ARCHIVED REPORTS_1988_1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At a given company, waste reduction is often the production group' s responsibility. A company can shift this focus to other areas by examining materials at each step to determine if a different method or material would result in less waste, or a less toxic waste. Technical barriers may be reinforced by the absence of systematic, reliable data. Currently, perceptions and examples are circulated, but these are not necessarily reliable or complete. Companies may be discouraged from doing the necessary research because of the time that must be invested and the inherent uncertainty of the available data. When considering waste reduction measures, managers may want to find a specific technology, according to the September 1986 OTA study. But this may be a fallacy. Rather than focus on a particular process or machine, company managers should assess every industrial process and operation for reduction opportunities: in-process recycling, process changes, housekeeping, handling, maintenance, monitoring, redesigning end products, and substituting less hazardous raw materials. OTA notes that the high cost of regulatory compliance is often a financial barrier to waste reduction. Cost of compliance coupled with costs to simply meet regulations often acts as a deterrence to invest- ment in waste reduction programs. Manufacturing industries losing market shares to imports may be hard- pressed to explore waste reduction methods (OTA, September 1986) . Particularly in areas of chronic high unemployment, a shift toward government-controlled waste reduction may be rejected for fear of killing off the surviving industries. Finally, the OTA study notes that physical barriers to waste reduction may also exist. Space limitations may inhibit implementing waste reduction: there simply may be no room for a new facility or process, particularly in established facilities. PJ9 9390502D.00D 10-6 Rev. 1 11/08/88