Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Toxic substance

abnormalities in animals, and fears that it may be similarly

dangerous to humans, all sale and use of toxaphene have

been banned except for already existing stocks. However,

this chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide is extremely persis-

tent. Years after application, it has been found in fish, water,

wildlife, and the

food chain/web

, posing a continuing po-

tential threat to the

environment

and human health.

Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory

(EPA)

see

Toxics Release Inventory (EPA)

Toxic substance

Toxic substances are materials that are poisonous to living

organisms. There are hundreds of thousands of artificial and

natural toxic substances, also known as

toxins

, that are found

in solid, liquid, or gaseous form. Toxic substances damage

living tissues or organs by interfering with specific functions

of cells, membranes, or organs. Some destroy cell mem-

branes, others prevent important cell processes from oc-

curring. Many cause cells to mutate, or make mistakes when

they replicate themselves. Some of the most common and

dangerous

anthropogenic

(human-made) toxic substances

in our

environment

are

chlorinated hydrocarbons

, in-

cluding DDT (

dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane

) and

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). Many of these are pro-

duced by

pesticide

manufacturers and other chemical indus-

tries specifically because of their ability to kill pests.

Petro-

leum

products, produced and used in oil refining,

plastics

manufacturing, industrial solvents, and household cleaning

agents, are also widespread and highly toxic agents.

Heavy

metals

, including

cadmium

, chromium,

lead

mercury

and

nickel

, and radioactive substances such as

uranium

and

plutonium

are also dangerous toxic agents. Once a toxic

substance is released into the environment, plants may absorb

it along with water and nutrients through their roots or

through pores or tissues in their leaves and stems. Animals,

including humans, take up environmental toxic substances

by eating, drinking, breathing, absorbing them through the

skin, or by direct transmission from mother to egg or fetus.

The toxicity (the potential danger) of all toxic materials

depends upon dosage. Some toxins are deadly in very small

doses; others can be tolerated at relatively high levels before

an observable reaction occurs. All chemical substances can

become toxic in high enough concentrations, but even very

toxic

chemicals

may cause no reaction in very small

amounts. If you eat an extremely large dose of table salt

(sodium chloride), you will suffer severe reactions, possibly

even death. On the other hand, in moderate doses table salt

1407

is not toxic. On the contrary, it is essential for your body

to continue functioning normally. Likewise, more unusual

trace elements such as selenium are important to us in ex-

tremely minute amounts, but high concentrations have been

observed to cause severe

birth defects

and high

mortality

among birds.

One of the most important characteristics that deter-

mines a substance’s toxicity is the way the substance moves

through the environment and through our bodies. Most

chemicals and minerals move most effectively when they

are dissolved by water or by an oil-based liquid. Generally

compounds of mineral substances, including sodium chlo-

ride, selenium, zinc,

copper

, lead, and cadmium, dissolve

best in water. Organic chemicals (those containing

carbon

including chlorinated

hydrocarbons

benzene

toluene

chloroform, and others, dissolve most readily in oily solvents,

including

gasoline

acetone

, and the fatty tissues in our

bodies. In the environment, inorganic substances are often

mobilized when ground is disturbed and watered, as in the

case of irrigated agriculture or mining, or when waste dumps

become wet and their soluble contents move with

runoff

into

groundwater

or surface water systems. Animals and

plants readily take up these substances once they are mobi-

lized and widely distributed in natural water systems. Or-

ganic chemicals mainly move through the environment when

human activity releases them through pesticide spraying, by

allowing aging storage barrels to leak, or by accidental spills.

Natural surface and groundwater systems further distribute

these compounds. Animals that ingest these compounds also

store and distribute toxic organic substances in their bodies.

Once we ingest or breathe a toxic substance, its mobil-

ity in our body depends upon its solubility and upon its

molecular shape. As they enter our bodies through the tissues

lining our lungs or intestines or more rarely through our

skin, fat soluble compounds can be picked up and stored by

fatty tissues, or lipids, in our cells. Proteins and enzymes in

our blood, organs, tissues, and bones recognize and bond

with molecules whose shape fits those proteins and enzymes.

In most cases our bodies have mechanisms to break down,

or metabolize, foreign substances into smaller components.

When possible, our bodies metabolize foreign substances

and turn them into simpler, water soluble compounds. These

are easier for our bodies to eliminate by excretion in feces,

urine, sweat, or saliva.

Not all substances are easy to metabolize, however.

Some persistent compounds such as DDT simply accumu-

late in tissues, a process known as

bioaccumulation

.If

gradual accumulation goes on long enough, toxic dosages

are reached and the animal will suffer a severe reaction or

death. Furthermore, the by-products (metabolites) of some

substances are more dangerous than the original toxin and

more difficult to excrete. Toxic metabolites accumulate in

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Toxic substance

our tissues along with persistent toxins. Although accumula-

tion can occur in bones, fat reserves, blood, and many organs,

the most common locations for toxins to accumulate is in

the liver and kidneys. These organs have the primary respon-

sibility of removing foreign substances from the blood

stream, so any substance that the body cannot excrete tends

to collect here.

The parts of our bodies that are most easily damaged

by exposure to toxic substances, however, are areas where

cells and tissues are reproducing and growing. Brain cells,

bones, and organs in children are especially susceptible, and

improper cell replication is magnified as growth proceeds.

Serious developmental defects can result—a widespread ex-

ample is the accumulation of lead in children’s brains, causing

permanent retardation. In adults, any tissue that reproduces,

repairs, or replaces itself regularly is likely to exhibit the

effects of toxicity. Linings of the lungs and intestines, bone

marrow, and other tissues that regularly reproduce cells can

all develop defective growths, including

cancer

, when ex-

posed to toxic substances. An individual’s susceptibility to

a toxic substance depends upon exposure—usually workers

who handle chemicals are the first to exhibit reactions—and

upon the person’s

genetic resistance

, age, size, gender,

general health, and previous history of exposures.

Toxins that cause an immediate response, usually a

health crisis occurring within a few days, are said to have

acute effects

. Subacute toxic effects appear more gradually,

over the course of weeks or months.

Chronic effects

may

begin more subtly, and they may last a lifetime. General

classes of toxic substances with chronic effects include the

following:

Neurotoxins, which disable portions of the nervous system,

including the brain. Because nerves regulate body functions

and because nerve cells are not replaced after an individual

reaches maturity, damage is especially critical.

Mutagens, which cause genetic alterations so that cells are

improperly reproduced. These can lead to birth defects or

tumors. Compounds that specifically affect embryos are

called teratogens.

Carcinogens cause cancer by altering cell reproduction and

causing excessive growth, which becomes a tumor.

Tumerogens are substances that cause tumors, but if tumors

are benign, they are not considered cancerous.

Irritants, which damage cells on contact and also make

them susceptible to infection or other toxic effects.

Natural toxins occur everywhere, and many are ex-

tremely toxic. Some, such as peroxides and nitric oxide,

even occur naturally within our bodies. Many people avoid

potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, and other members of the

nightshade family because they are sensitive to the alkaloid

solanine that they contain. Mushrooms and molds contain

1408

innumerable toxic substances that can be lethal to adults in

minute quantities. Ricin, a protein produced by castor beans,

can kill a mouse with a dose of just three ten-billionths (3/

10,000,000,000) of a gram. Ricin is one of the most toxic

organic substance known. Usually we encounter these natural

substances in small enough doses that we do not suffer

from them, and in many cases our bodies are equipped to

metabolize and eliminate them. Except for toxic minerals

and heavy metals released by agriculture and mining, most

people rarely worry too much about naturally occurring toxic

substances, even though they include some of the most toxic

agents known.

The most problematic environmental toxic substances

are anthropogenic materials that are produced in large quan-

tities for industrial processes and home use. These are dan-

gerous first because most of them are organic and thus bond

readily with our tissues and second because their production

and distribution occurs rapidly and is poorly controlled. Ev-

ery year hundreds of new substances are developed, but

the testing process is time-consuming and expensive. The

National Institute of Safety and Health has listed 99,585

different toxic and hazardous substances, but there are over

700,000 different chemicals in commercial use, and of these

only 20% have been thoroughly tested for toxic effects. One-

third have not been tested at all. Once these substances

are manufactured, their sale,

transportation

, and especially

disposal are often inadequately monitored. Of the more than

over 292 million tons (265 million metric) of toxic and

hazardous materials produced every year the United States,

about 220 million tons (200 million metric) are used or

disposed of properly by

recycling

, chemical conversion to

non-toxic substances,

incineration

, or permanent storage.

About 66 million tons (60 million metric) are inappropriately

disposed of, mostly in landfills, with non-toxic

solid waste

Of course, significant amounts of substances that are prop-

erly used also freely enter the environment—including pesti-

cides applied to fields, benzene, gasoline, and other volatile

organic compounds that evaporate and enter the

atmo-

sphere

, and paints and solvents that evaporate or gradually

break down after use.

National efforts to control toxic substances in the

United States began with the

National Environmental Pol-

icy Act

, passed by Congress in 1969. This act required the

establishment of standardized rules governing the identifica-

tion, testing, and regulation of toxic and hazardous sub-

stances. The law setting out those rules finally appeared

in the 1976

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA). This law sets up standard policy for regulating

toxic and hazardous substances from the time of production

to disposal. Efforts to deal with new and historic environ-

mental problems associated with toxic substances began with

the 1980

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA). This act

provided for setting up a multi-billion dollar Superfund to

pay clean up costs at the hundreds of abandoned toxic waste

sites around the country. Unfortunately, Superfund money

is proving woefully inadequate in meeting real cleanup ex-

penses.

International trade in toxic waste

remains a dire

problem that has not yet been adequately addressed. In many

developing countries pesticides, organic solvents, heavy met-

als associated with mining, and other noxious materials are

regularly released to the environment. Systems for monitor-

ing their release are often completely non-existent. Workers

handling these substances frequently suffer terrible diseases

and pass on genetic disabilities to their children. Because

many of the most dangerous toxins are produced in the

United States and Europe for sale to developing regions,

wealthier nations stand in a position to force some efforts at

regulation. Thus far, however, neither regulation nor worker

education has been an international priority.

[Mary Ann Cunningham Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Cunningham, W. P. Environmental Science: A Global Concern. Dubuque,

IA: William C. Brown, 1992.

Kamrin, M. A. Toxicology. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, 1988.

Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted in

1976, is a key law for regulating toxic substances in the

United States. The Act authorizes the

Environmental Pro-

tection Agency

(EPA) to study the health and environmen-

tal effects of

chemicals

already on the market and new

chemicals proposed for commercial manufacture. If the EPA

finds these health and environmental effects to pose unrea-

sonable risks, it can regulate, or even ban, the chemical(s)

under consideration.

The initiative to regulate toxic substances began in

the early 1970s. In 1971, the

Council on Environmental

Quality

produced a report on toxic substances. It concluded

that existing health and environmental laws were not ade-

quately regulating such substances. The report recom-

mended that a new comprehensive law to deal with toxic

substances be enacted. Among the problem substances that

had helped to focus national concern on toxic substances

were

asbestos

chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs),

Kepone

pesticide

mercury

, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)s, and

vinyl chloride

. Research proved that these substances caused

significant health and environmental problems, yet they were

unregulated.

1409

Congressional debate on regulating toxic substances

began in 1971. The Senate passed bills in 1972 and 1973

that were strongly supported by environmentalists and labor,

but the House approach to the issue was more limited and

had the support of the chemical industry. The key difference

between the two approaches was how much pre-market

review would be required before new chemicals could be

introduced and marketed. Although none of the key stake-

holders, the chemical industry, environmentalists, or labor,

was entirely happy with the compromise bill of 1976, all

three groups supported it.

The approach adopted in TSCA is pre-market notifi-

cation, rather than the more rigorous pre-market testing

that is required before new drugs are introduced on the

market. When a new chemical is to be manufactured, or an

existing chemical is to be used in a substantially different

way, the manufacturer of the chemical must provide the

EPA with pre-manufacture notification data at least 90 days

before the chemical is to be commercially produced. The

EPA then examines this data and determines if regulation

is necessary for the new chemical or new use of an existing

chemical. The agency can require additional testing by man-

ufacturers if it deems the existing data insufficient. Until

such data is available, the EPA has the option to ban or

limit the manufacture, distribution, use, or disposal of the

chemical. For new chemicals or new applications of existing

chemicals, producers must demonstrate that the chemicals

do not pose unreasonable risks to humans or the

environ-

ment

. The EPA can act quickly and with limited burden

to prevent such new chemicals from being produced or dis-

tributed.

Between July 1979, when TSCA went into effect for

new chemicals, and April 2002, the EPA received 23,486

new chemical notices. The agency determined that no action

was necessary for nearly 90% of these chemicals. Of the

2,702 chemicals that required further action, 917 were never

produced commercially due to EPA concerns. The re-

maining 1,785 chemicals were controlled through formal

actions or negotiated agreements.

As of mid-2002, there were nearly 75,000 chemicals

within the purview of TSCA (including 5,000 new chemicals

introduced in the past decade). Although the law requires

that the EPA examine each of these chemicals for its poten-

tial health and environmental risk, the volume of chemicals

and lack of EPA resources has made such a task virtually

impossible. Through 2000, the agency had examined almost

700 existing chemicals. Of the compounds on this list, the

EPA determined that 370 chemicals required no further

action. This was due to the fact that the chemical was no

longer being manufactured, it was under study by another

federal agency or industry, adequate data on the chemical

existed, or exposure to the chemical was limited. The EPA

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)

has issued rules to regulate 112 of these chemicals. The

remaining chemicals are in various stages of testing and

review.

TSCA created an Interagency Testing Committee

(ITC) to help the EPA set priorities. The ITC designates

which existing chemicals should be examined first. Once

designated by the ITC, the EPA has one year to study the

chemical and issue a ruling. The agency initially had diffi-

culty meeting this one-year limit. In fact, the EPA was sued

over its failure to meet the deadline and worked under a

court schedule to test these identified chemicals. The record

of the EPA has improved but the agency still struggles

to meet deadlines imposed by ITC due to budgetary and

personnel shortages.

The EPA also identifies specific chemicals already in

use for review. Unlike the policy with new chemicals, the

EPA must demonstrate that existing chemicals warrant tox-

icity testing. Furthermore, if the EPA desires to regulate

the chemical once it has been tested, it must pursue another

complex course of action. By design, the regulation of ex-

isting chemicals is a lengthy and complicated process.

There are several options available to the EPA if it

concludes that a new or existing chemical presents “an unrea-

sonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” The

EPA can: 1) prohibit the manufacture of the chemical by

applying a rule or obtaining a court injunction; 2) limit the

amount of the chemical produced or the concentration at

which the chemical is used; 3) impose a ban or limit uses

of the chemical; 4) regulate the disposal of the chemical; 5)

require public notification of its use; and 6) require labeling

and record keeping for the chemical. The EPA is required

to use the least burdensome of these regulatory approaches

for chemicals already in use.

There are several other important components to

TSCA. First, the law requires strict reporting and record

keeping by the manufacturers and processors of the chemi-

cals regulated under the law. In addition to keeping track

of the chemicals, these records also include data on environ-

mental and health effects. Second, TSCA is one of the few

federal environmental laws that require environmental and

health benefits to be balanced by economic and societal costs

in the regulatory process. The act states that toxic substances

should only be regulated when an unreasonable risk to people

or the environment is present. Although “unreasonable risk”

is not clearly defined in the language of the act, it does

incorporate a concern for balancing costs and benefits.

Third, PCBs were singled out in the TSCA legislation.

Although the manufacture of PCBs was prohibited by 1979,

fewer than 1% of all PCBs in use up to that time were

phased out. Despite the ban, a significant PCB problem still

remains. One major problem is how to process the millions

of pounds of PCBs abandoned by firms that went bankrupt

1410

in the 1980s. There is also concern about the safety of

disposing of PCBs. Environmentalists argued that PCB

treatment required new legislation. In response, the EPA

decided to issue stricter regulation under the TSCA to ensure

the safe the

transportation

and final disposal of PCBs.

Fourth, TSCA contained provisions for private citi-

zens, as opposed to the U.S. government, to file lawsuits.

Under the TSCA rules, private citizens could sue companies

for violation of the law. They could also sue the EPA for

failure to implement TSCA in a timely manner. Fifth, cer-

tain materials are not covered by TSCA. These include

ammunition and firearms; nuclear materials;

tobacco

; and

chemicals used exclusively in cosmetics, drugs, food and

food

additives

, and pesticides. These substances are regulated by

other laws.

Although the authorization of TSCA expired in 1983

and Congress has not acted to re-authorize the law, it has

continued to fund the program. The scope of the law was

expanded in 1986 by an amendment requiring asbestos haz-

ards to be reduced in schools, and in 1988 by an amendment

providing grants and technical assistance to state programs

that reduce indoor

radon

and assigning the regulation of

genetically engineered organisms to TSCA. A 1990 amend-

ment required accreditation of persons who inspect for asbes-

tos-containing material in school, public, and commercial

buildings, while the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act of 1992 introduced new requirements for

the reduction of hazards associated with the inspection and

abatement of lead-based paints. Reauthorization legislation

has been introduced in the past decade. However, it has never

gotten beyond consideration by congressional committees.

Many experts attribute this trend to Republican control of

congress since 1994.

Evaluations of the law have revealed three chief prob-

lems. First, the amount of data generated on chemicals is

less than expected. A 1984 study by the

National Academy

of Sciences

reported that only 4% of the major chemicals

in the TSCA inventory had studies showing data on possible

chronic toxicity. Toxicity data was absent for 78% of the

chemicals produced at over 1 million lb (454,000 kg) per

year and for 76% of chemicals that were produced at less

than 1 million lb per year. The lack of data is thought to

be due to early uncertainty over how the EPA would imple-

ment the law and the requirement that any regulation must

follow rule-making procedures. Such rule-making proce-

dures are slow and costly; the procedures associated with

implementing the rules can sometimes cost more than the

actual toxicity testing.

Second, in terms of existing chemicals, as of 2002, a

total of 50 have been banned in the United States. Most of

these are pesticides. A notable EPA action was the ban on the

use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as

aerosol propellants

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Toxics use reduction legislation

This occurred in March 1978. Part of the reason for a lack

of action may be due to the costs involved in implementing

such a complex regulatory program. It is also difficult to

determine unreasonable risk in light of inadequate data and

more general uncertainties. Third, most pre-market notifica-

tions for new chemicals are not accompanied by test data.

Rather, the EPA identifies potentially harmful chemicals by

comparing the new chemical to existing chemicals for which

data exists. If the EPA were to require more data for most

new chemicals, in many cases the new chemicals might not

be produced since the test costs would exceed the expected

profit.

The chemical industry and environmentalists have

reached conflicting conclusions about the TSCA legislation.

The chemical industry has argued that the EPA has required

more testing than is scientifically needed and that the regula-

tory approach for new chemicals is overly burdensome. Envi-

ronmentalists have criticized the EPA for its slow progress

in examining existing chemicals, for requiring no health data

for new chemicals, and for withholding much of the data for

new chemicals to comply with the desire for confidentiality

requested by chemical manufacturers. See also Chronic ef-

fects; Radioactive waste; Risk analysis

[L. Fleming Fallon Jr., M.D., Dr.P.H. ]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Kreith, F. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. New York: McGraw

Hill, 2002.

McDougall, F. R. Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inven-

tory. 2nd ed. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 2001.

Meyers, R. A., D. K. Dittrick. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Environmental

Pollution and Cleanup. New York: Wiley, 1999.

Pearson, Eric. Environmental and Natural Resources Law. Albany, NY:

Matthew Bender & Company, 2001.

Thomas-Hope, E. Solid Waste Management. Kingston, Jamaica: University

Press of the West Indies, 2000.

ERIODICALS

Gori, G. B. “The Costly Illusion of Regulating Unknowable Risks.” Regula-

tory Toxicology and Pharmacology 34, no. 3 (2001): 205–212.

Landrigan, P. J. “Risk Assessment for Children and other Sensitive Popula-

tions.” Annals of New York Academy of Science 865 (1999): 1–9.

Lee, C. C., G. L. Huffman, Y. L. Mao. “Regulatory Framework for

the Thermal Treatment of Various Waste Streams.” Journal of Hazardous

Materials 76, no. 1 (2000): 13–22.

THER

U.S. Department of Energy. EH-41 Environmental Law Summary: Toxic

Substances Control Act. April 1997 [cited July 2002]. <http://tis.eh.doe.gov/

oepa/law_sum/TSCA.HTM>.

U.S. Department of Energy. DOE Environmental Guidance - Toxic Sub-

stances Control Act. March 1998 [cited July 2002]. <http://tis.eh.doe.gov/

oepa/guidance/tsca.htm>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. <http://www.epa.gov/region5/

defs/html/tsca.htm> and <http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/biotech/> and

1411

<http://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/strategy/tsca.html> and <http://www.epa.-

gov/oppfead1/international/us-unlist.htm>.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Toxic Substances Control Act of 1986.

<http://www.usbr.gov/laws/tsca.html>.

Toxic waste

see

Hazardous waste

Toxics Release Inventory (EPA)

A public database containing the total amounts of toxic

chemicals

that are routinely released into the air, water,

and

soil

each year from about 30,000 industrial, particularly

manufacturing, facilities in the United States. Firms that

use or emit any of about 667 listed chemicals in quantities

over specified thresholds are required to provide the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), states, and the

public with estimates of the amount of each chemical stored

or used at the firm, the amount emitted, including permitted

releases, and other information. This inventory is required

under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1986 and has been compiled annually since 1987. It

excludes, however, federal facilities; oil, gas, and mining

industries; agricultural activities; and small firms. The most

recent inventory lists about 20 billion lb (9.1 billion kg) of

emissions annually, roughly 5% of the United States total

toxic emissions as estimated by the U.S. Office of Technol-

ogy Assessment. The inventory has not been verified using

independent sources. The Toxics Release Inventory has

helped to support new legislation (e.g.,

pollution

prevention

programs), provide data for agency projects (

cancer

studies);

track toxic chemical estimates; regulate toxic chemicals; and

screen environmental risks.

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

Toxics Release Inventory, , (202) 566-0250, Email: tri.us@epa.gov, <http://

www.epa.gov/tri>

Toxics use reduction legislation

In recent years, such disasters resulting from toxic

chemicals

as those at

Love Canal

, New York, and in

Bhopal, India

have increased awareness of the hazards associated with their

use. In response to such concerns, “right-to-know” statutes

and regulations have been enacted on both the state and

federal levels. In 1990, Congress passed the

Pollution Pre-

vention Act

, but the provisions of this legislation are rela-

tively limited when compared to the toxics use reduction

(TUR) statutes that have been enacted in at least 26 states

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Toxics use reduction legislation

since 1989. In the 1990s, similar legislation was passed in

Great Britain and other European countries.

State TUR statutes, sometimes called

pollution

pre-

vention statutes, are designed to motivate businesses to re-

duce their use of toxic chemicals. Most such statutes set

specific overall goals, such as a 50% reduction in the use of

toxic chemicals, with that reduction being phased in over a

specified number of years. A comprehensive TUR statute

usually covers planning requirements, reporting require-

ments, and protection of trade secrets. It encourages worker

and community involvement, provides technical assistance

and research, institutes enforcement mechanisms and penal-

ties for non-compliance, and designates funding.

The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act

(MTURA) is considered one of the strongest existing TUR

laws, and it is often used as a model for such legislation in

other states. The stated goals of the MTURA are to reduce

toxic waste by 50% statewide by 1997, while continuing to

sustain and promote the competitive advantages of Massa-

chusetts’ businesses. Companies subject to MTURA are

called large quantity toxics users, and each of these are now

required to develop an inventory of the toxic chemicals flow-

ing both in and out of every production process at its facili-

ties. The company must then develop a plan for reducing

the use of toxic chemicals in each of these production pro-

cesses. The inventory and a summary of this plan must be

filed with a designated state agency, and the company must

submit an annual report for each

toxic substance

manufac-

tured or used at that facility. To accommodate concerns

about trade secrets, the MTURA allows companies to report

amounts of a chemical substance using an index/matrix for-

mat, instead of absolute amounts. In other states, TUR laws

address such concerns by allowing companies to withhold

information they believe would reveal trade secrets except

on court order.

Plans filed under the MTURA are not available to

the public, but any 10 residents living within 10 mi (16.09

km) of a facility required to prepare such a plan may petition

to have the Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection examine both the plan and the supporting data.

Summaries of these plans must be filed every two years and

these are available to Massachusetts residents, as well as the

annual reports these companies must issue. Large quantity

toxics users must notify their employees of new plans as well

as updating existing plans, and management is required to

solicit suggestions from all employees on options for reduc-

ing the use of toxic substances.

To encourage toxics use reduction, MTURA has es-

tablished the Office of Toxics Use Reduction Assistance

Technology, which provides technical assistance to industrial

toxics users. The name of the office has since been changed

to the Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduc-

1412

tion, or OTA. The act also established a Toxics Use Reduc-

tion Institute (TURI) at the University of Lowell, which

develops training programs, conducts research on toxics use

reduction methods, and provides technical assistance to indi-

vidual firms seeing to adopt pollution prevention techniques.

A recent example of the Institute’s publications is a module

on wet cleaning techniques as a replacement for standard

dry cleaning

, intended for businesses in the garment care

industry. In 1995, TURI established a Toxics Use Reduction

Networking (TURN) grant program that funds model proj-

ects intended to increase citizen participation in toxics use

reduction. The grant program funds two basic types of proj-

ects, community awareness projects and municipal integra-

tion projects. In 2002, TURI broadened its grant program

to include projects related to strategic TUR planning at the

community level.

Enforcement of MTURA is overseen by the Adminis-

trative Council on Toxics Use Reduction, but there are also

provisions in the act for court action by groups of ten or

more Massachusetts citizens. Civil penalties up to $25,000

for each day of the violation can be assessed, and for willful

violations a court can impose fines between $2,500 and

$25,000 per violation or imprisonment for up to one year,

or both. Administration of MTURA is funded through a

toxics users fee imposed on companies subject to the act.

Fees are determined according to the number of employees

at each facility and the number of toxic substances reported

by the facility.

Those drafting TUR laws in other states have chosen

a variety of mechanisms to achieve their goals. One issue

on which states differ is whether the reduction of toxics,

which focuses on pollution prevention, should be the sole

emphasis of the statute, or whether the statute should include

other objectives. These other objectives are usually means

pollution control

, which can include

waste reduction

waste minimization, and what is called “out-of-process”

re-

cycling

, which occurs when chemical wastes are taken from

the production site, transported to recycling equipment, and

then returned. Analysts refer to those statutes that promote

toxics-use reduction exclusively or almost exclusively as hav-

ing a pure focus. Those statutes that explicitly combine

toxics-use reduction with pollution control are labeled as

having a mixed focus. Statutes in Massachusetts are catego-

rized as pure, while toxics use reduction legislation in Ore-

gon, for example, is considered to have a mixed focus.

The Oregon and Massachusetts statutes are considered

by many to be the strongest toxics use reduction legislation

in the United States, and most states have adopted less

stringent provisions. For example, the United States General

Accounting Office issued a report in June of 1992 that lists

only ten states out of twenty-six with such laws, as having

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Toxics use reduction legislation

legislation that “clearly promotes” programs to reduce the

use of toxic chemicals.

Over the past three decades, Congress has enacted

various laws aimed at pollution control. These include the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(1976), the

Toxic Substances Control Act (1976), and the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986). Pollution-

control laws such as these are primarily considered source-

reduction laws. These laws are designed to reduce waste

after it has been generated, while TUR laws are designed

to restrict

hazardous waste

before generation, by reducing

or eliminating the toxic chemicals that enter the production

processes. Some federal legislation is, however, moving in

the direction of a TUR strategy.

TUR laws have continued the goals of

right-to-know

legislation by moving away from reactive enforcement of

environmental laws toward hazard prevention. A recent ex-

ample of this change in direction is the relationship between

toxics use reduction and

cancer

prevention. The Cancer

Prevention Coalition stated in 1999 that phasing out the

use of known carcinogenic substances in industry through

toxics use reduction legislation is an important measure in

reversing the current high rates of cancer incidence. The

Coalition noted that TUR laws exemplify the “precautionary

principle of risk prevention” in contrast to a strategy of risk

management.

TUR laws are also different in their “multimedia” ap-

proach to regulation. Previous environmental and occupa-

tional and health and safety statutes have divided enforce-

ment between various agencies, such as the

Environmental

Protection Agency

(EPA), the

Occupational Safety and

Health Administration

, and the Consumer Product Safety

Commission. Even under the jurisdiction of a single agency,

moreover, current environmental laws often require different

approaches to regulation of toxics depending on where they

are found—air, water, or land. In contrast, TUR laws require

comprehensive reports and plans for the reduction of toxics

discharged innto all media. TUR laws have been supported

by coalitions of environmentalists and labor representatives

precisely because of this comprehensive multimedia ap-

proach.

Reactions by industry, however, have been mixed. In

some instances, businesses have saved money once they be-

gan purchasing substitute chemicals, or when changing pro-

duction processes improved efficiency. But some firms have

hesitated to make the capital investments needed to change

their industrial processes because the cost-benefit ratio of

such changes remains uncertain. Some firms have judged the

costs of alternative chemicals or processes to be prohibitively

expensive, and in other cases alternative technologies or less

hazardous chemicals have not been developed and are simply

not available at any price.

1413

The EPA has found, however, that some companies

do not take advantage of available technology for reducing

or eliminating toxic chemicals because they are unaware of

its existence. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute has been

a pioneer in making such information available to companies

within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Office

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), a subagency

of the EPA, has sponsored the Green Chemistry Program

since 1995. The Green Chemistry Program awards grants

for research in green chemistry, promotes partnerships with

industry in developing green chemistry technologies, and

works with other federal agencies in building green chemistry

principles into their operations. OPPT also supports several

research centers representing industrial as well as academic

and government concerns. In addition to TURI, these cen-

ters include the

Emission

Reduction Research Center at

the New Jersey Institute of Technology and the Center for

Process Analytical Control at the University of Washington.

On the other hand, some industries have been working

since the late 1990s for repeal or abolition of TUR legislation.

The Massachusetts Chemical Technology Alliance, for ex-

ample, is opposed to the Commonwealth’s TURA statutes

on the ground that compliance is ineffectual as well as too

costly. Other industry-sponsored groups maintain that the

law puts Massachusetts companies at a competitive disad-

vantage. It is likely that controversy over the need for and

effectiveness of TUR legislation in the United States will

continue for the foreseeable future. See also Chemical spills;

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act;

Environmental liability; Hazardous material; Hazardous

Substances Act; International trade in toxic wastes; NIMBY;

Waste management

[Paulette L. Stenzel and Rebecca J. Frey, Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Epstein, Samuel S., MD. The Politics of Cancer Revisited. East Ridge

Press, 1998.

ERIODICALS

DeVito, Michael J. “Toxic Reporting: Help or Hindrance?” Chemistry and

Industry (January 5, 1998): 36.

Pelley, Janet. “ Toxic Chemical Use Reporting Debated on State and

National Levels.” Environmental Science and Technology 32 (1998): 9–12.

THER

Toxics Use Reduction Institute. Six Years of Progress in Toxics Use Reduction.

Lowell, MA: TURI, 1996.

RGANIZATIONS

Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts

Lowell, One University Avenue, Lowell, MA USA 01854-2866 (978)

934-3275, Fax: (978) 934-3050, <htpp://www.turi.org>

Office of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction, Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 251 Causeway

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Toxins

Street, Suite 900, Boston, MA USA 02114-2136 (617) 626-1060, Fax:

(617) 626-1095, <http://www.state.ma.us/ota>

Toxins

Toxins are

chemicals

or physical agents that exert a toxic

effect on living organisms. Toxic means poisonous: that is,

causing a reaction with cellular components that disrupts

essential metabolic processes. At some level of exposure, all

chemicals, whether natural or synthetic, are toxic. All can

either cause death or damaging effects soon after exposure,

or can cause some other disease (such as

cancer

birth

defects

) after longer-term exposure.

Although many people think toxins are mainly pesti-

cides or industrial chemicals, they also include the poisons

of marine animals, spiders, snakes, plants, and the extremely

toxic botulinum toxins that can kill a human being with a

single minuscule dose. Toxins can exert their effects on many

different organs. The nervous system, the brain, the lungs,

the skin, and the eyes are only some of the organs that can

be damaged by toxins. Toxicologists use reports,

epidemiol-

ogy

, and laboratory studies to characterize both the lethal

doses of toxins and the doses of certain chemicals that can

cause disease over the long term. Environmental laws regu-

late exposures to certain human-made toxins.

Trace element/micronutrient

A micronutrient is an element that plants need in small

quantities for growth and

metabolism

. Common micronu-

trients are iron,

copper

, zinc, boron, molybdenum, manga-

nese, and

chlorine

. Some plants may benefit from small

amounts of sodium, silicon, and/or cobalt as well. Additional

micronutrients may be added to the list as scientists are better

able to detect minute quantities and plant requirements.

Micronutrients often act as catalyst in plant chemical reac-

tions. Historically, when

animal waste

was used as

fertil-

izer

, there were few micronutrient deficiencies detected.

However, with the use of large amounts of chemical fertil-

izer, higher yields, and use of

monoculture

, micronutrient

deficiencies in crop plants are becoming more evident. Sev-

eral plant disorders such as beet canker, cracked stem of

celery, and stem end of russet in tomatoes can be related to

the lack of certain micronutrients. On the other hand, excess

of micronutrients in plants may lead to plant toxicity.

Trade in pollution permits

Trade in

pollution

permits augments the traditional ap-

proach to environmental regulation by using market princi-

ples to control pollution. Since its inception, the program

1414

has been criticized as unfair and unfeasible. Yet the concept

of trading pollution permits continues to spread.

Most environmental laws limit the amount of waste

or pollution each regulated facility can emit to air, water, or

land. These limits are then written into permits. Regulators

monitor the facility to make sure the permits are followed.

Any facility exceeding the permitted level of emissions may

be fined or otherwise penalized. This method of controlling

pollution is known as command and control.

In 1990, Title IV of the

Clean Air Act

Amendments

became the first federal law to codify a market-based ap-

proach to

pollution control

. The title regulated

sulfur diox-

ide

emissions in an effort to reduce

acid rain

. It set a goal

of a 10 million lb (4.5 million kg) reduction in

power plants

emissions of sulfur dioxide. The law granted each power

plant the right to a certain level of pollution. Companies

that emit less than they are allowed can sell the remainder

of their pollution allowance to other companies.

Title IV redefined pollution as a commodity, like pork

bellies or soybean futures. One of the largest trade in pollu-

tion transactions took place between two utilities, the

Ten-

nessee Valley Authority

(TVA) and Wisconsin Power and

Light. The TVA, one of the largest emitters of sulfur dioxide,

paid several million dollars to one of the cleanest utilities in

the country, Wisconsin Power, for the right to emit an

additional 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) of the compound. Despite

its obvious success, financial analysts and utility industry

executives are still skeptical about the fledgling market’s

future.

If the market does become established, critics fear that

trades like the one between the TVA and Wisconsin Power

will only become more common. Because the market maxi-

mizes profit, certain utilities that are already highly polluting

may spend money buying the right to pollute rather than

to clean up their production processes. Other, cleaner utilities

may continue to provide the extra pollution allowances. Cer-

tain parts of the country will have more pollution than others.

Proponents of the market-based approach respond

that simply reaching the goal of reducing sulfur dioxide

emissions by 10 million lb (4.5 million kg) will benefit the

country as a whole. They also see an advantage in making

pollution costly, for then businesses will have an economic

interest in reducing it.

The debate about the feasibility and fairness of pollu-

tion trading continues. Other regional and local authorities,

such as the Southern California

Air Quality

Management

District, have considered adopting such measures for their

jurisdictions. See also Agricultural pollution; Air pollution;

Air pollution control; Air quality; Environmental economics;

Green politics; Green tax; Industrial waste treatment; Ma-

rine pollution; Pollution control costs and benefits; Radioac-

tive waste management; Sewage treatment; Solid waste vol-

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Tragedy of the commons

ume reduction; Solid waste recycling and recovery; Toxic

use reduction; Waste management; Waste reduction; Water

pollution

[Alair MacLean]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

Allen, F. E. “Tennessee Valley Authority Is Buying Pollution Rights from

Wisconsin Power.” Wall Street Journal (May 11, 1992): A12.

Mann, E. “Market-Driven Environmentalism: The False Promise.”

GREEN: Grantmakers Network on the Economy and the Environment 1

(Winter 1992): 1–3.

Portney, P. “Market-Driven Environmentalism: Tomorrow’s Success.”

GREEN: Grantmakers Network on the Economy and the Environment 1

(Winter 1992): 1, 3–5.

Tragedy of the commons

A term referring to the theory that, when a group of people

collectively own a resource, individuals acting in their per-

sonal self-interest will inevitably overtax and destroy the

resource. According to the commons theory, each individual

gains much more than he or she loses by overusing a com-

monly held resource, so its destruction is simply an inevitable

consequence of normal and rational behavior. In the study

of economics, this idea is known as the free rider problem.

Human

population growth

is the issue in which the com-

mons idea is most often applied: each individual gains per-

sonal security and wealth by producing many children. Even

though each additional child taxes the global community’s

food, water, energy, and material resources, each family theo-

retically gains more than it loses for each additional child

produced. Although the theory was first published in the

nineteenth century, Garrett Hardin introduced it to modern

discussions of population growth in a 1968 article published

in the journal Science. Since that time, the idea of the tragedy

of the commons has been a central part of population theory.

Many people insist that the logic of the commons is irrefut-

able; others argue that the logic is flawed and the premises

questionable. Despite debates over its validity, the theory of

the commons has become an important part of modern

efforts to understand and project population growth.

In its first published version, the idea of the commons

was a scenario mapped out in mathematical logic and con-

cerning common pasture land in an English village. In his

1833 essay, William Forster Lloyd described the demise of

a common pasture through overuse. Up to that time, many

English villages had a patch of shared pasture land, collec-

tively owned, on which villagers could let their livestock

graze. At the time of Lloyd’s writing, however, many of

these commons were being ruined through

overgrazing

This destruction, he proposed, resulted from unchecked pop-

1415

ulation growth and from the persistence of collectively held,

rather than private, lands. In previous ages, said Lloyd, wars

and plagues kept human and animal populations well below

the maximum number the land could support. By the nine-

teenth century, however, England’s population was climbing.

More people were looking for room to graze more cattle,

and they used common pasture because the resource was

essentially free. Free use of a common resource, Lloyd con-

cluded, leads directly to the ruin of that resource.

In his 1968 article, Garrett Hardin applied the same

logical argument to a variety of natural amenities that we

depend upon. Cattle,

grazing on public lands

in the Amer-

ican West, directly consume a common pasture owned by

all Americans. Normal pursuit of increased capital leads

ranchers to add as many cattle as they can, and much of the

country’s public lands are now severely denuded, gullied,

and eroded from overgrazing. National parks such as Yosem-

ite and Yellowstone are commonly held lands to which all

Americans have free access. Each individual naturally wishes

to maximize her or his vacation time, so that the collective

result is congestion and

pollution

in the parks. The oceans

represent the ultimate world commons. Private corporations

and individual countries maximize their profit by catching

as many fish as possible. In

whaling

, we have seen this

practice effectively eliminate some

species

within a few

decades. Other fisheries currently stand in danger of the

same end.

Extrapolating his reasoning to arguments for popula-

tion control, Hardin pointed out that if each family produces

as many children as it can, then the inevitable collective

result will be wholesale depletion of food, clean water, energy

resources, and living space. Worldwide, quality of life will

then diminish. Because we cannot increase the world’s supply

of water, energy, and space, argues Hardin, the only way to

avoid this chain of events is to prevent population increases.

Ideally, we need worldwide agreements to moderate individ-

ual childbearing activity, so that the cumulative demand on

world resources will not exceed resource availability.

Critics dispute Hardin’s thesis on a number of levels.

The most important objection is that Lloyd and Hardin

condemned the idea of the commons but that their examples

did not involve real community resources. A commons,

maintained over generations by a group of people for the

benefit of the group, lasts because members of the group

accept a certain amount of self-restraint in the interest of

the community and because they know that self-restraint

ensures the resource’s survival. Peer pressure, respect for

elders and taboos, fear of recrimination from neighbors, and

consideration of neighbors’ needs all reinforce individual

restraint in a commons. All of these restraints rely upon a

stable social structure and an understanding of commons

management. In a stable society, individual survival depends

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Tragedy of the commons

upon the prosperity of one’s neighbors, and every parent has

an interest in ensuring that

future generations

will have

access to necessary resources. Many such commons exist

around the world today, especially in traditional villages in

the developing world, where generational rules dictate the

protection of grazing lands,

water resources

, fields, and

forests.

In Lloyd’s case study, industrialization, widespread

eviction of tenant farmers to make way for sheep, and the

introduction of capitalism had all disrupted the traditional

social fabric of English villages. Uprooted families moving

from village to village did not observe traditional rules. More

importantly, many common pastures were being privatized

by large landowners, leaving fewer acres of

public land

for

village livestock to squeeze onto. The problem described in

Lloyd’s essay was, in fact, one of uncontrolled free access to

a resource whose collective ownership had broken down.

Likewise, ocean fisheries have generally been uncontrolled,

unowned resources with no collectively enforced rules of

restraint. American public grazing lands have rules of re-

straint, but they fail because of poor enforcement and inade-

quate development.

Many people also object to the implication of com-

mons logic that a system of private property is superior

to one of collectively held property. In criticizing village

commons, Lloyd defended the actions of powerful landhold-

ers who could, on a whim, evict a community of tenant

farmers. Commons logic holds that private landowners make

better guardians of resources because they can see that their

personal interest is directly served by careful management.

However, evidence abounds that private owners frequently

exploit and destroy resources much faster than groups do.

Nineteenth century landowners, after removing farmers who

had husbanded their land for generations, overstocked the

country with sheep and clear-cut forests for lumber. Gullied

pastures, lost

wildlife habitat

, and other environmental

costs resulted. In the American timber industry, virtually all

private old-growth forests have been cleared, their capital

liquidated. Publicly held old growth, because it is expected

to serve other needs beyond lumber production (wildlife

habitat,

recreation

watershed

for communities, biological

resources), has survived better than private forests. As a

community, the people of the United States have imposed

some rules and limitations on forest use that private land-

holders have not had. In a capitalist society, private landown-

ers often benefit most by quickly liquidating

natural re-

sources

, which allows them to move on to another area and

another resource.

Where resources are precious or irreplaceable, collec-

tive guardianship is often the only way to ensure their main-

tenance. In villages from India to Zaire to the Philippines,

community councils monitor the use of forests, water sup-

1416

plies, and crop lands. In developed countries, common and

highly valued resources such as schools, public roadways,

and parks have long been monitored and controlled by rules

that restrain individual behavior and prevent destruction of

those resources. Generally, everyone agrees not to block

roads, burn schools, or vandalize parks because these re-

sources benefit them all in some way. At the same time, no

private individual could adequately maintain such resources.

Collective responsibility and respect are necessary.

Finally, some critics argue that it is simplistic to assume

that depletion results from population size, rather than un-

even distribution of resources. Garrett Hardin chooses to

direct his commons logic at large numbers of people using

limited amounts of resources without considering the

amount of resources used per person. Residents of the world’s

poorer regions counter that each of their children uses only

5% of the resources that an American child uses. The world

can afford a great number of these children, they argue, and

it could afford even more of them if people in wealthy

countries drove fewer cars, ate less beef, and polluted less

of the world’s air and water. The deduction that breeding

causes shortages, not rates of consumption, is hotly contested

by those whose survival depends on the labor of their

children.

Defenders of poorer segments of the world’s popula-

tion point out that social

stability

, including a fair distribu-

tion of resources, is more likely than population control to

deter a global tragedy of the commons. As long as war and

famine

exist, and as long as the rich continue to exploit the

labor and resources of the poor (an example of which is

American support of the Guatemalan military structure so

that we might buy coffee for three dollars a pound and

bananas for 50 cents), reliable social structures cannot be

rebuilt and responsible guardianship of the world’s resources

cannot be reestablished.

In the end, arguments for and against commons logic

are based upon examples and interpretation. Logical proof,

which the scenario set out to establish, remains elusive be-

cause the real world is very complex and because one’s accept-

ance of both premises and conclusions depends upon one’s

political, economic, and social outlook.

[Mary Ann Cunningham Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (December

13, 1968): 1243–48.

“Whose Common Future?” Ecologist 22 (July/August 1992).