Featured Sections:

Toxics Reduction

Pesticide Spraying	Cleaning Products	Computer Equipment	Industrial Drums

What is toxics reduction and why is it important?

There are over 85,000 chemicals registered for use in the marketplace and likely tens of thousands more that are not registered. Only a tiny fraction (about 7 percent) of these chemicals have been assessed for their impacts on human health and the environment, and virtually none have been assessed for the synergistic impacts of exposure to multiple chemicals (which is what we are all exposed to daily). Research has demonstrated links between chemical exposures and increasing rates of cancer, asthma, birth defects, developmental disabilities, autism, infertility, and more recently diabetes and obesity.

The Pacific Northwest, known for its pristine environment and high quality of life, has its share of toxic pollutants and associated health issues. Consider the following:

• Oregon women ranked eighth in the U.S. for cancer incidence and mortality rate in 2001 and 2002, and Multnomah County had the third highest incidence rate in the state.
• The Oregon rate for asthma, which can be triggered by air toxics among other exposures, is higher than the national average.
• Fourteen air pollutants in Multnomah County exceed health-based benchmarks, and six of those are more than 10 times national health standards.
• Certain fish species in 16 waterways in Oregon contain mercury, PCBs and wood treating chemicals at levels harmful to health if consumed.
• Increasing body burdens (the level of bioaccumulation in humans) of toxics chemicals widely used as fire retardants have been found in human tissue and breast milk, including in women in the Pacific Northwest, and pose a potential public health threat to future generations.

Five points to consider when implementing a toxics reduction plan

1. What Is Your Goal? Establish a toxics reduction policy statement and/or goal to provide the context for all of your toxics reduction efforts. For example, "Promote a healthy community and environment by eliminating the governmental purchase, release and use of toxic substances that present potential negative health or environmental impacts." Toxics reduction efforts can seem overwhelming and it is often difficult to know where to start. Consider focusing on those areas where viable alternatives are available (e.g. low-mercury light tubes) and where you can learn from and replicate the successful efforts of other organizations and businesses.
2. Build On What You Are Already Doing! Assess your organization's current practices and replicate those that exemplify best management practices in other parts of your organization. For example, if one department has developed an effective electronics reuse and recycling program, expand that program to other departments.
3. Evaluate the Alternatives. Evaluate alternative products and practices through a transparent, participatory and informed process. Be sure to involve the staff that use these products on a regular basis and can best help determine if an alternative is viable — meaning the it is effective (e.g. pilot testing), affordable and readily available. In some cases, a least-toxic alternative product might be viable in some applications and not others (e.g. non-arsenic treated wood might work for outdoor playground equipment, but not for an underwater application like dock pilings).
4. Institutionalize Your Efforts by Developing Management Tools. Prevent new toxics substances of concern from entering operations through the effective utilization of a variety of procurement and chemical management tools (e.g. banned chemical list, regular chemical inventories/audits, chemical purchasing approval process, etc.).
5. Think Cradle to Grave: Toxics can be created and released throughout a product's life-cycle, including many of the consumer products we use everyday. Think beyond the 55-gallon drums or bottles of chemical products in your stockroom. For example, while copy paper isn't toxic, the bleaching process typically used to make the paper white can generate toxic substances of concern (e.g. the use of chlorine to bleach paper creates dioxins). Other products can release toxic substances when they are disposed of. Consider opportunities to use products that reduce toxics throughout their manufacture, use, management and disposal.

Toxics reduction implementation process

There are several effective approaches to toxics reduction (see What are other communities in Oregon and beyond doing?). When developing your implementation process, consider approaches that include the following key actions:

• Define the proposed scope of the specific action or project.
• Identify and involve key internal and external stakeholders.
• Investigate current practices and build on your existing toxics reduction efforts.
• Research best management practices and identify potential alternatives.
• Evaluate the feasibility of the alternatives (see Assessing alternatives).
• Seek feedback and input from potentially affected parties and stakeholders.
• Determine appropriate performance criteria and test the viable alternative(s).
• Recommend the viable alternative(s) (if any) and seek the necessary approvals to make the change.
• Develop and carry out an implementation plan.
• Monitor your progress.
• Review your results and make adjustments as necessary.
• Follow-up to ensure alternatives are still being used and that staff have not reverted back to using previous chemicals or products.

Assessing alternatives

An alternatives assessment is an important part of the process for making recommendations for the purchase of alternative products or chemicals, the implementation of best management practices, or the installation and use of new technologies. As available information allows, weigh the relative benefits and costs of the various alternatives. For the current product/practice, as well as the alternatives, ask the following questions (as applicable):

• Contains persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBTs) pollutants?
• Contains carcinogen, mutagen or teratogen?
• Contains endocrine disrupter?
• Contains heavy metals of concern (e.g. arsenic, mercury, lead, etc.)?
• Presents a high health hazard (e.g. flammable, poisonous, caustic, etc.)?
• Contributes to global warming?
• Depletes the ozone layer?
• Performance considerations?
• Availability?
• Manufacturer location?
• Direct cost considerations (e.g. product price)?
• Indirect cost considerations (e.g. labor, disposal, training, etc.)?
• Potential savings or avoided costs?
• User concerns or impacts (e.g. equipment warranties, etc.)?
• Waste disposal or recycling issues?
• Health or safety issues minimized or created?
• Reduced or increased liability?
• Regulatory issues or requirements?
• Other relevant factors?

The cost of toxics reduction

The toxicity of a product or substance is only one factor that enters into an assessment of its suitability for use. Other factors that should be considered include, but are not limited to, the impacts of a product or chemical's life cycle, costs, staffing, equipment warranties and capital investment requirements, as well as expected benefits such as savings, avoided costs, improved safety and reduced liability.

In many cases, pollution prevention and toxics reduction actually saves money. For example, from 1990 to 1999, Massachusetts companies implementing pollution prevention techniques reported a reduction in chemical waste by 57%, a reduction in the use of toxic chemicals by 40% and a reduction in chemical emissions by 80%. These companies reported saving $15 million as a result of these efforts. A little closer to home, the City of Portland's wastewater treatment plant switched to a less toxic alternative for disinfecting wastewater effluent, resulting in nearly $200,000 in annual savings from avoided safety and reporting requirements.

What are other communities in Oregon and beyond doing?

City of Eugene, OR.
The City of Eugene hosts a toxics right-to-know website and database that provides information about local use and emissions of pollutants. The City has recently established an Office of Sustainability and created a new sustainability manager position to focus on coordinating and advancing sustainability initiatives throughout city operations and in the community. A new 13 member sustainability commission was appointed in November 2007. The commission is a policy advisory body to the city council and city manager. Both the office and commission are assessing priority sustainability issues to address, and will consider strategies to reduce toxics use. Updates may be found on the city website.
http://www.eugene-or.gov

City of Portland and Multnomah County, OR.
In April of 2006, the City of Portland and Multnomah County developed and adopted their "Toxics Reduction Strategy: A plan for minimizing use of toxic substances of concern in government operations by using the Precautionary Principle." The Strategy contains 40 specific toxics reduction actions that the city and county will jointly evaluate and implement.
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=117897

City of Seattle, WA.
In July of 2002, the Seattle City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution #30487) directing the consideration of persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBTs) in making City purchasing decisions by developing purchasing criteria and an implementation plan.
http://seattle.gov/environment/Documents/PBTStrategy3-07-03.pdf

City of San Francisco, CA.
In July of 2003, San Francisco became the first city in the nation to adopt a Precautionary Principle approach, to be used when developing new environmental policies.
http://www.sfenvironment.com/aboutus/policy/legislation/precaution_principle.htm

Printable Version