[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10832-S10833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHY TAMPER WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL SUCCESS STORY
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that, once again,
American business has succeeded in significantly reducing the amount of
chemicals released into the environment. According to the most recent
report from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Data Release of 1994,
releases of chemicals declined nearly nine, percent between 1993 and
1994. Since the TRI began in 1988, overall chemical releases have
dropped more than 44 percent. This decline is particularly impressive
because it has occurred in tandem with economic growth. This is an
environmental success story.
This successful reduction affirms that an approach to environmental
protection which encourages the participation of states and businesses
can and does work. It argues for a continuation of approaches to
environmental protection that use voluntary solutions, technological
innovations and increased flexibility. As the report shows, we should
have confidence in this successful public policy strategy.
Unfortunately, though, these promising statistics have been ignored.
The TRI facts have not deterred the Clinton Administration from
considering further burdens on America's society.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it plans
to require businesses to file new extensive reports about how chemicals
are used in the manufacturing process. This proposal is called
``Materials Accounting,'' and it is flawed for several reasons.
First, the proposal to track materials would place a new and very
costly hardship on the business community. Initial estimates indicate
that the additional cost to our Nation's businesses in direct reporting
paperwork costs alone could be as much as $800 million. In addition to
being extremely costly, this proposal is completely at odds with the
President's pledge in March 1995 to simplify and ease paperwork burdens
on American businesses.
I'm even reminded of the President's recent speech in Kalamazoo, MI,
where he reaffirmed this goal to reduce administrative burdens. Well,
for me, nearly $1 billion is real money. It is a real cost for
America's business community. It is a real paperwork burden that cannot
be ignored.
Already TRI generates 80,000 reports per year. And, it takes EPA
nearly 2 years to provide this existing information to the communities
nearest to the facilities producing these reports. It seems very
basic--before EPA unilaterally increases the size of its two-inches
thick report and further delays its publication, specific statutory
authority should be provided. The EPA's actions to expand it reporting
requirements are not authorized in law. How can EPA be responsive and
concerned about the risks faced by communities living near the
reporting facilities, when it requires a 2-year detour of the data with
its Washington bureaucrats?
Apart from the billion-dollar administrative cost,
Materials Accounting will jeopardize America's global competitiveness
by putting our most innovative technologies at risk. Our country's
position in the world's economy is dependent upon the development of
superior technology and the ability to protect that technology from
competitors, both international and domestic. Information about the
amounts of chemicals used in and created during a production process
will provide competitors with access to trade secrets. This does not
make good business sense. In fact this seriously endangers the
confidentiality of proprietary business information which is essential
in the marketplace.
Third, this approach would make sense only if substantial, tangible
and quantified environmental benefits clearly exceeded the costs.
However, I have seen no analysis which supports this premise. On the
contrary, I believe
[[Page S10833]]
the implementation of a Materials Accounting program will dilute the
focus of TRI by forcing businesses to commit finite resources to
trivial or even nonexistent risks, rather than more pressing, real
risks. It will also unnecessarily confuse citizens. This does not make
good policy sense. Chemical use is not directly related to information
a community must receive about the real risks faced from actual
releases from neighborhood facilities.
In my view, TRI should focus on telling the American public about the
risks directly associated with exposure to chemical releases. This was
the view of Congress back in 1988 when TRI was enacted. If EPA is
looking for a new mission, it should expand its public outreach efforts
by the communication of risk information that is both meaningful and
understandable.
EPA should undertake practical and timely risk communications which
are locally based. Risk communication is the heart and soul of a
community's right-to-know. Reporting to citizens the number of pounds
per year release of a certain chemical is neither valuable nor
worthwhile information. It says nothing about potential risks to human
health or the environment. Real risk depends on three factors: First,
inherent toxicity of the material; second, its concentration; and
third, its location relative to humans. Unfortunately, this simple
scientific formula has been ignored by EPA.
EPA also should stop trying to increase the number of chemicals on
the list without first ensuring that sound science-based criteria are
in place. More listings without scientific criteria will not
automatically make a community safer. EPA must first have a clear
understanding of the real exposure risk to avoid public confusion. EPA
should use the accepted basic risk formula.
Last, EPA does not have the statutory authority to collect and then
disseminate information about chemical use. The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act explicitly states the types of information
that may be collected by EPA. While all this information bears an
indirect relationship to potential releases and emissions, the Act does
not allow EPA to disperse sensitive chemical use information. This
proposal, therefore, is well beyond the scope of the basic statute
which established the TRI Program.
Let me remind my colleagues that Congress considered the use aspect
when the original program was created. And, chemical use was explicitly
and consciously rejected.
``Materials Accounting'' raises more questions than it answers.
Regulations are powerful, but they shift America's resources poorly.
Because regulations cause consumers and businesses to spend a good deal
of their money in ways they do not freely choose, Congress must first
consider the consequences of this coerced spending before it becomes
our public policy. A rule that has a $1 billion consequence is a rule
that deserves the attention of Congress.
With claims, counterclaims and even the withdrawal-of-claims that
there are growing risks from everything around us, it is even more
imperative for every citizen to know where the true risks are coming
from. I believe the American people want their elected officials to
look carefully into all aspects of environmental protection. The
following questions need to have a response in the public record:
(a) What benefit does the public derive from the publication of
incomprehensible data on chemical use which has no correlation to risk
from exposure?
(b) Would the public benefit more from a prioritization of ``worst
case'' emission risks to human health then use reporting?
(c) How will EPA protect the proprietary formulations that are a
valuable intellectual property?
Mr. President, it is clear that the administration's materials
accounting approach has no statutory basis. It is also clear that it
will place an enormous burden on America's industrial communities. As a
result, American jobs will be sacrificed for questionable, even
limited, community environmental benefit.
It is clear to me that congressional action must precede any
administration action.
Mr. President, I stand here today, along with many of my Senate
colleagues who are committed to protecting and informing communities in
our home States. We want to work on refining the policies which will
update the TRI program. We want to make it truly responsive to the
communities living nearest the facilities while preserving the right of
businesses to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
I would like to pause and take a philosophical view for just a
moment. Let's step back from TRI and consider all regulations in
general. In the aggregate, regulatory compliance costs Americans around
$670 billion every year--nearly 10 percent of our economy's GDP. This
is substantial both in terms of dollars and percentage. This is why our
public policy must meet this challenge in a systematic, responsive and
balanced manner.
Basic fairness must be an integral part of the solution as Congress
reviews and updates any regulation. Basic fairness should also be part
of the equation used by the administration as it approaches new
initiatives. Basic fairness is the American way.
The focus of the issue must not be whether we need environmental
protection enforcement--of course we do. Rather we must look at how to
achieve effective and appropriate environmental protection. Congress
must ensure that both the enforcement agencies and the regulated
community have incentives to encourage compliance. There must also be a
mechanism for the agencies to prioritize environmental initiatives.
And, of course, this process must respect our Bill of Rights.
I started today by reporting on TRI's success story, and the agency's
response of adding more reports and more costs. This could undermine
the existing voluntary efforts of industry. I think everyone would
agree that cooperative problem solving approaches work better than
adversarial methods. The latter could even produce disdain and
lawlessness.
I also started by saying that states deserve part of the credit for
the TRI success story. State governments have come a long way in terms
of developing their own core levels of expertise. As regulations are
updated, Congress must recognize states as a genuine partner in
protecting our environment.
The wisdom of this is demonstrated in a separate but vital
illustration of state ingenuity. Seventeen states, including my own
state of Mississippi, have developed a voluntary environmental audit
process, and early indications are that the process is working. It is
an alternative to the one-size-fits-all, Washington-expert, command-
and-control methods mandated in the past. It is common sense, and it
actually produces positive results for our environment at less cost. It
represents basic fairness. This is what Congress ought to be
advocating.
Mr. President, I want to conclude by saying that Congress needs to
turn the spotlight back to TRI's original intent. This can be achieved
by having both Congress and the EPA answer one fundamental question:
What chemical release information will be useful to people living near
an industrial facility?
____________________