THE SAME WEEK that US Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts hailed House passage of the most sweeping environmental legislation since the 1970s, the Commonwealth cut one of the most effective state environmental laws in the country by virtually eliminating the Toxics Use Reduction Institute at UMass-Lowell.
When the authors of the Act wrote this pioneering law in 1989, they carefully crafted a funding stream for the program: the fees from companies that use toxic chemicals paid for it, not taxpayers. When the state eliminated the dedicated toxics use reduction program fund several years ago, diverting the industry fees into the general state coffers, the Legislature continued to fund the program though a separate state appropriation with the understanding that it was self-funding. In return, Massachusetts manufacturers have received research, technical assistance, and training support that has led to a substantial reduction in the use of toxic chemicals and waste in the Commonwealth.
In the state budget approved on June 22, TURI’s appropriation was removed, placing it under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, which itself is facing budget cutbacks.
The Act requires Massachusetts manufacturers to inventory toxic chemicals used in their manufacturing processes, report on chemical use, and undertake a systematic planning process to reduce chemical use, waste, and emissions. Five-hundred-and-fifty firms that use certain amounts of hazardous substances pay an annual toxic chemical fee to the state amounting to more than $3 million per year. These fees cover the costs of TURI as well as the Office of Technical Assistance, an on-site service, and a regulatory program at the Department of Environmental Protection. This environmental program has resulted in a reduction in industry’s toxic chemical use by 41 percent, toxic chemical waste by 65 percent, and emissions by an impressive 91 percent. Manufacturers participating in the program recently reported $4.5 million in annual operating cost savings.
The program has long been hailed as a model of government effectiveness by many states and countries. The Canadian Province of Ontario just passed its own toxics use reduction statute modeled specifically on the Massachusetts law.
There is little doubt that by de-funding the institute, Massachusetts will no longer be considered a worldwide leader in safer chemicals and products.
TURI itself has an impressive record of accomplishment, having trained 950 professionals in tools to reduce toxics use and waste in firms and provided support to hundreds of Massachusetts firms, communities, and researchers to improve the Commonwealth’s health and environment. At the same time, it has helped improve the efficiency and global competitiveness of our manufacturers.
Company successes in reducing toxics use speak for themselves. The lighting company Lightolier substituted a less toxic alternative for trichloroethylene, a cancer causing chemical, at its Fall River plant. The TURA program helped the company to reduce toxics and conserve energy and water for a savings of more than $2 million per year. Other similar examples abound.
In the midst of a budget crisis, the state has rightly sought ways to reduce unnecessary expenses and become more efficient. However, during the past eight months, the state has eliminated more than half of the budget of the Office of Technical Assistance and, now, cut the dedicated funding for the Toxics Use Reduction Institute.
In combining the institute with the already significantly reduced University of Massachusetts budget, the Legislature has shifted the costs of the program from the industries who have annually paid for services to the families and students who attend the university. The results are unfair and now put the entire program in jeopardy. Industry fees should not be diverted from the purpose for which they were intended - supporting Massachusetts companies to be more efficient and environmentally friendly.
Both TURI and the Office of Technical Assistance are strongly backed by industry, communities, and environmental advocates. They have helped establish the Commonwealth as a leader in high tech, sustainable manufacturing and environmental protection.
Massachusetts is uniquely positioned to expand its global leadership in cleaner manufacturing and safer products, and, with the right political will, it can continue this trajectory. The Legislature and governor should apply long-term thinking and insight toward finding solutions to the budget crisis that create economic, health, and ecosystem benefits, rather than eliminate them.
Ken Geiser and Joel Tickner are faculty members at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. 
