, for instance, noted that agency's environmental research priorities to date have been tied closely to the mission of supporting the immediate needs of its regulatory programs and that each of those regulatory programs in turn has focused on only a single medium or problem in isolation (air pollution, water pollution, pesticides, etc.), on engineering control technologies or restriction of individual substances as solutions, and on regulations as policy incentives for the adoption of the control technologies.

Similar historical patterns, pursuing compliance with the same regulatory demands, have been evident in the programs of other federal agencies that sponsor or conduct applied environmental

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

protection research, such as the departments of Energy and Defense.

"[These] treatment and control approaches have not been effective in achieving compliance," notes EPA's draft strategy, "and other approaches are needed" (EPA, 1989b, pp. 1-7). Developing such approaches will require important readjustments in applied research priorities as well as in management and regulatory programs.

Lack of Research Programs and Expertise

A serious barrier to the development of such new approaches, however, is the virtual absence within these environmental research programs of organizational units or staff expertise devoted to research on the social science aspects of waste reduction or of environmental management more generally.

EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) research programs and national laboratories, in particular, have focused almost exclusively on the technical aspects of environmental management—environmental fate and transport of pollutants, health and ecological effects, and control technologies—and its staff, research program managers and scientists, accordingly reflects those disciplines and priorities.

In recent years, some research studies on policy effectiveness and economic impacts have been sponsored by other units, chiefly within EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE). These efforts have been largely limited to economic studies, however, and to supporting immediate regulatory needs as well They do not yet address the broader range of research questions identified above, and are not in any case an adequate substitute for a coherent and adequately supported program devoted to the social science aspects of waste reduction research.

Commitment to Applied Social Science

To implement this research agenda, therefore, and to carry out an effective policy of waste reduction and pollution prevention, the workshop participants believe that it is essential that the federal applied environmental research programs, EPA's in particular, make applied social science research on environmental management an explicit and integral element of their research programs. To do this requires leadership and an organization (Hollod, 1989). It requires committing explicit resources, designating an organizational focal point, and staffing it with experts who can recognize and demand the same quality in these fields of research that EPA expects in its more familiar technical fields.

Whether this capacity should be in ORD, OPPE, or elsewhere; what its budget should be; and what balance it should strike between developing its own research staff and supporting extramural projects are issues to be resolved by EPA rather than by this workshop. Similar questions should also be addressed by the other agencies that have research interests in waste reduction and pollution prevention.

It is clear that sustained research on these sorts of questions will be just as important to the achievement of waste reduction and pollution prevention as will research on the more technical aspects of environmental science and technology. It is also dear that important opportunities exist for the integrated pursuit of social science and technical research on waste reduction, as well as a serious need to redress the relative lack of attention to the former.

The remainder of the report addresses three more specific areas of applied social science in which workshop participants identified particular waste needs—definition and measurement, institutional and behavioral barriers, and policy incentives—as well as three particular non-industrial sectors—agriculture, municipal waste management, and wastewater treatment—to which increased research attention might usefully be directed.

DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT

Background

The lack of attention to the measurement of waste reduction poses an obstacle to attaining and measuring progress (Hirschhorn, 1989). As a public policy goal, waste reduction requires definition and measurement not only at the level of the individual waste generator or manager (business firm or operation, household or institution, urban jurisdiction, etc.) but also across the aggregate of human processes of materials

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

and energy extraction, conversion, use, and discard. Without serious attention to this broader perspective, waste reduction initiatives might simply rearrange existing environmental management problems, without ensuring that the overall result will be better.

Measurement at the Micro Level

At the level of the individual organization, the measurements needed are those that will permit managers to incorporate waste reduction effectively to pursue organizational goals as well as to meet government reporting requirements. These measurements include, in general, what materials and energy are generated, identified by amounts and by the process and product from which they arise; what their environmental and associated legal, regulatory, and business risks are; what could be done to reduce them, including options for substitute materials, processes, products, and other ways of reducing them, each with its own associated costs and risks; and what the relevant manufacturing standards are, including efficiency measures and full costs (including disposal and liability) associated with each course of action (see, e.g., Hollod, 1989).

Even at this level, however, measuring waste reduction presents important challenges. One problem concerns how to define baselines and normalize measurements: for instance, waste generated (or reduced) on an absolute basis (in physical units), per unit of input materials (by weight or volume), or in economic units such as per dollar value of sales (see NRC, 1990). A second problem concerns how to account for displacement: reducing wastes by sending them to an off-site recycler, or even by incorporating them more efficiently into products on-site, might or might not reduce the health or environmental impacts over the material's life cycle. Similar issues are raised by transformation and substitution effects: reducing one waste stream by substituting an alternative chemical or process will produce different waste streams, which may or may not be preferable to, or even commensurate with, the old ones.

In addition, much of the literature on waste reduction to date has addressed incremental changes in existing facilities. Many important decisions affecting waste generation, however, take place in decisions about capital investment in new plants and processes. Such decisions involve additional and, in some cases, different measurement challenges, such as accounting for nonexistent wastes that would otherwise have been produced (that is, wastes avoided rather than reduced), allocating joint costs and benefits involved in co-location of complementary facilities, and others. Given the influence of such investment decisions on waste streams far into the future, these measurement questions have considerable practical as well as theoretical importance.

Measurement at the Aggregate Level

From the broader perspective of public policy, additional measurement challenges arise. If we limit our attention to the perspectives of particular firms—or particular industrial, commercial, or institutional activities—or to wastes as a preconceived category, we are likely to set faulty priorities and to miscount as waste reduction actions that merely displace potential pollutants from one location or process to another (Andrews, 1989). Measurement research must also be directed to the aggregate waste effects of society's material-and energy-use patterns as a whole.

In particular, for example, a large and growing proportion of the total waste stream is attributable to products as wastes rather than manufacturing process wastes, especially given the considerable economic incentives that already exist to incorporate materials efficiently into products (Bower, 1989; Hirschhorn, 1989). The waste reduction issues and measurement questions for waste reduction related to products, however, might be quite different from those related to process waste reduction. Key considerations affecting products as wastes, for instance, include their usable life span, repairability, adaptability to other uses, recyclability, and environmental hazards.

In the absence of effective measurement and allocation of the costs of product waste disposal, market forces tend toward increasingly wasteful product characteristics: proliferation of more and more differentiated or specialized products,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

disposable rather than durable products, heterogeneous rather than pure materials, complex sealed and unrepairable component assemblies, smaller and smaller unit sizes of products (with associated increases in packaging wastes), and cosmetic specifications for product characteristics (for instance, paper brightness standards) that unnecessarily increase waste generation (Bower, 1989).

Wolf (1988, 1989) illustrates some of the measurement issues in evaluating process versus product wastes by comparing four firms that produce or use methylene chloride and shows the difficulties in attempting to impose a single scheme even of measurement, let alone of regulation, on all of them. Should we be more concerned about the 5% of methylene chloride that is lost during production or about the other 95% that is sold as product but then released to the atmosphere by users as a degreaser, a spray-paint propellant, or a foam-board blowing agent? If we seek to phase out all these uses of methylene chloride, will its replacements be safer? Will they be more hazardous perhaps in different ways, such as ozone depleters? Or will they be simply less known or less regulated ''compliance chemicals?" The same questions can be asked of other waste reduction efforts and of course, most obviously, of toxins, such as pesticides, that are deliberately dispersed into the environment.

Measurement Issues

It is important, therefore, to identify what research is necessary to define and measure waste reduction at both these levels. This task requires consideration of such questions as the following (Andrews, 1989):

  1. What are we trying to measure? Waste reduction is now an increasingly popular concept, but different users of it have different measurement needs. Are we trying to measure overall national progress in reducing waste or merely local progress in reducing discharges to local air, water, and landfills; to measure physical amounts of wastes reduced or reductions in toxicity and other adverse environmental effects; to measure the efficiency of a single industrial plant or to be able to compare across plants, products, or economic sectors? No single number is useful for all these purposes; multiple measurements are necessary.

  2. What differences in measurements might be required in different types of decision units (e.g., extraction and agriculture, primary materials processing, secondary manufacturing and product formulation, packaging/container producers, and recycling/reuse businesses; offices, institutions, and public agency activities; large integrated firms versus small specialized firms)?

  3. Is waste reduction best pursued and measured by targeting specific "high-risk" substances throughout their processes of extraction and use (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons, lead, and chlorine); by targeting particular stages of the waste generation process (extraction, manufacturing, commercial use, consumer use, and waste management); by targeting particular sectors, industries, or firms that are especially wasteful, especially hazardous, or especially attractive for opportunistic waste reduction; or by targeting product characteristics and specifications? What measurements would help to clarify these priorities?

Measurement Research Needs

Specific research suggestions identified by workshop participants include the following:

  1. What are the most useful indicators and measurement units for measuring pollution control and waste reduction at the source? Answers are necessary in order to develop uniform strategies for waste reduction across the full spectrum of materials and energy transformation activities.

  2. Can the same indicators and units be used across different industry types and sectors? Government activities, for instance, mirror many of the material and energy transformation processes of the private sector, yet are managed differently, industries differ in their opportunities and constraints for waste reduction. What differences must be taken into account, and how do these differences affect attempts to measure net or aggregate waste reduction? Empirical comparisons are needed to answer these questions.

  3. Similarly, how should we measure waste reduction in sectors other than manufacturing, such as minerals extraction and processing,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

agriculture and forestry, commercial and institutional use, and households?

  1. How may one measure the postproduction waste implications of products as incipient wastes over their life cycles? Relevant considerations include increases or decreases in usable life span, recyclability, environmental impacts compared to their substitutes, and perhaps others.

  2. How can one measure the waste reduction effects of complex capital investment decisions, such as future wastes that are avoided (as opposed to present wastes that are reduced), allocation of waste reduction benefits among multiple products and processes, and commensurability across qualitative changes in types of waste streams? This might be approached through empirical before-and-after studies, in plants being modified and in new plants, showing the overall shifts in waste streams that occur.

  3. What are the full life-cycle waste implications of major commodity chemicals? Studies could be undertaken on waste reduction for five to ten priority chemicals throughout their uses and life cycles, including industrial and nonindustrial uses. Such studies would serve to refine measurement approaches and, more important, to identify the most important waste sources and pathways for high-priority environmental contaminants. Important issues include such questions as how to select the most important chemicals and how to collect quantitative data on chemical uses and losses (especially, for instance, dissipative uses).

  4. What products are environmentally friendly? Manufacturers and environmental advocates are increasingly touting some products as less environmentally harmful than others; in Europe, this practice extends even to consumer guides and ''blue angel" labels on recommended products. Some of these claims might be well founded; others might reflect simple or self-interested value judgments. Comparative case studies would be useful to illustrate the environmental impacts of selected products and then alternatives throughout their life cycles, from fabrication through ultimate disposal (for instance, paper versus foam cups, paper versus plastic grocery bags), and to demonstrate methodologically the full range of factors that should be examined to make such determinations.

  5. What are the relationships between plant-level measurements of waste reduction and the combined effects of waste reduction by multiple sources at regional and national scales?

  6. How can one estimate more accurately the quantifies of waste that might prove reducible, as well as the time and risk implications associated with such reduction? Also, how do these estimates compare with the public's definitions and goals for acceptable progress in waste reduction?

  7. Finally, can a voluntary dialogue among interested parties develop useful consensual definitions for the terms related to waste reduction? Such definitions are needed to specify what is to be measured in the first place.

INSTITUTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS

Background

The slogan most widely used to promote waste reduction is that "pollution prevention pays," not just in societal terms but in the coin of direct self-interest to the waste generator. A growing list of anecdotes has been adduced to support this claim (e.g., EPA, 1987b; Huisingh et al., 1985; Sarokin et al., 1985; Royston, 1979; and Kneese and Bower, 1968).

Even when presented with information purporting to show benefits to self-interest, however, many waste generators evince surprisingly little interest in change. There appear to be important institutional and behavioral barriers to waste reduction that are not yet well understood even within the business sector, and it seems likely that the perception of similar or additional barriers affects the behavior of other waste generators, such as agriculture, nonprofit institutions, households, and others (Forbes, 1989).

Within a given organization, for instance, barriers to waste reduction might be perceived in various ways: as technological, financial, labor force related, regulatory, consumer related, supplier related, managerial, and perhaps others (Ashford et al., 1988). Concern about the cost and reliability of new technologies is always likely, and traditional accounting procedures often obscure the true costs of waste disposal

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

(Hirschhorn, 1989). In addition, implementing waste reduction can require changes in the physical processes and the human procedures of production, which can be organizationally disruptive or threatening and are therefore resisted: why disrupt established practices and product standards that are generally accepted by customers, suppliers, distributors, and trade associations?

At a far more general level, patterns of materials and energy use in every society are a matter of fundamental patterns of cultural perceptions and behavior. Such patterns are not immutable—energy conservation behavior changed dramatically in the 1970s, for instance, and recycling behavior changed in New Jersey as soon as it was required by law—but they are rooted in culture rather than merely in technology or economics, and must, therefore, be addressed more thoughtfully than simply through cost incentives.

In short, the ways in which people and organizations manage wastes are a matter not just of technology and costs but of "mind-sets": for example, lack of awareness or understanding of other options, lack of interest on the part of managers or senior executives, preference for familiar habits and patterns, absence of perceived rewards for "rocking the boat" with new ideas, apprehension about future regulatory expectations, perception of environmental protection as purely a compliance issue, and higher priority of other environmental concerns or mandates. At a more fundamental level, they are also matters of cultural and sometimes even religious values.

A second important area of research discussed in the workshop, therefore, is to identify how such barriers affect the behavior of the various types of waste generators and how they can most effectively be reduced. Put in more positive terms, what actions does the literature of institutional and organizational behavior suggest might facilitate changes to reduce waste generation, and what changes would be required to educate business executives, engineers, economists, laypeople, and others to adopt such changes?

Institutional and behavioral research on waste reduction is still in its infancy, but substantial bodies of theory and empirical evidence exist in related areas that could usefully be applied to this ask. The literature includes research on accounting and financial analysis methods; the management of technological innovation; organizational goals and effectiveness; contingency theories of organizational behavior and corporate strategic decision making; and a variety of more specific issues, such as the acceptance of innovations by production workers (and of agricultural extension recommendations by farmers), the role of internal incentives in improving business innovation (such as bonuses for cost-saving ideas and "quality circle" programs), and energy-and water-conservation behavior in response to the price and policy incentives of the 1970s.

Accounting and Financial Analysis

The workshop identified a major set of procedural barriers to waste reduction in the area of accounting practices, management information systems, and financial disclosure requirements.

First, under traditional accounting practices, waste generation measurements normally are not incorporated explicitly into the formal accounting/control framework: many companies have explicit rules forbidding the incorporation of such information. Some costs of waste disposal, such as sewer charges, are normally included in utility costs, whereas others might be treated as administrative costs or general overhead ("period costs"). In either case, many firms do not identify them in sufficient detail to charge them directly to individual products or processes, often because, despite their potential importance to environmental protection, they represent only a small fraction of total production costs. The result is that cost and risk assessments are separated from control and business-mix decisions, and managers are given no incentive to reduce waste disposal costs unless total margins (over all production lines) are threatened.

Second, even if a firm wishes to identify waste disposal costs in detail, practices vary widely, and no dear accounting standards are available concerning how to do this. One such problem, for instance, concerns how to allocate joint costs of waste disposal in multiproduct plants. Another is how to value materials and energy that are recovered, such as waste sawdust recovered from a sawmill and reused as an input to pulp manufacturing: Should it be priced at market

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

value as though it had been purchased from another firm, as flee because it was a waste, at negative cost because reusing it avoids disposal costs as well, or somewhere in between? Some analysts argue that recovery which is economically beneficial should not be counted as pollution control costs because the firm would presumably undertake it without additional public policy incentives or regulatory requirements, but some firms attribute the whole amount to pollution control costs. Significant differences might result in the apparent benefits of waste reduction, as well as in actual tax and cost considerations.

Third, important accounting issues arise in evaluating plant modernization or replacement decisions that serve in part to reduce waste discharges (to comply with water and air pollution standards, for instance) but also increase productivity and cut costs overall Some firms have argued that the entire capital cost should be credited to waste reduction; some economists respond, however, that a large fraction of these costs would have been undertaken to increase overall economic efficiency in any case, and therefore, should not be credited to waste reduction.

Finally, traditional financial disclosure practices fail to recognize potential contingency costs of leaks, spills, unsafe waste disposal sites, and other environmental impairment liabilities until a lawsuit or regulatory action is initiated. As a result, managers fail to see the true financial risks of unsafe waste management (and the potential benefits of waste reduction), and capital markets might not distinguish appropriately between well-managed and risky firms (Todd, 1989; Naj, 1988).

Research is needed, therefore, to identify refinements in accounting practices that would incorporate waste reduction incentives more effectively into decisions by business executives or managers and by capital markets. A few initial attempts to do this are under development (see, for example, ICF Inc. 1988), but further and more systematic work is needed.

Management of Innovation

Within the business sector, waste reduction can also usefully be studied in the context of ongoing processes of technological innovation (Hollod, 1989). These processes are typically described as "life cycles," proceeding from initial breakthroughs in product innovation through later innovations in production processes (e.g, standardization, mass production), to a more rigid stage of stable, routine production, and ultimate displacement by other innovations—often from industries not wedded to the same core concepts or capital equipment (Baughn and Osborn, in press; Van de Ven et al., 1989; Burgelman and Maidique, 1988; Ashford et al., 1985; Caldart and Ryan, 1985; and Abernathy and Utterback, 1978).

In this context, fundamental reexamination of production processes is a rare event, one that normally occurs when new products are introduced or new plants are designed rather than during routine operations. Most changes in existing processes are more incremental—some large, some small—triggered by external factors such as increases in input prices, shifting demand, or regulatory requirements, and emphasizing marginal improvements in existing processes, procedures, and product characteristics.

If this view is correct, research on waste reduction opportunities might usefully start by distinguishing between organizational units that are most immediately involved in the design of new products and the construction of new plants or processes, and those only responsible for existing plants (Caldart and Ryan, 1985). The former might be more receptive to major waste reduction innovations and have important payoffs, inasmuch as the highly automated plants now being designed could be modified inexpensively before construction but, once constructed, might be far more costly to modify than the more labor-intensive processes they replace. The latter will likely be more receptive to incremental innovations.

Organizational Goals and Effectiveness

Even when pollution prevention apparently pays in direct economic terms, the literature of organizational behavior presumes that corporations have more than one goal and that their behavior in practice reflects political compromises among the multiple goals of their constituencies: owners, senior managers,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

employees, suppliers, distributors, customers, competitors, regulatory agencies, neighbors, the financial community, and society in general (cf. Scott, 1987; Cohen, 1984; and Cameron, 1980). Any attempt to intervene to achieve a particular outcome such as waste reduction, therefore, requires explicit consideration of how it advances or retards other corporate goals, what tradeoffs it requires among them, and how its pros and cons are perceived by the various affected constituencies. Research collaboration between behavioral scientists and other disciplines might be especially useful here, along with comparative studies across different firms, including those that have undertaken waste reduction initiatives.

As one example, in some business organizations, mid-to lower-level innovators have difficulty getting top-level support and approval for their proposals, while in other firms, innovative senior executives feel that most resistance to waste reduction innovation comes from mid-to lower-level managers. It would be useful to conduct careful comparative studies of the effectiveness of top-down versus bottom-up strategies for introducing innovative waste reduction practices.

Contingency Organization Theory

From a third perspective, waste reduction incentives can be viewed as a variety of contingencies intended to change organizations' behavior, and research can be directed to how economic organizations (or others) typically respond to such contingencies (Scott, 1987). This literature provides a rich source that might complement economic studies and policy analysis.

For instance., what elements of the organization's environment does a particular incentive change? Different mechanisms are transferred into the firm in different ways and can be expected to yield different types of internal reactions or performance changes: firms respond differently to regulatory requirements, to changes in production cost factors, to technical assistance from their trade associations, and to other mechanisms that might be used to encourage waste reduction.

Technical assistance programs are already a major element in both EPA and state programs for promoting waste reduction, for example, but these efforts would benefit from explicit research attention to how and through whom such assistance can most effectively be delivered. Agricultural extension programs provide one model; trade associations, another; university-based programs, government agencies, and consulting engineering firms, still others.

What kinds of organizations are the targets of waste reduction incentives? Large firms with rigid, well-known technologies might be expected to be more resistant to change than smaller firms with more flexible technologies; on the other hand, small firms often lack the expertise and the financial resources to experiment with new technologies for waste reduction.

What are the internal structures of the target organizations? Organizations with more levels of management, centralized decision making systems, and departments organized by function (engineering, operations, marketing) are expected to respond more quickly to specific, large-scale threats, whereas organizations with fewer management levels, decentralized decision making, and departments organized by division (product, territory, or consumer) are more likely to respond to subtle changes and incentives.

These questions and others suggest lines of inquiry that would provide better insight into effective means for promoting waste reduction.

Corporate Strategy

If waste reduction is to occur in business organizations, it must be linked to corporate strategic advantages and decision considerations, not merely to more mundane arguments that are of interest only to lower-and mid-level managers (see Miller, 1987; Porter, 1986). It may well prove that very different (and probably more long-term) incentives are important to achieving waste reduction at the level of corporate strategic planning than those that are most frequently considered at the level of particular existing products and processes.

These considerations include such questions as how heavily to weight waste and pollution considerations in future product and process investments, whether to locate new production facilities in the United States or overseas, how diverse a business mix the organization aspires to run (for instance, whether to integrate new

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

production from waste to byproduct into the business), and whether and how to coordinate operations with other firms (for instance, co-location of complementary operations for cogeneration of energy, to shorten product sequences and reduce packaging or to exploit other waste reduction opportunities). For some firms, the enhanced reputation resulting from a recognized and effective waste reduction program might be a central driving force. For others, especially some small firms, technical and economic risk might overwhelm all other considerations, and demonstration of these factors in practice might be the most persuasive argument.

Behavioral Questions in Other Sectors

The research literature described above has dealt primarily with behavior in organizations, especially economic production organizations such as business firms. Additional questions arise, however, in attempting to promote waste reduction in other types of organizations, such as government agencies and nonprofit institutions, or by individuals and households. How, for instance, can one most effectively alter the behavior of pesticide consumers—commercial farmers, utilities, homeowners, local parks, golf-course operators, etc.—to reduce waste or substitute less-hazardous practices? What are the advantages and disadvantages of waste reduction to decision makers in large institutions and organizations outside the production sectors (e.g., hospitals, universities, multifamily housing, and shopping centers)? Will people reduce their use of materials in response to increased landfill user charges, or will they simply dump their trash illegally or burn it and thus increase air pollution? and finally, to what extent can organized public concern and media attention provide an effective incentive for waste reduction policymaking and implementation by governments?

Other bodies of literature might be useful for addressing these questions. Examples include studies of energy-and water-conservation behavior in the 1970s, the substantial literature that exists in the field of health behavior, the agriculture extension literature on acceptance of innovative practices by farmers, and the literature on compliance that links psychology and public policy research (see Boyer et al., 1087; Geller et al., 1982; Winkler and Winett, 1982).

Institutional and Behavioral Issues

To address these questions will require consideration of such issues as the following (Andrews, 1989):

  1. Who reduces waste, who doesn't, and why? In the business sector, is interest in waste reduction more characteristic of particular types of firms (e.g, large versus small or resource extraction versus basic chemicals versus diversified consumer product manufacturing firms) or of firms with particular characteristics (accounting practices, leadership commitment, "corporate culture," research/innovation capability, etc.)? Outside the business sector, what differences are evident between those who actively reduce wastes and those who don't (institutions, government units, households, etc.), and why?

  2. For each type of decision unit, what are the principal barriers to further reduction? Is it that technological options do not exist, are too costly, are not known, or might not be reliable? Or would such options conflict with other organizational objectives (short-and long-term profits, cost minimization, product characteristics and marketing strategies, convenience packaging, etc.)? What is the relationship among bade patterns of personal preferences, organizational norms, and cultural values? What research could assist in identifying these barriers more dearly and in evaluating interventions intended to reduce them?

  3. What role do attitudes and perceptions (on the part of business managers, workers, senior executives, suppliers and distributors, consumers, etc.) play in promoting or retarding waste reduction? To what extent do these attitudes for example, by type of business, by size and internal differentiation of firms, and by functional responsibilities within the firm (e.g., product design, manufacturing, sales, marketing. and environmental health and safety) and, in the comer sector, by socioeconomic status or other factors? What incentives and communication strategies would most effectively promote waste

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

reduction behavior on the parts of these varied actors, and who would provide this information?

  1. What other changes in business decision processes—for instance, in organizational design, accounting procedures, and internal incentives—might contribute to waste reduction, and what research might assist in evaluating these possibilities?

Institutional and Behavioral Research Needs

Specific research topics suggested by workshop participants include the following:

  1. What changes could be made in full-cost product accounting rules to develop consistent definitions of waste management costs, to capture them at a level of detail useful for waste reduction decisions, to allocate them appropriately among products and processes, and to set consistent and appropriate economic values on recovered materials?

  2. Similarly, what protocols could be developed to incorporate pollution costs and risk contingencies explicitly into the minimum disclosure standards of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (1975)?

  3. How can waste reduction be incorporated most effectively into technological innovation and capital investment decisions? Research is needed (1) to identify those organizational units that are most immediately involved in conceiving, developing, and designing new products and production processes and (2) to develop incentives to incorporate waste reduction measures as fully as possible into their designs.

  4. Is it more effective to create incentives to encourage waste reduction by promoting market penetration of new businesses and technologies or adaptation of stable or declining ones? For example, what would be the most effective strategies for achieving waste reduction in the production and use of agricultural chemicals? Sources of possible comparisons or analogies include the emergence of the biotechnology industry and the adaptations of cigarette manufacturing firms to declining U.S. markets. A particularly relevant and important example is the dramatic success in energy conservation achieved by some energy producers and users (industrial, commercial, institutional, and individual) in response to the major change in oil prices during the 1970s.

  5. How does waste reduction advance or retard the achievement of corporate goals? More sophisticated and empirical work is needed on precisely how and for whom pollution prevention pays and under what circumstances, going beyond the simple balance-sheet calculations generally used so far to include other considerations important to the firm such as effects on existing operations and employees, suppliers, distributors, and consumer acceptance. Research collaboration between behavioral scientists and other disciplines might be especially useful here, as well as comparative studies across different firms in the same industries, including those that have and have not undertaken program initiatives for systematic waste reduction and comparing top-down and bottom-up strategies.

  6. How does waste reduction behavior differ depending on the type of incentives created, the sizes of organizations and types of technologies that are their targets, the internal structures of those organizations, and other factors? There is now a growing anecdotal literature on waste reduction initiatives by many types of organizations of many different sizes; it would be timely to characterize and evaluate these experiences more systematically to discover what general principles and predictive hypotheses can be distilled from them.

  7. What strategic advantages and issues does waste reduction pose to senior corporate executives? Research is needed to better characterize the relationships between waste reduction concepts and strategic corporate decision issues, as opposed to lower-level operational decision making; the opportunities for waste reduction at that level of choices; and the advantages or disadvantages of those opportunities for the organization.

  8. Finally, what differences in behavioral and institutional factors must be recognized in waste-generating sectors other than profit-making businesses, and what waste reduction incentives might be most effective in influencing behavior in these sectors? Examples include government agencies, nonprofit institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals, and universities), and households.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

PUBLIC POLICY INCENTIVES

Background

Waste reduction is pervasively but inconsistently influenced by the behavior of governments. Governments are the source of many initiatives intended as incentives to encourage waste reduction: regulations and enforcement, taxes and subsidies, information and technical assistance programs, and others. In most communities, they are also the primary providers of waste collection and disposal services, and can create additional incentives through their management and pricing of those services. At the same time, governments also create incentives for many other purposes that could conflict with waste reduction, such as subsidizing raw materials extraction; the incentives they do create might have unintentionally adverse consequences for waste reduction; and governments are themselves the largest procurers of materials and energy in society, as well as major generators of wastes. These incentives include legislative and administrative mandates.

A third important set of research needs, therefore, concerns the effects of public policy incentives toward promoting or retarding waste reduction. Three particular needs can be distinguished: (1) documentation of existing policy incentives for or against waste reduction and comparative evaluation of their effects; (2) refinement of the economics of waste management to include the implications of waste reduction; and (3) implementation and compliance promotion.

Existing Policy Incentives

Many public policy incentives are already being used by individual states, localities, and nations to promote waste reduction (see, e.g., Bower, 1989, Curlee, 1989a; McHugh, 1989; Schecter, 1989). Regulatory approaches, for instance, include restrictions on the disposal of particular materials (e.g., hazardous wastes and plastic packaging); restrictions on the sale or use of particular materials (e.g., nonrecyclable containers and lead in gasoline); mandatory source separation and recycling programs for municipal solid wastes; and initiatives to standardize characteristics and labeling of products to facilitate recycling.

Economic incentives include raising landfill use charges and marginal cost pricing of waste disposal services; disposal taxes or "product charges" built into the costs of products such as packaging materials; deposit-refund or recycling credit ("ticket") systems; income and property tax credits, grants, or low-interest loans for investments in waste reduction and recycling facilities; and pricing preferences for recycled goods in government procurement policies. Many educational and voluntary programs can also be found; additional proposals—regulatory, economic, and informational—are rapidly being generated and proposed for legislation (OTA, 1989; Stavins, 1988).

Additional approaches are also under way in other nations, particularly in Europe and Japan, where densities of population and urban and industrial activities have long been higher than those now causing waste disposal problems in the United States (Curlee, 1989b). Examples include government control of all hazardous waste disposal ("flow control"); disallowing disposal of recyclable materials; prohibition of particular toxic materials, such as cadmium, in consumer products; promotional labeling of environmentally friendly products; and statutes holding manufacturers and distributors increasingly responsible for the disposal of their products as wastes (see Linnerooth and Kneese, 1989; Bothen and Fallenius, 1982).

In addition to these policy experiments intended to promote waste reduction, many existing public policies enacted for other purposes also influence waste disposal behavior, for and against waste reduction. Strict liability for hazardous waste cleanup, for example, is a powerful incentive for waste reduction, as are insurability requirements for environmental impairment liability, also, the increasing cost of landfill disposal of all wastes as old landfills fill up and new ones must be built to higher standards (and against public opposition) is rapidly increasing the relative attractiveness of waste reduction and recycling.

However, long-standing federal subsidies for mining, forestry, and agricultural operations continue to make extraction of virgin materials more attractive than recycled goods. Similar disincentives to waste reduction are built into many trade standards and procurement specifications—including many government quality-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

grading and purchasing specifications—dictating the material content or cosmetic qualities of products. Examples include paper brightness, meat marbling, "100% virgin materials," and others. The existing system of environmental protection regulations poses some obstacles to waste reduction (Hirschhorn, 1989), and many of the most important barriers are embedded in legislative policies rather than merely administrative regulations.

The first research need on policy incentives, therefore, is to identify systematically the policy incentives that have significant influence on waste reduction behavior in each economic sector and to document empirically their effects, magnitudes, and the sensitivity of waste generators' behavior to them (Curlee, 1989b). Whom do the policies affect, and how? How effective are changes in price incentives, standards, or regulations; labeling requirements; procurement preferences; and other policy incentives as stimulants to waste reduction? How sensitive are these effects to the magnitude of the incentive and to the time over which it occurs? How much might waste reduction be enhanced, if at all, by removal of existing policy disincentives to it? What combinations of incentives have demonstrated successes and failures, and why?

There is a growing anecdotal literature on some of these questions, which is much in need of more systematic empirical investigation, sensitivity analysis, and comparative evaluation. Belzer and Nichols (1988), for example, investigated economic incentives for hazardous waste minimization and used-oil recycling they concluded that in the hazardous waste sector, substantial economic incentives already existed, but there was a natural lag time in their effects. However, in the case of used oil, the transaction costs involved in recycling might limit the effectiveness even of significant new economic incentives.

Economics of Waste Reduction

Second, many research questions deserve investigation to advance understanding of the economics of waste reduction.

From the perspective of an individual business or consumer, waste reduction is often worthwhile without any public policy incentives, simply out of personal moral ideals or self-interest. Many individuals and cultures value modest life styles and frugal use of materials and energy. Others find opportunities to increase efficiency by reducing the normal gap between the idealized model of rational economic behavior and the reality of unexamined assumptions, imperfect accounting practices, standard operating procedures, habits, imperfect knowledge of better practices, "lumpiness" of the capital costs of corrective measures, and other considerations.

Beyond these self-motivated actions, however, public policy incentives play a crucial role in the economics of waste management. Some pollution prevention initiatives that did not pay yesterday, for instance, do pay today, because the alternative—given today's environmental protection requirements—is either rising landfill charges or required control technologies. Some pollution prevention initiatives that still do not pay today might pay tomorrow because of tighter environmental protection standards, even more costly disposal charges, changes in liability doctrines, or other policy changes. Conversely, some pollution prevention that pays today might not pay tomorrow. for instance, if regulatory enforcement is relaxed (giving competitors a free ride), if new requirements require further or different reconfiguration of the same processes, if markets for recovered materials become glutted, or if today's waste reduction proves to have unanticipated adverse consequences of its own (Andrews, 1989; Curlee, 1989b).

Traditional environmental economics has developed primarily as a branch of welfare economics, concerned with the treatment of externalities as a basis for public regulation. Logical extensions of this work concern appropriate pricing of the impacts of waste disposal on nature's services and regenerative processes. Equally important questions, however, arise in the business economics of waste management, for waste generators and for recovered materials dealers; in municipal finance, such as the operation of recycling programs and impacts of waste reduction on capital investments in other waste management facilities; and in natural resource economics, such as the implications of waste reduction incentives for natural resource production, the extractive industries, and the values of natural resources in nonextractive uses.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

For example, do current municipal waste disposal charges include the full costs of waste disposal and full benefits of waste reduction? How should such costs be calculated, and what differences would they make throughout the economy? Examples include basing disposal fees on the costs of past versus future facilities; imposing disposal charges or surtaxes on particular products; evaluating recycling programs by direct profitability or by avoided costs; and evaluating the job creation benefits of unskilled labor positions in waste separation and recycling jobs. What differences would changes in these practices make as incentives for waste reduction: to governments themselves; to businesses, other institutions, or households; to the basic materials processing industries; and to the achievement of overall waste reduction?

Similarly, could waste reduction be better effected by mechanisms to "charge back" disposal costs to waste generators or, farther back yet, to product designers and producers or extraction industries? What research would assist in evaluating the effectiveness and the potential side effects of such mechanisms? More generally, what would be the implications, economic and environmental, of different allocations of the costs of waste management (of which waste reduction is a part) among raw materials producers and manufacturers (and their investors), consumers, taxpayers, secondary materials producers, and future generations?

More broadly still, serious waste reduction might require deliberate government initiatives intended, for instance, to restrain the growth of fossil fuel use; to expand markets for recycled goods at the expense of extractive industries; to decrease the size of the packaging industry and of industries that trade heavily in toxic chemicals; to reduce the materials and energy intensity of economic production and consumption generally; and to encourage myriad other readjustments—many incremental and some, perhaps, fundamental—in overall patterns of materials and energy utilization (Ayres, 1989). Such initiatives would require careful analysis of both their environmental and their economic effects.

These examples only begin to suggest the range of economic research questions that must be addressed concerning waste reduction, by economists in collaboration with environmental scientists, public policy scholars, and others.

Implementation

Finally, research is needed on issues related to the implementation of public policy incentives for waste reduction. Chief among these are issues of compliance and enforcement. Little research has been done on environmental enforcement and compliance generally, and such studies are particularly necessary as governments embark on a variety of new policy initiatives intended to promote waste reduction.

These questions must be approached from economic and broader behavioral perspectives. Belzer and Nichols (1988), for instance, note that some popular forms of policy incentives, such as those that increase disposal costs, might not simply encourage waste reduction but also exacerbate illegal dumping and black markets in wastes; other types of incentives, such as deposit-refund systems, might create more effective and straightforward incentives for compliance. At the same time, waste reduction behavior involves more complex considerations than merely compliance with regulations and fees, and compliance itself involves more complex considerations than mere calculation of the "costs" of being caught, paying fines, spending time in jail, and so forth.

Research is needed, for instance, on the extent of noncompliance under various existing incentive regimes; on the characteristics of compilers versus noncompliers and explanations for the differences; on the role of enforcement as a policy incentive for waste reduction in itself and the factors influencing the effectiveness of existing enforcement programs; and on the operation of black markets in waste disposal and waste import or export.

Research is also required on the extent to which modest innovations in existing permitting and enforcement practices could yield significant improvements in the incentives for waste reduction. Joint permitting and joint enforcement procedures, for instance, cutting across the fragmented requirements of existing regulatory mandates, could provide clearer and more consistent signals as to what is required of a given facility, and thus promote more systematic management and reduction of waste streams than now occur.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Issues Concerning Policy Incentives

Research in this area might require consideration of such questions as the following (Andrews, 1989):

  1. What policy incentives might be most effective for reducing particular high-priority categories of materials and energy use?

  2. What existing public policies increase and decrease the incentives for waste reduction in each sector, and what research might assist in answering this question? Examples might include legislative mandates, regulations and regulatory uncertainty; enforcement practices and expectations; educational and technical-assistance services; nonenvironmental policies influencing business decision making; liability standards and disclosure requirements; and taxes, subsidies, and stabilization measures differentially affecting raw and secondary materials markets.

  3. What policy instruments appear to have the most effective positive influence on the waste reduction behavior of end users (individuals, households, retail businesses, institutions, etc.)? What instruments have been ineffective or create perverse incentives? Examples for investigation might include product-design requirements or disposal restrictions, availability of recycling services, deposit-return and ticket systems, waste end taxes, voluntary or mandatory source separation of recyclables, restrictions or charges on amounts of waste generated, and special charges or restrictions on more toxic products/wastes.

  4. What research would best advance understanding of the economics of waste reduction?

  5. What effects do compliance and enforcement practices have on waste reduction incentives?

Research Needs on Policy Incentives

Specific research topics suggested by workshop participants include the following:

  1. What existing government policies tend to encourage and to discourage waste reduction behavior?

  2. What have been the effects of existing programs intended to promote waste reduction in the United States and abroad? What policy options can one identify from these experiences, how effective are they, and what additional information must be collected to evaluate then-effectiveness? To what extent are price or behavioral interventions alone, or combinations of the two, effective in encouraging waste reduction?

  3. What differences in policy incentives are needed to affect the waste reduction behavior of small businesses, not-for-profit institutions, and households, as opposed to large business organizations, and which incentives are most effective?

  4. What research would best advance understanding of the economics of waste reduction? What are the most economically promising opportunities for major waste reduction, and what kinds of waste management results would be expected from different levels of investment in waste reduction measures (e.g., marginal costs and time horizon)? How can the future costs and benefits of waste reduction initiatives be projected? More generally, how can economic analysis be properly applied to waste reduction and used to compare it against alternative approaches to management?

  5. What are the impacts of alternative waste reduction incentives on compliance rates (e.g., illegal dumping, incineration by home owners, and black markets)? What policy incentives are especially effective in encouraging compliance?

  6. What types of educational programs and other incentives are effective in encouraging end users to make waste reduction a priority in their decisions regarding purchases and disposal?

NONINDUSTRIAL SECTORS THREE EXAMPLES

Beyond the general research needs cited above, the workshop identified three particular types of waste sources, all outside the industrial sector on which EPA's definition of waste reduction has focused, and to which additional research attention should be devoted: agriculture, municipalities, and public wastewater treatment operations. Other important sources were also recognized—for example, building construction and consumer product packaging—but given limited

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

time, the workshop participants decided to devote their efforts primarily to these three sectors.

Research Needs in Agriculture

Though often overlooked in the focus on industrial waste reduction, the agricultural sector is a large and important source of waste discharges and consequent environmental pollution, ranging from pesticides and fertilizers to soil erosion, salination, and animal wastes. In principle, waste reduction in agriculture can be advanced by a shift from chemical-and energy-intensive agricultural practices, which combine high yields with high costs, to low-input agriculture, which combines somewhat lower yields with lower costs. In reality, there is a complex gradient of mixtures of practices between these two idealized stereotypes (NRC, 1989). Important research questions concern how well low-input agriculture is working in practice and how, if desired, it might best be encouraged.

  1. How well is low-input agriculture now working: on what crops, at what scales, and with what effects on yields, costs, and environmental impacts compared with high-input alternatives? This research should lead to further conclusions concerning the generalizability of low-input practices to larger-scale usage and other crops and the adequacy and accuracy of existing information sources for farmers concerning the pros and cons of these practices.

  2. What factors have most strongly influenced farmers to adopt low-input practices, and what policy incentives are most effective in encouraging these forms of agricultural waste reduction? In particular, to what extent do existing public policies (such as commodity price and farm income support programs, marketing orders, pesticide regulations, and food quality-grading norms) encourage or discourage agricultural waste reduction practices? Related needs are to develop better understanding of the transition process from high-to low-input practices and to identify mechanisms that would help farmers weather the costs and risks associated with this transition.

  3. What waste reduction practices are appropriate and effective for animal or other operations and for new configurations of integrated farm businesses? The issues identified above have often been associated particularly with field and specialty crop production. Similar investigations should be directed to other operations, such as livestock and poultry production and fiber crops (cotton, trees), and to the potential for integrating diverse operations in new ways so as to reduce waste generation. Existing policy incentives that might influence such practices include federal meat-grading standards, grazing fees, and other agricultural policies.

  4. Finally, how are farmers and other consumers (such as golf-course operators, parks departments, utility firms, and homeowners) actually using high-risk pesticides and fertilizers? It would be useful to have detailed studies of agricultural practices involving several of these substances that are arguably high-priority candidates for waste reduction efforts, including application and use levels, environmental settings in which they are used, control practices, and comparative costs and effects of alternative chemicals or practices.

County and Municipal Research Needs

Local governments are not only regulators but also sources and primary managers of many waste streams, and as a group, they represent a large number of decision making units that face similar problems in managing wastes. Yet they too have generally lacked the degree of attention and research support for waste reduction that industry has received. Most have relied heavily on traditional landfilling practices, the rapidly rising costs of which now make source reduction and recycling far more attractive as alternatives than in the past (Melosi, 1981). Applied research is urgently needed, therefore, on policy and technological options for waste reduction in counties and municipal governments (Curlee, 1989a,b; EPA, 1989c; Prete et al., 1988; Sherry, 1988a,b). High-priority questions suggested by workshop participants include the following:

  1. What generic protocols could be developed for identify waste reduction opportunities for county and municipal governments, in their own operations and in the waste streams that they regulate and manage? This question might be

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

addressed through several case studies of specific localities; elements should include methods of waste stream characterization, of identifying waste reduction opportunities, of evaluating waste reduction incentives, and of incorporating waste reduction into municipal and county planning and management. Particular attention might be devoted in at least one such study to institutional waste strums (such as schools and hospitals), in addition to businesses and households.

  1. How well are existing local waste reduction initiatives working? A growing body of anecdotes exists concerning policies and programs adopted by particular local governments, in the United States and elsewhere, to promote source reduction and recycling. Empirical research is needed to document and compare the effects of these initiatives: how effective are they in reducing wastes, what do they cost, what other implications do they involve, and how generalizable are they to larger-scale or more general use? Examples include disposal pricing and volume restrictions, deposit or ticket requirements, bans on the use or landfilling of particular materials, recycling incentives or requirements, and procurement and marketing programs for recycled materials.

  2. Will people cooperate? A pivotal assumption in local waste reduction initiatives is public willingness to participate in new management programs, to comply with new costs and requirements, and more generally, to modify the material and energy intensities of their life styles. Examples of such initiatives include recycling programs and source separation requirements, household hazardous waste collection days, and volume-based disposal charges. Applied behavioral research is urgently needed to evaluate the validity and limitations of these assumptions, and to identify other changes in behavior patterns that may bring unanticipated benefits or problems. Some lessons may be available from past studies of energy-and water-conservation programs.

  3. What are the costs and benefits of waste reduction to local governments? Economic research is needed on many questions related to waste reduction by local governments. Examples include the costs and benefits of alternative methods for waste reduction (and for waste management as a whole) to local governments and broader jurisdictions; the range of waste disposal costs under alternative schemes for waste reduction and management and associated efficiency and equity implications; and the economics of marketing and procurement of recovered materials by local governments. Comparative studies are also required concerning the relative effectiveness of waste reduction through private versus public service providers and at a municipal/county versus regional scale of service organization.

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Research Needs

Public wastewater treatment plants discharge wastes themselves and receive wastes from others. Through such instruments as pretreatment requirements, pricing policies, and sludge management activities, they have important opportunities to further waste reduction themselves, but by the same token, they may also be impacted either positively or negatively by chemical substitutions and other waste reduction activities of their dischargers (cf. Muir et al., 1989; Sherry, 1988c). A printer's switch from organic solvents to water-based inks, for instance, might on balance benefit waste reduction, but it might also cause a significant increase in chemical oxygen demand at the wastewater treatment plant.

  1. What axe the likely effects of chemical substitutions and other waste reduction initiatives by dischargers on the operation of wastewater treatment plants, and on the quantity and quality of wastewater sludges?

  2. What new waste reduction opportunities exist in the management of municipal wastewater sludges? Could waste reduction be achieved by large-scale composting of solid waste? If so, would this be preferable to conventional land application of sludges alone?

The NRC Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development endorses these ideas on applied social science research to address waste reduction issues. While recognizing that EPA is now developing a substantial research program on waste reduction and pollution prevention, the committee believes that these sorts of applied research, hitherto virtually unaddressed by federal

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

environmental research programs, should be given serious consideration and support along with research on technological options. The committee hopes that the research needs proposed in this report will assist EPA and other federal and state agencies in identifying important research topics as they pursue their pollution prevention initiatives.

REFERENCES

Abernathy, W.J., and J.M. Utterback. 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol. Rev. 80:40-47.

Andrews, R.N.L. 1989. Research Needs for Waste Reduction. Background paper prepared for the National Research Council Workshop on Waste Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, Maryland, May 8-9, 1989 (Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development). 16 pp.

Ashford, N.A., C. Ayers, and R.F. Stone. 1985. Using regulation to change the market for innovation. Harv. Environ. L. Rev. 9:419-466.

Ashford, N., A. Cozakos, R.F. Stone, and K. Wessel. 1988. Design of Programs to Encourage Hazardous Waste Reduction: An Incentives Analysis. Project No. P21013. Trenton: Division of Science and Research, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Ayres, R. 1989. Industrial metabolism. Pp. 23-49 in Technology and Environment, National Academy of Engineering, J.H. Ausubel and H.E. Sladovich, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


Baughn, C., and R. Osborn. In press. Strategies for successful technological development. J. Technol. Transfer.

Belzer, R.B., and A.L. Nichols. 1988. Economic Incentives To Encourage Hazardous Waste Minimization and Safe Disposal. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement No. CR813491-01-2. Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Bothen, M., and U.-B. Fallenius. 1982. Cadmium: Occurrence, Uses, Stipulations. SNV PM 1615. Solna: National Swedish Environmental Protection Board.

Bower, B.T. 1989. Economic, Engineering, and Policy Options for Waste Reduction. Paper prepared for the National Research Council Workshop on Waste Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, Maryland, May 8-9, 1989 (Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development). 24 pp.

Boyer, B., E. Meidinger, J. Thomas, and J. Singh. 1987. Theoretical Perspectives on Environmental Compliance. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-7252. Washington, D.C.: Regulatory Innovations Staff, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Burgelman, R.A., and M.A. Maidique. 1988. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin. 604 pp.


Caldart, C.C., and C.W. Ryan. 1985. Waste generation reduction: A first step toward developing a regulatory policy to encourage hazardous substance management through production process change. Hazard. Waste Hazard. Mat. 2:309-331.

Cameron, K. 1980. Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness . Organ. Dyn. 9:66-80.

Cohen, M.D. 1984. Conflict and complexity:. Goal diversity and organizational search effectiveness. Am. Polik. Sci. Rev. 78:435-451.

Curlee, T.R. 1989a. Source Reduction and Recycling as Municipal Solid Waste Management Options: An Overview of Government Actions. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-840R21400. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 31 pp.

Curlee, T.R. 1989b. Source Reduction: Potential Research Issues. Paper prepared for the National Research Council Workshop on Waste Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, Maryland, May 8-9, 1989 (Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development). 2 pp.


EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

1976. Effective Hazardous Waste Management (Non-Radioactive); Position statement. August 18. Fed. Regis. 41(161):35,350.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Report to Congress: Minimization of Hazardous Waste. EPA/530-SW-86 033A. Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available from NTIS as PB87-114336.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987a. Review of the Office of Research and Development's Waste Minimization Strategy. Report of the Environmental Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board. SAB-EEC-88-004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987b. Waste Minimization: Environmental Quality With Economic Benefits. EPA/530-SW-87-026. Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988a. Future Risk: Research Strategies for the 1990s. SAB-EC-84-040. Washington, D.C.: Science Advisory Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19 pp.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988b. Appendix P; Strategies for Risk Reduction Research. Report No. SAB-EC-88-040E. Washington, D.C.: Science Advisory Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989a. Pollution Prevention Policy Statement. January 26. Fed. Regis. 54(16):3845-3847.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989b. Protecting the Environment: A Research Strategy for the 1990s. April 1989 draft. Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989c. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. Final report of the Municipal Solid Waste Task Force. EPA/530-SW-89-019. Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 70 pp.

FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board). 1975. Accounting for contingencies. Financial Accounting Standards No. 5. Pp. 732-751 in Financial Accounting Standards Board Statements. Stamford, Corm: Financial Accounting Standards Board.

Forbes. 1989. The best way to waste not. Forbes 154(12):20.


Geller, E.S., R.A. Winett, and P.B. Everett. 1982. Preserving the Environment: New Strategies for Behavior Change. New York: Pergamon. 338 pp.


Hirschhorn, J. 1989. Research Issues and Needs for Waste Reduction. Paper prepared for the National Research Council Workshop on Waste Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, Maryland, May 8-9, 1989 (Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development). 2 pp.

Hollod, G.J. 1989. Perspective on a National Waste Reduction Initiative. Paper prepared for the National Research Council Workshop on Waste Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, Maryland, May 8-9, 1989 (Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development). 6 pp.

Huisigh, D., H. Hilger, S. Thesen, and L. Martin. 1985. Profits of Pollution Prevention: A Compendium of North Carolina Case Studies in Resource Conservation and Waste Reduction. Raleigh: Pollution Prevention Pays Program, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.


ICF Inc. 1988. Pollution Prevention Benefits Manual. First Draft, December 6, 1988. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Wastes and Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Fairfax, Va.: ICF Incorporated.


Kneese, A.V., and B.T. Bower. 1968. Managing Water Quality:. Economics, Technology, Institutions. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. 328 pp.

Kneese, A.V., and B.T. Bower. 1979. Environmental Quality and Residuals Management: A Report of a Research Program on Economic, Technological, and Institutional Aspects. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. 337 pp.


Linnerooth, J. and A.V. Kneese. 1989. Hazardous waste management: A West

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

German approach. Resources 96:7-10.

McHugh, R. 1989. Economic Incentive Mechanisms: An Overview. Draft. Washington, D.C.: Regulatory Innovations Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 11 pp.

Melosi, M.V. 1981. Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment, 1880-1980. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 268 pp.

Miller, D. 1987. Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implications for performance. Acad. Manage. J. 30:7-32.

Muir, J.M., W.R. Muir, and H.V. Sheevers. 1989. Hazardous Waste Reduction Review:. The Pretreatment Program. Project No. P50579. Trenton: Division of Science and Research, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.


Naj, A.K. 1988. See no evil: Can $100 billion have ''No Material Effect'' on balance sheets? Wall St. J. 211(May 11):1.

National Toxics Campaign. 1989. Toxics Use Reduction: From Pollution Control to Pollution Prevention. Policy paper, February 1989. Boston: The National Toxics Campaign. 10 pp.

NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Management of Hazardous Industrial Wastes: Research and Development Needs. National Materials Advisory Board Pub. No. NMAB-398. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 85 pp.

NRC (National Research Council). 1985. Reducing Hazardous Waste Generation: An Evaluation and Call for Action. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 76 pp.

NRC (National Research Council). 1986. Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem-Solving: Concepts and Case Studies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 388 pp.

NRC (National Research Council). 1987. Multimedia Approaches to Pollution Control: A Symposium Proceedings. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 155 pp.

NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 448 pp.

NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Tracking Toxic Substances at Manufacturing Facilities: Engineering Mass Balance Versus Materials Accounting. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


OTA (U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment). 1986. Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste: For Pollution Prevention and Industrial Efficiency. OTA-ITE-318. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. 254 pp.

OTA (U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment). 1987. From Pollution to Prevention: A Progress Report on Waste Reduction. OTA-ITE-347. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. 55 pp.

OTA (U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment). 1989. Facing America's Trash: What's Next for Municipal Solid Waste? OTA-O-424. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.


Porter, M.E., ed. 1986. Competition in Global Industries. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. 581 pp.

Prete, P.J., M.B. Edelman, and R.N.L. Andrews. 1988. Solid Waste Reduction: Alternatives for North Carolina. Raleigh: Pollution Prevention Pays Program, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.


Royston, M.G. 1979. Pollution Prevention Pays. London: Pergamon. 197 pp.


Sarokin, D.J., W.R. Muir, C.G. Miller, and S.R. Sperber. 1985. Cutting Chemical Wastes: What 29 Organic Chemical Plants are Doing to Reduce Hazardous Wastes. New York: INFORM. 535 pp.

Schecter, R.N. 1989. Summary of State Waste Reduction Programs. Raleigh, N.C.: National Roundtable of State Waste Reduction Programs. 16 pp.

Scott, W. 1987. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall. 377 pp.

Sherry, S. 1988a. Low Cost Ways to Promote Hazardous Waste Minimization: A Resource Guide for Local Governments. Sacramento, Calif.: Local Government Commission.

Sherry, S. 1988b. Minimizing Hazardous Wastes: Regulatory Options for Local Governments. Sacramento, Calif.: Local Government Commission.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Sherry, S. 1988c. Reducing Industrial Toxic Wastes and Discharges: The Role of POTWs. Sacramento, Calif.: Local Government Commission.

Stavins, R. 1988. Project 88: Harnessing Market Forces To Protect Our Environment. Sponsored by Senators Timothy Wirth and John Heinz, December 1988. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress.

Todd, R. 1989. Accounting and the Environment: Patching the Information Fabric. Paper prepared for the National Research Council Workshop on Waste Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, Maryland, May 8-9, 1989 (Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development). 23 pp.


Van de Ven, A.H., H.L. Angle, and M.S. Pool, eds. 1989. Research on the Management of Innovation. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.


Winkler, R.C., and R.A. Winett. 1982. Behavioral interventions in resource conservation: A systems approach based on behavioral economics. Am. Psychol. 37:421-435.

Wolf, K. 1988. Source reduction and the waste management hierarchy. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 38:681-686.

Wolf, K. 1989. Source Reduction: What Is It and How Can We Accomplish It? Paper prepared for the National Research Council Workshop on Waste Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, Maryland, May 8-9, 1989 (Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development). 31 pp.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Workshop Participants and Agenda

Research Needs For Waste Reduction

Annapolis, Maryland

May 8 & 9, 1989

Richard N.L. Andrews, Chair, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Nicholas Ashford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

Blair T. Bower, The Conservation Foundation, Arlington

T. Randall Curlee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

Harry Fatkin, Polaroid Corporation, Cambridge

Jeanne Herb, New Jersey EPA, Trenton

Gregory Hollod, CONOCO, Inc., Houston

Hank Garie, New Jersey EPA, Trenton

Joanne Linnerooth, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Albert L. Nichols, Harvard University, Cambridge

Richard N. Osborn, Wayne State University, Detroit

Michael Overcash, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Roger Schecter, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources & Community Development, Raleigh

Rebecca Todd, New York University, New York

Katy Wolf, Source Reduction Research Partnership, Los Angeles

Environmental Protection Agency

David Berg, TIEC

Carl Gerber, ORD

Gerald Kotas, OPPE

Fred Lindsey, ORD

Ron McHugh, Regulatory Innovations Staff

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Workshop Agenda

Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development "Research Needs For Waste Reduction"

Annapolis, Maryland

May 8 & 9, 1989

Monday, May 8, 1989

8:00 a.m.

Continental Breakfast

Crown & Crab Room

8:30

Plenary Session

Welcome and Introductions; background, purposes and proposed schedule

Duke of Gloucester Room

Pete Andrews

 

Brief perspectives on issues and research approaches:

 

 

 

Katy Wolf

 

 

Greg Hollod

 

 

Blair Bower

 

 

Rebecca Todd

 

 

Nick Ashford

 

Discussion

 

10:30

Break

 

10:45

Working Groups-see attached list for individual assignments

12:00 p.m.

Lunch

King of France Tavern

1:30

Working Groups

 

3:30

Break

 

3:45

Plenary Session-interim report from each working group; discussion

Duke of Gloucester Room

5:00

Adjourn

 

6:00

Reception

Atrium

6:30

Dinner

East Chamber

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Tuesday, May 9, 1989

8:30 a.m.

Continental Breakfast

Crown & Crab Room

9:00

Reconvene Plenary Session

Duke of Gloucester Room

9:30

Working Groups (set your own break time)

 

12:00 p.m.

Lunch

King of France Tavern

1:30

Plenary Session

Duke of Gloucester Room

3:00

Adjourn

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Workshop Papers

RESEARCH NEEDS FOR WASTE REDUCTION*

Richard N. L. Andrews

The purpose of this workshop is to provide recommendations on research needs and opportunities in the field of waste reduction. Recognizing the substantial numbers of similar workshops and reports that have already been devoted to engineering and industrial process research needs in this field, it is intended that this workshop focus particularly on research questions involving three other domains:

(1) the definition and measurement of waste reduction; (2) institutional and behavioral barriers; and (3) policy incentives for waste reduction

All these domains are important, transcend particular industrial processes, are unlikely to be addressed adequately by the private sector alone, and may therefore be strong candidates for research attention by EPA and other agencies. To address them, invited participants include not only experts on waste reduction per se, but also scholars in related fields who may be able to add insights from their own disciplines to the discussion.

As a working agenda, I propose that we spend the initial session in plenary discussion of the basic issues of waste reduction that deserve our attention, then break into three working groups, each addressing research needs in one of the three domains listed. We will return to plenary sessions for interim reports and discussion at the end of the first day and at least twice during the second; additional suggestions, either by individuals or by any informal groups that may emerge, will also be welcome.

The charge to each group in to identify as specifically as possible the questions related to their topic that deserve research mention, and why; to suggest methods by which they might usefully be approached; and insofar as possible; to recommend priorities among them.

This paper is offered as an initial framework for organizing discussion of the subject of waste reduction. The list of topics is undoubtedly not exhaustive; the framework is itself tentative and open for discussion. Comments, additions and refinements are welcome.

Background

A root cause of most environmental pollution problems is the emission or discard of waste materials

*  

 Background paper prepared for the NRC Workshop on Waste Reduction Research Needs, Annapolis, MD, May 8-9, 1989.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

and energy (in economic terms, residuals) from human production and consumption activities into the air, water, and land. Policies to reduce such pollution focussed initially on "safe" disposal (increased dilution in air and water, "sanitary landfills" instead of open burning dumps), and subsequently on waste ''treatment" technologies, which changed the physical or chemical form of the waste materials before discharging them to the environment. The effect of such policies was sometimes to reduce the quantity or toxicity of some waste streams, but often simply to displace them to other places, future times, or other environmental media. These problems were well characterize by researchers in the late 1960s, but not widely popularized until a decade or more later (cf. Kneese and Bower, 1979; Royston, 1979).

As early as 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a hierarchy of waste management options in which waste reduction (as opposed to treatment or disposal) was identified as the preferred approach (41 Fed. Reg. 35350); and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act of 1984 contained an explicit policy directive "that wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible." EPA's Office of Research and Development in 1986 authored a "waste minimization strategy," which advocated waste reduction but defined it broadly to include subsequent treatment, storage and disposal as well as reduction at the source; it also was limited to hazardous wastes, and explicitly addressed only technical rather than regulatory and economic barriers (USEPA, 1986).

EPA's Science Advisory Board, in its review of the 1986 strategy document, urged that EPA take a broader view of waste minimization, not limited either to hazardous wastes or even to substances traditionally viewed as "wastes:" it should include any non-product substance that leaves a production process or a site of product handling or use." The SAB also urged special emphasis on "waste prevention (source reduction)," which it defined as a subset of waste minimization practices that focus on in-process practices, as well as on waste generation practices by product users and consumers, that prevent or reduce waste generation per se (USEPA, 1987).

In 1987-88, the SAB sponsored a committee study on environmental research strategies for the 1990s, and the report of this committee (the "Alm Committee") included major emphasis on research needs for "risk reduction" (USEPA, 1988a, 1988b). This report urged that risk reduction be adopted as the central goal both of EPA generally and of its research and development activities; reaffirmed waste prevention (source reduction) as the preferred strategy for risk reduction; and urged that EPA develop a strong program of research related to questions in these areas that were unlikely to be undertaken by or duplicative of research by the private sector. The report noted explicitly that such research should include both technology-based strategies and other strategies involving disciplines other than the physical and biological sciences and engineering; examples of the latter included (among others) policy and economic incentives for risk reduction, risk communication and perception, environmental management and control systems, and education and training programs.

Most recently, in January 1989 ETA issued a formal policy statement adopting pollution prevention through source reduction as an agency-wide policy goal (replacing the narrower focus on 'waste minimization" for legally defined 'hazardous wastes"), and establishing a new Office of Pollution Prevention (in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation) to develop and implement this purpose across all EPA programs and all three environmental media (USEPA, 1989a). Key components of this program are to include the creation of incentives and elimination of barriers to pollution prevention, efforts at cultural change emphasizing the opportunities and benefits of pollution prevention, and related research and educational activities.

A Pollution Prevention Research Plan is also in preparation by EPA's Office of Research and Development, but as of its February 1989 draft this plan continued to give primary emphasis to process research and technology transfer, product research,, and recycling and rouse; initiation of non-technological research and innovative research of other sorts was given lower priority (USEPA, 1989b).

It appears dear therefore that the deliberations of this workshop may assist EPA (as well as perhaps other federal and state agencies) in defining important topics of research in support of its emerging policy directions, and that this need is unlikely to be met by existing research planning within EPA's Office of Research and Development.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Previous NRC Studies

Study committees of the National Research Council have addressed related topics in several past reports. A 1983 report on management of hazardous industrial wastes endorsed the hierarchical preference for source reduction, and noted that satisfactory management of hazardous industrial wastes is inhibited by nontechnical as well as technical factors, but it did not offer research recommendations on these topics (NRC, 1983). A 1985 report was explicitly directed to institutional factors in reducing waste generation, but it was limited to hazardous wastes, and its recommendations concerning nontechnical factors focussed mainly on implementation and educational programs; its research recommendations were limited to technological methodologies (NRC, 1985).

Recent or current studies on related topics also include committees on multi-media pollution control and on the use of mass-balance information in environmental management and regulation.

Research Issues in Waste Reduction

Three primary domains of research have been identified as primarily candidates for our discussions: the definition and measurement of waste reduction, institutional and behavioral barriers, and policy incentives. If other important research questions emerge from the discussions, they too are welcome, though hopefully in addition to (not instead of) topics within these domains.

I. DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF WASTE REDUCTION

(Background: see esp. papers by Wolf, Bower, Ayres)

Waste reduction requires definition and measurement at two levels: the "micro" level of the waste generator (business firm or operation, household or institution, urban jurisdiction, etc.), and the "macro" level of the aggregate of human processes of materials and energy extraction, conversion, use, and discard.

At the micro level the focus is on the material and energy flows and associated economic benefits and costs to a particular decision unit. This level (and more specifically, decisions in the industrial sector) has been the primary focus of most discussion of waste reduction to date, with less attention as yet to waste reduction either in agriculture and other sectors or in society as a whole.

From the macro level perspective of public policy, however, all materials and much energy become "wastes" at some points in these processes; and conversely, some deliberate uses of materials are inherently dispersive (cf. Katy Wolf's METH examples, and pesticides and fertilizers generally). If we limit our attention to the perspectives of particular firms or industries, or to "wastes" as a preconceived category, we are likely both to set faulty priorities and to miscount as waste reduction actions which merely displace potential pollutants from one location or process to another.

It is important, therefore, to identify what research is needed to define and measure waste reduction at both these levels. It may be useful for this group to divide its time into several periods, devoted respectively to definition and measurement of waste reduction at the micro and macro levels; and within the micro level, to possible variations in definition and measurement needed across differing sectors and processes.

This task may require consideration of such questions as the following:

  1. Why waste reduction? Waste reduction is now widely advocated, but for varied, often unspecified, and sometimes conflicting reasons: reduction of public health risks, of damage to ecosystems, of natural resource use rates, of disposal costs to local governments, of the need for new disposal sites, or merely of inefficiencies in economic production and consumption processes? What research could assist in defining internally consistent strategies for waste reduction, at both micro and macro levels, and in evaluating their impacts and trade-offs?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
  1. What waste reduction? The operational objectives of waste reduction are also ambiguous as yet: to reduce waste volumes requiring disposal, toxicity of wastes requiring disposal, overall use of toxic materials ("toxics use reduction"), or overall use of materials and energy? or to achieve some other desired pattern of materials and energy us& (and if so, what)? What research would help to more dearly define policy objectives for waste reduction, and appropriate measures of its achievement?

  2. What differences in definition and in approaches to waste reduction may be required in different types of decision units (e.g. extraction and agriculture, primary materials processing, secondary mfg. and product formulation, packaging/container producers, recycling/reuse businesses, etc.; large integrated firms vs. small specialized firms; etc.)? Is waste reduction best pursued by targeting specific ("high-risk?") substances throughout their processes of extraction and use (e.g. CFCs, lead, chlorine?); by targeting particular stages of the waste generation process (extraction, manufacturing, commercial use, consumer use, waste management); or by targeting particular sectors, industries, or firms that are either especially wasteful, especially hazardous, or especially attractive for opportunistic, cost-effective waste reduction? What research is needed to provide answers to these questions?

  3. How might waste reduction best be measured, at both macro and micro levels, and what research Might assist in defining appropriate measurement systems?

II. INSTITUTIONAL & BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS TO WASTE REDUCTION (Background: see esp. papers by Hollod, Todd, Ashford)

The slogan most widely used to promote waste reduction has been that "pollution prevention pays,' not just in societal terms but in the coin of direct self-interest to the waste generator, and a growing list of anecdotes has been adduced to support this claim (e.g. Royston, 1979; Huisingh et al., 1985; Sarokin et al., 1985; and U.S. EPA, 1987b).

Even when presented with information purporting to show such benefits to self-interest, however, more than a few waste generators show surprisingly little interest in change. There appear to be important institutional and behavioral barriers to waste reduction that are not yet well understood even within the business sector, and there is every reason to believe that similar or additional barriers exist in the behavior of other waste generators: agriculture, nonprofit institutions such as universities and government agencies, households, etc. A second important area of research, therefore, is to identify what these barriers are, which ones are present in the behavior of the various types of waste generators, and how they can be most effectively reduced.

It may be useful for this group to divide its time into several periods, each focussing on research needs on institutional and behavioral barriers to waste reduction in a different sector (e.g. businesses, local governments, households). Answering these questions may require consideration of such questions as the following:

  1. Who reduces waste and who doesn't, and why? In the business sector, is interest in waste reduction more characteristic of particular types of firms (e.g. large vs. small, resource extraction vs. basic chemicals vs. diversified consumer product manufacturing firms vs. others)? Or of firms with particular characteristics (accounting practices, leadership commitment, "corporate culture," research/innovation capability, etc.)? Outside the business sector, what differences are evident between those who actively reduce wastes and those who don't (institutions, government units, households, etc.), and why?

  2. For each type of decision unit, what are the principal barriers to further reduction? Lack of technologically or economically feasible options, of information about options, of willingness to risk new innovations? Inconsistency with other objectives (short-term and long-term profits, cost minimization, product characteristics and marketing strategies, convenience packaging, etc.)? Or more basic patterns of personal preference and organizational norms, perceived self-interest, cultural values, etc.? What research could assist in identifying these barriers more dearly, and in evaluating interventions intended to reduce them?

  3. What role do attitudes and perceptions play (on the part of business managers, workers, senior executives, consumers, etc.) in promoting or retarding waste reduction? To what extent-do these attitudes

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

vary: e.g. by type of business, by size and internal differentiation of firms, and by functional responsibilities within the firm (e.g. product design, manufacturing, sales, marketing, envr. health & safety, etc.); and in the consumer sector, by socioeconomic status and other factors? What incentives and communication strategies would most effectively promote waste reduction behavior on the parts of these varied actors?

  1. What other changes in business decision processes-for instance, in organizational design, accounting procedures, and internal incentives-might contribute to waste reduction, and what research might assist in evaluating these possibilities?

  2. What existing bodies of research might be applicable to increasing waste reduction behavior: accounting practices, and other economic incentives? studies of corporate strategic planning and management decision making? organizational psychology and human factors research? agricultural extension research on the acceptance of innovations? consumer and household behavior, and marketing research? others? What specific theories, methodologies, and lines of inquiry might be promising avenues for study?

III. PUBLIC POLICY INCENTIVES FOR WASTE REDUCTION (Background: see esp. papers by Curlee, Nichols, McHugh)

Pollution prevention pays, up to a point, because of unrecognized opportunities for more efficient materials use based on self-interest: there is normally at least some "slack" that can be identified between the idealized model of rational economic behavior, and the institutional and behavioral reality of unexamined assumptions, imperfect accounting practices, standard operating procedures, habits, imperfect knowledge of better practices, "lumpiness" of the capital costs of corrective measures, etc.

Beyond that point, however, pollution prevention pays only because some cost factors have changed; and many of these factors are heavily influenced-sometimes deliberately, but often inadvertently or even perversely-by public policy measures. Some pollution prevention that did not pay yesterday pays today (e.g. because of rising landfill charges and required control technologies); and some pollution prevention that still does not pay today might pay tomorrow (e.g. because of even more costly disposal charges, regulatory expectations, changes in liability doctrines, etc.). Conversely, some pollution prevention that pays today might not pay tomorrow: e.g. if regulatory enforcement is relaxed (giving competitors a free ride), if new requirements require further or different reconfiguration of the same processes, if markets for recycled materials become glutted, or if today's waste reduction proves to have unanticipated adverse consequences of its own.

A third important area of potential research needs, therefore, concerns the effects and effectiveness of public policy incentives-state and local as well as national-in promoting or retarding waste reduction. As in Group H, it may be useful to subdivide the group's time into periods devoted to different sectors (businesses, government agencies, and households). This area may require consideration of such questions as the following:

  1. What categories of wastes might we most want to reduce, and what policy incentives might be most effective for those categories (packaging materials? toxic chemicals? energy? others? Cf. Group I's Charge)?

  2. What existing public policies increase and decrease, respectively, the incentives for waste reduction in each sector; and what research might assist in answering this question? (Examples: regulations, and regulatory uncertainty; enforcement practices and expectations; educational and technical assistance services; nonenvironmental policies influencing business decision making; liability standards, and disclosure requirements; taxes, subsidies, and stabilization measures differentially affecting raw and secondary materials markets; etc.)

  3. Could waste reduction be better effected by mechanisms to "charge back" disposal costs to waste generators? or farther back yet, to product designers and producers (e.g. deposit-refund and ticket systems), or extraction industries? What research would assist in evaluating both the effectiveness and the potential side effects of such mechanisms? and more generally, what would be the implications, both economic and environmental, of different allocations of the costs of waste management (of which vast reduction is a part)

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

among raw material producers and manufacturers (and their investors), consumers, taxpayers, secondary material producers, and future generations?

  1. What policy instruments appear to have the most effective positive influence on waste reduction behavior of end-users (individuals, households, retail businesses, institutions, etc.)? What instruments have been ineffective or create perverse incentives?

    (Examples: product design requirements or disposal restrictions, availability of recycling services, deposit-return and ticket systems, waste-end taxes, voluntary or mandatory source separation of recyclables, restrictions or charges on amounts of waste generated, special charges or restrictions on more toxic products/wastes, etc.).

  2. What existing bodies of research might be applicable to study of the effectiveness of policy incentives for waste reduction? Are there important approaches that should be considered in addition to work on economic and regulatory incentives? public and private service delivery approaches for waste management? behavioral, educational, and communication approaches? Could waste reduction be ''marketed" to consumers, procurement officers, and other product users?

  3. What research would best advance our understanding of the economics of waste management, including analysis of the trade-offs among waste reduction, recycling, combustion, composting, landfilling, and other management options-and from a macro perspective as well as the various micro perspectives of businesses local governments, etc.? what influences do public policy incentives have on these trade-offs, and what new incentives might usefully be evaluated? (Example: should recycling/reuse enterprises be subsidized as "infant industries," either directly or through procurement preferences, until they can compete effectively against raw-materials producers?)

  4. Are waste disposal costs currently being accounted for in ways consistent with their true meaning and magnitude? What difference would changes in these practices make as incentives for waste reduction?

Examples: disposal fees based upon costs of past versus of future facilities; unskilled separation/recycling jobs treated as costs, vs. as benefits if individuals would otherwise be unemployed and require social services.

Caveat

In closing, please note that all these suggestions are intended to stimulate rather than constrain your own contributions; please use them and go beyond them in that spirit! I look forward to a rewarding two days with you.

PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, D. W. 1988. Policy and Program Options for Reduction of Hazardous Waste in Texas. Houston, TX: National Toxics Campaign.

Andrews, R.N.L. 1988. Waste Reduction for Toxic Substances. Paper presented at the Toxic Waste Symposium, University of California at Santa Cruz, June 24.

Ayres, R.U. 1988. Industrial Metabolism. Draft book chapter, November 29, 1988 (Dept. of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University).


Belzer, R.B. and A.L. Nichols. 1988. Economic Incentives To Encourage Hazardous waste Minimization and Safe Disposal. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (Cooperative Agreement No. CR813491-01-2).

Bothen, M. and U-B. Fallenius. 1982. Cadmium: Uses, Occurrence, Stipulations. Solna, Sweden: National Swedish Environmental Protection Board.


Curlee, T.R. 1988. Source Reduction and Recycling as Municipal Solid Waste Management

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Options: An Overview of Government Actions. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and office of Solid Waste. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Huisingh, D. et al. 1985. Profits of pollution Prevention: A Compendium of North Carolina Case Studies in Resource Conservation and Waste Reduction. Raleigh, NC: Pollution Prevention Program.


ICF Inc. 1988. Draft Pollution Prevention Benefits Manual. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Wastes and Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1988.


Kneese, A.V. and B.T. Bower. 1979. Environmental Quality and Residuals Management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.


Linnerooth-Bayer, J. 1988 (Draft). Hazardous Waste Management in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Bavarian and Hessian Systems. (currently at Resources for the Future Inc., Washington, DC).


McHugh, R. 1989. Economic Incentive Mechanisms: An Overview. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Regulatory Innovations Staff.

Muir, W.R. and J. Underwood. 1988 Promoting Hazardous Waste Reduction: Six Steps States Can Take. New York: INFORM.


National Research Council. 1983. Management of Hazardous Industrial Wastes: Research and Development Needs. Publication NMAB-398. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 1985. Reducing Hazardous Waste Generation: An Evaluation and Call To Action. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.


Prete, P.J.; Edelman, M.B.; and R.N.L. Andrews. 1988. Solid Waste Reduction: Opportunities for North Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Pollution Prevention Program.


Royston, M. 1979. Pollution Prevention Pays. London: Pergamon.


Sarokin, D.J.; Muir, W.R.; Miller, C.G.; and Sperber, S.R. 1985. Cutting Chemical Wastes. New York: INFORM.

Schecter, R.N. 1987. Summary of State Waste Reduction Efforts. Paper presented at the Massachusetts 4th Annual Waste Source Reduction Conference, Boston , October 21-22, 1987.

Stavins, R.N. 1988. Project 88: Harnessing Market Forces To Protect our Environment. Washington, DC: Sponsored by Senators Timothy* Wirth and John Heinz, December 1988.


U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. 1986. Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste. Report No. OTA-ITE-318.

U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment 1987. From Pollution to Prevention: A Progress Report on Waste Reduction. Report No. OTA-ITE-347.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Report to Congress: Minimization of Hazardous Waste. Washington, DC: USEPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Review of the office of Research and Development's Waste Minimization Strategy. Report No.-SAB-EEC-88-004 (Science Advisory Board, October 1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. Waste Minimization: Environmental Quality With Economic Benefits. Report No. EPA/530-SW-87-025 (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1987).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Future Risk: Research Strategies for the 1990s. Report No. SAB-EC-88-040 (Science Advisory Board, September 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Strategies for Risk Reduction Research. Report No. SAB-EC-040E (Science Advisory Board, September 1988, Appendix E).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988c. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. Report No. EPA/530-SW-88-052 (Office of Solid Waste, September 1988).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Pollution Prevention Policy Statement. Federal Register 54/16:3845-47 (January 26, 1989).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Draft Pollution Prevention Research Plan Report to the Congress. (February 15, 1989).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

ECONOMIC, ENGINEERING, AND POLICY OPTIONS** For Waste Reduction

Blair T. Bower

INTRODUCTION: SOME BACKGROUND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

The issue of options for waste reduction cannot be addressed without first providing some operational definitions and a context for the discussion.

"Waste"—From the view of an activity, a waste is a nonproduct stream of material or energy for which the cost of recovery, collection, and transport for input to another use is greater than the value as an input. This definition is reflected in the diagram in Figure 1.

Sources of wastes in society are indicated in Figure 2.

What types of wastes comprise the focus or foci: liquid, solid, gaseous, energy? all? Wastes of particular concern, e.g., PCBs, dioxin? A partial list of residuals with which society must contend is shown in Table 1. Clearly some of these wastes are going to increase regardless of governmental policies and programs, simply because of increasing population, and corresponding levels of economic activities. Examples include: septage, which will increase as more septic tanks are installed, given that improvement in technology is unlikely; mining residuals, which inevitably increase as the quality of ores decreases and the depth to oil and gas reserves increases#, i.e., more materials and energy input—and hence more residuals generated—p, or unit of output; more construction debris as infrastructure facilities and housing stock need to be replaced; BOD5 and TSS per capita not likely to change, unless bioengineering quickly changes the metabolism of the human species; with finite assimilative capacity of the nation's water bodies—which capacity may decrease for the country as a whole if global warming occurs—larger amounts of sludge from treating liquid residuals from residences will be generated to maintain the same loads on water bodies as at present, which in turn means more materials and energy inputs both to produce the sludge in waste treatment and to dispose of the sludge.

**  

Paper prepared for National Academy of Science's Committee on Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development Workshop, May 8-9, 1989, Annapolis, MD

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Table 1. Partial List of Residuals Generated in Society, Excluding Spills

Mining: overburden, tailings, leachate, surface runoff, wind entrained particles

Agricultural operations: crop: sediment, pesticides, and nutrients in runoff, nitrogenous material and pesticides in leachate to ground water, wind-blown sediment, wind transported pesticides, volatilized pesticides, pesticide and fertilizer containers

Silvicultural operations: suspended sediment and pesticides in surface runoff, wind transported pesticides, slash

Transportation: CO, HC, NOx, particulates, particles from tires deposited on ground surface, oil, liquids discharged from boats, salt/sand from snow "removal", tires, used oil, batteries, obsolete vehicles

Residential: white goods, bulky materials, septage, food wastes, yard wastes, Aluminum (cans, wrap), steel cans, glass, plastic (containers, wrap, trays, utensils), household batteries, UN, UCC, UMOP, junk mail, liquid residuals, CO, NOx, S02, TSP, ash (depending on fuel and heating system)

Energy generation: CO, NOx, S02, TSP, Ash (fly, bottom, scrubber sludge), water treatment chemicals, suspended solids, boiler and cooling system blowdown

Manufacturing: "priority pollutants" (liquid), BOD5, TSS, Food wastes, yard wastes, metals, wood, UCC, UN, UMOP, glass, plastic, Aluminum cans, various solid wastes peculiar to manufacturing process/product combinations, e.g., carpet trimmings, Cuttings from shooting in manufacture of mobile homes, gaseous residuals from heating/air-conditioning/process steam/electricity generation, water treatment sludge, wastewater treatment sludge, scrubber sludge

Commercial: food wastes, yard wastes, glass, plastic, Al cans, UCC, UMOP, UN, bulky goods, gaseous residuals from heating/air conditioning, liquid residuals such as BOD5, TSS

institutional: same as commercial plus those peculiar to activities, e.g., infectious wastes from hospitals/nursing homes, low level radioactive materials from hospitals/research labs

Municipal: street sweepings, sediment from debris basins, dead animals, grass clippings/brush and tree trimming from public parks/streets/public building areas, water treatment sludge, wastewater treatment sludge, septage

Construction wood (lumber + tree segments), bricks, dirt, stamps, fixtures, metals, plastic, food wastes and food containers

From whose view/from what stance is waste reduction to be measured, and how is it to be measured? individual activity? metropolitan area? state? conterminous United States? Does waste reduction occur only if wastes generation is reduced "across the board"? Does waste reduction occur when generation and discharge of certain undesirable wastes are reduced, but discharges of some less undesirable wastes increase?

Many localities and many states are facing the exhaustion of "acceptable" landfill capacity, so that their focus is on disposal of solid wastes. The Director of Public Works of City 0, or the head of the Solid Wastes Division, faces the problem of how to collect, transport, and dispose of X thousand tons per day, and regulate the disposal of an additional Y thousands tons per day. In the case of New York City, this amount, X + Y, is about 26,000 tons per day. Waste reduction, in terms of the director or division head, means

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

FIGURE 1 Sources of Wastes in Society

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

FIGURE 2 Definition of Residuals Generation and Discharge

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

reducing the net mount for which he is responsible in terms of input to the landfill As illustrated in Figure 3, waste reduction in this view means reducing [S SRAi + S SRBj]. Reclamation, resource recovery, composing operations generate solid residuals (and other residuals) which require disposal. To the extent that resource recovery and reclamation facilities are outside of his area, the director or solid wastes division head does not have to dispose of the residuals generated in these operations; they have been ''exported" to other regions. However, society as a whole must still dispose of them. The balance sheet of the nation may or may not be improved when the net solid waste for disposal in the region has decreased.

Waste reduction could be defined, for society as a whole, to mean reducing:

given the nature of materials and energy flows as shown in Figure 4. S GG would be the total of liquid, gaseous, solid, and energy residuals, undifferentiated with respect to nature of their environmental effects when discharged. (Theoretically—and only theoretically—weights according to relative toxicity of discharges of materials to different environmental media could be assigned to different materials and energy waste streams.)

The assumption is made in the following that the primary focus of "waste reduction" is solid wastes.

FACTORS INCREASING WASTES GENERATION

Identify options for waste reduction must be cognizant of the factors which are increasing, and tend to increase, wastes generation per capita in the "affluent, effluent" society, particularly pressures from sales departments and marketing specialists. When Vance Packard wrote The Hidden Persuaders, it was early in the evolution of the disposable product, proliferating products society. Any sequel to that classic written now would indicate that society has gone much further down that road. The ingenuity and imagination of sales/market types are the driving forces. These forces are reflected in: (1) product mix in a given plant and product proliferation; (2) product specifications; and (3) new products. Cursory comments on these follow.

Product Mix and Product Proliferation

Product mix refers to the mix of products and/or services produced by a given activity. For example, a petroleum refinery may produce several grades of gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil, asphalt, lubricating oils; or it may produce only lubricating oils and asphalt. An integrated pulp and paper mill may produce a variety of types and colors of consumer products—napkins, tissues, towels — as well as printing papers and business forms. The consumer products may be pink, yellow, blue; with or without designs; scented or unscented. Or, an integrated mill may produce only linerboard, but produce from two or three to a dozen grades of linerboard, from 15 pound to 90 pound. A cannery may produce six different styles of canned peaches, the whole range of tomato products, pet food, and soft drinks. Or the cannery may produce only three styles of green beans. An automobile assembly plant may produce 30 models of a given car, with a virtually infinite number of combinations of colors and accessories possible for each model. One can now purchase Green Giant corn niblets in a Microwave One serving, a serving size perfect for one person", as the package cover says, or in a #10 can, and every size in between. The packaging per ounce for the one Serving is several times that for the #10 can, or for the two pound package of frozen corn niblets. Coffee in the supermarket no longer comes in simply a 16 ounce can. Beginning in 1988, take your pick: 16, 13, 11.5, 10. (They all look virtually the same).

In a few cases, increasing the range of the product mix may have positive impacts, in terms of reducing generation of residuals per unit of output. An example is the tomato cannery where most of the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

FIGURE 3 Disposition of Solid Residuals in Society

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

FIGURE 4 Materials and Energy Flows in a Society

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

tomato, except field dirt and bruised sections, goes into some tomato product, and the remaining pulp is used in the production of pot food.

However, in most cases increasing the range of Products produced in a single plant complicates the production process and results in increased residuals generation per unit of product. The cannery producing products in container sizes from cocktail to #10 requires more inputs and generates more residuals than the cannery processing the same amount of raw material but producing products in containers of only half as many different sizes. To "squeeze" more and more gasoline from a barrel of crude petroleum requires more and more processing, which in turn means more material and energy inputs and more residuals generation per barrel of crude processed, for a given level of technology. (A caveat: In a multi-product chemical plant, where outputs of some processes are inputs to other processes, residuals generation per unit of feedstock may be less than for chemical plants where fewer final products are produced.)

Even the increased efficiency in production resulting from application of digital control in continuous process industries can be diminished by a wider product mix. For example, on modem Fourdrinier paper machines, the standard procedure increasingly is to make grade changes without stopping the machine. This means that for some period of time all of the output is wasted to the broke system, to be returned subsequently to the paper machine, and all water used provides no product output. For example, with a product output of 480 tons per day, or 20 tons per hour, a 15-minute grade change would involve on the order of 5 tons of broke. At 6% moisture off the machine, the amount of water to dilute the paper to one quarter of one percent consistency for direct reuse is about 500,000 gallons. This represents a significant increase in total daily water demand and wastewater generated compared with a production procedure which would shut down between grade changes. Of course, the shut down procedure involves other costs. In general, the more changes in type of product output, e.g., every time the assembly line has to shift-in the refinery, the pap—or mill, the cannery, the automobile assembly plant—the larger residuals generation is per unit of output or per unit of raw product processed, for a given technology. Of course, this principle also applies to production from year to year. That is, changing product mix each year to the annual fashion—requires significantly more inputs and generates more residuals per unit than changing the product mix/product specifications only once every four or five years, be the product automobiles or women's shoes.

In addition to product mix at a given plant resulting in more residuals generation per unit of product, the same type of result occurs across plants producing a given type of product. Take your pick among at least forty oat bran cereals on the supermarket shelf. If facing that decision gives you a headache, as Krier (1989) suggests, seek a product to relieve your headaches: aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen; regular or extra strength; gelatin coated, enteric coated, safety coated, toleraid micro-coated.

Product Output Specifications

Product output specifications refer to the specific characteristics desired in a given product or service, as measured by standard tests. For example, wet strength, basis weight, and color (in terms of brightness) are characteristics specified for a paper towel.

Four aspects of product specifications merit emphasis. One, the more stringent and exacting the product specifications, generally the greater the waste generation per unit of product. A simple example is shown in Table 2, which shows the quantifies of residuals generated in the production of one ton of white tissue paper, General Electric (GE) brightness 80-82, and the quantities generated in producing one ton of unbleached tissue paper, GE brightness 25, using the same raw material and pulping process, and having all other product characteristics the same. Because a high level of bleaching is required to achieve the higher brightness, and because bleaching is a highly energy intensive process, the higher product specification — solely for appearance — results in substantially higher residuals generation per unit of product (and correspondingly, more inputs per unit at the "front" end).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Table 2. Residuals Generated in Producing One Tona of Tissue Paperb

 

Standard Brightness (GEB 80-82)c

Unbleached (GEB 25)

 

All values in pounds per ton

Gaseous

 

 

Chlorine

12

0

Chlorine dioxide

0.6

0

Sulfur dioxided

5.6/20.0e

5.1/7.0e

Hydrogen sulfide and organic sulfide

25.5

232

Particulatesd

57.5/1.0e

52.4/03e

Liquid

 

 

Dissolved inorganic solids

263

22

Dissolved organic solids

244

41

Suspended organic solids

113

107

Suspended inorganic solids

4/5

4.1

Five-day biochemical oxygen demand

147

31

Solid

 

 

Inorganic solids

82.0

73.7

Organic solids

0

0

a Output is as air-dry paper (6% moisture), equivalent to 1880 pounds on a bone-dry basis

b From softwood, using kraft (sulphate) pulping process, with no constraints on discharges

c Using CEHD bleaching sequence

d 1% sulfur fuel oil assumed for use to generate heating steam and electrical energy for plant use.

e First figure relates to production process, second to fuel combustion

Source: Knots, A.V. and Bower, B.T. 1979, Environmental quality and residuals management, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Table 2, pp. 65-67.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

One expert in the paper industry (Day, 1974) expressed the issue thus:

What customer asked for a dazzling white and bright shoot in the first place? Who knows. and who needs it?

The pursuit of higher whiteness and brightness is expensive, but not expensive just in terms of dollars. It's also costly in terms of materials and energy.

I believe that an honest evaluation of the situation will bring the conclusion that present industry standards for brightness have been developed to the extent that a major portion of chemical is used purely for cosmetic purposes, and that the consumer public could be served as well or better by a return to lower brightness standards, not only in publication papers but in tissues, packaging and many specialties.

If Day were writing in 1989, he would be able to state that ''cosmetizing" has increased significantly in the industry. For example, over the 1974-89 period a substantial increase in the proportion of linerboard for corrugated cartons being bleached has occurred. This reflects a major trend in the paper industry, namely, instead of shipping containers being simply shipping containers, 'many customers today require boxes that can double as point-of-sale displays featuring colorful graphics to help sell the product' (Kane, 1989, p. 95). The added colors, which could not be used without bleaching of the linerboard, increase the difficulty and costs of using the discarded shipping containers as raw material in paperboard production.

Not only are some of the brightness specifications unneeded for the function, and perhaps even counterproductive, some performance specifications for paper products may well be excessive in relation to uses for which the paper products are designed. Lowe (1973) suggested that the U.S. specifications for paperboard for shipping electronic appliances, e.g., radios, television sets, were substantially higher than the specifications used by the Japanese. Yet the Japanese appliances seem to arrive in operating condition.

Not only the cosmetics of packaging have increased waste generation per unit of product but also the greater use of packaging per unit of product has evolved, particularly with respect to foods. Between 1963 and 1971 the actual weight of food consumed per capita in the U.S. increased 2.3% while the weight of food packaging increased 33.3% per capita. Between 1958 and 1970, the weight of milk consumed per capita decreased by 23% while the weight of milk containers increased 26% per capita. This occurred even though glass containers for milk almost became extinct during the period. The data for the period since 1971 show essentially a continuation of the trend toward increasing packaging per unit of food product, e.g., shipping containers, food containers, and plastic materials (Economic Research Service, 1988).

One of the most pervasive changes in product specifications has been the shift from multiple use items to single use, "throw away" items. These range from nonreturnable containers for beer, soft drinks, and juices, to throw away dishes and cutlery in various institutions, a.g., cafeterias, and on airplanes, to throw away "linens" in hospitals. For example, on one flight of about 2.5 hours from Minnesota to Washington, D.C., the airplane passenger received a total volume of about 2000 cubic centimeters of nonreturnable containers, utensils, and napkins. Except for the napkins, the basic raw material was plastic from petroleum. Disposable items have become the norm in hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, school cafeterias, and fast food emporia. (Note: To point out the fact that this shift increases residuals generation is not to deny the benefits of use of such items, at least in the first three of the above activities.)

Not only have product specifications become more stringent, but at least some types of products have become more complex. This increasing complexity relates particularly to automobiles and appliances. The "average" automobile of the mid-1950s had about 7500 parts; the average of the mid 1970s had twice that many. Washing machines are produced with 59 different cycles. Increased complexity typically increases residuals generation in production and makes repair more difficult. The latter in turn typically leads to more rapid "discard".

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
New Products

The epitome of the solid wastes generators is represented by those individuals in sales/marketing whose fertile imaginations produce such items as: disposable videocassettes, which will erase themselves after a limited number of plays; colored plastic wrap, in red, blue, yellow, green, brought to you by Reynolds Metals Co., which wrap "makes the mundane task of wrapping leftovers fun" (Associated Press, 1989); this innovation of the consumer products division is a way to "liven up the kitchen" (ibid.); use of facsimile machines to receive weather satellite maps in order to indicate to trout fisherman on Lake Michigan where the influences of cold water and warm water are, which locations are concentration areas of trout (Anon, 1989).

The above represent a small sample, a microcosm of similar items in the Hammacher-Schlemmer catalogue. But as in some other sectors, the U.S. comes in second to the Japanese with respect to inventiveness along these lines. On 26 April 1989, scent-dispensing telephone booths will debut on Namiki Street in Tokyo. Hourly the booths will blow scent over shoppers passing by, accompanied by the tinkling of chimes. Hiatt (1989, p. A 35) explains the situation:

For industry here (Japan), inventiveness is a matter of necessity. Japanese homes are so cramped and saturated with television sets and videotape recorders that companies must constantly devise products that consumers never know they needed. and when a product catches on, it can become fashionable with remarkable speed.

Such in the case this year with tiny vibrators, designed to relax the muscles of the back, and with $1,000 toilet bowls that spray warm water and then blow warm air across one's backside-a feature that now graces more than 10 percent of Japan's 'western-style' toilets.

Sony has introduced disposable paper watches. They are made in China and cost less than $4 each. "More than a million of the 'peal-off timepiece' have been sold, in dozens of designs" (ibid., p. A35).

The clear implication of the foregoing is that there are large pressures for, and substantial segments of the economy built and dependent on, the continued proliferation of products, the continued annual changes of styles/fashions, the continued emphasis on "cosmetizing" consumer products. Waste reduction, with respect to both of the definitions stated above, would require on "about face" in this ''society-set".

TECHNOLOGIC OPTIONS FOR WASTE REDUCTION

Table 3 shows one classification of physical measures (technological options) for reducing residuals discharges to the environment. Category A measures reduce gross generation; Category B measures reduce not quantity of materials for disposal to landfill, for any given sat of production functions.

Generation of residuals in extraction, processing, manufacturing, service activities is a function of the nature/quantity of inputs, technology of production, and product mix/product specifications. Some examples are given in Table 3; others can be cited. For example, with respect to inputs, shift from high input (intensive) agriculture to low input agriculture; in-field sorting of tomatoes for canning, which significantly reduces residuals generation at the cannery; genetic development of tomatoes more amenable to canning (even though they taste less like tomatoes), which reduces generation in canning; producing wood chips for papermaking in the woods rather than at the mill.

There are two basic approaches to technological options with respect to production technology-one involves modification or changes of unit processes or unit operations. The procedure begins with analysis of materials balances and energy balances of each process/operation. The complexity of this analysis is suggested by Figure 5, a simplified flow diagram of pulp and paper production. Alternative unit processes/operations or sets can then be posited and evaluated, such as changing from wet debarking to dry debarking in pulp and paper production; from wet peeling to dry peeling in canning; from ingot casting to

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

continuous casting in steel production; from batch cooking to continuous hydrosterilizers in canning.

The other approach involves improved control over the production process itself, typically through automatic, digital control systems. Adoption of such systems in the chemical processing industries, including pulp and paper, has resulted in significant increases in yields and associated reductions in residuals generation.

If changing product specifications is considered a technological option, the effect of such changes have been suggested in the previous section.

With respect to Category B measures, technological options for reducing the net quantity of solid wastes to landfill are of three major types: technologies for in-plant materials and energy recovery; technologies for reclaiming or recovering useful materials from residuals; and technologies for producing useful products from residuals. The first is exemplified by the relatively simple but effective condensate management system in pulp and paper mills (Hahn, 1989). The second is exemplified by the evolution of shredding-separation-compaction technology combinations to produce steel scrap from obsolete vehicles.

The third is exemplified by recent technological developments in use of residuals for raw materials. Wastewater treatment plant sludge has been used to produce bricks for construction (Bryan, 1984). The first U.S. plant to use discarded polystyrene foam products, e.g., food trays, cups, containers, as raw materials went on line in January 1989 (Anon., 1989b). Several plants have been, and are using polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) as raw materials. However, the products produced thus far in the use of PET and HDPE are relatively low grade plastic products. Dow Chemical's now process, although more expensive, reportedly will yield higher quality plastic which can be used to manufacture plastic bottles (Anon, 1988). It is important to note that DOW's process uses trichloroethane, which has been "indicted" as one of the substances damaging the ozone layer. This is an example of the care which must be taken in analyzing technologic tradeoffs, i.e., is the "not" change to society really positive. Another example of the third is the development of shredding technology and the associated combustion technology for using tires for fuel to generate energy. Shredders which reduce stumps to wood chips for use as mulch is another technologic development which is reducing discharges to landfills.

Product output specifications are important not only with respect to gross generation but also with respect to reducing mounts to landfill by increasing use of residuals in production. For the tissue paper example in Table 2, if a brightness of GEB 80-82 is desired, it is not possible to use 100% No. 1 mixed waste paper as raw material. If a brightness of 25 is acceptable, corresponding to unbleached kraft pulp as raw material, 100% waste paper can be used (Bower, et al., 1973).

STIMULI TO WASTE REDUCTION

What induces the adoption of measures/technologic options which result in waste reduction, gross and/or net? An arbitrary classification of stimuli/inducers consists of: (1) external factors; (2) internal factors; and (3) governmental actions excluding water intake charges, sawer charges, and energy charges, which are included under external factors.

External Factors

Changes in prices of factor inputs have been important factors in inducing waste reduction for manufacturing, commercial, and service sectors. These include prices of energy, both electrical energy and fuel; wastewater disposal; solid wastes disposal; feedstocks/chemicals; intake water. The sharply increased energy costs in 1973-74 induced responses by segments of the chemical industry, which included reduction in product mixes and lowered product specifications (see Rabire and Winton, 1974, and Anon., 1974). Sawer charges imposed on the basis of strength, i.e., quantities and/or concentrations of specific constituents, have induced substantial reductions in discharges, via some combination of raw material and/or process change and better "housekeeping", as described by Knees& and Borer (1968, pp. 166-170) and Hudson, at al. (1981, Chapter 3). Increased solid wastes disposal costs and increased raw material costs are inducing waste

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Table 3. Classification of Physical Measures for Reducing Residuals Discharges

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY

EXAMPLES

A. REDUCE RESIDUALS GENERATION

1. Increase longevity of goods

 

 

2. Change type of raw material inputs

High to low sulfur crude, fuel oil, coal; concentrated vs. raw ore; use of residuals instead of virgin materials, i.e., aluminum cans instead of bauxite

 

3. Change production process including mode and motive power of transport

Individual vehicles to mass transit; ICE to ECE; H2SO4 to HCI for pickling steel; CEHDED bleaching to oxygen bleaching; ingot casting to continuous casting; less energy intensive process for producing aluminum

 

4. Change final demand

a. Change product mix — reduce number of grades or styles of product, i.e., chemicals, linerboard, paperboard, canned peaches; prohibit non-returnable containers;

b. Change product specifications — reduce brightness of consumer paper products, such as towels; LAS instead of ABS; short-lived, specific pesticides instead of long-lived, general pesticides; high octane to low octane gas

 

5. Change timing of activity

Staggered office hours; change schedule of production

 

6. In-plant recirculation of water1

In beet sugar production, peach canning

B. MODIFY RESIDUALS AFTER GENERATION, IN ON-SITE AND/OR COIL FACILITIES

1. Materials recovery (direct recycle)

Chemical and fiber recovery in paper production; catalyst recovery in petroleum refining; recycling of mill scale in steel production

 

2. By-product production (indirect recycle)

a. To final products — tomato pulp into pet food; citrus peels into candy; peach pits into charcoal briquettes; wood products residues into pressed logs

b. To intermediates — obsolete vehicles into steel scrap/steel; used corrugated containers into linerboard; used aluminum cans into aluminum ingots; sulphite waste liquor to yeast

 

3. Modification of residuals streams

Combustion of solid residuals to generate energy; incineration; landfill; composting; compression of solid residuals; land spraying of sludge; precipitation; sedimentation; scrubbing; biological oxidation; chemical oxidation

 

4. Effluent reuse

a. Direct — sewage plant effluent for cooling water

b. Indirect — ground water recharge with modified liquid residual

1 Only in relatively few types of cases does in-plant water recirculation modify/reduce a residual in a liquid residuals stream. Recirculation does reduce the gydraulic load on any materials recovery or residuals modification facility, thereby reducing residuals modification costs.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

FIGURE 5 Flow Diagram of Pulp and Paler Production

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

reduction in chemical process industries (Anon., 1987). Similarly, increased solid wastes disposal costs, particularly with respect to hazardous materials, have induced the development of waste reduction "plans" in various states (Dombrowski, 1989).

Other external factors which are inducing waste reduction responses are liability potential, the NIMBY syndrome, and regulations or the "threat" of regulations. The liability potential, i.s., liability for damages resulting from inadequately handling of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes (Cheremisinoff, 1989), 'S affective at least in the private sector. The quits common opposition to having a waste-to-energy facility or a landfill in "my' backyard has, similarly to increased factor input prices, stimulated more effort to reduce generation and to increase resource recovery (Johnson, 1989). The investigation initiated by EPA into dioxin generation in the pulp and paper industry and the announcement that standards with respect to dioxin discharges would be promulgated within about two years has induced various companies to modify production processes to reduce dioxin generation. At least some of these modifications yield an overall net decrease in generation.

Internal Factors

Probably the most effective internal factor, for a private or public entity, is management commitment to and execution of waste reduction/pollution prevention, rather than commitment to reduction in discharge by "end-of-pipe" measures. (The end-of-pipe measures of course actually increase generation and discharge of residuals, albeit different mixes than would occur without the measures.) The Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) program of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M), initiated in 1975, well exemplifies this approach. Bringer (1988) describes the structure of the program, the results, and the latest step, the inauguration of a five-year Pollution Prevention Plus (3P+) program. This new program, initiated in 1988, will redUCe discharges beyond required levels. However, it is clear that in some or many cases, waste reduction (cure environmental effects) is not a factor considered in design. For example, a 'design evaluation matrix" was developed under the aegis of the Construction Industry Institute (Tucker and Sutherland, 1988). The matrix contains neither a criterion in relation to waste reduction nor a criterion in relation to environmental effects.

Where an activity, public or private, consists of a number of units physically separate, as in a metallurgical plant or university, a system of in-plant charges for water and sawer services can result, and has resulted, in significant waste reduction. Kneese and Bower (1968, pp. 170-172) provide a cursory discussion of such charges.

Other unforeseen factors may lead to waste reduction by activities, either gross or not discharge. For example, initiation in the early 1970S of separation and recovery of various types of office paper in a large bank in San Francisco was stimulated by the interest of the bank president's wife in resource conservation.

Governmental Actions

Governmental entities, at all levels, can intervene at various points in the system with actions which can have positive or negative effects on waste reduction. Figure 6 illustrates possible intervention points.

Governmental actions can take the form of economic incentives; regulations; joint development; and distribution of technical information. Economic incentives include various forms of subsidies in relation to capital costs of waste reduction technologic options in industry, agricultural, commercial, municipal operations, such an grants for a portion of capital costs and below market interest rate loans. Federal and state governments can provide investment tax credits and rapid depreciation allowances for installation of waste reduction technologies, analogous to what has been done with respect to "pollution control" equipment, where such equipment—except in a few cases—has meant end-of-pipe facilities. Increased severance taxes on minerals and elimination of depletion allowances on minerals would increase the costs of virgin materials relative to secondary materials, thereby stimulating additional materials recovery/energy recovery and

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

additional reclamation. Increasing grazing fees to private market levels would reduce stocking and reduce residuals generation. Surcharges on inputs, such as fertilizers and energy, may induce some positive response. Levying or requiring performance bonds for mining operations would have a salutary effect.

Examples of regulations which may induce waste reduction, gross or net, include specification of product ingredients; prohibition of certain products/materials; energy design standards for buildings and appliances; enforcement of discharge limits; enforcement of BMPs; restrictions to encourage use of mass transit; and building design codes for multi-unit commercial buildings, e.g., shopping & alls, and multi-unit residential buildings, which would require designs to enable efficient handling of separated solid residuals.

Technical information development and transfer can begin with jointly financed research projects on methods to reduce wastes generation, via changes in raw materials, production processes, product specifications, or all three. State PPP programs, as in North Carolina, are mechanisms to provide information. Probably expenditures on such program an order of magnitude larger would still yield positive not benefits.

What of governmental actions in relation to other governmental agencies and programs? Wastes generation problems in agencies under government or quasi-government jurisdiction are legion at many DOE installations, such as Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and Rocky Mountain Arsenal, to mention a very limited number. The mules in Grand Canyon National Park, under the jurisdiction of the National Park service, are major wastes generators and polluters of Bright Angel Creek. What stimuli might induce waste reduction in such installations as the military complexes in San Antonio? or in the government office buildings in Washington, O.C.? The federal reduction in paperwork legislation seems to have had little effect.

The subsidy provided by the Postal Service for junk mail and catalogs is a major contributor to wastes generation; the subsidy exists to some extent for mailing and completely for disposal. That is, the perpetrator of junk mail pays none of the costs of disposal. A recent study of small town post offices in Vermont indicated that 85%-90% of the substantial amounts of paper wastes generated in those post offices consisted of junk mail tossed away by boxholders. Increasing rates on junk mail to reflect disposal costs, and imposing those costs on senators and representatives — for their mailings to constituents — would have a positive effect.

Responses to Stimuli

The responses of some segments of the private sector to one or more of the various stimuli could be characterized as falling into two classes. One represents the application of existing technology, which —though available and might have been applied and increased net revenues — had not been applied for various reasons, e.g., inertia, lack of capital, waiting until major overhaul was due, simply insufficient stimulus. For example, according to Kane (op. cit., p. 133), "The steam and condensate distribution system in the mill of the future will not need new technology. All the technology and equipment requited is in use today. It will just use all of this technology and equipment in an integrated system." Dioxin generated in pulping is another example. The oxygen supplements, oxygen bleaching, chlorine dioxide substitution for chlorine, oxygen delignification, all were already known before the concern for dioxin suddenly arose. Some mills years before the recent flurry moved in a direction which would and did reduce dioxin problems, even though at the time concern for dioxin was not the stimulus for change. Rather, the shifts related to long-run production costs, product yields, product quality.

The second type of response is to push development of now technology to cope with a new problem. The perception of the problem may not be in relation to reducing generation, but rather in relation to use of residuals now going to the landfill. Development of technology to enable de-inking so as to be able to use laser-Printed computer printout (CPO) waste paper for raw material in papermaking is another example. (See Gilkey, et al., 1988.) Thus, one technological development may drive the development of another technology.

The laser CPO example shows how gross generation can increase at the same time net generation decreases. This is analogous to the trend in water use in several heavy industries over the last three decades,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

FIGURE 6 Possible Intervention Points for Waste Reduction

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

pulp and paper for example. Gross water applied per unit of pulp and paper product has increased, as a function of e.g., increased product specifications. At the same time, water intake per ton of product has decrease because the increase in water recirculated has more than compensated for the increase in gross water applied.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Three comments will conclude this rambling discourse.

  1. Waste reduction in a region — in terms of reducing the net quantity of residuals discharged to the environmental media — can be achieved by more explicit consideration of possible linkages among intakes and discharges of activities in the region, as suggested by the flow diagram of Figure 7. Developing such linkages among activities within a region is analogous to developing linkages among different units on a plant site, such as a petrochemical plant.

  2. Determining whether or not waste reduction, however defined, could be achieved by any given proposal/technologic option requires analysis of the total system. The basic structure for such a system analysis is shown in Figure 8 for a paper product. Associated wood products are shown, because of the linkages between the two types of outputs. Energy, water, and other inputs at various points in the system would have to be shown, plus transport costs, plus explicit specification of residuals generated at various points in the system-However, one conclusion can be drawn just on the basis of the structure, namely, if product specifications could be lowered, as discussed with respect to comer paper products, waste reduction in terms of gross generation could be achieved.

  3. The continuing trend for more product proliferation and higher product specifications, taller office buildings requiring ever more sophisticated stool, and more energy intensive activities such as downhill skiing, makes the achievement of waste reduction in American society difficult. That situation will not change until the mores of the society are more in accord with the view attributed to Henry Ford I, "you can have any model and color of Ford car you want as long as it's black and a Model A."

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

FIGURE 7 Example of Linking Activities in a Region

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

FIGURE 8 Components of Systems for Producing a Specified Paper Product

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

REFERENCES

Anon., 1989a, Outwitting trout with data, New york Times, 19 March, p. 49.

Anon., 1989b, Plant recycles foam products, Waste Age, 32, 2, p.14.

Anon., 1988, Domtar and Dow Chemical to recycle plastic bottles, Pulp and Paper, 62, 11, pp. 34-35.

Anon., 1987, The changing economics of waste management, Chemecology, February, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.

Anon., 1974, The squeeze on product mix, Business Week, $2312, 5 January, pp. 50-55. Associated Press, 1989, Bright idea: colored plastic wrap, Post, 7 March, p. C14.


Bower, B.T., Lof, G.O.G, and Hearon, W.M., 1973, Residuals in the manufacture of paper, Proceedings ASCE, 99, EEl, pp. 1-16.

Bringer, R.P., 1988, Pollution prevention plus, Pollution Engineering, 20, 10, pp. 84-89.

Bryan, E.H., 1984, Biobricks become a reality, Water Engineering: and Management, 131, 3, pp. 38-39, 59.


Cheremisinoff, P.N., 1989, High hazard pollutants: asbestos, PCBs, dioxins, biomedical wastes, Pollution Engineering 21, 2, 58-65.


Day, J.W., 1974, Can we afford to continue cosmetizing paper products during a time of shortages? Chem 26, February, pp. 21-22.

Dumbrowski, C., 1989, Landfill ban prompts now hazwaste treatments, World Wastes, 32, 2, pp. 24-25


Economic Research Service, 1988, Food costs .... from farm to retail, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.p pp. 8.


Gilkey, M., Shinahara, H., and Yoshida, H., 1988, cold dispersal unit boosts de-inking efficiency at Japanese tissue mills, pulp and Paper, 62, 11, pp. 199-103.


Hahn, G.E., 1989, Effective condensate management can cut energy, maintenance costs, Pulp and Paper, 62, 11, PP130-133.

Hiatt, F., 1989, The motherland of invention, New York Times, 30 March, pp. A33, A35.

Hudson, J.F., Lake, E.E., and Grossman, O.S., 1981, Pollution-Pricing, Lexington Books, O.C. Heath and co., Lexington, Massachusetts.


Johnson, B., 1989, Kirkland Recycling program gets unexpected success, World-Wastes, 32, 2, pp. 26-29.


Kane, J., 1989, Information control assists in production, customer processing, Pulp and Pacer, 63, 2, pp. 94-95.

Kneese, A.V., and Bower, B.T., 1968, Manning Water Quality, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Kneese, A.V., and Bower, B.T., 1979, Environmental Quality and Residuals Management, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.


Lowe, K.E., 1973, Too much quality in paper and board?, Pulp and Paper, 47, 12, p. 62.


Rabine, J., and Winton, J.M., 1974, Energy and the product mix, Chemical Week, 115, 22, pp. 29-32.


Tucker, R., and Sutherland, G., 1988, Guidelines allow the evaluation of capital project design effectiveness, Pulp and Paper, 62, 9, pp. 91-95.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

ACCOUNTING AND THE ENVIRONMENT:
Patching the Information Fabric

Rebecca Todd

Assistant Professor of Accounting

New York University

I want to thank you for inviting me to this conference. It is an honor for me and I'm very grateful.

We have set ourselves a considerable task: to propose important avenues for research over the next few years which will enable us to strengthen the delicate fabric supporting the environment. It is my conviction that a number of separate economic changes which have occurred recently and are, in fact, underway at this moment will make our work simpler and clearer and vastly improve the likelihood of success. Indeed, the timing could scarcely be better.

At the risk of stating what is obvious in any case, all persons have a stake in the health of the environment and the conservation of scarce resources. However, my proposals assume that of all possible constituencies, two, managers of firms, and capital market participants, have unique positions, which enable them both to control how efficiently productive resources are used, and to improve and preserve the quality of the environment. Of the two, I consider corporate managers to be the ultimate fiduciaries of the environment. The topics for research which I propose are aimed at finding ways to remove institutional barriers which currently hinder the functioning of both of these groups.

Specifically, I will propose that we need to do two things: (1) close some gaping holes in the traditional accounting information fabric which allow critical information to go uncaptured; and (2) support users of this information with a regulatory framework which provides a level playing field for economic decision makers. Simply put, people can't act if they don't have adequate information, and they won't act voluntarily if they will bring harm to themselves by doing so.

The proposals which will be elaborated on below will be to develop means to:

  1. revise our traditional production accounting methods which capture and apply to products those costs which occur in production, but which cease when the finished product leaves the shop floor, disassociating spillovers and contingent costs from the products which produced them;

  2. provide financial and non-financial environmental information to capital market participants, i.e., equity investors and creditors, whose business it is to evaluate the relative profitability of firms and the associated risk in the setting of costs of capital supplied to firms.

As will become dear later, these are not independent but are different aspects of the same fundamental issue. Moreover, the ideas are not new. What is new is that the legal, regulatory, and accounting domains have undergone significant changes in recent years, particularly in the past two, which increase the probability of achieving these objectives, even making them imperative. These will be discussed in context below.

The remaining sections of this paper will provide relevant background on the nature of accounting and the regulatory bodies which control accounting output, as well as discussion of each of the proposals with recent examples.

Nature of Accounting

Accounting, to use the philosophy of science term, is a ''reconstruction'' of an enterprise, a financial model. It is the reflection of a firm from a financial mirror. In general, then, only economic events which can ultimately be defined in financial or dollar ($) terms will be captured by the system. However, the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

system is capable of capturing any information which the management of a firm deems useful, and indeed, the extension of the accounting system to its larger family, the management information system, does exactly that.

It is considered to be a desirable trait of accounting information—the output of the accounting system—that the information be neutral, or unbiased in order to provide the best basis for economic decision making. That is, accountants should be detached, impartial observers of the operations of the firm and not proactive instigators or advocates of various course of action. Such activity is thought to be the appropriate domain of the managers of a firm. I trouble you with this observation to make clear that the information which is captured by the accounting system is determined largely by persons and agencies outside of the accounting department.

Managers can direct that any desired information be collected, analyzed, aggregated, summarized, and reported to them, subject only to the usual benefit/cost and other feasibility constraints. For example, management might desire that the production schedules and total sales for the next two years for each of their competitors be reported to them, but this would run into a feasibility constraint!

Information provided to outsiders includes management's voluntary disclosure which common wisdom suggests is that which is favorable to the firm, although some interesting and puzzling counter-examples exist. However, the vast proportion of information which is available to investors, creditors, and others is mandated by two regulatory bodies, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the private rule-making organization which provides guidelines for the public accounting profession, and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), which has the primary responsibility for overseeing the equity and debt securities markets and seeing that "adequate" information is provided to market participants.

Thus, if we are to change the ways in which accounting information is collected and reported, we must convince one or more of these three groups that it is desirable to do so. one brief word, an opinion, regarding benefit/cost analyses. Such analyses are the usual analytical and economic-information-generating system for government agencies as well as corporations. Much very important work has been done here, but as a tool for persuading rational corporate managers of the rightness of a course of action, they suffer from a taint well-understood by managers.

Benefit/cost analyses are themselves costly commodities and are rarely ordered up in a vacuum. One usually has some objective or outcome in mind before the resources are committed and expended on the analysis. Thus, suspicion will be immediately aroused in the beholder of the information that the assumptions, analyses, and conclusions may well be scented with the perfume of the desired outcome! This will not come as news to anyone here. It is my view that the considerable efforts which have been expended on these analyses have not "gone to waste" but will become an invaluable resource themselves when other incentives are in place. I believe that they rise to their highest and best use not as motivators, but as decision support aids. That is, how shall we best choose among alternatives given that we've already committed to the battle.

Indeed, the world of private accounting is peopled with thousands of experienced, superbly-trained and highly analytical cost accountants. What is needed is to persuade management to unleash them on the problem.

Proposal I-Revisions To Product Costing Systems:
Full-Costing For The Twenty-First Century

Before we launch directly into the issues here, let me provide a short primer on accounting. Accountants have a number of tools at their disposal, or images, which they may present to managers or outsiders of the firm. Of these, two are of central importance: the Balance Sheet, and the Income Statement. The balance sheet is an assay of the resources which a firm commands, the assets, and who has claim on those assets, the creditors and owners (or shareholders). The balance sheet provides a snapshot at a specific time of the financial health of an enterprise. The Income Statement is the linkage between balance sheets, and monitors the inflows and outflows of resources. In short, it takes the pulse of the firm. As products axe being manufactured, accountants collect the costs which are being added to the item, aggregate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

them, and then match these costs to the sales price of the item when it is finally sold. The difference between sales and costs is what accountants term Income, a somewhat different meaning from the popular usage of the term.

In the old days, before we became aware of how fragile the environment truly is, of how dependent upon it we are, and of how scarce our resources are, cost accountants, at the behest of management, developed systems of tracing and aggregating costs to facilitate optimal investment and production systems. As dumping of wastes and other leftovers was a costfree activity, there was no need to capture these costs. Indeed, as I have noted above, inventory costing stopped when the product left the shop floor.

Other costs, such as marketing expenses have traditionally been accounted for separately and not charged to product. As waste control and disposal have become increasingly expensive and must be recognized, they have generally been treated as period costs, that is, as general expenses. Most usually, this cost will be accounted for as general overhead, either being allocated between cost of goods sold and ending inventory at the end of a reporting period, or dropped entirely into cost of goods sold.

Let us consider some simple cases.

If we should not be required to account for the costs of waste and pollution, that is, if these spillovers are free to the firm, then the costs to the firm are understated, the income is overstated, and society at large, which must ultimately bear the cost of the cleanup has effectively paid a subsidy to the firm to foul the environment and be profligate with resources.

A somewhat notorious case of the failure to adequately internalize the costs of products, although not an environmental problem in the usual sense, is that of the Savings and Loan industry. The problem here was "waste" of capital, and the "cleanup" is now estimated to cost each taxpayer in the United States about $500! It is an apt example because the source of the problem is the same one which we have been discussing, a rip in the cost accounting fabric through which billions of dollars of scarce capital poured. It is also particularly appropriate because it represents a regulatory failure as well. All of the expected safety nets collapsed and losses rivalling the national debt have fallen on the shoulders of everyone outside of the Savings and Loan industry. We will return to this example later.

Another aspect of cost capture which we should consider at this point is the accounting Contingency. Under Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) #5, "Accounting for Contingencies"2, if a firm has already suffered a probable loss or impairment of existing assets, then some form of recognition of this expected loss must be made in the income statement and/or balance sheet. In general, this rule has been applied in such cases as large lawsuits (e.g., Pennzoils $10 billion dollar judgement against Texaco) large catastrophic losses in excess of expected insurance coverage (e.g., the mid-air collision over Los Angeles some years ago), and large expected losses on contracts which have not yet been completed (e.g, commodities forward contracts for food processors).

The contingency rule has not been applied to the usual run-of-the-mill spillover. The argument has been made that the requirements are not met, i.e, we haven't yet suffered impairment of assets or incurred a loss, and won't until lawsuits are filed or regulatory action is taken.

Change is in the wind. A recent flurry of court judgements, particularly in New Jersey, have ruled that insurers cannot be held liable for losses and damages arising from ordinary business decisions which have been in place over a period of years. This somewhat simplified summation of a series of cases has suggested to the financial community in New York that firms may no longer be able to rely on the insurance company to cover the breach. The argument goes that such losses were reasonably foreseeable and, as a consequence, usual business expenses. Thus, firms will stand alone in the liability for losses and damages, should they occur.

Another gap appears in the accounting fabric. The contingency rule has not been extended to cover such cases before the damage case is filed, insurance companies may not be liable, and firms are not currently permitted under the accounting rules to set aside General Reserves for Losses. In short, there is no cover for the firm.

We would seem to have two choices: (1) to seek ways to begin capturing this "uncovered" cost in the regular product costing system and financial disclosure systems; and/or (2) immediately begin to reduce the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

waste and environmental hazards at the source, the ultimate solution. It is a curious economic fact that the former will almost certainly produce the latter!

I really must stop to note at this juncture that a heartening number of firms have already begun to take these steps. Approaches have included inventorying products, associated wastes and toxic substance "leftovers," and investigating the feasibility of conversion of these leftovers either to salable products, recycled factors, or neutralized substances. The managers have done so unilaterally, without the sort of incentives that most of us would like to see in place, save a very long vision into the future.

A case which will be familiar to most of the conference participants is what happened to the textile and steel industries in the United States when foreign competition became a serious factor. The argument went at the time that retooling to develop more technologically advanced and more efficient, and thus less costly, production was too expensive for the firms to bear. Moreover, strong arguments were made that foreign governments were subsidizing the competition when such firms already had an advantage in the form of lower labor costs.

Thus, a system of investment tax credits was put in place coupled with a complex web of tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions, to shield the industries from the "predatory" competition and to grant the firms time to retool. You will recall what happened. Nothing! At long last, Congress grew weary of subsidizing the industries, the country entered a deep recession, and the trade restraints were lifted. The firms were left to swim alone in the markets. Dire predictions were made and the death knell was sounded. Indeed, it was not a pretty sight. Some firms did go under or were absorbed in extremis by other organizations. However, death notices were, in general, premature. Within a few short years, the survivors had retooled, pared the fat from their operations, and repositioned their products to supply what the markets were demanding, and the industries have begun a new era. Market pressures and incentives accomplished what no mount of sheltered encouragement could achieve.

In the long run, say some decades or more, I have every expectation that technology will solve many of the environmental problems. But what short-term steps can we take to capture these costs and provide the necessary incentive to spur the changes? Possibilities include but are not restricted to:

  1. qualitative disclosure of waste materials and other hazardous wastes produced in manufacturing pries as a minimum disclosure;

  2. a contingency rule type of disclosure where aggregate minimum estimates are made across the spectrum of products produced by a firm;

  3. development of definitive costing standards to estimate and capture specific costs of potential environmental losses.

In the last six months or so, the major international accounting conferences have focussed on a single broad issue: the inadequacy of current cost accounting standards for product costing in the modern manufacturing environment. The impetus for this reexamination is the rapid modernization and automatization of manufacturing processes under the extreme pressure of foreign competition. The buzzwords of the new technologies are familiar, just-in-time inventory control, robotics, etc. A central feature of the new technologies is that labor is becoming an increasingly smaller factor in production, in many cases amounting to less than 20% of total product costs. Our antiquated cost accounting systems are still using primarily labor-based cost standards, allocating overhead and other fixed charges on the basis of labor hours or labor costs, etc. At the European Accounting Association meetings a few weeks ago in Stuttgart, Germany, the central theme of the conference was to modernize the costing systems to better reflect the new realities of the shop floor.

A related but more subtle result of the new technologies is that the newer systems will be less flexible and thus less susceptible to modifications once the system has been installed. The important point for us is that fewer opportunities will be available once plant construction is completed and production has begun to reduce the environmental wastes produced. Thus, we may increasingly find that our last best hope of modification occurs at the plant feasibility and planning stage. This topic I will defer to the engineers and technology experts among us.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

The final point I wish to raise in this section is that time is of the essence in seeking to bring environmental costs under the firm's costing umbrella. The courts have spoken, technology is rapidly changing, and traditional cost accounting is now loose from its moorings, is drifting in a state of flux and is most susceptible to conversion to a full costing which includes the environment.

Proposal II: Capital Markets and The Valuation Of Firms
-Levelling The Playing Field

What will have become abundantly dear to any corporate manager by this point is that restructuring of cost accounting standards alone is inadequate. That is to say, developing new techniques for managers to use internally to the firm will not achieve the desired goal of reducing environmental waste. The reason is that a manager has no incentive to impound these costs for external financial disclosure, reduce the firm's income, and unilaterally suffer the capital market's displeasure at his poor operating performance, relative to that of his competition. To move from the internal managerial costing tool to an external disclosure requires that the playing field be levelled. That is, that the rules be applied uniformly to all publicly-traded firms and, by regulatory extension, to all private firms as well. Football is not played on a mountainside.

First, a bit of background. The capital markets, both equity and debt, have enormous power. This power derives from their function, the setting of the cost of capital and the terms of capital acquisition. Capital, the funds necessary for fuelling ongoing operations as well as future growth, is provided to firms at a cost. This cost is termed the "return" to the capital provider. In general, the cost is a function of the market's expectations about the future profitability of the firm and the riskiness of the resulting future returns to the capital providers.

Capital providers are, in general, risk averse. Thus, if two firms are compared and one appears to represent greater risk than the other, the suppliers of capital will demand a higher return for bearing the risk. This translates to a lower price for the equity shares trading in the market, and a higher interest rate for debt capital.

Now, if the costs of environmental waste are impounded in the earnings of a given firm, reducing the earnings, the market's expectations of future returns will be reduced, at least for the near horizon, and the price of the firm's shares will be adjusted downward. Unless the farm chooses to cut its dividend, an event which would likely be regarded negatively, its effective cost of capital will rise.

Let us consider a second case. If a firm discloses, or it becomes otherwise known in the markets, that the firm has a potential loss exposure resulting from environmental waste, the market is aware that insurance may not cover the loss, and that the firm will ultimately stand liable for the loss, the market will conclude that the risk of the firm has risen. As shareholders are risk averse, they will value this riskier firm at a lower amount, and again, the cost of capital for the firm rises.

Finally, let us assume that very limited information is available about the potential losses a firm may suffer. As anyone who was alive on October 19, 1987 knows, the market is a skittish animal. Great uncertainty is the worst possible case for the market. Firms for which the future is thought to be very uncertain are considered speculative in nature and the market is ruthless in its assessment. Such firms may effectively be barred from the capital markets by prohibitive capital costs.

If a firm unilaterally decides to disclose the environmental risks in its product portfolio, the market will likely look unfavorably on the firm. An argument can be made that if one firm in the industry has chosen to "come clean," the firms which have not will be subject to greater uncertainty and will experience even greater approbrium. Such a result may indeed occur, but the cost for the first firm will be high in any event.

The case of commercial banks makes this abundantly dear. Over the last twenty years, the banks have invested in portfolios of increasingly risky assets including large mounts of less developed-country debt (LDC), off-the-books guarantees for substandard domestic municipal bonds and other debt, commercial mortgages in energy-producing states, and more recently, leveraged-buy-out debt (LBO). While the market has been aware that this has been occurring, the financial disclosure of the extent of these holdings and the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

losses incurred in the portfolios has declined, in some cases precipitously. The market's judgement has been devastating. The average bank's cost of capital is approximately twice that of other Standard & Poors firms, and for some large money-center banks the price/earnings ratio is approximately three. Implied costs of capital range upwards of 20-30%. The distressing part is that the markets have not chosen to distinguish cleanly between the excellent banks and the worst offenders, a son of "guilt-by-association."

This is directly analogous to the Savings and Loan industry which was cited earlier. In an accounting disclosure vacuum, all suffer.

Several points should be made.

First, if disclosure is to be made, it must be made uniformly by all firms under carefully considered regulatory mandate. This will assure that no firms are subjected unilaterally to the market's wrath.

Second, the disclosure should be as clear and unambiguous as it can be made in order to dispel unnecessary uncertainty in the minds of shareholders.

Finally, we may well have passed the point where such disclosure is an alternative option. The financial analysts' rumblings about the recent court cases are but one example of the concerns extant. If the market suspects that firms have undisclosed risks, and that the risks are possibly quite high, the market will assume a worst case situation which is undesirable for all firms.

Objections can be raised to the proposed financial disclosure. This will not be the first time, but I believe the arguments will diminish in the face of the alternatives. First, protests will be made that some firms will be badly and unfairly hurt. As with the steel/textile example, some firms will indeed suffer. The good news is that those firms which have begun early to get their environmental houses in order will be in a first rate position relative to the competition by virtue of their careful and foresighted stewardship.

Second, some industries, regardless of their efforts to avoid and prevent waste production, are inherently "dirtier" than others. A chemical company is not a David's Cookies whose major hazardous waste is a bad pecan or two! True. Again, however, the market will eventually make its judgement and we would prefer it to be a carefully considered and reasoned decision based on clear and unambiguous information.

Additionally, measurement is a nontrivial problem. It always is in accounting. We feel comfortable with what has become familiar and the usual operating terrain. The fact is, however, that much of what we measure and report is subject to vast uncertainty and measurement error. Depredation of fixed assets is familiar, is usually a large number, is highly discretionary, and carries enormous uncertainty in rapidly changing operating conditions.

Another example, an especially complex one, may serve to illustrate. For years, firms have provided or promised pension benefits to employees. The prospective costs and liabilities for these benefits were enormous. Numerous abuses resulted in unfunded pensions and the finding that only a tiny proportion of employees ever received the promised pensions. The final straw was the pressure on the Social Security system brought about by the private sector pension system failure.

A network of Congressional laws, the Employees Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA)3 of the early 1970's, tax incentives for those firms which met the strict regulations for qualified pensions, and a series of financial disclosure rules (the most recent is the FASB's Financial Accounting Standard #87 4 ) has effectively dosed the major gaps in pension accounting and funding.

I consider this case particularly appropriate because the attributes of this instance map almost completely to the difficulties we see in environmental accosting and disclosure.

First, and most prominently, are the uncertainties about the eventual costs. How are we to decide how much a young worker who joined the firm a year ago will eventually receive in a pension? Will he be with the firm? Will he die in the interim? Will he be promoted? What salary increases will occur in the interim? How will changes in pension plans be made over the next several decades. The accounting rules have not provided perfect solutions to these problems, but with the aid of actuaries, demographers, labor economists, etc., gradual iterations of the rules have produced some workable compromises. Second, the costs are indeed enormous and firms had to choose whether to suffer expert labor losses if they decided not to provide such plans, or to endure the market's discipline if they disclosed the large costs. There was really little choice.

Third, many firms were in a decidedly inferior position relative to other firms. Again, those who had begun this stewardship early were the dear winners.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

This solution is not yet fifteen years old and the problem has largely abated. The funds transferred to trusteed accounts have grown rapidly with the bull markets. Most firms now have their cost problems under control. Perhaps most importantly, the issue is no longer at the forefront of concern as it was a decade ago.

The discipline of the markets will work. It will work quickly, and it will work surely. The question is whether we will be prepared to deal with it in an orderly and well-considered fashion.

I propose that research be directed at developing an integrated network of provisions along the lines of the ERISA model. I recommend that initially we take the viewpoint that all waste items are candidates for consideration. Specifically, we should examine:

  1. which disclosure components are essential;

  2. which methods of capturing the costs and reporting the findings will best reflect the underlying economic exposure of the farms;

  3. the feasibility of structuring and implementing tax incentives in conjunction with disclosure compliance;

  4. the possibility of funding of a portion of the exposure.

The incentives here are dear. We may soon find that we can focus all of our efforts on improved technology. Such has happened in the case of the implementation of rules requiring current financial disclosure of foreign currency transaction losses, FAS #525. The losses have rapidly become a relic of the past as firms have learned to structure their contracts to avoid producing the losses in the first place and to hedge what remains.

Public financial disclosure is not only a powerful tool. It can make all others obsolete!

ENDNOTES

1.  

Excellent research, discussion, and review of the problems leading to the savings and loan association crisis are to found in An Analysis of the Causes of Savings and Loan Association Failures, by George J. Benston, Salomon Brothers Center for the Study of Financial Institutions, Graduate School of Business Administration, New York University (1985), and Thrift Financial Performance and Capital Adequay, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference (1986)

2.  

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)—"Accounting for Contingencies," Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) #5, (Stamford, CT:1975).

3.  

The Employment Retirement Income Security Act (1974).

4.  

FASB—"Employers' Accounting for Pensions," FAS #87 (1985).

5.  

FASB—"Foreign Currency Translation," FAS #52 (1981).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

ACCOUNTING AND THE ENVIRONMENT:
Patching the Information Fabric

General Objectives

  1. Close gaps in the traditional accounting information fabric which allow critical environmental information to go uncaptured; and

  2. Support users of this information with a regulatory framework which provides a level playing field for economic decision makers.

Basic Assumptions

  1. Potential fiduciaries of the environment can't act if they don't have adequate information; and

  2. They won't act voluntarily if they will bring harm to themselves by doing so.

III. Research Proposals

Proposal I—Seek methods to revise our traditional production accounting methods which capture and apply to products those costs which occur in production, but which cease when the finished product leaves the shop floor, disassociating spillovers and contingent costs from the products which produced them.

Possibilities include but are not restricted to:

  1. qualitative disclosure of waste materials and other hazardous wastes produced in manufacturing processes as a minimum disclosure;

  2. a contingency rule type of disclosure where aggregate minimum estimates are made across the spectrum of products produced by a firm;

  3. development of definitive costing standards to estimate and capture specific costs of potential environmental losses.

Proposal II- Develop prototypes of financial and non-financial environmental information disclosure to capital market participants, i.e., equity investors and creditors,, whose business it is to evaluate the relative profitability of firms and the associated risk in the setting of costs of capital supplied to firms.

Possible steps include determining:

  1. which disclosure components are essential;

  2. which methods of capturing the costs and reposing the findings will best reflect the underlying economic exposure of the firms;

  3. the feasibility of structuring and implementing tax incentives in conjunction with disclosure compliance;

  4. the possibility of funding of a portion of the exposure.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

SOURCE REDUCTION: WHAT IS IT AND HOW CAN WE ACCOMPLISH IT?

Katy Wolf

INTRODUCTION

The hazardous waste community has spent much time in the last several years debating the definition of source reduction and its role in the waste management hierarchy. New phrases have been coined to better represent our enlightened understanding. Indeed, source reduction is no longer the accepted phrase; rather, we now speak of pollution prevention to symbolize the insight that source reduction applies not only to waste, but is multimedia in nature. There appears to be a consensus now that pollution prevention is the correct term but there is still not a consensus on what this term embodies. Should source reduction—or, pollution prevention as it is now called—be defined to include on-site treatment? Should it be defined to include on-or off-site recycling? There is not yet agreement on this question and debate on it will continue.

A related issue that also remains unresolved is how to measure progress in source reduction. A variety of schemes have been proposed but none of them appears to be generically applicable. In some instances, there will be agreement that source reduction has been achieved and that it can be measured. In general, however, we may have to accept that there is no universal approach and agree to subjectively judge the level of source reduction on a case-by-case basis.

Many of us are anxious to go on the political record in support of source reduction. Virtually no one is against the idea of source reduction, so there is no risk in calling for it to be practiced. One bill that would require industry to report on source reduction activity has been proposed. It has widespread support from many, including several industrial firms. A second bill that would require source reduction to be implemented has also been proposed. It applies a uniform standard across many industries and would give firms a decade to accomplish the mandated source reduction.

This paper focuses on four issues facing the source reduction community :today. First, it describes the continuing debate on what constitutes source reduction. Second, drawing on a case study of four plants producing or using a substance classified as hazardous, it discusses the difficulties in measuring source reduction. Third, again using the case study for exposition, it describes and analyzes the impact of two proposed bills that would regulate source reduction. Fourth, it suggests a nonregulatory approach to improved management of hazardous substances.

The findings of the analysis are that there is no generic method for measuring source reduction. The complexities of industrial processes and the disparate effects of different substances on human health or the environment suggest that measurement can be done only on a case-by-case basis. Even then, there may not be agreement on whether or how much source reduction has been accomplished. The second conclusion is that a regulation requiring information collection or a regulation requiring source reduction would not make sense. We do not know enough about how to measure source reduction to analyze the data or to judge whether source reduction across or among industries has been accomplished. Furthermore, such regulations would impose a disproportionate burden on small and medium sized firms and some of them could go out of business because they would not be able to comply. A more productive way to move toward improved hazardous substances management would be to establish technical assistance groups to help small and medium sized firms in a plant-by-plant effort. Such groups would need good knowledge of industrial processes and an understanding of the tradeoffs involved in adopting alternative chemicals, products and processes.

Better protection of human health and the environment should be the aim of us all Source reduction, a laudable goal, may help to achieve it. Its consequences, however, are more complex than the source reduction community as a whole is willing to acknowledge today. Many in this community believe that knowing a few concepts about the waste management hierarchy qualifies them to assist industry in

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

source reduction. In fact, it is important to take into account the tradeoffs in moving from one hazardous substances management re, me to another. At best, if we regulate source reduction before we know what it is or how to measure it, we will add to the bureaucracy of existing inefficient and conflicting regulations. At worst, if we do not take into account the tradeoffs we may actually injure people or damage the environment.

THE DEFINITION OF SOURCE REDUCTION

The idea of the waste management hierarchy grew out of the unavoidable conclusion that unrestrained land disposal had been a mistake. This hierarchy includes the various elements of waste management and is commonly defined as follows: source reduction recycling physical, chemical or biological treatment thermal treatment land disposal. This hierarchy is an ordering of hazardous substances management options according to their presumed environmental consequences with those at the top posing less of a threat than those at the bottom. The concept of the hierarchy is accepted by most people today. Source reduction—the top element—is preferred over all the elements lying lower in the hierarchy because it is assumed to be environmentally safer. Source reduction includes activities that reduce the use of hazardous substances at the source before wastes are generated. In a particular plant, such measures should be identified and implemented to the maximum extent possible. Once source reduction opportunities have been exhausted, the waste manager moves to the next element, recycling. In-process recycling is preferred over on-site recycling which is in turn preferred over off-site recycling. Once all recycling opportunities have been exercised, the manager may move to various types of treatment. Again; on-site treatment is preferred over off-rite treatment. Once treatment has been practiced to the extent possible, the manager may incinerate the waste. Only after all these options have been adopted should land disposal of the waste be considered.

There are a number of players in the source reduction game and the term has a range of definitions. On the one extreme, The Congressional office of Technology Assessment defines a term called waste reduction as "in-plant practices that reduce, avoid or eliminate the generation of waste so as to reduce risks to health and the environment" (OTA, 1986). This definition does not include on-and off-rite recycling as legitimate source reduction activities. In-process recycling, or dosed-loop recycling that is part of an industrial process, is the only form of recycling included in the definition. On the other extreme is a term accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the past and by many in industry called waste minimization. It generally includes source reduction.' on-and off-site recycling and treatment. The EPA recently established a new Office of Pollution Prevention which was to take a primary role in source reduction. At first, the office seemed inclined to adopt the OTA definition. The final official definition, however, was broader; it included on-and off-rite recycling but excluded treatment of any kind (Fed Reg, 1989). Various other players define source reduction according to their viewpoint.

In an earlier paper, I described the controversy that surrounds the definition of source reduction and its role in the hierarchy (Wolf, 1988). There appears to be a consensus that source reduction should occupy the preeminent position at the top of the hierarchy. There is considerable disagreement, however, on just exactly what adopting it "to the maximum extent possible" really means. As I discuss in the earlier paper, one extreme view is that it means that source reduction should be adopted until it is no longer technically feasible. Another extreme view is that source reduction should be adopted until it is no longer cost-effective compared to end-of-pipe treatment technologies already in place.

There is and will be a continuing debate on the hierarchy and on what constitutes source reduction, waste reduction, waste minimization or pollution prevention. There may never be agreement on the best definition and it probably does not matter. As I show below, whatever term is used, there is presently no good method for measuring it or indeed, for deciding what it is. Throughout, I use the term source reduction to encompass actions that lead to better protection of human health and the environment.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

THE CASE STUDY

To explore the questions that arise in measuring source reduction, let us consider four plants described in Table 1 that produce or use methylene chloride (METH), a chlorinated solvent. In certain laboratory tests, this chemical has caused tumors in animals. Although the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies METH as a possible carcinogen, EPA defines it as a probable human carcinogen. EPA and California are considering regulating it as a toxic air contaminant, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has a labelling requirement when it is used in certain products, it is regulated under Proposition 65 in California, and spent METH is considered a hazardous waste under RCRA.

In the first plant, a chemical production plant, METH is produced. In the second plant, METH is used in a metal cleaning application. In the third plant, METH is used as an ingredient in an aerosol paint.-In the fourth plant, METH is used as an auxiliary blowing agent in the production of flexible slabstock foam. Table 1 provides a rough materials balance for the four plants. It lists the quantity of METH brought onto the site, released to the various media, and sent off-site in the product.

These plants have very different operations as indicated by the values of Table 1. In-Plant #1, the METH producer brings in raw materials and produces METH. In this process, only small releases occur. One thousand pounds of METH is released to the air because of fugitive emissions from valves, pipes and storage tanks. An even smaller amount of METH—500 pounds—remains in the still bottoms from the final distillation at the back end of the reactor. An additional 250 pounds is released to the water. The producer runs a reasonably efficient operation; out of 25,000 pounds of production, the losses are only 7 percent.

The second plant, plant #2, makes lighting fixtures from various metals. These metals arrive at the plant with an oil on them to prevent corrosion in transit and they are degreased prior to machining. After machining, the parts are cleaned with METH again to remove metal fragments, greases and oils. Degreasing is a dispersive process. METH is volatile and most of it—18,875 pounds annually—is emitted to the atmosphere. Occasionally the degreaser must be cleaned out and the sludge, containing 6,250 pounds per year of METH, is sent off-site to a recycler. None of the original 25,000 pounds of METH brought on-site goes out on the product; all of it is lost in the degreasing, process.

Plant #3 purchased 25,000 pounds of METH for use in an aerosol paint formulation. A small amount of METH—500 pounds—is released to the air during the aerosol can filling operation. An even smaller amount of METH, 250 pounds, is lost to the water when the cans are tested for integrity after filling. The vast majority of the METH, 97 percent of that brought on-site, goes out-in the paint product.

Plant #4, the roamer, uses METH as an auxiliary blowing agent in the production of flexible slabstock foam used in furniture, bedding and carpet underlay applications. The function of the METH, in this case, is to expand the foam cells so that the foam has buoyancy. Virtually all of the METH is emitted to the atmosphere within a few days of the foam production process; none of it goes out-in the product.

REPORTING RELEASES

Under Title III, Section 313 of SARA, businesses falling in certain manufacturing SIC codes must report to EPA if they produce 25,000 pounds annually after 1988, or use 10,000 pounds annually of a listed substance (Fed Reg, 1988). The list of more than 300 substances includes METH and the four plants in Table 1 are subject to reporting. Under the statute, however, all of the data in Table 1 would not be reported. In fact, only the middle three pieces of data-the air, water and hazardous waste releases-are covered by Section 313.

Let us compare in more detail the plants of Table 1 and see where it leads. Plant #1, the producer, is very efficient. In chemical production, the yield is maximized by minimizing losses and, indeed, in this plant, releases are small. Once the METH has been produced in plant #1, it is sold into various markets like plants #2 through #4. The light fixture manufacturer has large losses of ME. In fact, all of the METH that is purchased from the producer is ultimately lost to the atmosphere. In this particular application, the METH is used dispersively. The same holds true for the foam producer in plant #4. This

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

Table 1

MATERIALS BALANCE FOR METH PLANTS

QUANTITY OF METH (POUNDS/YEAR)

PRODUCER PLANT #1

LIGHT FIXTURE MANUFACTURER PLANT #2

PAINT FORMULATOR PAN #3

FOAM PRODUCER PLANT #4

Brought on-site

0

25,000

25,000

25,000

Released to air

1,000

18,750

500

25,000

Sent off-site as hazardous waste

500

6,250

0

0

Released to water

250

0

250

0

Sent off-site as product

25,000

0

24,250

0

SOURCE: Author's estimates.

NOTE: The values are only representative of actual values and are used for exposition purposes. In fact, METH production plants likely have much lower losses than indicated in the figures for Plant #1.

plant purchases the METH from the METH producer and all of it is lost to the air. Plant #3 has much lower losses. As was true for the producer, the paint formulator wants to maximize the METH that goes out in the product. The losses to the atmosphere are accordingly minimal.

In examining the figures of Table 1, we could conclude that plants #1 and #3 are efficient in their use of hazardous substances and plants #2 and #4 are not. Of course, this conclusion is silly because the different operations have different characteristic. Indeed, all of the METE the producer in plant #1 makes is ultimately released to the atmosphere, although not from his plant. The producer sells the METH to the other three plants and it is released according to the characteristics of release of plants #2 through #4. Plants #2 and #4 release it directly during their manufacturing operations. Plant #3 puts it in a product that consumers and commercial painters buy. When they in turn use the product at thousands of locations across the country, the METH is emitted to the atmosphere or thrown into landfills. The bottomline is that virtually all of the ME that is produced and used is eventually released to the atmosphere whether it be in plants during metal cleaning or foam production or by consumers in their use of a product.

MEASURING SOURCE REDUCTION

Many people in the source reduction community are calling for the reporting of rough materials balance information. They believe it would help track trends in hazardous substances use if-throughput information could be collected in addition to the Title III release data. They claim that collecting two additional pieces of data, the first and last lines of Table 1, the amount of the substance brought on-site and the amount produced or sent off-site in the product, would allow a throughput analysis that could be used to measure progress in source reduction.

Now that we have set the stage with the four plants, let us consider how we might measure progress in source reduction if we could have all the data in Table I reported. There appears to be a consensus that

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

source reduction applies to all media—air, land and water. As mentioned earlier, there is no dear consensus on what source reduction actually encompasses—whether it is restricted to in-process recycling or whether on-or off-site recycling and on-site treatment should be included.

Ignoring this issue for the moment, we need to decide how to measure progress in source reduction if we can agree on what it is and this is not a simple undertaking. There are changes in economic activity from year to year and many people have suggested that to normalize out the effects of growth or a decline in economic activity, we must measure source reduction from year to year on a per unit of product output basis. In plant #1, for instance, if air, waste and water releases declined from one year to the next and the production level of METH remained the same or increased, then we could agree that source reduction had been accomplished. In effect, the total releases per pound of METH produced declined, signalling progress in source reduction.

It is much more difficult in the case of the other plants in Table I to normalize according to the weight of product produced. The light fixture manufacturer may change his product mix from year to year depending on orders. Should the plant report the number of fixtures, the pounds of each type of metal cleaned or the surface area of metal cleaned? The paint formulator faces the same problem. Should he report on the number of units filled even if some types of paint require more METH in the formulation than others? The foam producer could report METH use per pound of foam output. Even here, this is a problem, however, since softer foam requires more auxiliary blowing agent. The mix of foam may also vary from year to year.

A second way of normsilzing that has been suggested is to use sales. Perhaps we could measure METH use per sales value of the product. Again, however, product prices vary from year to year and the mix of products will often determine the sales value realized.

Another approach that has been discussed is to simply measure source reduction as a reduction in use or releases from year to year. This technique has problems too, and they arise because there is no clear definition of source reduction. The light fixture manufacturer may put in a carbon absorption unit that captures 50 percent of the METH that was previously emitted to the air. The plant reduces its air releases by 3,125 pounds and reduces purchases by the same amount by reusing the captured METH. However, carbon adsorption does not fit most definitions of source reduction which exclude on-site treatment. Under the strict definition, in this case, the plant has not accomplished source reduction, even though air releases have been cut in half and use of the substance has declined.

The plant currently sends its spent solvent to an off-site recycler, but purchases virgin solvent for use in the cleaning operation. What happens if that plant decides to purchase recycled solvent and use it in place of virgin solvent? All of the values in Table 1 remain the same so that this plant has not accomplished any source reduction. Virgin solvent purchases have declined in the economy, however, so source reduction has in fact been accomplished on a nationwide basis, reducing the requirement for virgin production. Under some definitions there has been no net source reduction because off-site recycling is not considered a permissible source reduction option.

What if the light fixture manufacturer converts to a new heavy hydrocarbon solvent that is not on the Section 313 list. All definitions of source reduction include substitution as a viable option. This heavy hydrocarbon is combustible and poses a danger to workers. It is not exempt as a contributor to photochemical smog, and it is relatively unscrutinized in terms of chronic health effects. In fact, it may ultimately prove to be a carcinogen even though it is not currently on the Section 313 list. Through substitution of this new solvent, has source reduction really been accomplished and if so, how much?

A similar measurement problem arises if the light fixture manufacturer converts to an aqueous cleaning system. The water, after it has been used for cleaning, contains 13 greases, oils and metals from the machining process. If the local sanitation district does not require treatment before release to the sewer, then metals are being placed in the sewer where they would not make their way if METH were still being used. Has source reduction been accomplished and if so, how much? If the sanitation district does require the water to be treated, the light fixture manufacturer might have to install an ion exchange process to treat the metals. Ion exchange is an on-site treatment method that generates a metal sludge requiring disposal. We thus have a situation where a substitution—allowed under the strict definition of source reduction—forces

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

the adoption of on-site treatment, a procedure discouraged by some source reduction advocates. Has source reduction been accomplished and, if so, how much?

A similar problem with chemical substitutes might arise in the case of plant #4. In July,, an EPA regulation will cap the production of the fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS) at 1986 levels. The CFCs-will be phased out altogether over the next decade. Roughly half of the auxiliary blowing agent currently used in flexible slabstock foam production is CFC-11; the other half is METH. In July, after the production of CFC-11 is restricted, its price will rise and some foamers will switch from CFC-11 to METH. Other alternatives are being investigated but they probably will not be available on a wide scale for several years.

Because of the regulation on CFC-11, the foamers are unable to practice source reduction of METH and they will likely increase its use in the next few years. We have a situation where one office of EPA, concerned about damage to the ozone layer in the stratosphere is regulating a chemical—CFC-11-that poses a threat to the ozone layer. This office has imposed a regulation that will increase use of another chemical under scrutiny for various reasons by other offices of EPA.

The most comprehensive method for measuring source reduction has been proposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (Smith, 1988). The concept of throughput is defined to include the sum of total releases, the mount leaving a plant in or on a product, the change in inventory, the amount transformed on-site, the amount recycled on-site or sent off-site for recycling, and the amount entering all downstream processes. Another term—efficiency—is defined by NRDC as ''the ratio of the total amount of each hazardous chemical released annually from the processes at a facility (and from subsequent recycling operations) to the throughput in the same year of that chemical at the facility.'' Releases are the sum of losses from the manufacturing process prior to treatment, from losses from on-site recycling and losses leaving the facility as impurities in a product. Note that the NRDC definition of efficiency is at odds with the common definition. In the NRDC model, a lower "efficiency" (ratio of releases to throughput) is more desirable than a higher "efficiency".

The NRDC analysis includes an example similar to the light manufacturer of Plant #2 in Table 1. In this case, a facility uses another chlorinated solvent—1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA)—for degreasing metal parts. Losses include 14,000 pounds of atmospheric emissions and 7,000 pounds of waste spent solvent that is sent off-site to a recycler. There is no solvent sent off-site in the product, none in inventory, and none converted on-site to another substance and none entering downstream processes. Thus, the total throughput is 21,000 pounds. Since the facility receives credit for the recycling, the only release is the atmospheric emission. The "efficiency," therefore, is 67 percent, the ratio of the atmospheric loss to the throughput.

In this definitional regime, reducing the "efficiency" (the release) is equivalent to adopting source reduction measures. Again, we can do this in several ways. A carbon adsorption device could capture emitted TCA before it is released to the atmosphere. Under the NRDC definition, carbon adsorption would be defined as a treatment option bemuse the TCA is released from the process (the degreaser). Use of this treatment option does not reduce releases from the process. The facility could substitute a heavy hydrocarbon solvent with unknown health and environmental effects or it might change the process to aqueous cleaning. In these cases, the plant has no releases of a listed chemical and has therefore achieved zero "effidency"—a perfect score. The problem with these alternatives as discussed earlier, however, is that they might actually increase damage to health and the environment.

Another problem with this approach is that it may not accomplish what is intends. The NRDC model gives a credit for spent solvent sent to an off-site recycler and does not consider it to be released The recycler, however, may not recycle the material at all It may end up in an incinerator, it may be illegally disposed of in a landfill, it may be allowed to evaporate, or it may be poured into a water system. None of these destinations is allowed under the NRDC definition of "efficiency".

On balance, no very good way to measure source reduction has yet been proposed and the NRDC model has significant problems. There remain in all schemes, the problem of the definition of source reduction or an equivalent term. The other problem that arises in all cases is the increase in-use or release of alternative chemicals or outputs from process modifications. These may themselves prove to be dangerous but simply in a different way.

This suggests that there is no generic way to measure or accomplish source reduction across or within industries. In fact, we must do the accounting on a case-by-case basis and evaluating whether or not

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

progress in source reduction has been accomplished involves making a value judgement. Each industrial process and, indeed, each plant involved in a particular industrial process, is unique. Source reduction options that are appropriate for one operation may actually endanger workers or increase hazardous materials generation in another plant. Deciding on the best way to protect human health and the environment will require a great deal of study. Understanding industrial processes, their release characteristics and the implications of the feasible source reduction options is essential.

REGULATION OF SOURCE REDUCTION

There is a growing movement that believes industry has been slow to embrace source reduction. This group believes that only through regulation will there be widespread awareness and adoption of source reduction measures. Two type, of regulation are being proposed. The first would require all firms falling under the rubric of Section 313 of SARA to report on the source reduction and recycling activity for the chemicals on the 313 list (H.R. 1457, 1989). The second, based on the NRDC model, would require firms to accomplish 95 percent source reduction over the next decade (RCRA Reauthorization Bill, 1988). It would also apply to the chemicals on the 313 list and the firms in the manufacturing sectors specified in the Title III legislation.

There are three types of firms affected by Section 313 of SARA. The first type is the chemical producers which are very familiar with the chemicals that are the target of source reduction because these chemicals are the product they manufacture. Producers generally have made good progress in source reduction; indeed, it is their business to do so. They must continually attempt to further maximize their yield and the way to do that is to minimize releases.

The second type of firm is also large—an electronics manufacturer or an aerospace firm, for instance—but is not familiar with the target chemicals. These firms do not manufacture chemicals but rather use them in the course of making another product. In the last few years, these manufacturers have established large staffs and correspondingly large budgets to focus on Waste minimization because they believe they can reduce costs and minimize liability in doing so. They have thousands of different chemical formulations moving into their plants each year and they are trying to track these and understand their uses.' The large manufacturing firms are not as far ahead as the chemical producers but some of them have made impressive progress and others-will do so in the next few years.

The third type of firm is small or medium sized and, like the large firms, uses chemicals only to make a product. Some of these firms are examining source reduction but many of them have neither the resources nor the expertise to adopt source reduction and this is unlikely to change significantly in the future. In fact, although many of these companies fall under the rubric of Section 313, most of them are probably unaware that it applies to them and it is likely that they have not submitted data to EPA on their releases.

The proponents of the so-called information regulation argue that we need data on what is actually happening out there today and we need to continue to collect data to measure source reduction trends. In fact, there are really only two reasons to collect such data. First, we don't know ourselves what source reduction is or how to measure it and we are hoping that an immense data collection effort will somehow tell us. Rather than doing the work of understand the industrial processes ourselves, we want industry—the only people who really do understand the processes—to tell us. In effect, this is similar to other data collection efforts where we don't know what to ask initially so we cannot analyze the data that are received. Second, we want the data to establish a baseline for a more prescriptive mandatory source reduction regulation.

The large firms described above would probably be able to cope well with a data submission. They already have staffs who fill out the numerous forms required under various regulations. In contrast, a data requirement would impose a significant burden on small and medium sized firms. Some of these firms would likely have to hire consultants to analyze their records or release streams for them because they lack the expertise or the time to do it themselves. Some would not have the resources to hire a consultant and they would go out of business. Still others would probably simply not respond at all.

Title HI of SARA actually applies to thousands of small quantity generators in the nation. The

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

statute requires reporting from users of 10,000 pounds annually of a listed chemical. Looking again at Table 1, a metal fabricator like plant #2 using 10,000 pounds of METH would probably emit three-fourths of it, or 7,500 pounds to the air. The balance, or 2,500 pounds would be hazardous waste. We define small quantity generators (SQGs) and very small quantity generators (VSQGs) as firms that generate 2,200 pounds and 220 pounds per month respectively. This translates into 26,400 pounds per year for an SQG and 2,640 pounds per year for a VSQG. If the release characteristics are similar to those of Plant #2, a metal fabricator using 10,000 pounds per year would fall below the cutoff of a VSQG and there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of them in the nation. Those who want source reduction reporting would impose a financial burden on these small businesses that could prove intolerable in many eases.

The other proposed regulation would actually require firms to accomplish source reduction. How would we implement such a regulation? Who would decide whether source reduction had been achieved and who would decide whether it amounted to 95 percent as required? In fact, the bill avoids this question altogether by chafing the administrator to specify how throughput should be calculated to establish a baseline for the required 95 percent source reduction.

To illustrate that such a regulation would be an undertaking beyond current public sector capabilities, let us once more refer to Table 1. The chemical producer of Plant #1 already has a fairly low release. The plant manager has worked hard to minimize the losses. The firm already recycles still bottoms back into the reactor and the waste Cannot be reduced further with current technology. All the valves and pipe fittings have been checked and those that were leaking have been replaced and a regular maintenance program has been initiated to inspect for leakage. The "efficiency" according to the NRDC model of this product is currently 7 percent. To meet the regulation, the plant will have to reduce the "efficiency" further, to 5 percent. Is it fair to ask the chemical producer who has already instituted source reduction measures to reduce the releases further? It may prove technically impossible to do SO.

It is even more unfair to ask facilities that use chemicals dispersively to achieve a 5 percent "efficiency." A case in point is the light fixture manufacturer who used METH in the course of making a product. The plant's current "efficiency" is 75 percent, significantly higher than the 5 percent mandated by the regulation. The plant presently sends the spent waste solvent to an off-site recycler but does not buy back or use recycled solvent in the process. If the manufacturer instead decides to recycle the solvent on-site-a source reduction option that allows the plant to reuse the spent solvent-then the plant actually pays a penalty. If we assume that 90 percent of the solvent can be recycled in this process, then "efficiency," in this case increases to 77.5 percent. This occurs because atmospheric losses remain the same but the waste loss increases because the plant generates a still bottom from the distillation that must be sent off-site for disposal. The details of this calculation are described in the Appendix.

What happens if we try to do something about the much larger atmospheric loss? The plant likely has an old vapor degreaser. Replacing it with a new unit with a second set of condensing cods and a higher free board might reduce annual atmospheric losses by 30 percent, from 18,750 pounds to 13,125 pounds. If we assume the plant sends its waste to an off-site recycler, then "efficiency" with the new degreaser is 68 percent—still very far from the 5 percent required. Let's assume that instead of buying a new degreaser, the plant puts in a carbon adsorption unit. This unit can reduce atmospheric releases by 80 percent, from 18,750 pounds to 3,750 pounds. This lowers the "efficiency" to 15 percent and to lower it further would probably not be technically feasible.

The plant, even to adopt these measures which are insufficient, would incur significant capital costs. Together the still and the carbon adsorption device would require at least a $10,000 investment if steam were already installed. If not, as is generally the case in California the cost would be much higher (Mooz et al, 1982). Furthermore, under most definitions of source reduction, carbon adsorption, a treatment technology, is not included and it might not be allowed under the proposed regulation.

The only real alternatives the plant has—and the plant is-after all an SQG—is to switch away from the listed chemical or to go out of business. As discussed earlier, the plant might convert to a combustible heavy hydrocarbon solvent that may eventually cause health or environmental problems. Or it might convert to an aqueous cleaning system which carries metals and organics into the sewer. By definition, in either of these cases, the conversion to a non-listed chemical accomplishes 100 percent source reduction or leads to

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

perfect "efficiency.' Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if the conversion will better protect human health and the environment. Indeed, it may cause other, more dangerous problems than exist currently.

THE REAL ISSUE

What is really driving the movement toward regulation of source reduction? one of the reasons for this intense focus is that pollution of air, water and land is truly serious and we must address our widespread use of hazardous substances. Source reduction—which, in principle, has no opponents—is a vehicle that allows us to question the life cycle production and use of these substances to minimize pollution. Another related reason for imposing a regulation requiring source reduction is that such a regulation may be able to reduce, and indeed eliminate, the hazardous substances that we have not been able to eliminate through other regulatory statutes.

We devote significant resources to regulating hazardous substances once they have entered commerce through a variety of statutes. The Occupational Safety and health Act (OSHA) regulates exposure in the workplace; the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) prevent pollutants from entering the water and air respectively; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates hazardous waste; The Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Act (CERCLA) governs the cleanup of contaminated sites; and Proposition 65 in California is intended to prevent substances that cause cancer and birth abnormalities from entering drinking water supplies.

We have in place a set of expensive, frequently ineffective and often inconsistent regulations. They are largely command and control; that is, they prescribe exactly what kind of equipment or procedures to use for specific situations. Because such regulations are generally not cost-effective, they depend on government enforcement to exact compliance. Indeed, compliance with the regulations is likely to be low unless there is a very large inspection staff and the funds for such staffs are rarely available. Furthermore, because of the fragmented statutes, each inspector focuses only on the medium in question. That is, the hazardous waste inspector does not inspect a plant for CAA violations involving atmospheric emissions. Even within a statute, there is conflict; the inspector looking for violations of tropospheric smog regulations will encourage the substitution of stratospheric ozone depleters. A final problem is that some inspectors are not well trained and they may not be knowledgeable.

How has this situation come to pass? The regulatory regime has evolved to its present state because policy makers did not assemble it using a systems approach. The prevailing view, at least implicitly and often explicitly, was that pollution could not be prevented or minimized unless industry was told what to do and how to do it in considerable detail. No one wants carcinogens in the ground water or in their basements. For this reason, there is a huge constituency for regulations like the Clean Air Act and CERLA, which may be termed "back end" regulations. The CWA and RCRA also fall into this category. There is no constituency for hazardous substances once they have been used and no one wants them in the air, land or water.

The emphasis on a regulation requiring source reduction signals the failure to achieve appropriate, efficient and consistent controls on hazardous substances once they have been used. Some proponents believe that, in one stroke, a regulation requiring source reduction will do what all the other regulations together have not been able to do—eliminate or significantly reduce the use of hazardous substances in commerce. The real question that requires societal debate is "do we want to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of hazardous substances in commerce, and if so, how should we best do it?"

There are a number of substances in commerce today that cause cancer in laboratory animals. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticicide Act (FIFRA) have been largely ineffective in preventing these substances from entering the market in the first place or in taking them off the market once they are there. Once a substance enters commerce, it is woven within the fabric of society. Workers produce it; it may be used to produce other chemicals; it is used in products or to make products. There is a vested interest in continued use of this chemical because of the revenue it generates for the producer, the jobs it creates, and the convenience it offers to all of us to maintain a good

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

standard of living. In effect, these sunk costs guarantee a large constituency for continued use of the chemical. Once the substance is "spent," however, it no longer has a constituency and herein lies the paradox. We want to use the substance for the benefits it provides but we don't want to pollute our environment with it. Thus we have been led to the inefficient "back end" regulatory regime that exists today.

At this stage, we must admit the error, come to terms with it, try to understand it and open up to societal debate the questions about how to solve it. Do we want human or animal carcinogens on the market? H so, we must focus on the best way to minimize their impact on human health and the environment. There may be efficient ways to do this or there may not. If not, we should concentrate on removing them from the market from the outset through TSCA and FIFRA which were designed exactly for that purpose.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Any kind of field work leads to the unavoidable conclusion that firms need help in manning the hazardous substances they use. The concept of source reduction remains confusing. Mandating source reduction without understanding what it is and without understanding what its consequences are would be a mistake. There is no assurance that a source reduction regulation would lead to better protection of human health and the environment. Indeed, it might end up forcing firms to adopt other products, processes and chemicals that will ultimately prove dangerous in a different manner. We are at a critical juncture now and we have the opportunity to re-evaluate toxic chemical regulation under the rubric of source reduction. The incentive we supply in the current regulatory regime is compliance. Bemuse most of the regulations are ill conceived and in conflict with one another, compliance may not lead to better management of hazardous substances. We should consider carefully what the best course is, not to exact "compliance" through another command and control regulation but to better ensure environmental and human health protection.

I have personally become convinced that command and control regulations on source reduction now would be a mistake. Our top priority now should be to provide technical assistance to small and medium sized plants on an industry-by-industry, plant-by-plant basis. Although a component of the assistance would obviously be source reduction, the major effort would focus on better hazardous substances management. We should take the next few years to try to understand what source reduction is and the only way of doing this is to learn about the industrial processes in-depth. This will require a significant time investment, an open mind and considerable dedication.

Small and medium sized firms are not the only ones who would benefit from a concerted technical assistance program. As the technical assistance teams increased their knowledge of particular industries, they could also provide a valuable service to large firms who use hazardous substances. Although such firms have technically trained staffs devoted to waste minimization, knowledgeable outsiders can facilitate better hazardous substances management in a variety of ways. They can act as ombudsmen between firms offering alternative chemicals, products and processes and firms looking for alternatives. Because of their knowledge of processes, they can critically evaluate the alternatives and try to understand their consequences. They can use informed judgement to suggest promising alternatives. They can hold meetings on specific processes to identify common problems and common solutions. Finally, they can document the successes and failures of various options for widespread dissemination.

Everyone wants to play a role in spurring society toward source reduction. It is the seminal issue of the decade. We must take care that these efforts do not waste resources and that they do not make things worse than they are. It is the responsibility of the source reduction community to learn what source reduction really is before mandating that it occur. It is the responsibility of the source reduction community to learn about the complexities of chemical use and about the industrial processes that employ them. It is the responsibility of the source reduction community to understand the tradeoffs involved in the adoption of source reduction measures. It is the responsibility of the source reduction community to examine the issue of how to better protect human health and the environment.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

APPENDIX "EFFICIENCY" CALCULATION FOR THE METAL FIXTURE MANUFACTURER

The NRDC model contains two concepts. The first is throughput which is defined as the sum of:

  • total releases,

  • the amount leaving a plant in the product,

  • the inventory change,

  • the amount recycled on-site or sent off-site for recycling,

  • the amount entering-all-downstream processes.

The second concept is "efficiency," which is defined as the ratio of releases to the throughput.

The light fixture manufacturer in Table 1 in the text purchases 25,000 pounds of METH annually. The losses are 18,750 pounds of atmospheric-emissions and 6,250 pounds of spent waste solvent. This firm currently sends the waste solvent off-site to a recycler. The "efficiency" is therefore 75 percent. That is the releases are 18,750 pounds and the throughput is 25,000 pounds.

USE OF OFF-SITE RECYCLED SOLVENT

The plant sends its contaminated solvent off-site to a recycler but buys virgin solvent for use in the process. If the plant decides to instead purchase recycled solvent, the "efficiency" would remain the same as above—75 percent. The firm does not receive a credit for converting from the use of virgin solvent to the use of recycled solvent. Indeed, according to the NRDC model, the plant does not even have to use recycled solvent to get a benefit for sending solvent to a reclaimer. As mentioned in the text, there is no way of knowing the ultimate destination of the solvent. This is a failing in the model.

ON-SITE RECYCLING

What if the plant decides to purchase a still for recycling on-site? If we assume the still to be 90 percent efficient, then out of the 6,250 pounds of spent solvent, 5,625 pounds goes back into the-process and 625 pounds is sent off-site for disposal. In this case, releases are the sum of the atmospheric loss (18,750 pounds) and the waste loss (625 pounds) or 19,375 pounds. The throughput is the sum of the releases (19,375 pounds) and the amount recycled on-site (5,625 pounds) or 25,000 pounds. "Efficiency," in this case, is 77.5 percent.

This value is higher than the "efficiency' of off-site recycling, an anomaly of the model. Indeed, a regulation patterned on this model would provide a disincentive to adopt on-site over off-site recycling, an outcome that is probably not desirable.

PURCHASE NEW DEGREASER

Purchasing a new degreaser would lower the atmospheric losses by 30 percent, from 18,750 pounds to 13,125 pounds. If we assume the plant sends spent solvent to an off-site recycler, the throughput would be the sum of the atmospheric losses (13,125 pounds) and the spent solvent sent off-site (6,250 pounds) or

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×

19,375 pounds. "Efficiency" is the ratio of the releases (13,125 pounds) to the throughput (19,375 pounds), or 68 percent.

PURCHASE CARBON ADSORPTION DEVICE

If the firm purchases a carbon absorption unit instead of a new degreaser, the atmospheric emissions can be reduced by 80 percent, from 18,750 pounds to 3,750 pounds. In this case, releases are the remaining atmospheric emissions (3,750 pounds). Assuming the adsorbed METE is desorbed and reused,. then throughput is the sum of the releases (3,750 pounds), the amount sent off-site for recycling (7,000 pounds) and the amount reused on-site (15,000 pounds) or 25,000 pounds. "Efficiency" is therefore 15 percent.

Note here that carbon adsorption is extremely expensive and most plants would be unable to purchase it. It also takes significant expertise to operate. Furthermore, it is not dear that this method-which, in fact, is a treatment technology-would be allowed under the regulation.

SUMMARY OF SOURCE REDUCTION OPTIONS

It is doubtful that plants could reduce their atmospheric losses further than with the carbon adsorption device. The more cost-effective option would be to convert to another solvent not on the Section 313 list or to an aqueous cleaning system. As discussed in the text, this conversion may pose problems but simply in a different way from METH.

This example raises another point as well After the carbon adsorption device has been purchased, virgin purchases for the firm amount to 10,000 pounds annually. This includes the waste loss (6,250 pounds) and the atmospheric loss (3,750 pounds). Although the plant actually uses 25,000 pounds of solvent, the 15,000 pounds of solvent captured by the carbon adsorption device is reused in the cleaning process and substitutes for virgin solvent. Section 313 of SARA requires chemical users of 10,000 pounds annually to report. If the light fixture manufacturer lowered "use" one pound further, the plant would escape the reporting regime altogether and would no longer have to report. Because the regulation requiring "efficiency" of 5 percent in ten years is patterned on Section 313, this plant would escape the requirement after achieving an "efficiency" of 15 percent-not 5 percent. This is an anomaly of the regulation.

REFERENCES

Federal Register, "Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-to-Know; Final Rule," 40 CFR Part 372, February 16, 1988, p. 4500.


H.R. 1457, March 15, 1989.


RCRA Reauthorization Bill, September 9, 1988.


Smith, Ned Clarence, "The Use of Mass Balance Data in the Natural Resources Defense Council's Proposed Model Waste Reduction Program," March 1988.


Wolf, Katy, "Source Reduction and the Waste Minimization Hierarchy," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol 38, #5, p. 681, May, 1988.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Waste Reduction: Research Needs in Applied Social Sciences." National Research Council. 1991. Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2000.
×
Page 96
Next: Appendix B: Measuring Change in Ecosystems: Research and Monitoring Strategies »
Opportunities in Applied Environmental Research and Development Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Research is the foundation of environmental protection. This volume reviews four areas of opportunity in applied environmental research and development: waste reduction, ecosystem and landscape change, anticipatory research, and long-term chemical toxicity. It presents the consensus of workshops held to explore these four areas as well as an introductory chapter that summarizes the committee's view of environmental research and development.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!