- Email: [email protected]
A New Shade of Green
REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY ARTICLE NO.
25, 91–93 (1997)
RT961055
A New Shade of Green1 EARNIE DEAVENPORT Eastman Chemical Company, P.O. Box 511, Kingsport, Tennessee 37662 Received August 10, 1996
Thank you, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. I would like to say a special thanks to the Air and Waste Management Association for 89 years of dedicated service to both industry and the environment. Trade shows and conferences like this are among the major reasons we’ve come so far, so fast in environmental improvement in this country. We’ve come a long way since the time back in 1948, when 18 people lost their lives in a small town called Donora, just downwind from Pittsburgh’s steel mills. We’ve come a long way since the middle 1960s, when visibility on the Santa Monica Freeway could be measured in feet instead of miles. And we’ve come a long way since President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Today, our skies are now bluer, our rivers are now cleaner, and our land is now covered with more forests than at any time since that first Earth Day more than 25 years ago. We now have the healthiest population in recorded history. We live longer. We have more leisure time. And we spend it in the cleanest environment of any industrialized nation on Earth. And now, as we are about to usher in a new millennium, I believe we are on the very cusp of an emerging new environmentalism in this country—an environmentalism steeped in a rich and proud history of its past accomplishments, but also one willing to take on ‘‘a new shade of green’’ in order to make future environmental progress. As a nation, we’ve changed a great deal since the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and a host of other Federal statutes were signed into law back in the mid-1970s. Technology is now light-years ahead of those days. Just walk through the exhibit hall and you’ll see what I mean. People are now more informed at younger ages about environmental issues thanks to years of media coverage, access to internet, and grade school environmental education. If we are to make the same kind of progress over the next half-century, as we have since those dreadful days
in Donora, we must capitalize on these changes and embrace three key principles that are giving form to this new emerging environmentalism. These three principles are what I’ve come to talk with you about this morning. They are: Number one—The concept of Relative Risk. Unlike people, all risks are not created equal; Number two—We must recognize that the economy matters. While the golden egg gets our attention, we had better start paying attention to the goose; Number three—We must put confrontation behind us when it comes to the environment. Cooperation, not confrontation, is the real power behind environmental progress. Let me take a few minutes to talk about each of these principles beginning with relative risk and how this concept evolved. There’s an old saying that the first casualty of war is the truth. However, beyond the human suffering, I would say it’s the environment. Even after the burning, the bombing, and the shooting stop, the environment still suffers, because it’s called upon to absorb the industrial waste generated as nations begin to rebuild. So it was after World War II. The U.S. environment was particularly abused because our infrastructure was the only one left with the capacity to rebuild the world. By the time the 1970s rolled around, the U.S. environment was in pretty bad shape. The only way to stop the bleeding was with a command and a control strategy that set the standards and dictated how those standards would be met. Pounds emitted was the measure, because that was about all technology could do 25 years ago. And we weren’t very sophisticated about choosing our chemical targets either. EPA treated chemicals much like some folks treat spiders and snakes. Better safe than sorry. However, attitudes have changed and so has technology, which makes pounds emitted less of a relevant measure today. A study published earlier this month by a partnership of industry, government, and environmental groups here in the State of Tennessee concludes that EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which focuses only on pounds emitted, has resulted in a general mis-
1 Remarks presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association in Nashville, Tennessee, July 24, 1996.
91
AID
RTP 1055
/
6e0d$$$$61
04-23-97 11:28:39
0273-2300/97 $25.00 Copyright q 1997 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
rtpa
AP: Reg Tox Pharm
92
EARNIE DEAVENPORT
understanding of air toxins. The major reason, the report states, is that some of the most toxic pollutants tend to be emitted in lesser amounts and show up far down the TRI list in terms of pounds. However, if their relative toxicity were considered, they would be near the top. The report recommends that EPA focus on reduction in toxicity, rather than reduction in pounds, because pounds emitted is no longer the most effective method of improving public health and safety. The study also recommends that EPA expand the TRI listing to include auto emissions and source emissions from power plants burning fossil fuels in order to give the public a more realistic picture of air pollution. Ninety-nine percent of the most abundant and potentially most harmful pollutants come from tailpipe emissions and power plants, but these pollutants are not included in the TRI. The concept of a TRI listing is a good one. The public deserves the right to know what’s in the air we breathe. However, limiting the report to industry sources alone, while ignoring other emissions, turns a good concept into one that’s less meaningful and far less relevant. It reminds me of the story of the two fellows on a flight from coast-to-coast. A couple of hours into the flight the captain came on and said, ‘‘We’ve lost our number one engine, but don’t worry. We have three others and we’ll only be delayed for one hour.’’ A little while later, the captain came back on and said, ‘‘We’ve lost our number two engine, but don’t worry. We have two others and we’ll only be delayed for two hours.’’ Well, at that, one of the fellows turned to the other and said, ‘‘If we lose those other two engines, we might be up here all day!’’ Well, we don’t want to spend all day working on false assumptions. However, in a real sense, that’s what we’re doing with the current TRI listing. The TRI could be more meaningful and more relevant if it were expanded to include tailpipe and power plant emissions and by applying the principle of relative risk to the chemicals already listed. In doing so, we could not only pinpoint the real air quality culprits, but we would also most likely reduce the drain on resources needed to file emissions reporting data. EPA estimates that 85 million man-hours was needed to complete and file all the environmental reports required in 1995—85 million man-hours! That’s more manpower than Eisenhower put on the beach on D-Day! It takes a D-Day-like effort to fight EPA’s paperwork requirements every year! How long can this nation afford to expend its human resources looking at air pollution in an old-fashioned way? Not long, because the American people aren’t getting what they’re paying for. Which brings me to my second point, and that is the economy matters. And the President’s Council on Sustainable Development agrees. In its report to President Clinton, the Council
AID
RTP 1055
/
6e0d$$$$61
04-23-97 11:28:39
states that, ‘‘economic growth is essential for progress toward environmental quality.’’ Study after study shows that while the American people support the environmental goals as set forth by EPA, the Federal Government has failed to convincingly demonstrate that its environmental goals are compatible with the economic needs of the country. According to Harvard’s School of Public Health, the cost-per-life-saved for the average EPA regulation is over $7.5 million. That’s 87 times higher than the costper-life-saved of the average OSHA regulation, 96 times greater than the Highway Safety Administration’s cost effectiveness, and 326 times greater than that of the FAA. Compliance with all health, safety, and environmental regulations costs the American people more than $600 billion a year. That’s more than the annual cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security combined! Overweighted risk analysis and staggering compliance bills place a tremendous drag on our national economy. Milton Friedman, a respected economist and former White House economic advisor, recently published a study that shows that the long-term growth in regulations has been a major contributing factor to the decline in economic growth of the United States. His work emphasizes that dismantling our current regulatory establishment would help the United States return to an annual economic growth rate of 4% versus the 2.5% we’ve seen for the past 5 years. Supporting Friedman’s findings is another report published just last month by the World Economic Forum based in Geneva. According to the report, the United States dropped out of first place in competitiveness because our rate of government spending and taxation are expected to hamper future growth. Dismantling the current regulatory system, with its $600 billion plus annual price tag, would give each American worker a $4800-a-year raise. The average American wage earner pays a hidden tax of at least $400 a month to support Federal regulations. Unfortunately, you can’t shop around for the best guy in environmental improvement like you can for a new car, or a new home, or shoes for the kids. However, you can start asking your congressmen and senators about how your $400 a month is being spent. Wide public participation in the environmental decision-making process will be the hallmark of the new emerging environmentalism. I sense that the American people have grown weary and are somewhat offended by the continued confrontation that pits one ideology against another, that sets Congress against the Executive Branch, and drives a wedge between the regulators and the regulated. Cooperation, not confrontation, is the real power behind environmental progress. Take the Tennessee 2000 Initiative I mentioned earlier. This partnership was formed for one purpose only and that was to improve the air quality in Tennessee.
rtpa
AP: Reg Tox Pharm
A NEW SHADE OF GREEN
No hidden agendas. No ‘‘big me, little you’’ attitudes. No dominant parties. This diverse partnership of academia, industry, and environmental groups not only produced a landmark study on relative toxicity, but they also showed that the spirit of cooperation and shared goals can lead to great gains for the environment. There are many, many other examples, including Community Advisory Panels, the Common Sense Initiative, and Project XL. Community Advisory Panels have been established in the plant-site communities of each member of the Chemical Manufacturers Association so that we can get some honest feedback on how we are doing in terms of odor abatement, pollution control, emergency safety procedures, and evacuation plans. The Common Sense Initiative takes a giant step in the right direction by allowing stakeholders, rather than EPA, to write regulations that apply to their particular processes. And then there’s Project XL which stands for ‘‘excellence’’ and ‘‘leadership.’’ This federally sponsored initiative provides industry with the flexibility to prove that superior environmental results can be achieved at a lower cost. The potential of this forward-thinking program could be further enhanced if EPA were granted the legislative authority to waive certain regulatory requirements where appropriate. In closing, let me leave you with the story about the fellow who answered an ad for a job as a bouncer in a big city nightclub.
AID
RTP 1055
/
6e0d$$$$61
04-23-97 11:28:39
93
The fellow walked up to the bartender and said, ‘‘I’m here to apply for the job as the bouncer.’’ The bartender said, ‘‘Do you have any experience?’’ The fellow said, ‘‘No, but watch this.’’ He walked over to a corner where this really huge fellow was being very loud, and he picked him up by the collar and the seat of his pants and threw him sprawling out into the street. The fellow came back and said, ‘‘How’s that?’’ The bartender said, ‘‘Great! But you’ll have to ask the boss about the job. I just work here.’’ The fellow said, ‘‘OK. Where is he?’’ The bartender said, ‘‘He’s just coming back in the front door.’’ I believe the real objective of this emerging new environmentalism is to continually improve this nation’s environment—and to do it a way that doesn’t offend anyone, particularly the boss, who happens to be the American people. The American public is a lot smarter than we give them credit for. They understand the concept of relative risk because it makes a lot of sense. They understand how the economy works because they work in it everyday. And they understand that confrontation impedes progress because they’ve seen it grind our government to a halt on more than one occasion. This new emerging environmentalism is not the product of an imaginative CEO, but a child of the public. We who work in the environmental arena every day would do well to give this child all the nurturing and guidance it needs to reach full maturity. Thank you very much for inviting me—now, I’ll be glad to answer your questions.
rtpa
AP: Reg Tox Pharm
25, 91–93 (1997)
RT961055
A New Shade of Green1 EARNIE DEAVENPORT Eastman Chemical Company, P.O. Box 511, Kingsport, Tennessee 37662 Received August 10, 1996
Thank you, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. I would like to say a special thanks to the Air and Waste Management Association for 89 years of dedicated service to both industry and the environment. Trade shows and conferences like this are among the major reasons we’ve come so far, so fast in environmental improvement in this country. We’ve come a long way since the time back in 1948, when 18 people lost their lives in a small town called Donora, just downwind from Pittsburgh’s steel mills. We’ve come a long way since the middle 1960s, when visibility on the Santa Monica Freeway could be measured in feet instead of miles. And we’ve come a long way since President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Today, our skies are now bluer, our rivers are now cleaner, and our land is now covered with more forests than at any time since that first Earth Day more than 25 years ago. We now have the healthiest population in recorded history. We live longer. We have more leisure time. And we spend it in the cleanest environment of any industrialized nation on Earth. And now, as we are about to usher in a new millennium, I believe we are on the very cusp of an emerging new environmentalism in this country—an environmentalism steeped in a rich and proud history of its past accomplishments, but also one willing to take on ‘‘a new shade of green’’ in order to make future environmental progress. As a nation, we’ve changed a great deal since the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and a host of other Federal statutes were signed into law back in the mid-1970s. Technology is now light-years ahead of those days. Just walk through the exhibit hall and you’ll see what I mean. People are now more informed at younger ages about environmental issues thanks to years of media coverage, access to internet, and grade school environmental education. If we are to make the same kind of progress over the next half-century, as we have since those dreadful days
in Donora, we must capitalize on these changes and embrace three key principles that are giving form to this new emerging environmentalism. These three principles are what I’ve come to talk with you about this morning. They are: Number one—The concept of Relative Risk. Unlike people, all risks are not created equal; Number two—We must recognize that the economy matters. While the golden egg gets our attention, we had better start paying attention to the goose; Number three—We must put confrontation behind us when it comes to the environment. Cooperation, not confrontation, is the real power behind environmental progress. Let me take a few minutes to talk about each of these principles beginning with relative risk and how this concept evolved. There’s an old saying that the first casualty of war is the truth. However, beyond the human suffering, I would say it’s the environment. Even after the burning, the bombing, and the shooting stop, the environment still suffers, because it’s called upon to absorb the industrial waste generated as nations begin to rebuild. So it was after World War II. The U.S. environment was particularly abused because our infrastructure was the only one left with the capacity to rebuild the world. By the time the 1970s rolled around, the U.S. environment was in pretty bad shape. The only way to stop the bleeding was with a command and a control strategy that set the standards and dictated how those standards would be met. Pounds emitted was the measure, because that was about all technology could do 25 years ago. And we weren’t very sophisticated about choosing our chemical targets either. EPA treated chemicals much like some folks treat spiders and snakes. Better safe than sorry. However, attitudes have changed and so has technology, which makes pounds emitted less of a relevant measure today. A study published earlier this month by a partnership of industry, government, and environmental groups here in the State of Tennessee concludes that EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which focuses only on pounds emitted, has resulted in a general mis-
1 Remarks presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association in Nashville, Tennessee, July 24, 1996.
91
AID
RTP 1055
/
6e0d$$$$61
04-23-97 11:28:39
0273-2300/97 $25.00 Copyright q 1997 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
rtpa
AP: Reg Tox Pharm
92
EARNIE DEAVENPORT
understanding of air toxins. The major reason, the report states, is that some of the most toxic pollutants tend to be emitted in lesser amounts and show up far down the TRI list in terms of pounds. However, if their relative toxicity were considered, they would be near the top. The report recommends that EPA focus on reduction in toxicity, rather than reduction in pounds, because pounds emitted is no longer the most effective method of improving public health and safety. The study also recommends that EPA expand the TRI listing to include auto emissions and source emissions from power plants burning fossil fuels in order to give the public a more realistic picture of air pollution. Ninety-nine percent of the most abundant and potentially most harmful pollutants come from tailpipe emissions and power plants, but these pollutants are not included in the TRI. The concept of a TRI listing is a good one. The public deserves the right to know what’s in the air we breathe. However, limiting the report to industry sources alone, while ignoring other emissions, turns a good concept into one that’s less meaningful and far less relevant. It reminds me of the story of the two fellows on a flight from coast-to-coast. A couple of hours into the flight the captain came on and said, ‘‘We’ve lost our number one engine, but don’t worry. We have three others and we’ll only be delayed for one hour.’’ A little while later, the captain came back on and said, ‘‘We’ve lost our number two engine, but don’t worry. We have two others and we’ll only be delayed for two hours.’’ Well, at that, one of the fellows turned to the other and said, ‘‘If we lose those other two engines, we might be up here all day!’’ Well, we don’t want to spend all day working on false assumptions. However, in a real sense, that’s what we’re doing with the current TRI listing. The TRI could be more meaningful and more relevant if it were expanded to include tailpipe and power plant emissions and by applying the principle of relative risk to the chemicals already listed. In doing so, we could not only pinpoint the real air quality culprits, but we would also most likely reduce the drain on resources needed to file emissions reporting data. EPA estimates that 85 million man-hours was needed to complete and file all the environmental reports required in 1995—85 million man-hours! That’s more manpower than Eisenhower put on the beach on D-Day! It takes a D-Day-like effort to fight EPA’s paperwork requirements every year! How long can this nation afford to expend its human resources looking at air pollution in an old-fashioned way? Not long, because the American people aren’t getting what they’re paying for. Which brings me to my second point, and that is the economy matters. And the President’s Council on Sustainable Development agrees. In its report to President Clinton, the Council
AID
RTP 1055
/
6e0d$$$$61
04-23-97 11:28:39
states that, ‘‘economic growth is essential for progress toward environmental quality.’’ Study after study shows that while the American people support the environmental goals as set forth by EPA, the Federal Government has failed to convincingly demonstrate that its environmental goals are compatible with the economic needs of the country. According to Harvard’s School of Public Health, the cost-per-life-saved for the average EPA regulation is over $7.5 million. That’s 87 times higher than the costper-life-saved of the average OSHA regulation, 96 times greater than the Highway Safety Administration’s cost effectiveness, and 326 times greater than that of the FAA. Compliance with all health, safety, and environmental regulations costs the American people more than $600 billion a year. That’s more than the annual cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security combined! Overweighted risk analysis and staggering compliance bills place a tremendous drag on our national economy. Milton Friedman, a respected economist and former White House economic advisor, recently published a study that shows that the long-term growth in regulations has been a major contributing factor to the decline in economic growth of the United States. His work emphasizes that dismantling our current regulatory establishment would help the United States return to an annual economic growth rate of 4% versus the 2.5% we’ve seen for the past 5 years. Supporting Friedman’s findings is another report published just last month by the World Economic Forum based in Geneva. According to the report, the United States dropped out of first place in competitiveness because our rate of government spending and taxation are expected to hamper future growth. Dismantling the current regulatory system, with its $600 billion plus annual price tag, would give each American worker a $4800-a-year raise. The average American wage earner pays a hidden tax of at least $400 a month to support Federal regulations. Unfortunately, you can’t shop around for the best guy in environmental improvement like you can for a new car, or a new home, or shoes for the kids. However, you can start asking your congressmen and senators about how your $400 a month is being spent. Wide public participation in the environmental decision-making process will be the hallmark of the new emerging environmentalism. I sense that the American people have grown weary and are somewhat offended by the continued confrontation that pits one ideology against another, that sets Congress against the Executive Branch, and drives a wedge between the regulators and the regulated. Cooperation, not confrontation, is the real power behind environmental progress. Take the Tennessee 2000 Initiative I mentioned earlier. This partnership was formed for one purpose only and that was to improve the air quality in Tennessee.
rtpa
AP: Reg Tox Pharm
A NEW SHADE OF GREEN
No hidden agendas. No ‘‘big me, little you’’ attitudes. No dominant parties. This diverse partnership of academia, industry, and environmental groups not only produced a landmark study on relative toxicity, but they also showed that the spirit of cooperation and shared goals can lead to great gains for the environment. There are many, many other examples, including Community Advisory Panels, the Common Sense Initiative, and Project XL. Community Advisory Panels have been established in the plant-site communities of each member of the Chemical Manufacturers Association so that we can get some honest feedback on how we are doing in terms of odor abatement, pollution control, emergency safety procedures, and evacuation plans. The Common Sense Initiative takes a giant step in the right direction by allowing stakeholders, rather than EPA, to write regulations that apply to their particular processes. And then there’s Project XL which stands for ‘‘excellence’’ and ‘‘leadership.’’ This federally sponsored initiative provides industry with the flexibility to prove that superior environmental results can be achieved at a lower cost. The potential of this forward-thinking program could be further enhanced if EPA were granted the legislative authority to waive certain regulatory requirements where appropriate. In closing, let me leave you with the story about the fellow who answered an ad for a job as a bouncer in a big city nightclub.
AID
RTP 1055
/
6e0d$$$$61
04-23-97 11:28:39
93
The fellow walked up to the bartender and said, ‘‘I’m here to apply for the job as the bouncer.’’ The bartender said, ‘‘Do you have any experience?’’ The fellow said, ‘‘No, but watch this.’’ He walked over to a corner where this really huge fellow was being very loud, and he picked him up by the collar and the seat of his pants and threw him sprawling out into the street. The fellow came back and said, ‘‘How’s that?’’ The bartender said, ‘‘Great! But you’ll have to ask the boss about the job. I just work here.’’ The fellow said, ‘‘OK. Where is he?’’ The bartender said, ‘‘He’s just coming back in the front door.’’ I believe the real objective of this emerging new environmentalism is to continually improve this nation’s environment—and to do it a way that doesn’t offend anyone, particularly the boss, who happens to be the American people. The American public is a lot smarter than we give them credit for. They understand the concept of relative risk because it makes a lot of sense. They understand how the economy works because they work in it everyday. And they understand that confrontation impedes progress because they’ve seen it grind our government to a halt on more than one occasion. This new emerging environmentalism is not the product of an imaginative CEO, but a child of the public. We who work in the environmental arena every day would do well to give this child all the nurturing and guidance it needs to reach full maturity. Thank you very much for inviting me—now, I’ll be glad to answer your questions.
rtpa
AP: Reg Tox Pharm