cerns, representatives of Massachusetts and New Jersey said very few facilities, fewer than 2%, sought and received exemptions from reporting requirements because of fears over process or product confidentiality. Concerning costs, Andy Opperman of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said that, based on a state survey, companies saved $151,000 per facility in pollution prevention gains from the program after reporting and implementation costs are taken out. Massachusetts' Kenneth Geiser echoed Opperman's view that benefits outweighed costs. Following Geiser's presentation, Intel's Tim Mohin, government affairs manager for environmental health and safety, told ES&T, "After this hearing, Intel would never locate in Massachusetts. Let me give you an example why. We have a brand new facility, twice the size of an existing facility, but it releases 83% less air pollution. So if you only look at material entering the facility, you'd say it is polluting a lot more. But that's wrong. [EPA's approach] continues the 'death from above' perspective. They should look at releases. They are focusing on the wrong end. "I also have trouble with the public tracking our processes. Is the local butcher, for instance, going to see that we use 10 tons of chemical X and then claim to have a new way of making microprocessors that will cut that 10 tons? That's ludicrous." Geiser countered that in the four years since Massachusetts began collecting use data, waste and other "nonproduct outputs" have dropped 14%. He predicted, "In the future, if we have a good materials accounting system at each firm, we can forget about all the other reporting requirements—air, water, and the rest. Then we could have one system and have it focused on pollution prevention." —JEFF JOHNSON
Environment emerges as key issue in 1996 election
S
peaking in late October and early November, Clinton administration leaders began to ramp up the role of the environment in their presidential election campaign. With little discussion of their own record, the president and vice president struck out at Republican congressional leaders, highlighting differences between themselves and Republicans in terms of the environment. In a radio address Nov. 4, President Clinton said his message was "clear and simple. Under the cover of balancing the budget, the Republican Congress is going after the essential environmental protections that have guaranteed the health and safety of all Americans for a long time now, and I am determined to stop them." Specifically, he attacked Republican budget and appropriations proposals to add legislative "riders" to limit EPA's authority and cut its budget, particularly enforcement funding. Clinton also charged that Republican leaders had turned to a "small army of lobbyists for polluters" to write environmental legislation and to lead an assault on environmental and health protections gained in the past. Similar themes in a more detailed message were offered Oct. 28 by Vice President AI Gore, speaking at the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gore too went after Republican leaders in Congress for reversing "25 years of bipartisan progress" and dismantling "virtually everything" that has been done to protect public health and the environment by this "most anti-environmental Congress in the history of the United States." The vice president also
charged that Republicans had opened the legislative process to "industry lobbyists and lawyers" to rewrite environmental laws and "gave them a room" and "held their chairs" while they "auctioned off" and "sold democracy to the highest bidder." Language from corporate briefs, he charged, showed up in appropriation riders and in Superfund and Clean Water Act legislation. Gore strongly criticized the Republican congressional leadership while praising Republican moderates such as Reps. Sherwood Boehlert (NY) and Wayne Gilchrest (MD), who had led in opposing the House leaders. He coupled the leadership with "powerful backers" in industry who want to "dump more pollution" and not comply with law. His speech was peppered with references to the Republican leadership's "extremist" and "radical and reckless" agenda that is "completely out of tune with the desires and wishes and opinions of the American people." Gore was brief in presenting the administration's own record, however, pointing to regulatory reforms and "Executive Order after Executive Order" and mentioning demonstration projects, investment in environmental technologies, and encouragement for sustainable development projects. Meanwhile, the president's support among environmental groups is at an all-time low. In a recent editorial, the head of the Sierra Club charged Clinton with "betraying" the environmental movement by supporting a Republican environmental rider to a bill, signed last summer, that opened much of Western federal land to "salvage" logging. —JEFF JOHNSON
VOL. 29, NO. 12, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • 5 4 1 A
