Historical Context for TUR
To understand the definition and the significance of toxics use reduction (TUR), it is useful to know how it fits in the historical context of environmental policy and regulation in the United States. As a strategy and as a tool for environmental policy-making, TUR did not materialize overnight, but rather evolved as a response to the inherent limitations and weaknesses of the predominant environmental protection policies that took root in the early 1970s.
Several significant environmental events and policies informed the development of TUR as a strategy.
Click play to watch the video.
Timeline
1970s – Focus on Pollution Control
Landmark legislation to clean up and control air and water pollution was implemented in the US but these laws lacked a focus on less visible forms of pollution such as the generation of hazardous waste.
1980s – Crisis Management, Liability and Toxics
High-profile incidents throughout the 70s and 80s, including Love Canal in New York and the Bhopal disaster in India, brought national attention to toxics. In Woburn Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, along with the CDC, investigated the link between chemicals in the environment and cancer.
“In the spring and summer of 1979 the discovery of hazardous wastes in a section of northeast Woburn called Industri-plex, and the closing of two of Woburn’s drinking water wells because of organic chemical contamination, drew attention to environmental hazards in Woburn. Concern over possible adverse health effects from environmental contaminants was heightened when in October 1979 a local clergyman reported on 10 cases of childhood leukemia that had occurred in one area of the town over the prior 15 years. Over the succeeding several weeks the MDPH analyzed Woburn’s cancer mortality statistics for 1969 – 1978 and found these mortality rates to be higher than for the state as a whole. At the same time, a Boston pediatric hematologist reported that he had seen six cases of leukemia in one six-block area of Woburn since 1972. In addition, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was informed of three living cases of kidney cancer among former workers of a now closed pet food plant. These events prompted the MDPH in late 1979 to request the assistance of the CDC in further investigations into the health status of Woburn’s residents.”
Sourced from the Woburn Cancer Incidence and Environmental Hazards report from MDPH.
1980 – The Superfund
Superfund, part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), was enacted to clean up America’s most hazardous waste sites – but the expense of cleanup and complicated liability issues inhibited actual environmental progress.
1989 – Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
The EPA released the first reports from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a national survey of industrial chemical releases established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). The data revealed a much larger volume of pollutants released to the environment than any of the previous estimates.
1989 – The Advent of TUR
The term toxics use reduction was coined in Massachusetts during informal discussions among environmental advocates who were searching for a new policy approach to reducing the release of toxic chemicals. At the time, the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection (MassDEP) estimated that Massachusetts firms generated 500 million pounds of toxic wastes each year. More than a thousand hazardous waste sites had been identified in the state, and more than fifty communities had lost part of their drinking water supplies to contamination.
The concept of toxics use reduction was introduced in bills in the 1987 and 1988 state legislative sessions. In 1989, the Massachusetts business community and representatives of the environmental and public health communities sat down to negotiate a bill that would be acceptable to all parties. After four and a half months, consensus was reached and the bill was passed unanimously by the Massachusetts legislature. The governor signed the bill into law on July 24, 1989.
Where did the TURA list originate?
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Under the EPA’s Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) facilities who manufacture, process, or use toxic chemicals must report their releases and transfers of toxics with the EPA. These findings are then recorded in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). who record these findings into TRI. The TURA list initially drew its reportable substances from this list.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Additionally, the hazardous chemicals subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) were also incorporated into TURA from 1991 to 1993.
Note when substances are added to either of these federal lists, they are adopted by the TURA program (unless the administrative council decides otherwise).
1990s – National Attention for Pollution Prevention
Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act (P2 Act) in 1990, which established an administrative base and information-tracking capacity for pollution prevention at the EPA. The P2 Act also provided funding for states to develop their own pollution prevention programs.
By 1996, every state in the U.S. had at least one pollution prevention program to assist companies in reducing waste. Most P2 Programs provided outreach and developed technical resources to help companies reduce waste at the source. The internet helped disseminate pollution prevention information.
Late 1990s – Voluntary Programs
Throughout the 1990s, the EPA encouraged pollution prevention through various voluntary initiatives.
The 33/50 Program encouraged the nation’s largest polluters to reduce their releases from a 1988 baseline by 33% in 1992 and then 50% by 1995. This was successful and spurred other public-private partnership approaches such as:
- Design for the Environment
- Energy Star
- National Environmental Performance Track – no longer active
- National Partnership for Environmental Priorities – no longer active
Perhaps the most well known is the the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 Standard (1996). Companies become ISO certified by developing, implementing and maintaining an Environmental Management System (EMS).
Companies embraced voluntary initiatives over confrontational regulatory relationships – enjoying the incentives, flexibility, public recognition.
2000s – Higher Hazard Substances and Updates to TURA
Voluntary initiatives, in particular the environmental management system (EMS) model which is a system for tracking, assessing, and continually improving environmental performance, continue to gain traction.
There is increasing focus on identifying and regulating higher hazard substance – toxics that are considered harmful even in small quantities.
- In 2000 the EPA lowered the TRI reporting thresholds for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances such as lead, mercury, and dioxin. By default, TURA incorporated these changes causing many new companies to begin reporting their uses.
- In 2006, amendments to TURA gave the TURA Administrative Council the authority to designate toxics as higher hazard substances, which also have a lower reporting threshold.
Today – Transparency and International Harmonization
Today, the issue of toxic chemicals is becoming increasingly visible thanks to continuing efforts of non-profits, advocacy organizations, academics and governments.
Calls for increased transparency of chemicals used in products, ranging from consumer to industrial, have come from non-profits, regulatory agencies and the public alike. For example:
- Regulations requiring disclosure of toxic chemicals (or all chemicals used in the product) like the Washington State and Oregon State children’s product laws have become more common.
- Third party certifications of products have become a common strategy to reassure customers of a product’s safety, while maintaining trade secrets.
There has also been a focus on increasing harmonization of chemicals management and goal setting between countries, necessitated by the increasingly global economy. Explore some of the initiatives set by:
This is just a short list of initiatives working to drive industry towards safer chemicals.