[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TRI chemical reduction goals

I want to address a sort of side-issue to your question about goals.

There are some fairly simple and easy-to-use tools out for weighting TRI
releases by their potency of effect on human health and the environment.
Because potency of effect per unit mass can vary by many orders of magnitude
from one compound to another, measuring progress by potency-weighted
releases is much more meaningful than measuring progress by mass of
releases.  It's well within the realm of possibility that total releases of
all compounds could go down while causing a greater threat to human health
and the environment.

Potency weights are useful for assessing environmental performance at many
levels.  Besides using them to develop a meaningful assessment of
environmental progress, they can be used to identify the most important
emission streams at individual facilities, the industries of greatest
concern in a region, or compounds of greatest concern.  If you like, I can
send you a writeup I did on identifying a list of major emitters in
California based on their potency-weighted releases.

Good luck with your efforts.

Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot, P.E.
Process Profiles
P.O. Box 8264
Calabasas, CA 91372-8264


(818) 878-0454

----- Original Message -----
From: Snyder, Mark <mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us>
To: 'p2tech' <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 1:28 PM
Subject: TRI chemical reduction goals

> Dear P2 Tech members:
> The Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance is currently preparing
its biennial Pollution Prevention Evaluation Report.  One major aspect of
this report is a discussion on whether to establish reduction goals for TRI
chemical waste generated by Minnesota facilities.  I've pasted below an
excerpt from our report that discusses this in some greater detail.
> We would like to learn more about efforts made by other states in recent
years to reduce TRI chemical releases and/or waste generation.  If your
state has or is considering a program similar to this, please let me know
where I can learn more details about it.
> Thanks!
> Mark Snyder
> Pollution Prevention Specialist
> Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
> mark.snyder@moea.state.mn.us
> "The OEA proposes that Minnesota embark on the second decade of TRI
reporting and evaluation by setting statewide expectations for change. To
bring a renewed focus to reducing the use, generation and release of toxic
chemicals, the OEA is proposing that Minnesota establish a statewide
chemical reduction challenge. This report outlines reduction priorities and
strategies to help businesses meet this challenge.
> These strategies include an emphasis on reducing priority chemicals with
leadership from the facilities that generate them in the largest quantities.
Other strategies include a proposal for increased state promotion of
environmentally preferable purchasing, and exploring new financial
incentives to encourage toxicity reduction.
> Recommendation #1:
> * The state should establish goals to: 1) Reduce releases of TRI
chemicals, and 2) Reduce the quantities of TRI chemicals that are treated or
burned for energy recovery.
> The state should set reduction goals for TRI chemicals that are currently
being released to the environment, treated for disposal or burned for energy
recovery. Chemical releases in particular pose the greatest threat to human
health and the environment.  Facilities that generate toxic chemical waste
should target emissions for reductions and eventual elimination. The OEA
will use future years' TRI reports to track progress in meeting the goals.
> Goals will be proposed for 1) reducing the quantities of TRI chemicals
released to the environment, and 2) reducing the quantities of TRI chemicals
managed through methods other than recycling, (i.e. treatment or burning for
energy recovery)."