13 Information Flow System for Chemicals in Products (CiP) …
201
The additional list for inorganic substances mentioned above is so simple that
stakeholders in the supply chain could understand and use it easily. When waste
handlers obtain this kind of information, they can recognise at least the need for
treatment of waste for disposal in a landfill. Organic substances can also be added
to the list. Table 13.3(C) is just an example of how to modify the list. An additional
simple list is also appropriate for manufacturers and does not hinder cost-effective
compliance with the laws, which is the main purpose of chemSHERPA.
13.6 Conclusion
We have briefly introduced the information flow system for CiP in Japan, chemSHERPA, and reviewed the conceptual backgrounds of various systems including
chemSHERPA and others. We consider that both CM and the CE are the conceptual
basis for such systems. ChemSHERPA does not consider the final stage of waste
disposal, which was originally expected to be included in the ideal CM system.
This weak point could not be remedied even by implementing the CE because the
CE perspective might suffer from the same flaw related to the social dimension of
sustainability.
We focused on landfill as the final stage of waste management, because landfill is
the last step of a hierarchical approach and accompanies the emissions of hazardous
chemicals into the environment. We should prevent such hazardous emissions, as
they have a negative impact on human health and the environment, generating local
inequality or in some cases inter-generation inequity. As a result, we suggest a modification of industry standards or construction of a simple list using the information
such as that in Table 13.3(C), containing elements derived from the landfill criteria.
The simple list enables quick modification at low cost. If this kind of information is
transferred to waste handlers, it will make it possible to prevent hazardous emissions
into the environment.
In this paper, we considered only inorganic substances because we compared
the US and EU systems with that of Japan, where only a few organic components
are included in landfill criteria. On the other hand, the US system has over twenty
organic substances, and these cannot be ignored. Thus, we need further consideration
of organic substances even though this may result in a substance-by-substance list.
In the case of chemSHERPA, FMD has not been adopted. Even when FMD is
introduced, the simple list mentioned above may be used for quick screening and
could reduce the importance of the CBI issue.
Moreover, in Japan, as for chemical waste (i.e., not CiP), we have the Waste Data
Sheet for waste independent from the Safety Data Sheet (SDS), and SDS is not
transferred to waste handlers. In other words, we do not have consistent data sheets
throughout the chemical life cycle, even for chemicals. Thus, if the SDS system
expanded its range of application, the situation would never change in Japan. In
this case, the information flow system reaching waste handlers would be especially
significant.
201
The additional list for inorganic substances mentioned above is so simple that
stakeholders in the supply chain could understand and use it easily. When waste
handlers obtain this kind of information, they can recognise at least the need for
treatment of waste for disposal in a landfill. Organic substances can also be added
to the list. Table 13.3(C) is just an example of how to modify the list. An additional
simple list is also appropriate for manufacturers and does not hinder cost-effective
compliance with the laws, which is the main purpose of chemSHERPA.
13.6 Conclusion
We have briefly introduced the information flow system for CiP in Japan, chemSHERPA, and reviewed the conceptual backgrounds of various systems including
chemSHERPA and others. We consider that both CM and the CE are the conceptual
basis for such systems. ChemSHERPA does not consider the final stage of waste
disposal, which was originally expected to be included in the ideal CM system.
This weak point could not be remedied even by implementing the CE because the
CE perspective might suffer from the same flaw related to the social dimension of
sustainability.
We focused on landfill as the final stage of waste management, because landfill is
the last step of a hierarchical approach and accompanies the emissions of hazardous
chemicals into the environment. We should prevent such hazardous emissions, as
they have a negative impact on human health and the environment, generating local
inequality or in some cases inter-generation inequity. As a result, we suggest a modification of industry standards or construction of a simple list using the information
such as that in Table 13.3(C), containing elements derived from the landfill criteria.
The simple list enables quick modification at low cost. If this kind of information is
transferred to waste handlers, it will make it possible to prevent hazardous emissions
into the environment.
In this paper, we considered only inorganic substances because we compared
the US and EU systems with that of Japan, where only a few organic components
are included in landfill criteria. On the other hand, the US system has over twenty
organic substances, and these cannot be ignored. Thus, we need further consideration
of organic substances even though this may result in a substance-by-substance list.
In the case of chemSHERPA, FMD has not been adopted. Even when FMD is
introduced, the simple list mentioned above may be used for quick screening and
could reduce the importance of the CBI issue.
Moreover, in Japan, as for chemical waste (i.e., not CiP), we have the Waste Data
Sheet for waste independent from the Safety Data Sheet (SDS), and SDS is not
transferred to waste handlers. In other words, we do not have consistent data sheets
throughout the chemical life cycle, even for chemicals. Thus, if the SDS system
expanded its range of application, the situation would never change in Japan. In
this case, the information flow system reaching waste handlers would be especially
significant.