"Pollution prevention is not the only strategy for reducing risk but is the preferred one. Where prevention or recycling are not feasible, treatment followed by safe disposal as a last resort will play an important role in achieving environmental goals."
Carol Browner, U.S. EPA Administrator
As described in Chapters 4 and 5, it is national and Ohio EPA policy that pollution be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. Despite the tremendous progress some have made in preventing wastes, it is often not economically or technically feasible to eliminate all wastes from industrial processes. For any remaining wastes the preferred management options in order of preference are on-site recycling or reuse, off-site recycling or reuse, treatment, and disposal in landfills. This is commonly referred to as the waste management hierarchy. U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA have taken the position that the hierarchy should be viewed as establishing a set of preferences, rather than an absolute judgment that prevention is always the most feasible option.
For safety or economy-of-scale reasons in some specific situations recycling or treatment may be more feasible than source reduction or in-process recycling. Environmentally sound recycling can have many of the advantages of source reduction because it achieves reduction in the amount of wastes needing treatment or disposal and conserves energy and other resources. However, on-site recycling and treatment are generally preferred over off-site processing because releases often occur during transport and handling and the chances for spills increase.
Some companies lack the skills to operate recycling or treatment equipment properly. The permitting process required for an on-site waste treatment facility is both time consuming and expensive and may require a public hearing. Other companies do not generate a large enough quantity of waste for economic operation of recycling equipment. In those cases, off-site recycling or treatment where wastes from multiple facilities are combined can be an excellent waste management approach.
Other technologies that do not in themselves reduce the mass of contaminants produced also may be beneficial. For example, more efficient use of water in plating by rinsing through use of counter-current flow or spray rinse systems increases the cost effectiveness of in-process metal recovery and reuse. More energy efficient lighting can bring substantial savings.
The emphasis in managing waste should be to continually try to move up the hierarchy toward source reduction. Although a company may have an environmentally sound recycling program for certain wastes, the generation of these wastes may reflect inefficiencies in operation. Recycling is often much more expensive than source reduction, especially when the cost of scrap and other excess materials are completely determined. Obviously, if more of these wastes can be turned into product, the company will decrease its costs and should increase profits.
In summary, source reduction techniques and in-process recycling which prevent and reduce waste generation are preferred over recycling, treatment, and disposal options that deal with wastes after they are produced. Once pollution prevention options have been fully considered, additional methods of handling and controlling wastes should be evaluated according to the waste management hierarchy. Often these approaches need to be used in combination to be most effective. Technical advancements in production processes and waste management technologies make it desirable for each company to routinely review and improve its pollution prevention and waste management practices.