Pollution Prevention Pays

208 Pages·1979·4.051 MB·English

by  Michael G. Royston (Auth.)

POLLUTION
PREVENTION
PAYS
by Michael G Royston
Faculty Member Environmental Management,
Center for Education in International
Management Geneva
PERGAMON PRESS
Oxford • New York · Toronto • Sydney • Paris · Frankfurt
U.K. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford
OX3 0BW, England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
CANADA Pergamon of Canada Ltd., Suite 104, 150 Consumers
Road, Willowdale, Ontario M29 1P9, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. P.O. Box 544, Potts
Point, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles, 75240
Paris, Cedex 05, France
FEDERAL REPUBLIC Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg-Taunus,
OF GERMANY Pferdstrasse 1, Federal Republic of Germany
Copyright © 1979 M. G. Royston
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means:
electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
permission in writing from the publishers
First edition 1979
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Royston M G
Pollution prevention pays.
1. Pollution
I. Title
363 TD174 78-41324
ISBN 0-08-023597-2 Hardcover
ISBN 0-08-023572-7 Flexicover
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
William Clowes (Beccles) Limited
Beccles and London
This book is dedicated to Dr Mostafa K. Tolba,
Executive Director, United Nations Environment
Programme, for his continued support and
encouragement and for his insistence on the need to
set all environmental programmes within a logical
economic framework.
ν
Acknowledgements
THE author acknowledges with gratitude the help of the United Nations
Environment Programme in funding the initial research into the
"ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF INVESTMENT IN POLLUTION
CONTROL", which provided the germ for the idea of this book. The
author also wishes to acknowledge the generosity of 3M Company in
permitting him to use as title of this book the name of the Non-waste
Technology Programme pioneered by that company.
The author particularly wishes to acknowledge the contribution of
Erica Royston to this book. Her substantive input as co-author of the
monograph "Economic Benefits of Investment in Pollution Control"
was considerable and her efforts in integrating it with the present text
have been vital.
Thanks are due to A. E. Martin and WHO for Fig. 1. UN Habitat
Restricted A/Conf. 76/B/2, 21 October 1975, "Health and
Environment in Human Settlements"; to John Powles and Pergamon
Press Ltd., Oxford, for Fig. 2, from "On the Limitations of Modern
Medicine", Science, Medicine and Man\ to the Council for
Environmental Quality for the table later in the book.
viii
Foreword
By Dr Joseph T. Ling
Vice President of Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control for the 3M Company
THERE is only one land mass, one atmosphere and a finite supply of
water for us to share. To survive, let alone maintain dignified life,
requires that we make the best — and least — use of these resources. If
we do not sustain them, they will not sustain us.
Environmental management was of no concern to our ancestors when
they trudged the land, killing ancient beasts to roast over cooking fires.
They lived within the capacity of their environment to sustain them and
to regenerate itself. Their use of air and water had little or no lasting
impact. Nature absorbed their intrusions.
In our world today, however, it is nearly impossible to live a self-
sufficient lifestyle. Instead, we rely upon technology to support us, a
technology which, in most cases, defies the ability of nature to absorb its
impact.
The lesson of the lemmings should not be lost on us. When these
rodents multiply beyond the capacity of their environment to support
them, nature signals a chaotic and hasty migration into the sea where
vast numbers drown.
The lemmings are part of nature's balancing act, and so is technology
— that tightrope which industrial society must walk resolutely or plunge
to disaster. For society to stay on this balancing wire requires us to make
the maximum use of minimum natural resource. This mandates our
establishing and maintaining a conservation-oriented technology which
involves raw-material supply, production, consumption and disposal.
In short, it means using a minimum of resources while causing a
minimum of pollution.
Most environmental laws, regulations and technologies have been
ix
χ Pollution Prevention Pays
devoted to cleaning up pollution, with little or no attention paid to
prevention. The explanation is simple and understandable: clean-up was
the most expedient and available approach to a problem which existed
before it was understood or the need for a solution was recognized. The
first order of business was to repair the damage.
Industrial society, however, appears to be approaching a fulcrum
point in its environmental development. Government, industry and the
public are beginning to become aware of the shortcomings of
conventional pollution controls, not to mention their cost. This
coincides with the concern of recent years about conservation of energy
and other natural resources as their finite limits become generally
recognized.
The conservation approach is simple, comprising the practical
application of knowledge, methods, and means to provide the most
rational use of resources to improve the environment.
It means eliminating the causes of pollution before spending money
and resources to clean up afterward. It also means learning to create
valuable resources from pollution, like the making of nylon and other
materials from the waste by-products of petroleum some years ago.
The concept is embodied in Pollution Prevention Pays, which speaks
to the proposition that it is environmentally, technically and
economically superior to eliminate the sources of pollution before clean-
up problems are created.
These advantages are evident as one considers the natural resources,
manpower and money consumed to build a pollution-control facility
and more of the same to operate the facility throughout its lifespan.
The timing of Dr Royston's book is auspicious, because industrial
society is entering into a new and more sophisticated consideration of
environmental matters. In this, prevention stands out as a realistic and
desired alternative to conventional controls.
There is a growing body of empirical evidence about pollution-
prevention efforts in industry, such as my own 3M Company's Pollution
Prevention Pays (3P) Program, which Dr Royston has honored by
selecting its name for the title of this welcome book.
The prevention approach has been hindered or precluded by many
rigid laws and regulations which specified pollution-control technology
and allowed no deviation from the conventional wisdom or alternative
Foreword xi
abatement approaches. For example, there are laws which specify only
the concentration of pollutants in water discharge and not the total
amount. This discourages or prohibits use of wastewater recycling,
because recycling may raise the concentration of pollution as it
drastically lowers the total amount of discharge.
The problems with ex post facto pollution controls are evident. Not
only do they accrue significant capital and operating expenses, but they
are as an actor's mask. Pollution controls solve no problem; they only
alter the problem, shifting it from one form to another, contrary to this
immutable law of nature: the form of matter may be changed, but matter
does not disappear. Purifying wastewater creates sludge. Burning
chemical wastes creates fumes and particulate matter. Both residues
constitute pollution and disposal problems of their own. The growing
number of new requirements — such as the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act in the United States — make residue disposal a very
complicated and expensive endeavor.
By using the conventional pollution-control approach, we also create
what I call off-site pollution — waste generated by those who supply the
materials and energy consumed in the pollution-removal process itself.
This pollution could be generated at facilities a great distance from the
pollution-control plant.
In addition, resources consumed and residue produced for pollution
control rise exponentially as the last few drops of pollution are wrung
out of the process. When these factors are considered it is apparent that
conventional controls, at some point, create more pollution than they
remove and consume resources out of proportion to the benefits
derived.
What emerges is an environmental paradox. It takes resources to
remove pollution; pollution removal generates residue; it takes more
resources to dispose of this residue and disposal of residue also produces
pollution.
Conventional controls also relate only to what I call "first-generation
pollution problems." These are problems created in the manufacturing
process and regulated by legislation such as the Clean Air Act and Water
Pollution Control Act in the United States and similar laws in other
countries.
Public attention and legislation, however, has been focused lately on
xii Pollution Preven tion Pays
so-called "second-generation pollution", which relates to product-use
problems. There is a growing body of law (including the US Toxic
Substances Control Act) which deals with the environmental impact of
products after they leave the factory.
The conventional approach deals only with "first-generation"
problems. It does not and cannot cope with "second-generation"
problems. The reason is simple; if a pollutant exists in a product, then a
problem is created for the user. And the user's problem is beyond
solving by the conventional controls in the manufacturer's factory.
The two types of pollution are interrelated, however, because
"second-generation" pollution potential in a product can become "first-
generation" waste when the product is used.
If the user is another manufacturer, he will have to build control
facilities to cope with the problem, or find a substitute product. In the
latter instance, the first manufacturer may have lost the market.
If the user is a direct consumer, he or she is unlikely to have the
wherewithal for control. The problem then becomes a public issue, such
as with automotive emissions, PCB's or mercury contamination.
At 3M Company, we have been concerned about product-related
pollution, because the Company is technology-oriented and has
facilities in some forty countries and product sales in 135 countries — all
of these are subject to many and varying environmental laws and
regulations.
Our scientists recently eliminated toxic mercury from an electrical
insulating resin. This removed a "first-generation" pollution problem at
the 3M plant and also a "second-generation" pollution problem for the
user. The new formula was more environmentally acceptable and
prevented a loss in sales.
In our Company, the conservation approach is becoming standard,
required not only by regulation and environmental concern but also by
the economic forces of competition and resource shortages.
It appears to me the resource-conservation approach is the third and
previously missing leg in the environmental triangle. It provides the
technical solution which melds with the reality of an emotional issue and
the political response which this has generated.
Despite a growing awareness of the pollution-prevention technology,
however, the winds of change blow slowly, and there is cause for concern
Foreword xiii
about the overall climate of acceptance for the prevention alternative.
Many legislative and regulative attitudes and actions still relate
primarily to the imposition of specific, corrective controls; it is still a
fight in many instances for the environmental profession to gain
acceptance for pollution-prevention procedures.
Dr Royston's book is a logical extension of the positive dialogue
which took place in the United States in 1977. That year, the US
Environmental Protection Agency and Commerce Department held
four regional conferences devoted specifically to process change to
eliminate pollution sources.
These conferences, at Chicago, Boston, Dallas and San Francisco,
provided an excellent platform for government/industry discussion of
this important subject.
Acceptance in principle of resource-conservation pollution abate-
ment was shown at the San Francisco event, last of the four.
William Ruckelshaus, the EPA's first administrator and now a
corporate executive, was the industry keynote speaker. From his
perspective as a regulator and businessman, Mr Ruckelshaus said that
government and industry appeared to be entering a third stage in their
environmental relationship which involved "an accommodation of
environmental, social and economic goals".
Mr Ruckelshaus said this "third stage" reflected the growing
understanding that "everything is connected to everything else". He
said we now realize the environment cannot be considered
independently of other factors, including consumption of energy and
other resources and the economy.
He said "Stage Three" was a natural progression from "Stage One",
which (in the United States) was "the Earth Day awareness that we were
fouling our nest", and "Stage Two", which was "the political response
demanded and received".
Douglas M. Costle, EPA administrator, complimented "the
innovative work already done by private enterprise" to prevent
pollution at the source.
Mr Costle said there were "a number of things EPA can and should do
to help". He said these included research aimed at developing new
pollution-abatement technologies and "rethinking our approach to the
problem of regulation... to improve the quality of the rules we write
xiv Pollution Prevention Pays
and to simplify the often cumbersome methods we now have for
carrying out those rules".
It is my belief that, overall, some progress is being made, as evidenced
by Mr. Costle's remarks.
The 3M Company, which began its Pollution Prevention Pays
Program in 1975 as a means to help curtail environmental costs during
economic recession, has achieved significant environmental gains, plus
a worldwide savings of some $20 million.
Although we are proud of these accomplishments, we claim no
exclusivity. The 3P Program is only an example of how the pollution-
prevention approach can be systematized within a manufacturing
organization. We are well aware of much pollution-prevention activity
by our technical people and those of other companies prior to the 3P
Program.
Resource-conservation technology, it should be noted, works better
for some companies than for others. In most cases, 3M manufacturing
processes are revolutionary and evolutionary, with emphasis
continually placed on inventing and improving products and
manufacturing processes. We have many opportunities to eliminate
pollution.
In some industries, however, processes cannot be changed easily or
perhaps at all without disrupting or halting total production. The
changeover may not be economical, or there may be no conservation
technology to eliminate some pollution sources. Many heavy industries
are examples of where resource-conservation technology may not apply.
The goal of industry should be to use resource-conservation
technology where and when possible and practical. Each industry
should apply its own ingenuity to develop its own resource-conservation
know-how, just as each industry has developed its own product
technology.
We believe that the pollution-prevention concept, for the long term,
definitely is more environmentally effective and less costly than
conventional pollution controls. And it provides an atmosphere in
which environmental technical solutions can be related to the emotional
issues and political decisions.
Industry has the technical know-how to prevent pollution and should
take the lead, but with the help and encouragement of government.