2 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

“We aren’t passengers on Spaceship Earth; we’re the crew. We aren’t residents of
this planet; we’re citizens. The difference in both cases is responsibility.”
Astronaut Rusty Schweikart

Some pollution problems are daunting; others less so. This chapter begins with a brief overview
as to how we can separate the “trivial” from the serious, whether the risk of a chemical or of a
broader environmental problem. The chapter emphasis is on preventing or controlling pollution.
Also introduced are the tools that assist us in moving toward sustainable societies. Section I
introduces risk assessment concepts, how to evaluate the magnitude of a given risk, chemical risk
assessment, and comparative risk assessment. Section II asks, how do we reduce, even eliminate,
pollution’s risks? Legislation is important. Many laws stress trapping pollutants already pro-
duced. The pollution prevention (P2) paradigm, also called source reduction, is more effective. P2
involves changing a process so that it produces less pollution or, sometimes, none at all. Section
III introduces industrial ecology (IE), which goes beyond P2. IE examines pollution holistically,
searching for means to mesh the human enterprise into the natural environment. Some tools of IE
are briefly examined including life-cycle assessment and design for the environment.

SECTION I

Risk assessment

For many years, society has struggled with the problem of how to evaluate environmental risks.
Risk assessment tools have been developed over decades, and continue to be refined. ▪ Chemical
risk assessment examines the risk of individual chemicals. ▪ Comparative risk assessment is
more holistic: it compares a number of environmental risks, not all of which are pollution risks.

Chemical risk assessment

Chemical risk assessment is used to evaluate the risk1 of individual chemicals. Members of
the US National Academy of Sciences and other scientists have struggled for many years to

1
Hazard and risk: A hazardous chemical is one with the potential to cause human illness or injury. It can be toxic,
corrosive, reactive, flammable, radioactive, or infectious, or some combination of these. A substance, no matter
how hazardous, cannot cause harm unless there is exposure to it. If there is exposure, then we evaluate risk, the

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 35 Risk assessment

develop chemical risk assessment into a useful tool. ▪ Let’s consider a hazardous waste site
in which a number of chemicals have been identified: we need to know the hazard of each
chemical present, i.e., what is the potential for the chemical to cause illness or injury.2 ▪ But
hazard is different than risk. For there to be a risk, there must be exposure to the chemical.
Thus, we analyze the site for evidence as to whether there is now, or in the future may be,
exposure to the chemical. If there is exposure to one or more chemicals, then we need to
know which of the chemicals pose the greatest risks, and we must concentrate on the high-
risk chemicals. ▪ In Chapter 4 we will see that risk assessment raises questions that science
alone cannot answer: scientists may rate a chemical as being a low risk. But a risk that is
acceptable to one person may be unacceptable to another. However, applied consistently,
chemical risk assessment is trusted within its limitations.
Certain characteristics of a chemical can warn us that chemical may pose a problem.
1. Does the chemical persist in the environment and within living creatures? Metals are
chemicals that cannot be broken down, they are persistent. But some synthetic organic
chemicals are persistent too because microbes, plants, or animals have difficulty degrad-
ing them. Among such chemicals are dioxins and DDT.
2. Does the chemical bioaccumulate, build up in plants and animals to concentrations
higher than in the environment? Again, dioxins and DDT are examples of chemicals
that bioaccumulate.
3. Is the chemical toxic?
If the answer to all three questions is yes, then we refer to the chemical as persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT). Even a low level of a PBT chemical warns us to treat it
respectfully. Chapter 14 will address organic chemicals that are PBTs; Chapter 15 deals with
metals, including PBT metals.

Comparative risk assessment

Comparative risk assessment is used to compare environmental problems. It aims to

distinguish high-priority risks from medium- and low-priority risks. It can compare one
complicated environmental issue such as acid deposition to another such as stratospheric
ozone depletion (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). It can also be used to compare a pollution issue to a
non-pollution issue. ▪ Even imperfect answers help us decide which issues will receive more
attention and resources. ▪ Comparative risk assessment is often used in making environ-
mental policy: are we spending more dollars on high-risk than low-risk problems? At the
same time, a criticism of comparative risk assessment is that “low-risk” problems may be
dealt with inadequately or not at all. If you think about this criticism, you can see that
comparative risk assessment, like chemical risk assessment, goes beyond questions that

probability of harm. The risk can range from low to high. Many questions are asked during an evaluation, such as:
how much exposure occurred? How did exposure occur – through air, water, soil, food?
2
The US EPA uses an exhaustive procedure to analyze a site for the chemicals it contains and whether it poses a
high enough risk to place it on the National Priority List (NPL). NPL sites receive federal attention, whereas
individual states are left to clean up less risky sites.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 36 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

Table 2.1 Global high-risk problems (assessed by comparative risk assessment)

High-risk pollution issuesa
Freshwater pollution and scarcity
Air pollution (especially ozone, fine particles)
Global warming
Acid deposition
Municipal solid waste generation
Hazardous waste generation
Increasing energy use
Insufficient knowledge of chemicals in use
Nitrogen-fertilizer and heavy-metal pollution
Other high-risk environmental threatsb
Human population growth
Land degradation
Deforestation and loss of forest quality
Marine fisheries over-fishing
Wildlife habitat loss
Extinction of plant and animal species
Loss of biodiversity
High-risk threats to human healthc
Drinking-water pollution
Heavy air pollution, outdoors and indoors
Untreated human waste and lack of basic sanitation (resulting in exposure to pathogenic
microorganisms)
a
The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has 29 member states,
mostly developed nations including the United States, the UK, and other western European
countries, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan. The conclusions of these two organizations were
very similar.
b
Information from (1) UNEP report: Global Environment Outlook 2000 and (2) the OECD
Environmental Outlook report.
c
From the World Health Organization (WHO)

science can answer. ▪ It includes evaluations of community values, quality-of-life and

economic issues: how important to us is the corrosion of city monuments caused by acid
haze or a haze hanging over a national park? How important is an unattractive algal bloom at
a popular lake?
A summary of steps that may be used in comparative risk assessment follows.

Choosing issues to compare

Assume you are part of a group comparing environmental risks. You find that you must
make judgments at the very beginning: which among the dozens, hundreds of environmental
issues will you compare? Look at Table 2.1, and the issues evaluated. For simplicity’s sake
only high-risk problems are shown, all of which are worldwide problems. ▪ The issues you

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 37 Risk assessment

Table 2.2 Analyzing environmental risks

Criterion and explanation Examples

What is the scope of the effect? 1. Part of a state? The whole nation? The whole world?
1. How large an area is exposed to pollutant? 2. Ten thousand? Millions?
2. How many people are exposed? 3. A small percentage of a nation’s forests? All of them?
3. For a resource, how much is exposed? a
How likely is an adverse effect? 1. A small chance of a few people suffering asthma? Or,
1. Among those exposed to the pollutant? thousands or millions developing asthma?
2. On an exposed resource? 2. The acid rain is neutralized by an alkaline soil? Or, acid rain
falling on an already acidic soil?
If an effect occurs, how severe would it be? 1. Suffer no obvious ill effect from a site containing lead? Or
1. Among exposed people? will exposed children suffer a lowered IQ?
2. On an exposed resource? 2. Fish in a polluted lake have stunted growth for one season?
Or millions are killed?
What are the trends for a specified pollutant? 1. Carbon dioxide with an ever-increasing level? Or, dioxins
1. Is its concentration in the environment increas- with falling levels in developed countries?
ing, decreasing, or staying the same? 2. Ground-level methane, which can degrade in a few days?
2. What is the pollutant’s life span? Or, a metal, which does not degrade?
3. Does its bioaccumulate? 3. A chemical easily eliminated from the body? Or, one such
as dioxins or lead that accumulates?

What is the trend? 1. A nation’s wetlands (forests, fishing grounds, etc.) continue
1. Does a resource continue to be degraded, or to be degraded? Or is the loss curbed?
has the situation stabilized? 2. Coastal waters support fish spawning and growth? Or do
they support growth poorly?
What is the recovery time? 1. Recover in ten years, as from certain oil spills? Or, a
1. Can the environment recover from this hundred years or more for excess atmospheric CO2?
stress? Or is permanent damage likely?

a
The word “resource” refers to a natural resource – such as a wetland, lake, forest, fish or other wildlife, soil, etc.

compare may be specific to your city, state, or province. If you focus on a city, you would
likely examine issues immediately relevant to that city such as local hazardous waste sites or
local water pollution problems. Nonetheless, even when doing local evaluations, you may
need to look at how global issues such as climate change or acid deposition may be
impacting your local environment.

Getting technical assistance

To arrive at meaningful answers, your group needs expert information on each issue. Group
members must agree on which experts to include: whom do you trust to provide objective

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 38 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

information? Among the questions that you might expect experts to evaluate are those in
Table 2.2. Also, what is the quality of the information? What are the information gaps?
However, regardless of how well informed your experts and their ability to evaluate the
issues, there are always information gaps and uncertainties. Typically no further research is
done during the risk assessment process to fill in such gaps.

Making decisions
Having finished dealing with the chosen experts, your group examines and discusses what
you have learned. And, how can you compare risks that seem to have no relationship to one
another? How, for instance, do you compare “habitat alteration and destruction” to “strato-
spheric ozone depletion”? How do you compare air pollution to ground water pollution?
Look at Table 2.2 for some approaches to these questions. Given even the best expert
opinion, judgments must be made. And because members of your group probably represent
many backgrounds, industry, environmental organizations, government, and academic
institutions, each of you may interpret exactly the same information differently. Moreover,
even as you make judgments, you recognize that what you choose as most important is not
absolute, and that others may revisit your work in the future. Nonetheless, many continue to
find these exercises worthwhile.

SECTION II

Using legislation to protect nature’s services

Laws in the United States

Environmental laws existed before 1970, but none controlled pollution and hazardous
chemicals comprehensively. The 1970s saw a dramatic change in the United States. Major
laws enacted include the following. ▪ The Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970, the Clean Water Act
(CWA) in 1972, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974. Legislators then turned
to land pollution and passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, pro-
nounced “rick-rah”) in 1976 to control the management and disposal of solid waste,
including municipal and hazardous waste. ▪ The late 1970s revealed many abandoned
hazardous waste sites around the United States. Congress responded by passing the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or
Superfund) to clean up such sites. ▪ Toxic chemical laws were also passed. The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 1972, and the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA, pronounced “tosca”) in 1976 regulate chemicals not already regulated
under the laws passed earlier. For example, TSCA mandated controls on polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), chemicals not covered by other legislation. A major TSCA mandate was
to develop an inventory of all commercial chemicals used in the United States.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 39 Controlling pollution by command-and-control

Subsequently, any chemical not on the inventory would be subject to scrutiny by the EPA
before it could be used commercially or imported. ▪ Passing TSCA was an attempt to “close
the circle,” to ensure that all chemical issues were addressed. However, the 1984 tragedy in
Bhopal, India resulted in the “right-to-know” legislation, the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986. ▪ Important international treaties have
been passed too. TSCA comes up again in Chapter 4, Section V.

End-of-pipe regulations

The laws just noted produced many so-called command-and-control and end-of-pipe
regulations, which can be very effective when applied to large facilities. The Clean Water
Act can illustrate this. ▪ When passed in 1972, only 30% of American waters were judged
fishable and swimmable. By 1994, this figure was about 60%. Fishable means that fish from
the water are safe to eat or that the quality of the water is good enough for fish to live in it.
Swimmable means the water can be used for swimming without fear that infectious
organisms or other contaminants are present at levels potentially harmful to health. ▪ After
passage of the CWA, many treatment plants were built by industries and cities to recover
hazardous components from their wastewater before the water was released into a receiving
body: those pollutants were removed end-of-pipe. ▪ In response to the Clean Air Act, air
emissions were trapped end-of-pipe. End-of-pipe controls were also placed on motor vehicle
emissions. ▪ Hazardous wastes were treated before disposal. ▪ Municipalities and industries
designed and built secure landfills to replace old leaking uncovered dumps. End-of-pipe
accomplished a lot.

Laws in less-developed countries

Less-developed countries may have excellent environmental laws on the books, but often
enforce laws poorly. This happens because governments are weak or corrupt, or because
governments lack money or power to enforce them.

Controlling pollution by command-and-control

End-of-pipe refers to capturing pollutants after they are formed, but before release.
▪ Consider sulfur dioxide, a major pollutant produced by burning coal in electric power
plants. A power plant may capture much of that sulfur dioxide from its stack to prevent it
from entering the air. ▪ Or consider chromium, a metal often found in the wastewater of
metal-plating firms. Chromium is removed from the wastewater to prevent its release into a
river. ▪ In both these instances, the pollutant still exists, but it has been captured so that it can
be disposed or reused responsibly.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 40 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

Box 2.1 The struggle to reduce pollution in China3

China has excellent laws on its books nationally, but has been unable to get local officials to
enforce them. Local officials are more eager to generate revenue and jobs than to control
pollution. In 1983, China included environmental protection as a basic national policy, but
pollution and environmental degradation continued. In 1994, China developed a strategy to
achieve sustainable development. Nonetheless, as factories, mines, power and industrial
plants continued their “frantic growth,” the situation continued to worsen. Consider one
illustration: China tried to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions between 2001 and 2005; instead
emissions increased 28%.
China has environmental organizations and activists. However, although the government
approves of environmental advocacy, it is hostile to “political agitation.” So, despite China’s
dire environmental problems, some environmental organizers are prosecuted. “Pollution has
reached epidemic proportions in China, in part because the ruling Communist Party still treats
environmental advocates as bigger threats than the degradation of air, water, and soil that
prompts them to speak out.” However, activists continue to emerge. One is Ma Jun, whose
observations led him to believe that the reason companies in developed countries pollute less
than those in China is because corporations are sensitive to public pressure. In developed
countries, the people can publicly criticize poorly performing companies in a number of ways
and, if necessary, boycott companies. So Ma Jun decided that pressure must be exerted on
Chinese companies too. He and other knowledgeable volunteers formed a non-governmental
organization (NGO), the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. This institute finds
needed information by examining reports on major polluters put out by municipal, provincial,
and national environmental agencies. They also follow news reports of interviews with
environmental officials. They have details on 8000 companies officially cited for exceeding
discharge standards into China’s rivers and lakes. ▪The Institute’s database shows which
companies are polluting rivers and lakes. They place the information on the China Water
Pollution Map website ([Link] an online Chinese-language searchable data-
base. It discloses details of about 10 000 water violations, about a quarter of them by foreign
firms. More recently, it developed the China Air Pollution Map ([Link]
People are paying attention. Fifty companies have asked to have their names removed from
the list. For this to happen, they must show compliance with standards as shown by a third-
party audit. The Chinese media also pay attention to the database. The media have become
sharply critical of the fact that the government, notwithstanding its promises to clean up highly
polluted air and water, has not done so. Moreover, above and beyond the already bad
everyday emissions, major spills also continue to occur.
Ma Jun is working to gain the attention of foreigners who buy Chinese goods. His NGO wants
to push for improved environmental performance of multinational corporations (MNC) that
operate in China. The Institute has found several hundred multinational corporations (MNC)

3
China Environment Forum. Woodrow Wilson International Center, 2009, [Link]
cfm?topic/id=1421&fuseaction=[Link]&doc/id=496229&group_id=233293.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 41 Controlling pollution by command-and-control

violating water and air pollution laws. Some are well-known corporations such as Pepsi,
Dupont, and 3M, which have good environmental records in developed countries. Why do
they behave less well in China? Fines for violations are very low compared to the costs of
controlling emissions; local governments often shield MNCs because they provide employ-
ment, pay taxes, and contribute to local growth; and the public is often unaware of the
violations. So although better performance would be expected, it’s very easy for MNCs to
violate laws. Ma Jun’s organization has begun work to name and shame them.
A positive project of the Institute is the Green Choice Initiative, undertaken cooperatively
with 20 other NGOs. Its purpose is to inform the public about environmentally responsible
products. At the same time, it provides consumers with the names of companies cited for
violations of environmental laws. These malefactors are major consumer-goods companies,
about half of them foreign.
As “traditional industrial growth . . . strains China’s resources and environment to an
unbearable extreme,” the government is struggling to get away from economic growth
regardless of environmental costs. It is spending many billions to control water and air
pollution, and solid waste. And, very importantly, in 2007 government officials rejected the
building of factories that would have been worth billions of dollars because they failed to meet
standards. The national government too has begun using the “name and shame” technique on
major polluters.4

Limitations of command-and-control 5

End-of-pipe controls cannot recover 100% of a pollutant. An industry or electric utility may
remove the first 80% from a waste stream efficiently and cost-effectively. Removing the last 20%
may cost 10 times more than the first 80%, and yet a small amount of the pollutant still remains.
A specially designed incinerator may destroy 99.99% of the hazardous materials that it
burns. For pollutants of special concern, a more costly technologically sophisticated incin-
erator can destroy 99.9999%. But the incinerator cannot destroy that last tiny amount. Even

4
Further reading on China: (1) Buckley, C. China environment chief says pollution fuelling unrest. Reuters, July 5,
2007, [Link] (2) China punishes cities for polluting rivers.
Reuters, July 4, 2007. (3) Kahn, J. Choking on growth. Part III. In China, a lake’s champion imperils himself. New
York Times, October 14, 2007, [Link] oref=slogin.
(4) Liu, Y. Stronger regulation needed to improve corporate pollution record in China. Eye on Earth (Worldwatch
Institute and Blue Moon Fund), February 6, 2008, [Link] (5) Nakanishi,
N. Chinese group says to name-and-shame air polluters. Reuters, December 13, 2007. (6) Vidal, J. The looming
food crisis. Guardian, August 29, 2007, [Link] (7) Tremblay, J. F.
China releases new cleanup plan. Chemical & Engineering News, 85(49), December 2, 2007, 12. (8) Tremblay, J. F.
Talks with Ma Jun, tireless environmental activist seeks to nurture China’s environmental conscience. Chemical &
Engineering News, 85(40), October 1, 2007, 26. (9) Tremblay, J. F. Free trade or fair trade. Chemical & Engineering
News, 86(1) January 7, 2008, 16.
5
(1) Greening industry, new ideas in pollution regulation. The World Bank, 2009, [Link]
TFGRCF3JJ0. (2) What is green engineering. US EPA, September 13, 2007, [Link]
gov_oppt_greenengineering_pubs_whats_ge.html (this paper shows a figure, “Proliferation of environ-
mental laws and regulations,” which is worth examining).

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 42 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

to capture the amount they were designed to remove takes careful monitoring and ongoing
equipment maintenance.
* Another problem with end-of-pipe is what to do with the pollutants recovered? The recovered
pollutants must sometimes be treated themselves. An organic waste may need to be incin-
erated. A metal waste, if not recyclable, may need burial in a hazardous waste landfill.
Moreover, the cost of pollution control – recovering, treating, and disposing of recovered
wastes – continues to rise as do the costs of managing municipal wastes and sewage.
* Another limitation of command-and-control regulations that industry very much dislikes is
“one-size-fits-all.” A regulation tells industrial facilities not only to limit the release of
specific pollutants, but also tells them exactly how they must accomplish that reduction: all
facilities must reduce emissions in the same way. But no two facilities are identical, and
frequently there is more than one way to reach the same end. ▪ Years ago, a Wall Street
Journal article told the following story. The AMOCO refinery of Yorktown, Virginia, was
required to install a $41 million system using a specific (one-size-fits-all) technology to
capture benzene emissions. However, AMOCO, working with the EPA, found another
method that could capture five times more benzene for only $11 million. But, the law was
inflexible so the EPA could not modify the requirements. Thus, a greater amount of money
was spent to capture less pollutant. ▪ Recounting another such instance, in 1995, a Scientific
American article described regulations intended to ensure the safe handling of hazardous
wastes. The automotive industry produced a sludge containing zinc. In earlier years,
factories sent the sludge to smelters to recover and reuse the zinc. However, in the
1980s, the zinc sludge was listed as a hazardous waste, so smelters no longer accepted
it. Instead, now deemed hazardous, the sludge had to be treated and disposed of in
accordance with strict regulations. Clearly, in both the examples just given, the results
were unintended consequences. Most agree that such problems arise because we try to deal
with environmental problems one at a time – bit by bit – instead of looking at issues
holistically. ▪ Given the huge number of detailed regulations that have resulted from
complex environmental laws, some counterproductive results are inevitable. The US
EPA has been working to develop regulations that take these problems into account, and
to find ways to modify “one-size-fits-all” when it is logical to do so. Nevertheless, the EPA
must exercise flexibility within the constraints of the laws.
* Complicating the situation further is that some believe that the only acceptable amount of
a pollutant is zero. This gives rise to the problem of the vanishing zero. Analytical
chemists devise ever more sensitive methods to detect a pollutant. So, even if essentially
all a pollutant has seemingly been removed, newer more-sensitive detection methods may
detect it again. Thus, a chemical undetected and unregulated in one year could be detected
and regulated the next.

A right-to-know law 6

The world reacted with horror to the Bhopal disaster described in Chapter 1. Then, US
citizens discovered that a Union Carbide plant in Institute, West Virginia, used the same

6
ScoreCard, the pollution locator. Environmental Defense, 2005, [Link]

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 43 Controlling pollution by command-and-control

All others 10%

Food 4%
Metal mining 29%
Hazardous waste/
solvent recovery 5%

Paper 5%

Primary metals 11%

Electric utilities 24%

Chemicals 12%

Figure 2.1 Industries accounting for TRI disposals or other releases in 2006. Credit: US EPA

highly reactive chemical, methyl isocyanate (MIC). This plant also lacked adequate means
to keep water away from the MIC. The plant was quickly redesigned. More generally, an
aftermath of Bhopal was the realization that such disasters could happen anywhere. After
recognizing this, the US Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act (EPCRA). ▪ The legislation requires industries and communities to prepare
emergency plans to minimize harm in case of an accidental chemical release from a factory,
or from a truck or train transiting a community.7 ▪ The law also gave Americans easy access
to information on the hazardous chemicals used in, stored in, or transported through their
communities. ▪ Another section of the law, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)8 requires
businesses to make public each year their emissions of any of about 600 chemicals such as
ammonia, hydrochloric acid, methanol, toluene, acetone, and lead and cadmium
(Figure 2.1).9 The TRI does not require that emissions be reduced only reported.
However, resulting public pressure on industries and municipalities has led to a halving of
releases of TRI chemicals to air, surface water, and underground injection wells. ▪ An
editorial in the journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, stated, “This legislation may yet
prove to be one of the most important events in the history of environmental health because
it instigated the idea that people had the right to know about hazardous agents being
manufactured, used, or stored in or around their communities. In a free and open society,
the concept of “right to know” of possible risks to their health seems fundamental.”10

7
Emergency Planning. US EPA, May, 2008, [Link]
8
Browse TRI Topics. US EPA, [Link]
9
(1) Toxic Release Inventory Program. US EPA, March 5, 2009, [Link] (2)
Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act and
Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. US EPA. October, 2006, [Link]
Oct_2006%20Title%20III%20List%20fo%[Link].
10
Hook, G. E. R. and Lucier, G. W. The right to know is for everyone. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(4),
April 2000, [Link]

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 44 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

Criticisms of the TRI

▪ A major criticism of TRI is that it merely reports the amount of a chemical released. It does
not tell us how toxic the chemical is nor whether humans and wildlife are actually exposed to
it. That is, TRI tells us the hazard of a chemical emission, but not its risk. ▪ Environmental
Defense, an environmental organization, points out that TRI emissions11 only account for
4% of the total cancer risk nationwide. It is emissions from mobile sources such as cars and
trucks that contribute 88% of the cancer risk. Diesel exhaust poses an especially high risk.
Nonetheless, motor vehicle emissions are not reported. Thus, the question is raised: would a
different form of disclosure provide more useful information? A recent approach may be
able to do this.12 ▪ Other critics note that TRI releases tell us very little about a facility’s
overall environmental performance.

TRI laws in other countries

* Europeans, too, see disclosures as a powerful and low-cost means of informing the
public, which may then pressure companies to reduce emissions. The European Union
(EU) version of “right-to-know” legislation is the EPER (European Pollutant Emission
Register). It registers releases of 50 pollutants which, in aggregate, account for 90% of
total chemical emissions from about 10 000 industrial facilities. Categories include heavy
metals, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and dioxins. Unlike the US version, it also
includes greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.13
* Egypt, the Czech Republic, and Mexico have similar programs too, but only for chem-
icals deemed especially hazardous. China, until 2008, had no TRI at all. How does this
affect pollution? Take Hong Kong, which suffers from air pollution coming across the
border from mainland China’s Guangdong province where companies didn’t need to
publicly report their emissions. Two factors made this frustrating: Guangdong’s govern-
ment monitors air quality and had information on the identity of the major polluters, but
wouldn’t expose those companies. Secondly, many Guangdong facilities known to
pollute Hong Kong are owned by Hong Kong residents.

11
ScoreCard, the pollution locator. Environmental Defense, 2005, [Link]
tcl.
12
This approach compares the toxicity of any chemical with that of a reference chemical using a Toxic Equivalency
Potential (TEP). There are two reference chemicals in the TEP approach. If “Chemical X” is a carcinogen, the
reference chemical is the carcinogen, benzene. If “Chemical X” is a non-carcinogen the reference chemical is
toluene. This allows us to compare release of “Chemical X” pound for pound with the reference chemical.
▪ Using toxicity equivalencies, it was found that, among the carcinogens emitted to air, those that pose the
greatest hazard to human health are carbon tetrachloride and lead (and lead compounds). This is true although,
e.g., styrene and acetaldehyde, are released in the greatest amounts. ▪ For non-carcinogens, toluene and carbon
disulfide are released to the air in the largest quantities. However, although lower amounts of mercury and lead
compounds are released, it is they that pose the greatest hazards; in particular, they pose major concerns because
they can adversely affect human development and reproduction. Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
Report profiles data on industrial releases and children’s health, May 17, 2006, [Link]
[Link]?varlan=ENGLISH&ID=2704.
13
What is EPER, the European pollutant emission register? European Environment Agency, 2003, [Link]
[Link]/eper/[Link]?i=.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 45 The waste management hierarchy (WMH)

Can we completely control pollution?

TRI requires industrial facilities to report many legal chemical emissions. In 1988, the first
year TRI emissions were divulged, people were concerned to learn that industry had
released nearly 2.6 billion pounds (1.2 billion kg) of chemicals into the air the previous
year. But this was only the beginning of the story: at about the same time a nationwide study
was done on all volatile organic chemical (VOC) emissions into air. The study concluded
that 47 billion pounds (21.3 billion kg) of VOCS were released to the air each year –
18-times greater than 2.6 billion. Where did these VOCs come from? ▪ A portion came from
industries not then required to report TRI emissions including mining operations, sewage
treatment plants, landfills, and hundreds of thousands of small businesses such as dry
cleaners, printers, painters, shops maintaining motor vehicles, and even bakeries and food-
processing operations.14 ▪ But the striking point was: half of the 47 billion pounds (21.3
billion kg) came from motor vehicles, driven billions of miles a year. And, remember, motor
vehicle emissions may pose a much greater risk than TRI chemicals. A new car pollutes much
less than one made in 1970, but each year more people drive more vehicles more miles. And
many drivers do not maintain their vehicles to run as cleanly as they were designed to run.
You and I, on a smaller scale, also contribute VOC emissions when using paints,
pesticides, and other aerosol sprays. Emissions for which one person is responsible are
small. However, multiply yourself by hundreds of millions of people and some of these
emissions become significant. ▪ Environmental agencies regulate an increasing number of
chemicals from a great many sources. But can government regulate each and every
emission? Again, remember motor vehicles are a major source of air pollution. Yet many
people resist testing, and reducing emissions from personal vehicles, or do so only under
duress. Could federal, state, and local environmental agencies monitor every small business
operation, every home, and every vehicle? What other approaches are available?

The waste management hierarchy (WMH) 15

End-of-pipe control means capturing the pollutant after it is formed, but before its release
into the environment. End-of-pipe control has been called first-generation thinking, very
important but limited. ▪ A second-generation concept is pollution prevention (P2), which
means producing less of the pollutant or waste in the first place or, sometimes eliminating it.
P2 is at the top of a waste management hierarchy (WMH) (Table 2.3). Valuable as they are,
reuse and recycling are a step below P2 on the WMH. ▪ Treatment, the third step is used
when a material can no longer be reused or recycled. The purpose of treatment is to reduce

14
As one example, about 44 million pounds (20 million kg) of the VOC hexane are released into US air each year.
The largest source of hexane releases is from its use as an organic solvent to extract millions of tons a year of food
oil from soybeans, and to extract millions of tons more from other seeds and grains.
15
Pollution prevention and recycling links. California Department of Environmental Control, [Link]
gov/InformationResources/[Link]#PPR.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 46 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

Table 2.3 Ranking preference in waste management

The waste management hierarchy (WMH)

Pollution prevention
Reuse/recycle
Treatment
Disposal

the volume or toxicity of the waste. ▪ At the bottom of the hierarchy is disposal. The
individual steps of the WMH are described below.

Steps in the waste management hierarchy

Pollution prevention16
P2 is decreasing or eliminating the amount of pollution produced. Developing steps to
reduce pollutant emissions when a product is manufactured is P2, as is finding less noxious
chemicals to use in a process where previously hazardous chemicals were used. Using less
energy also means P2 because pollutant emissions are reduced – emissions that result from
generating and using energy. Likewise, using less water is P2. ▪ You may have gathered from
this short description that P2 can save its practitioners money – using less material, less
energy, less water, fewer controls to protect workers, and less pollution that needs to be
expensively captured.
The first step a company often takes in a P2 program is to evaluate its housekeeping
practices. ▪ When a toxic substance is spilled, it becomes hazardous waste and the materials
used to clean it up also becomes hazardous waste. So, minimizing spills is P2. Even if the
spilled substance is not toxic, it still takes materials – that would otherwise not be used – to
clean up the spill. ▪ To make P2 work, top management must commit itself to its success. At
the same time employees are the ones who regularly work with a process. They are often
best informed as to where and how to modify a process to decrease pollution. Some
companies – 3M Corporation is a prominent example – offer bonuses to employees to
develop workable P2 ideas. After many years of implementing P2, the employees of 3M
continue to generate ideas: P2 is an ongoing process. See Tables 2.4 and 2.5.
For a company to improve housekeeping may not be difficult. Likewise, P2 practices,
such as changing from a hazardous solvent to an equally effective, but less hazardous
solvent may not be difficult. Even changing one step in a production process may be
implemented without great difficulty. But, to consider changing a whole production process,
the rate of return must be high because the risk is much greater – more money is spent
without assurance that the new process will work properly. ▪ In the United States, the only
law addressing P2 is the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act. It does not mandate P2. Rather it
uses the TRI to encourage it: when a business reports TRI emissions, it must also describe

16
Pollution prevention, basic information. US EPA, January 10, 2008, [Link]

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 47 The waste management hierarchy (WMH)

Table 2.4 Industrial Use of P2

Previous action and result Change that lessened pollution

Using trichloroethane (ozone-depleting and Replaced trichloroethane with a water-based

toxic organic solvent) to clean metal. When solvent, which works just as well.
dirty, it is a hazardous waste.a
Painting steel joists by dipping them into open Layered paint vats with ping-pong balls. These
vats of paint; large amounts of fumes are cut emissions while not interfering with
released. dipping the joists.
Using inefficient motors, which waste energy. As each old motor broke down, purchased a
more energy-efficient motor.
Packaging detergent in a box too large for its Used a smaller box. Redesigned packaging to
contents. The packaging is thrown away. use less material. Recycled packaging.
Manufacturing plastic beverage bottles. Redesigned bottle to use less plastic, but
remained equally strong.
A coal-burning electric power plant captures the Switch to a source of coal with lower-sulfur
sulfur dioxide that forms as coal is burned. content.
a
Substitutes in metal cleaning. US EPA, January 2, 2009, [Link]
lists/[Link].

Table 2.5 P2 in the motor vehicle industry

A manufacturer designs a
vehicle that: The result is:

Has reduced tailpipe emissions Less air pollution is produced

Has better fuel mileage or is of Less air pollution is produced
lighter weight but is still safe Gasoline is conserved
Uses less-toxic chemicals in Worker exposure to chemicals is reduced. Hazardous waste
manufacturing the vehicle generation is reduced.
Can be disassembled at the end of Some component parts can be reused. Others are recycled.
its life Materials are conserved. Less pollution is produced

Notice that these examples could also be used to illustrate Design for the Environment.

what it is doing to reduce emissions. ▪ The EPA and state governments also collaborate with
industry to stimulate P2. In one EPA effort called the 33/50 Program, 1150 participating
companies reduced emissions of 17 chemicals that are very toxic or emitted in especially
large amounts, first by at least 33% and later by at least 50%. In the Green Lights Program,
both the EPA and the US Department of Energy, work with businesses and institutions to
reduce the energy used in lighting. There are also programs to reduce energy use by other
appliances and, in industry, to reduce energy use by industrial motors. But, remember that
it’s not only industry that can benefit from P2 – so can government agencies, municipalities,
institutions, and individuals; see Table 2.6. ▪ At its most effective, P2 is part of a broader

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 48 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

Table 2.6 Individual examples of using P2

How is each of the following an example of P2? You:

Purchase a car with better fuel economy than your former car had. Maintain the car so that its fuel
economy remains high
Avoid buying disposable batteries for trivial purposes
Buy energy-efficient appliances, electronics, and light bulbs and turn them off when not in use
Turn down the thermostat at night
Practice water conservation in your home and yard
Purchase durable consumer goods
Repair appliances and electronics rather than buying new ones
Buy products with as little packaging as possible
Drink tap water or beverages prepared at home
Eat less meat: this means less land, energy, water, pesticides, and fertilizers are used because grain
is eaten directly rather than fed to livestock

concept – Design for the Environment (DfE). In DfE, from the moment that a new product is
conceived, designers work to make its environmental impact as low as possible. DfE aims
for a product with a longer life, fewer environmentally harmful effects, and a product that
can be easily disassembled at the end of its life for reuse or recycling. We will see examples
of DfE in later chapters.

Other forms of P2
▪Another term with similar meaning to P2 is source reduction, using less of a raw material
when making a product. This can involve a change in the design, manufacture, purchase,
or use of a material or product (including packaging). ▪ Reuse of a product or material is
also source reduction (as is conservation). So is using less energy. ▪ Reducing worker
exposure to toxic chemicals during product manufacture has another term, toxics use
reduction, also a form of P2.

Recycling and reuse17

Most people are familiar with recycling common materials such as paper, glass, and
aluminum cans. ▪ Aluminum recycling offers dramatic advantages. Recycling saves 95%
of energy as compared to mining aluminum from scratch and then making new containers; it
also reduces air and water pollution by 95%. Recycling also conserves aluminum resources
(source reduction). ▪ Recycling other metals offers savings in energy, resources, and
pollution although less dramatically than for aluminum. ▪ Reusing a product is often closely
related to P2 – fewer resources are needed and less pollution is produced. As an illustration,

17
Reduce, reuse, and recycle. US EPA, February 18, 2009, [Link]

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 49 The waste management hierarchy (WMH)

Table 2.7 Examples of industrial recycling and reuse

Reuse

A welding plant returns empty wire spools to the supplier, who reuses them
Parts from auto engines are refurbished and reused (this is remanufacturing)
Recycle and reuse
An oil refinery refines motor vehicle oil for reuse
A paint manufacturer reprocesses waste household paint for reuse
A factory cleans a metal with a solvent, reusing the solvent several times. When it becomes dirty, it
purifies and reuses it – it doesn’t becomes waste
A factory recovers and reuses water used in manufacturing its product
Recycle
A paper manufacturer uses post-consumer paper – paper already once used by consumers – to make
more paper.
A manufacturer produces products from used glass, metal, or plastic (such as bottles, cans, packaging)
A manufacturer stamps each plastic piece used as to what kind of plastic it is (so plastics can be
separated after use for recycling into products)

Table 2.8 Individual recycling and reuse

You:

Thoughtfully recycle every household item that you can

Recycle aluminum cans, and also clean foil and other Al items for subsequent recycling
Find an organization to use your leftover paints rather than disposing of them
Take used oil and antifreeze to a service or recycling station
Compost grass clippings and leaves rather than placing them in the trash
Reuse paper and plastic bags many times over, or, buy fabric bags

about one-third less energy is needed to clean and refill glass bottles than to recycle them.
However, glass is heavy and the energy saved would be lost if the bottles were transported to
a distant market so local bottling plants would need to be used – local bottlers were once
typical, not unusual. See Table 2.7 for industrial recycling and reuse examples, and Table 2.8
for examples of individual efforts.
Recycling can be problematic. ▪ Recycling produces waste, sometimes a great deal.
Consider paper. Coatings and fillers amount to as much as 50% of the paper’s weight, and
must be recovered during the recycling process. Then, because they have no practical use,
they are disposed of in a landfill. ▪ And, although metal and glass can be recycled indef-
initely, paper or plastic can be recycled only a few times before losing quality. ▪ For some
products, if recycling is not done responsibly major problems can result as you will see in
Chapter 12’s discussion of computers and other electronics taken to less-developed coun-
tries for “recycling.”

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 50 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

Treatment
When a material cannot be recycled or reused, the third step on the waste management
hierarchy is treatment. There are two important reasons to treat a pollutant or solid waste –
to reduce its volume or to reduce its toxicity (or other hazard). ▪ The major reason municipal
solid waste (MSW) is burned – considered a treatment – is to reduce its volume. ▪ The major
reason hazardous waste is treated is to reduce its toxicity. Other than incineration, there are
many ways to treat hazardous waste. Table 12.1 provides examples. Treatment of hazardous
waste is required before it can be disposed of.

Disposal
Disposal is at the bottom of the waste management hierarchy, but responsible disposal is of
major importance. A municipality must dispose of its MSW and sewage sludge in ways
carefully defined by law in developed societies. Both industry and municipalities sometimes
produce huge amounts of waste, which makes responsible disposal especially important.
Landfills are carefully regulated. ▪ But, as we will see in Chapter 11, responsible disposal is
often a challenging task. Laws do not ordinarily tell individual citizens how they must
dispose of their waste. However, public policy sometimes makes it costly to citizens if they
do not remove recyclables first before disposing of the rest as waste. Information can be
obtained from a town recycling office or library to aid disposing of household hazardous
wastes like paint or oil. In the future, if society moves toward industrial ecology (defined
below) at least some wastes may become resources.

Questions 2.1

1. Do the hazardous chemicals transiting your community pose a risk? How?

2. Companies are only required to report their TRI emissions, not to reduce them. Citizens do
pressure them to reduce emissions. Other than using laws and regulations to require
reductions, what are other possible actions that government could take?
3. (a) One company replaced the organic solvent, trichloroethane with a water-based solvent.
How is this P2? (b) Consider another company that used trichloroethane to clean metals, but
used it only one time and then discarded it. The company discovered that it could reuse
trichloroethane several times before it becomes too dirty to perform effectively. Could this
reuse also be considered P2? Explain.
4. Why is reuse ordinarily environmentally preferable to recycling?
5. A packaging manufacturer develops more compact packaging for its client’s product,
packaging that is also lighter in weight. What are three ways that this represents P2?
6. (a) Unilever Corporation makes the detergent, All. It developed a 32-ounce bottle of All that
washes as many loads as 100 ounces did before.18 How is this source reduction (or P2)?
(b) How is it P2 to use a detergent that works just as well in cold water as in hot?

18
McCoy, M. Going green, the cleaning products industry embraces sustainability. Chemical & Engineering
News, 85(5), January 23, 2007, 13–19.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 51 Pollution prevention is not enough

7. In addition to examples in Table 2.6, what are two P2 steps that you as a vehicle owner
could take?
8. After thinking about it: what are two steps that you could easily take at home?19
9. There are many more examples of individual recycling than seen in Table 2.8 – what are
two of these?
10. A researcher finds a simple inexpensive means to remove arsenic from drinking water.
What step in the WMH does this represent? Explain.
11. Energy is a resource too: which step in the WMH is being used in the cases below? Explain.
If unsure of what a case refers to, go to the Internet for an explanation. (a) Heat is
recovered from sewage effluent.20 (b) Heat is recovered from a power plant’s air
emissions. (c) Methane is collected from a landfill for use as a fuel. (d) Regenerative
braking is used in a hybrid car. (e) Incandescent light bulbs are replaced with compact
fluorescent bulbs.
12. Emissions from livestock are a major source, 18%, of global greenhouse gases. That’s
more than the transportation sector generates. (Greenhouse gases are those that con-
tribute to global warming.) What are two ways to reduce greenhouse gases coming from
livestock?

SECTION III

Pollution prevention is not enough 21

Industrial symbiosis 22

Pollution prevention is tremendously attractive, but we cannot avoid all waste and pollution.
Moreover, P2 alone cannot accomplish other critical environmental aims such as preserving
species biodiversity or saving land. What if we could legitimately redefine the word
“waste”? Kalundborg, a city in Denmark, is a model of treating wastes as useful by-
products in a process called industrial symbiosis: by-products, whether material, energy,
or water are sold or given to nearby facilities, which use or reuse them (Figure 2.2).
* Asnaes is Kalundborg’s coal-burning electric power plant. Asnaes uses the high-
temperature steam obtained from burning coal to generate electricity. Lower temperature

19
Pollution prevention at home. US EPA, January 14, 2009, [Link] [info for greening at a number
of places].
20
Doyle, A. Oslo’s sewage heats its homes. Reuters, April 10, 2006, [Link]
cfm/newsid/35952/[Link].
21
Greening industry, new ideas in pollution regulation. The World Bank, 2009, [Link]
TFGRCF3JJ0.
22
Gertler, N. and Ehrenfeld, J. R. A down-to-earth approach to clean production. Technology Review, Feb/Mar,
1996, 50–54.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 52 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

Sulfur dioxide emissions

ASNAES (as calcium sulfate) GYPROC
Coal-burning electric Wallboard
power plant manufacturer
Steam Fly ash and
clinker
Used for road
building and
cement

Heats homes
and buildings

NOVO NORDISK
Pharmaceutical
Used water and manufacturer
natural gas Sludge
STATOIL
Petroleum refinery Natural Used as
gas fertilizer on
Sulfur farms

KEMIRA
Sulfuric acid manufacturer

Figure 2.2 Industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg

steam, which would otherwise become thermal pollution, is piped into 5000 Kalundborg
houses and buildings to provide space heating, and also into two other plants (Statoil and
Novo Nordisk) to provide them with needed steam. ▪ Asnaes uses a scrubber to capture
the sulfur dioxide emissions resulting from burning sulfur-contaminated coal, converting
them into calcium sulfate, which is sold to Gyproc. Gyproc uses calcium sulfate to make
wallboard. Previously, Gyproc purchased calcium sulfate from Spanish mines, but now
Asnaes meets most of its needs. ▪ Asnaes, instead of landfilling the fly ash and clinker that
results from burning coal, sells them for use in road-building and cement making.
* Statoil is a petroleum refinery. Oil refineries often burn off the natural gas found in
petroleum. However, Statoil pumps its gas to Gyproc, which burns it to fire the ovens
that dry wallboard. Gyproc has butane gas backup for times that Statoil is shut down for
maintenance. Statoil also sells gas to Asnaes, so Asnaes burns gas as well as coal. ▪ Natural
gas contains sulfur too, which is removed by a process that produces hot liquid sulfur. This
is shipped 50 miles (80 km) to Kemira where it is used to produce sulfuric acid. ▪ Fresh
water is scarce in Kalundborg. Statoil pipes its used water to Asnaes, which uses it to clean
plant equipment, provide feed water to its boiler, and reduce the thermal pollution that it
produces. Overall, water reuse schemes in the town have reduced demand 25%.
* Novo Nordisk is a pharmaceutical firm using microorganisms to ferment food-grade
material into usable products. ▪ Fermentation produces a nutrient-rich sludge. Steam –
piped in from Asnaes – is used to kill surviving microorganisms. The disinfected sludge is
then distributed via pipeline to a thousand nearby farms that used it for fertilizer.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 53 Pollution prevention is not enough

Table 2.9 Pollution prevention and industrial symbiosis in actiona

Facility and problem Action and result Facility and problem Action and result

1. Los Angeles Airport - Sends to sewage 4. Bell Helicopter in Fort - Pumped sludge back into
disposed of 19 000 tons treatment plant Worth used magnesium process. Found could
of food waste a year Microbes digest waste hydroxide Mg(OH)2 in use 3–4 times before
and generate methane electroplating. Some was dumping
- An electric utility burns lost to sewer, and ended - Save money by buying
the methane up in wastewater sludge less Mg(OH)2
- Saves waste disposal - Less sludge to deal with
costs saved money
- Make money from
selling methane
2. ITT Industries’ - Nitrogen was found to 5. International Paper in - Natural gas burning
Virginia facility used work as well as SF6 Jay, Maine, generated facility was built on site.
sulfur hexafluoride SF6 without adverse steam by burning Its owner sells steam to
(a strong ozone- environmental effect number-6 fuel oil with mill
depleting gas) to test - Nitrogen is cheaper to 1.8% sulfur and other - Burning natural gas
tubes in night-vision buy than SF6 contaminants; some generates less air
devices became air pollutants pollution and CO2
3. Tennessee Valley - Sells CaSO4 to 6. International Paper - Found alternate
Authority (TVA) an wallboard-maker mill in Jay, Maine, found suppliers to furnish
electric utility trapped - Sells ash and slag for mercury Hg in its uncontaminated acid
sulfur dioxide as use in concrete and wastewater. Traced Hg to and alkali. Wastewater
calcium sulfate CaSO4 abrasives contaminated acid and Hg fell to levels no
This was landfilled as - Eliminates landfill costs alkali higher than natural
was the fly ash and and makes money levels in river
boiler slag

Examples 1–4 from Deutsch, C. H. Together at last: cutting pollution and making money. New York Times,
September 9, 2001. Examples 5–6 from Hill, M., Saviello, T., and Groves, S. The greening of a pulp and paper mill.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(1), 2002.
a
For additional examples, see: Environmental success stories. California Department of Environmental Control,
[Link]

Beyond Kalundborg23
Kalundborg provides an example of how to redefine the words “waste” and “pollutant.”
“Wastes” and “by-products” become useful products. See Table 2.9 for further examples of
uses being found for what were previously wastes.
* Think about computers. What if the pollutants and wastes produced as we mine and
process the raw materials that go into manufacturing computers could find uses? What if

23
What is green engineering? US EPA, September 13, 2007, [Link]
whats_ge.html.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 54 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

the wastes and pollutants generated during computer manufacture could be used? And
consider end-of-life computers and other electronics. In Chapter 12, you will see the
havoc when they are improperly recycled. What if at the end of their useful lives,
electronics could be efficiently disassembled and all components used again?
* Think more ambitiously. What if we could meld most human-made products, wastes, and
pollutants into the natural ecosystem – without harming it? For this exercise to be more
than a fantasy we must make DfE a reality: develop systems in which all inorganic wastes
and pollutants go back into industrial processes or, at worst, are separated for safekeep-
ing; and in which all biological wastes (including sewage) become “food” for processes
that produce useful products (or else be assimilated into ecosystems when this can be
done without overloading them). In such a world human-made systems could blend into
nature, not deplete nature’s ability to provide services. Chapters 11 and 18 further
examines these possibilities.

Questions 2.2

1. Why is it important that facilities involved in industrial symbiosis be near one another?
2. What is a case in Table 2.9 that goes beyond P2? Explain.
3. Review Figure 2.2. Then consider industrial, municipal, or other facilities in your locale.
(a) What is one possibility that exists for industrial symbiosis? (b) What factors – physical
location, financial, liability, public policy – could favor such symbiosis? (c) How could waste
materials produced or collected by municipal operations (recyclables, sewage) fit into the
symbiosis? (d) How about local agricultural wastes?
4. Many people believe that Western lifestyles are unsustainable, that per capita resource use
is too high by as much as 10-fold. What is an instance where a technology evolved in a way
that reduced its material input by at least 10-fold?
5. What are four products in your own life that you could reduce your consumption of two-fold
without affecting your life style?
6. (a) What are five wastes that you throw away on a typical day in your home? (b) At work?
(c) On trips (including travel, lodging, meals, etc.)?
7. (a) What are five wastes you generate indirectly when you purchase products from grocery
stores, gasoline stations, auto maintenance shops, dry cleaners, doctors’ and dentists’
offices, restaurants, and retail stores? (b) What responsibility do you bear for these?

Delving deeper

1. After learning the characteristics of hazardous chemicals, contact (if possible visit) your
local fire department. Ask to see a list of what hazardous chemicals are used in your
community. Local facilities having hazardous chemicals will have submitted MSDSs
(Material Safety Data Sheets) for them. Do you recognize the names of any of these
chemicals? Are there any that surprise you? Concern you? If you are surprised, you may
want to contact the facility using the chemical and ask what they use it for.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 55 Further reading

S CR
EN

E
GR

EN
ALS
FO R

IC
AF

S
ER CH EM

Figure 2.3 Green Screen for Safer Chemicals. Credit: US EPA

2. Recall that TRI information does not tell us the actual risk of a chemical. Nor does it tell us if
the risk is high compared to other chemical risks in our environment. What public policy
could you envision that would provide disclosures that would give you a greater under-
standing of chemical risk than provided by TRI?
3. There is major action nowadays to generate biofuels – fuels derived from corn, sugar cane,
soybeans, switchgrass, and other crops – to replace petroleum fuels. (a) CO2 is the major
greenhouse gas contributing to global climate change. Grown sustainably, biofuel crops
would not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Why? (b) Life-cycle assessment
(LCA) is a process that examines all the environmental impacts that products (from
computers to corn) can have: the impact of obtaining the necessary raw materials needed,
and its manufacture, use, and end of life impacts (whether recycling or disposal). Diagram
the factors you’d have to consider when analyzing the impacts of a biofuel. Include social
impacts in your consideration. (c) What factors could contribute to preventing biological
sources from being grown sustainably?
4. Think about a clothing detergent. (a) Diagram the impacts of a detergent over the four
phases of its lifetime. (Your current state of knowledge will be adequate.) (b) What are four
ways that the impact of using detergent could be minimized?
5. Green chemistry works to find safer chemical for industrial processes and for everyday
products such as those used in cleaning (see Figure 2.3). Go to [Link]
[Link]/[Link] and choose a subject of interest to you such as Extended
Producer Responsibility. Develop a brief report on the subject you have chosen, note why
it is important and how it is used.

Further reading

Gertler, N. and Ehrenfeld, J. R. A down-to-earth approach to clean production. Technology

Review, February/March, 1996, 50–54.
Hook, G. E. R. and Lucier, G. W. The right to know is for everyone. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 108(4), April 2000, A160, [Link] – 4/
[Link].

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 56 Reducing risk, reducing pollution

McCoy, M. Going Green, the cleaning products industry embraces sustainability. Chemical &
Engineering News, 85(5), January 23, 2007, 13–19.
Service, R. F. A new wave of chemical regulations just ahead? Science, 325, August 7, 2009,
692–693.
Tremblay, J. F. China’s environmental conscience. Chemical & Engineering News, 85(40),
October 1, 2007, 26.
Tremblay, J. F. Talks with Ma Jun, tireless environmental activist. Chemical & Engineering
News, 85(40), October 1, 2007, 26.

Internet resources

Pollution locator, toxic chemical releases in the US. 2005. Environmental Defense. http://
[Link]/env-releases/[Link] (2005).
European Environment Agency. What is EPER, the European pollutant emission register?
[Link]
US EPA. 2006. Toxic Release Inventory report. [Link]
[Link] (November 5, 2006).
2007. What is green engineering. See figure: “Proliferation of environmental laws
and regulations.” [Link]
(September 13, 2007).
2008. Pollution Prevention, basic information. [Link]
(January 10, 2008).
2009. Pollution prevention at home. [Link] (January 14, 2009).
2009. Reduce, reuse, and recycle. [Link]
(February 18, 2009).
2009. Browse TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) topics. [Link]
[Link] (May 15, 2009).
World Bank. 2009. Greening industry, new ideas in pollution regulation. [Link]
[Link]/TFGRCF3JJ0 (October, 2009).

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press