POLLUTION PREVENTION PAYS (3P).
3M'S RESPONSE TO INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL
Sara J. Zoss, 3P Coordinator
Michael D. Koenigsberger, Environmental Engineer
3M Company, Inc.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55113
INTRODUCTION
3M has a corporate policy to keep its facilities in conformance with all environmental requirements, to solve its own pollution problems and to develop products that have a minimum adverse
effect on the environment. However, the environmental legislation and regulations of the early 1970s,
which specified increasingly sophisticated treatment technologies as control measures, stimulated a
desire at 3M to look for a better way. That "better way" at 3M took the form of the "Pollution
Prevention Pays" or 3P Program. Rather than apply end-of-pipe add-on control technology which
is very expensive, resource and energy consumptive, and residue generating, emphasis has been placed
upon prevention of generation of pollution at the source through: product reformulation, process
modification, equipment redesign, waste recycle or reuse.
In the nine years since the 3P Program was formalized, over 1,000 programs have been developed
preventing the annual generation of 90,000 tons of air pollutants, 950 million gallons of wastewater,
10,000 tons of water pollutants and 138,000 tons of sludge and solid waste. In addition, energy
savings equivalent to 254,000 barrels of fuel oil are achieved annually.
During the last two decades, the U.S. has passed a number of strong environmental regulations
in response to the demand of the public to protect the environment. Unfortunately, much of this
legislation emphasized the specifics of pollution control technology. Not only was a reduction in
emission specified but also the acceptable method to accomplish this.
Futhermore, this legislation did not consider the environment as a whole. For instance, water
pollution control laws and regulations were enacted without considering the impact on air pollution,
and vice versa, or the impact of air and water pollution controls on solid waste disposal was not
appreciated.
To meet the requirements of these regulations, the immediate response by U.S. industry was to
clean up pollution that already has been created. This generally was accomplished by providing a
costly pollution removal facility at the end of a production line.
Natural resources, energy, manpower, and money were consumed to operate the pollution control
device throughout its life span. At its very best, in line with the Law of Conservation which states
pollutants cannot be destroyed, only changed in form, this approach can only contain the pollution
temporarily and not ultimately eliminate the problem.
Furthermore, these types of controls work only with pollution created during the manufacturing
process in the factories and which can be called "First Generation" pollution. They do not and cannot
cope with "Second Generation" or "Third Generation" pollution.
"Second Generation" pollution is product-use pollution, which is the environmental impact of
products after they leave the factory. The user's pollution problem cannot be solved by controls in
the producer's factory.
"Third Generation" pollution is that which is created when a product, or the residue from a
product, is disposed of in a landfill or by other means.
Therefore, conventional methods of pollution control only deal with the symptoms of "First
Generation" pollution; they are ineffective against "Second Generation" and "Third Generation"
pollution.
459