NEWS SOCIETY Industry lobbying hit by community advisory panel members Concerned about intense industry lobbying of Congress and state legislatures to weaken environmental laws, community and environmental leaders are taking a hard look at continuing their membership on voluntary industry-community advisory panels. In one instance, eight public interest and environmental representatives resigned as a group from a 24-member advisory panel for the Texas Natural Resources Commission, the state's primary environmental regulatory body. "If we are in danger of having the underpinnings of environmental laws and regulations eliminated at the state and congressional levels, there is not much reason to continue to screw around at advisory committee meetings," said Ken Kramer, cochair of Task Force 21 and director of the Texas Chapter of the Sierra Club. Joining Kramer in resignation in June were representatives of the League of Women Voters, Consumers Union, Texas Center for Policy Studies, and several academics and environmental attorneys. No replacements have been selected, according to a commission spokesperson. Texas industries were doing an "end run" around regulators and the advisory panel, Kramer said, and were turning to the Texas Legislature to get regulatory changes they could not get through the panel or state regulators. In particular, Kramer singled out the Texas Chemical Council, which, he said, was working to limit public participation in permitting decisions. "There has been a lot of discussion whether attending advisory committees is the best use of our time," Kramer said, "especially in a changing climate when environmental laws are under attack." Nationally, the question of participation has surfaced among the 16-member Chemical Manufacturers Association Public Advisory Panel. Formed in 1989, the panel
is one of the first national industry advisory panels and an integral part of CMA's Responsible Care Initiative. The Initiative lays out management practices intended to guide CMA member companies in improving compliance with environmental laws as well as the chemical industry's public image. A substantial part of the panel's May meeting was spent in a "tough discussion" over "inconsistencies and conflicts between the rhetoric of Responsible Care and CMA's lobbying effort," according to panel member Ross Vincent, a chemical engineer and environmental consultant in Pueblo, CO, as well as chair of a Sierra Club hazardous material committee. "The panel's consensus was that a lot of the positions CMA was taking are far more reflective of the chemical industry of old, seeing an opportunity on the Hill to work the legislative process to its own advantage and Responsible Care be damned. Some of us were visibly upset about this." He specifically pointed to CMA's support for the Clean Water Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 961), risk assessment proposals, and national and state legislation to make environmental audits privileged and confidential. "The lobbying effort," he warned, "has the potential to destroy the credibility of Responsible Care." According to Richard Doyle, CMA vice president for Responsible Care, the divergence in views may be nothing more than a difference of opinion. Each year the panel prepares an open letter to the industry, Doyle noted, and one issue that continually comes up is congruence between Responsible Care and CMA's advocacy positions. In response, two years ago CMA created an internal process in which standing committees that develop legislative positions must consider Responsible Care principles and articulate in writing how lobbying I positions relate to them.
"We feel the issues we have taken up are congruent with Responsible Care," he said. "Sometimes [CMA and the panel] agree to disagree." In July, CMA officials invited one panel member to present panel concerns about industry advocacy to top CMA leadership, and at the panel's September meeting, several industry chief executive officers will take part in a discussion of the issue with members, Doyle said. For Vincent, much will turn on the success of legislative efforts to roll back regulations and, eventually, on how willing plant managers will be to "take advantage of bad laws." The worst case scenario, Vincent said, is that in a few years people will begin leaving advisory panels and an end will come to the initial gains made by industry in improving its actions and image. "This is a time to be very cautious," added panel member Diane Sheridan, environmental policy facilitator and officer in the U.S. League of Women Voters. "I understand why they did this in Texas, but I doubt it is appropriate now for us. But when a day comes that they are not paying attention to our advice, then I'm out of here." —JEFF JOHNSON
PUBLIC
opinion
Regulatory balance Although the majority of the U.S. public supports environmental protections, fewer people feel that regulations need to become tougher, according to a recent survey. Americans polled this year and in 1992 consistently chose the environment over economic development 2 to 1 when the two come into conflict. But the number of people who believe protections have not gone far enough dropped 20% to 43% since 1992. The poll, conducted by RoperStarch for Times Mirror Magazines, surveyed 1000 people.
VOL. 29, NO. 9, 1995/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • 4 0 5 A
