next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
For those of you who don't get Rachel weekly, I thought I'd forward this
... I know it's based on UK and US research, but this problem is indeed a
global one. Considering continental air patterns and the regional mercury
problem I thought it would be relevant. Cheers.
d
----------------------------
deborah bakker
c/o school for resource and environmental studies
dalhousie university
902.494.3632
902.494.3728 (fax)
find your place on the planet, dig in and take responsibility from there
-- gary snyder
... a good mixed tape [can] put you in the right mood
-- the beastie boys
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 98 19:03:48 EDT
From: rachel@rachel.org
To: rachel-weekly@rachel.org
Subject: Rachel #602: Toxic Turnaround
=======================Electronic Edition========================
. .
. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #602 .
. ---June 11, 1998--- .
. HEADLINES: .
. TOXIC TURNAROUND .
. ========== .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.org .
. ========== .
. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send .
. E-mail to INFO@rachel.org with the single word HELP .
. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from .
. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com .
. and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ .
. Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, E-mail the words .
. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME to: listserv@rachel.org. .
=================================================================
TOXIC TURNAROUND
The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), working in San Diego,
California, and Tijuana, Mexico, is one of the premier
environmental justice groups in the U.S. Founded in 1980, EHC is
a coalition of savvy citizens, many of them low-income people of
color, who started off fighting toxic contamination in their
neighborhoods. As time passed, they realized that they had to
get at the source of these toxic problems if they were ever going
to make any permanent progress. So they started thinking about
how to prevent pollution. Now they have become experts in the
subject, showing others how to get off the toxic treadmill.
Since 1980, EHC has come a long way, as anyone can see who reads
their new report, TOXIC TURNAROUND.[1] TOXIC TURNAROUND is a
step-by-step guide for local government officials (municipal or
county), showing them how to reduce their agency's reliance on
toxic materials --toxic solvents, cleaning preparations, paints,
pesticides, etc.
As this new report shows, local government agencies use toxics
just the way private firms do. Many local governments and
private firms maintain inventories, at any given moment, of
roughly 300 pounds of toxic materials per employee.[1,pg.6] City
governments use toxics in maintaining their fleet of vehicles,
for custodial purposes (cleaning, painting and coating,
disinfecting and maintaining buildings), in their printing plant,
and in their public parks (pesticides, and toxics related to
swimming pool maintenance). In a city the size of San Diego,
with 12,400 employees, this means city government maintains a
stock of 3.8 million pounds of toxic or hazardous materials at
any given moment (not including the gasoline used in city
vehicles). But it doesn't have to be this way. Local
governments can become leaders in reducing the use of toxic
materials. This is important, because a government that is
addicted to toxics isn't in a very strong moral position to urge
a private firm to clean up its act.
EHC is convinced that abandoning toxics is the only way we're
ever going to solve our environment-and-health problems.
"Gradually," says EHC's executive director, Diane Takvorian, "it
became apparent to us that toxics cause health and safety
problems in every situation where they are used, and that better
law enforcement and control strategies are not the whole answer.
We need farther-reaching solutions that reduce society's
dependence on toxic chemicals. Because toxic materials generate
pollution and hazards at every stage of their life-cycle
--manufacturing, transportation, incorporation into a product,
use of the product and final disposal --we have come to believe
that the best solution to the problem of toxic pollution is
preventing the pollution in the first place. Eliminating a toxic
material eliminates its problems at every stage."[1,pg.1]
Remarkably, even the federal EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency] has never developed an official prioritized list that
tells people which toxic materials they might want to eliminate
first. So EHC has developed a list of its own, based on toxicity
to humans and damage to the environment. EHC says the top
pollution prevention targets are these:
** Volatile organic compounds (which includes such things as
benzene, toluene, acetaldehyde, xylenes, phenol, formaldehyde,
acrolein, acetic acid, butyric acid, acetone, methyl ethyl
ketone, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, methyl alcohol, ethyl
alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, butyl alcohol, and other
hydrocarbons).
** Toxic pesticides, of which there are many.
** Other chlorinated or brominated compounds (for example,
perchloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, para-dichlorobenzene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], etc.).
** Toxic gases, such as chlorine.
** Toxic heavy metals, such as lead, mercury and cadmium.
Reducing the use of toxic materials can pay off in many ways. In
Massachusetts, where a 1989 state law mandated reductions in the
use of toxics, a survey of 434 firms found that 67% of the firms
that reduced their use of toxics saved money on waste disposal
and/or materials during the period 1990-1995. Some 66% of these
firms also reported improvements in worker health and safety.
About 45% of the firms reported reduced compliance requirements.
And 27% said that reducing toxics had given them a marketing
advantage.[2]
For governments, the three main areas of cost savings would be:
(a) Reduced cost for materials. Where they will do the job, soap
and water are cheaper than toxic cleaning solutions.
(b) Reduced costs related to worker health problems, including
direct medical costs, worker compensation claims, lost earnings
and lost productivity due to illnesses, plus unquantifiable costs
resulting from reduced quality of life caused by ailments such as
headaches and skin rashes.
(c) Reduced administrative costs. Governments that reduce their
use of toxic materials can save substantially on management
costs. A government that uses toxic materials in significant
quantities probably generates hazardous wastes as a result.
Wastes must be tested to see if they are hazardous. Any site
producing hazardous waste must have a federal identification
number assigned to it, for tracking waste produced at that site.
Hazardous waste must be stored in non-leaking containers with
tight-fitting lids. Containers must be labeled with waterproof
stickers identifying the type of waste. The containers must be
routinely inspected. Incompatible wastes, such as cyanide and
acids, cannot be stored near each other because they might create
deadly hazards if they came in contact with each other. Any site
that generates hazardous waste must have a contingency plan for
fires, explosions, or other unplanned releases of toxic
materials. Personnel must be trained to handle hazardous
materials. And on and on. Hazardous and toxic materials create
administrative problems that governments must solve. It is often
simpler --in some cases MUCH simpler --to do away with the
problematic chemicals, thus preventing the headaches and the
administrative overhead.
No doubt about it, pollution prevention saves taxpayer dollars.
It is a way of cutting government costs without sacrificing
public service.
Furthermore, there is evidence that reducing the use of toxics
can improve morale among employees because they don't have to
worry so much about conditions on the job, and they begin to feel
that their employer is part of the solution and no longer part of
the problem. Toxics use reduction becomes a source of hope for
government employees and for citizens alike. Furthermore, as
mentioned earlier, pollution prevention gives government
credibility when it urges the business community to reduce its
use of toxic materials. And it can give government employees new
resolve to pressure the private sector to get off the toxic
treadmill. Government officials begin to think, "Hey, we did it
--now you should too."
If government officials want to take stock of local practices, to
see if it is feasible to reduce their use of toxics materials,
they could start by picking up a copy of this new report.[1]
Everything they need to get started is right here between two
covers.
The TOXIC TURNAROUND report includes a half-dozen case studies
from California cities ranging in size from Santa Monica
(population: 87,000) and Chula Vista (population: 160,000) to Los
Angeles (population: 3.4 million). Some of the information is
really exciting. For example, the City of San Francisco in late
1996 passed an ordinance requiring an immediate ban on the most
toxic pesticides and a complete ban on all pesticide use by city
government by the year 2000.[1,pg.29] Giant steps are possible.
(The San Francisco ordinance is reprinted as Appendix A of TOXIC
TURNAROUND.)
Because EHC has been working for so long in San Diego, the group
is grounded in all aspects of advocacy. They know what it takes
to get governments to move. So TOXIC TURNAROUND includes
everything necessary for a local government to start to reduce
its use of toxic materials. Pollution prevention starts with a
Toxics Use Reduction Policy. No pollution prevention plan can
work unless it becomes official agency policy. The TOXIC
TURNAROUND report offers a Model Pollution Prevention Policy on
pgs. 35-36.
The next step is to identify alternative materials that are less
toxic or non-toxic. TOXIC TURNAROUND offers specific
recommendations for:
(a) taking an inventory to find out what toxics are being used;
(b) setting priorities;
(c) examining and selecting alternatives;
(d) setting goals, assigning responsibilities, and scheduling the
changeover;
(e) evaluating progress.
Chapters 7 through 12 explain in detail how to develop
specifications for the purchasing department, then how to locate
sources of less-toxic or non-toxic cleaning products,
disinfectants, pest control agents, fleet maintenance products,
print shop supplies, and swimming pool chemicals. (Appendix C
gives a sample purchasing specification.)
The report ends with an excellent list of printed resources,
useful web sites, and organizations that specialize in specific
aspects of pollution prevention.
Lastly, if your local government isn't quite ready to reduce its
own use of toxic materials, TOXIC TURNAROUND includes a special
Appendix D for citizens: "Organizing to Get Pollution Prevention
in Your Community." How to get your government off the dime.
If we expect firms to shift over to sustainable business
practices, our local governments must show the way. After all,
to a large extent, local governments are us. Municipal and
county officials can set the tone and temper of the discussion
around sustainable communities --but if their own habits and
practices aren't sustainable because they are toxic, who will
accept their leadership?
All across the country, local and regional economies are being
made more democratic and more responsive to local needs, as they
are being restructured by community development activists, such
as those gathered under the umbrella of Sustainable America
(www.sustamer.org). TOXIC TURNAROUND from the Environmental
Health Coalition[1] offers all these community development
groups, and their local governments, practical steps they can
take to make their local economies more environmentally sound and
sustainable.
Hats off to the Environmental Health Coalition. First-class work
from the grass-roots. Where would we be without them?
--Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
===============
[1] Joy Williams, Sonya Holmquist and Diane Takvorian, TOXIC
TURNAROUND (San Diego, California: Environmental Health
Coalition, 1998). Available for $28 from EHC, 1717 Kettner
Boulevard, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92101; telephone (619)
235-0281; fax: (619) 232-3670; E-mail: ehcoalition@igc.apc.org;
or www.environmentalhealth.org.
[2] Monica Becker and Ken Geiser, EVALUATING PROGRESS: A REPORT
ON THE FINDINGS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS TOXICS USE REDUCTION PROGRAM
EVALUATION (Lowell, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts at
Lowell, Toxics Use Reduction Institute, March, 1997). Available
from the Toxics Use Reduction Institute, One University Avenue,
Lowell, MA 01854-2886. Telephone (508) 934-3275; fax: (508)
934-3050.
Descriptor terms: ehc; environmental health coalition; san
diego, ca; environmental justice; studies; diane takvorian;
pollution prevention; toxics use reduction; guide books; mexico;
tijuana;
################################################################
NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at
(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.
--Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects