Pollution prevention (P2) is a strategy for reducing the amount of waste created and released into the environment, particularly by industrial facilities, agriculture, or consumers. Many large corporations view P2 as a method of improving the efficiency and profitability of production processes through waste reduction and technology advancements. Legislative bodies have enacted P2 measures, such as the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in the United States Congress.
Background Historical Origins
After World War II, as the worldwide economies recovered, the oil and chemically-related industries grew rapidly, but the chemical reactions and/or production processes they used often produced or released stoichiometric quantities of waste materials that were toxic and/or caused pollution. In the 1960s, the public reacted against the increasing wastes and/or pollution, and the modern environmental movement grew rapidly in reaction. In the late 1960s and early 1970s many countries began to pass “command and control” environmental statutes that mandated particular emission limits and/or “end-of the tailpipe” methods to control the wastes that had already been created.
For example, the U.S. Congress passed National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) that mandated that Federal Agencies evaluate the environmental impacts of their decisions. In 1970 the U.S. Congress and President Richard Nixon created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the new “command and control” environmental statutes that were being enacted.
In the 1970s, many companies in many countries attempted to implement the legally mandated “end-of the tailpipe” measures, but costs skyrocketed and the “end-of-the tailpipe” measures rapidly became less effective as the emission limits were lowered. In response, many companies began to quietly / secretly work to creatively solve their individualized pollution control problems by innovative methods.
In 1975, Dr. Joseph T. Ling, Vice President for Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control at the 3M Corporation, with the approval of the 3M Board of Directors, formalized a corporate-wide program and policy entitled “Pollution Prevention Pays”. The program moved 3M away from treating the wastes that had already been formed, and instead rewarded 3M employees for creatively devising new or revised products and processes that eliminated or minimized the formation of wastes, or recycled any wastes to form usable and valuable products, and thereby conserve natural resources,
In 1974, a committee of Senior Advisers to the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Europe (“ECE”) had defined “Non-Waste Technology” as “the practical application of knowledge, methods and means so as, within the needs of man, to provide the most rational use of natural resources and energy and to protect the environment.” In 1976, the ECE sponsored a five-day Seminar in Paris entitled “Non-Waste Technology and Production”, attended by more than 150 representatives of thirty countries and nine international inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, including many representatives of the chemically related industries. At the Paris Seminar, seventy-six papers were presented that addressed a wide variety of relevant ecological, technical, economic, social, legal and political policy issues and questions.
In 1978, the ECE published a 681 -page book of papers from the 1976 ECE Seminar. One of the most important papers was from Dr. Joseph T. Ling of 3M, where he first publicly disclosed the existence and intent of 3M’s “Pollution Prevention Pays” “3M 3P” program, which had been successfully introduced into 3M facilities in 15 countries in 9 months, and had reduced 70,000 tons of pollutants and 500 million gallons of wastewater while saving an estimated $10 million in actual or deferred costs. The 3M 3P program is still operating today.
Another important paper at the 1976 ECE Seminar was entitled “Concepts and Principles of Non-waste Technology,” and was given by Michael G. Royston, an economist from Geneva. Royston discussed a variety of economic / social / legal / political issues, aspects, and benefits related to the “Pollution Prevention” strategies. In 1979 Royston published a 197 page book entitled “Pollution Prevention Pays”. Joseph Ling of 3M wrote the foreword, and stated that Royston’s book embodied the concept that “it is environmentally, technically, and economically superior to eliminate the sources of pollution before clean-up problems are created.” Royston’s book detailed an economic / social / legal analysis of the benefits of the Pollution Prevention strategies, and criticized the earlier “command and control” approaches for failure to address technical complexity and evolution, and the importance of local circumstances. Royston also documented over 200 examples wherein Industry had already successfully and profitably commercialized “Pollution Prevention” techniques. In November 1980 Royston also published a similar shorter article (titled “Thinking Ahead – Making Pollution Prevention Pay” in the Harvard Business Review. Royston argued for an interdisciplinary “systems approach” to Pollution Prevention R&D, in order to achieve “Sustainability” on behalf of future generations.
Subsequently, Ling, other 3M speakers, and Royston began a sustained campaign of writing and speaking about Pollution Prevention strategies, at a variety of local and/or regional conferences to predominantly industrial audiences, with slowly increasing levels of support and encouragement from various national government agencies in Europe and North America. Many other companies from many industries in many countries began to adapt the generic “Pollution Prevention” concepts, and commercialize more environmentally friendly inventions while simultaneous saving money and/or making increasing profits. Public news stories about the Pollution Prevention efforts began to appear in the mainstream and industry press. Occasional peer-reviewed technical articles also began to appear, scattered among journals from the various industries and scientific and engineering disciplines.
England, France, and Germany soon adopted Pollution Prevention as a component of their national environmental policies. Furthermore, by 1988 thirty-four U.S. states had established Pollution Prevention programs, and in 1988 the U.S.’s EPA established its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (“OPPT”), to support the Pollution Prevention efforts in Industry. In 1990, U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush signed the U.S. Pollution Prevention Act, which mandated that “pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; and wastes and/or pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible.”
In 1991, Dr. Paul T. Anastas, a junior-chemist at EPA’s OPPT, coined a new term “Green Chemistry”, but the new terminology wasn’t used in public until an American Chemical Society conference in 1994. In 1995-1996 the U.S. EPA and National Science Foundation created the first U.S. Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards and initiated a grant program for supporting Academic “Green” research, both of which actions caused an explosion of interest in “Green” research in Academia. In 1998, Anastas and Dr. J.C. Warner published their now famous book “Green Chemistry Theory and Practice”, which described “12 Principles” for de-novo design and synthesis of new chemical products and processes, but admitted on page 8 that “Green chemistry which is discussed throughout this book, is a particular type of pollution prevention.”
Significance Pollution prevention is any action that reduces the amount of contaminants released into the environment. Implementation of such processes reduces the severity and/or number of hazards posed to both public health and the environment. Prevention of pollution preserves natural resources and can also have significant financial benefits in large scale processes. If companies produce less waste, they do not have to worry about proper disposal. Thus, P2 is also a proactive measure to reduce the costs of waste disposal and elimination.
Sources
Shipping ports are a significant source of pollution due to the heavy cargo traffic that these areas receive. The impact of these ships is quite widespread, affecting coastal communities and ecosystems across the globe. Most major shipping ports are located near environmentally sensitive estuaries. These areas are particularly impacted by high levels of diesel exhaust, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and sulfur oxides. The solution for reducing port-related pollution is multi-fold, encompassing attainable alternatives and long-term reduction goals. Examples of simple steps include a restriction on engine idling for ships in the port and the use of cleaner grade diesel fuels. Some more expensive measures can be taken to mitigate the pollution of ships. Replacing older model ships with ships containing new engines allows the ships to meet modern emission standards. Exhaust systems can also be retrofitted in order to reduce exhaust emissions. Looking ahead into the future, there are a few technologies being developed. For example, plugging ships into "shore-side" power sources may eliminate the need for idling engines. Additionally, various sources of alternative fuel are being developed, the most significant of which is a fuel cell unit.
Due to increased trade, the emissions from ships are expected to become the second largest source of diesel particulate matter by 2020. One approach to reduction as set forth by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) is to increase the amount of local trading, thereby reducing the number of miles that ships have to travel. Another approach regards the strategic placement of ports close to land transportation infrastructure such as roads and railroads. Again, this reduces the distance that vehicles have to travel between the initial and final destinations. Railroads that reach all the way to ports are a significant way to produce less toxic pollutants, as this eliminates the need for less-efficient trucks to transport the goods from the coastal port to the inland railroad infrastructure.
In 2017, the biggest pollutants included carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons, lead, and particulate matter according to Theilmann in the U.S. Clean Air Act. These pollutants harm the environment as well as the citizens living in these areas. The pollutants contribute to climate change and can result in acid rain. Citizens living in car-dominant highly populated areas are at the risk of health issues caused by these pollutants, ranging from chronic cough to death. According to Singh, the groups of people most affected by air pollution include children, people suffering from an underlying chronic disease, the asthmatic, and elderly. These groups are faced with an increase in trips to the hospital, worsened cough, episodes of rhinitis, and asthma attacks. Theilman states that the Clean Air Act has done a successful job at assessing and limiting the pollutants that harm humans from stationary and mobile sources. With policies like the Clean Air Act, and replacement of trees removed by deforestation, humans can reduct their carbon footprint and improve the quality of air.
Health hazards P2 strategies can mitigate many health hazards associated with pollution. Long-term exposure to certain pollutants can cause cancer, heart disease, asthma, birth defects, and premature death. Additionally, pollution of bodies of water can be detrimental to biodiversity.
U.S. legislation Pollution Prevention Act of 1990