ET 7/98: Toxic turnaround

Toxic turnaround

San Diego's own Environmental Health Coalition leads the way in helping local governments eliminate toxics.

by Peter Montague

The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), working in San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico, is one of the premier environmental justice groups in the United States. 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.. 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. 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."

Toxics hit list

Remarkably, even the 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, paradichlorobenzene, 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 percent of the firms that reduced their use of toxics saved money on waste disposal and/or materials during the period 1990-1995. Some 66 percent of these firms also reported improvements in worker health and safety. About 45 percent of the firms reported reduced compliance requirements. And 27 percent said that reducing toxics had given them a marketing advantage.

Non-toxic savings

For governments, the three main areas of cost savings would be:

Reduced cost for materials. Where they will do the job, soap and water are cheaper than toxic cleaning solutions.
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.
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."

Step-by-step reduction

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. 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. 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 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?

Toxic Turnaround is available for $28 from EHC, 1717 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92101; (619) 235-0281; fax: (619) 232-3670; E-mail: ehcoalitionigc.apc.org; or www.environmentalhealth.org.

Reprinted from Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly, with permission. Subscription information may be obtained by writing to: PO Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036.

Toxic turnaround
San Diego's own Environmental Health Coalition leads the way in helping local governments eliminate toxics.
by Peter Montague
	The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), working in San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico, is one of the premier environmental justice groups in the United States. 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.. 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. 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."
Toxics hit list
	Remarkably, even the 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, paradichlorobenzene, 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 percent of the firms that reduced their use of toxics saved money on waste disposal and/or materials during the period 1990-1995. Some 66 percent of these firms also reported improvements in worker health and safety. About 45 percent of the firms reported reduced compliance requirements. And 27 percent said that reducing toxics had given them a marketing advantage.
Non-toxic savings
	For governments, the three main areas of cost savings would be:
	Reduced cost for materials. Where they will do the job, soap and water are cheaper than toxic cleaning solutions. 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. 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."
Step-by-step reduction
	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. 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. 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 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?
Toxic Turnaround is available for $28 from EHC, 1717 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92101; (619) 235-0281; fax: (619) 232-3670; E-mail: ehcoalitionigc.apc.org; or www.environmentalhealth.org. Reprinted from Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly, with permission. Subscription information may be obtained by writing to: PO Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036.