States Lead on Environment And Industries Complain
By John Holusha
As a result of Federal inaction, many important environmental policies are being set at the state level, often to the dismay of the industries affected. In response to the states' advocacy of environmental matters, some industries are rushing to Washington, seeking uniform Federal rules. Maine, for instance, has banned the multilayer boxes that are used for children's drinks because they are not recyclable. California enforces stiffer standards for auto emissions than most states, and last year Massachusetts required vehicles to meet the California standards. And in 1988, seven Northeastern states required oil companies to lessen the volatility of gasoline in summer months, seeking to reduce the amount of smog-forming chemicals in the atmosphere. The Northeastern states, which have the most severe trash disposal problems, may soon take the lead in measures to reduce the generation of solid waste. Once again, the lack of action at the Federal level is inducing state level initiatives. "Over the past 10 years public opinion has become more supportive of the environment, and state officials have recognized it better than Federal officials," said Michael E. Kraft, a professor at the University of Wisconsin. Students of government say the anti-regulation, free market orientation of the Reagan and Bush Administrations produced a power vacuum on some environmental issues. "Most state officials would argue that these things should be done at the Federal level, but they are not getting done," said Richard Dennison, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, a research and litigation group based in New York. "So you are going to have a lot of different approaches by the states, and you have to anticipate some failures along with successes." Fearful of a crazy-quilt pattern of state regulations, the consumer products industry recently asked the Federal Trade Commission to issue guidelines on the use of labels that claim environmental benefits. The industry's action was prompted by different sets of regulations adopted by New York, California and Rhode Island, and by a challenge from a group of state attorneys general to the claims of some manufacturers. The trade commission agreed last week to hold hearings on the issue, although it may act without pre-empting state laws. National Standards Sought "Consumers, industry and state attorneys general want and need national environmental marketing guidelines," said John R. Cady, president of the National Association of Food Processors, which led the industry's appeal. Without some Federal action, the industries' desire for uniformity could mean that a relatively few large states might set what amount to national standards. This appears to be the case with auto emissions, environmentalists and state officials say. When Congress passed the Clean Air Act last year, it set new limits on emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. As it has in the past, Congress permitted California to issue more demanding standards and allowed other states to adopt the stiffer California standards. Previously, other states were content with the Federal standards, but last year Massachusetts imposed the California standards, while New York officials issued a rule requiring that cars meet the California standards starting with 1993 models and have begun another proceeding to embrace the stiffer rules California will begin in 1995. Michael Bradley, executive director of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a group of air-pollution officials, said as many as nine other states were considering adopting the California standards. Officials and environmentalists say that if enough big states take this step, auto makers will be forced to improve the emissions performance of their cars across the board. "If Texas joins New York and California, that is critical mass," said Thomas C. Jorling, the head of New York's Department of Environmental Conservation. "And there is legislation pending now in Texas." Auto Makers Fight Back The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, which represents domestic auto makers, has filed suit in the state courts to block the New York action. "We have a lot of problems" with states regulating auto emissions, said Michael J. Stanton, the association's director of state relations. "What if what works in California does not work in New York because of differences in climate or type of gasoline?" he asked rhetorically. "How would that be handled?" Mr. Stanton said differing state requirements also caused problems for dealers. "If a dealer is in a Federal state, he could not sell across the state line if the next one had California rules," he said. In some cases, action by states has led to tougher Federal standards. After seven of the eight Northeastern states changed the rules on gasoline volatility in 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency in 1989 adopted stiffer standards that will be fully effective in 1992. Largely because of Reagan-era budget cuts, the E.P.A. has not addressed solid-waste problems other than to propose technical standards for landfills. And while the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which could address the problems of trash disposal, is due for revision in Congress, officials of environmental and industry groups say they expect little change soon. So the Northeastern states may well take the lead by issuing rules to mandate recycling or to ban items like yard waste from landfills. The states have already influenced national policy on toxic elements in packaging. The Coalition of Northeast Governors, comprising the Governors of the six New England States plus those of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, drafted model legislation in 1989 limiting the amounts of four toxic heavy metals in packaging, largely in printing inks. The legislation was adopted by six states in the region, as well as Iowa and Wisconsin. Printing Ink Ingredients Paul Volpe, technical director of the National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers, said most producers were moving to comply with the rules regardless of their location. "This has gone beyond the Northeast," he said. Now the coalition is trying to unite state officials, environmentalists and industry representatives in a group called the Source Reduction Council to find ways of reducing the amount of packaging waste that goes to landfills. Packaging is coming in for special attention because it accounts for as much as one-third of all trash by weight and half by volume. The group came up with a list of principles for preferred packaging, like small size and materials that can be recycled. But the negotiations bogged down on details of how to accomplish these goals, and late last year the environmental groups walked out. 11 States Weigh Action Environmentalists and consumer advocates are backing legislation to ban packaging made of materials that cannot be recycled and re-used to reduce the amount of trash generated. According to the Environmental Action Foundation, a Washington-based environmental group, legislation to encourage recycling and reduce packaging waste is scheduled to be introduced in 11 states this year, including New York and New Jersey. "In the absence of Federal leadership, these 11 states are putting the packaging industry on notice that it is time to change," said Jeanne Wirka, a solid-waste specialist with the organization. The legislation is based on a proposal that was forced off the ballot in Massachusetts last year as a result of a challenge by a group of business interests. A similar proposal in Oregon was defeated. In general, the bills would ban packaging by the mid-1990's that could not be re-used at least five times or that did not contain a certain level of recycled material. Effort Called Simplistic Jeffrey Nedelman, a vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, said industry would oppose the bills as an overly simplistic attempt to solve the trash disposal problem. "Single-shot actions like bans and taxes do not accomplish the goal," he said. "There are no silver bullets to kill the werewolf of solid waste." Robert Ruddock, a vice president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said his group, which stopped the ballot initiative last year, would fight the measure in the Legislature. "Recycling is a three-legged stool: collection, processing and marketing," he said. "They would leap all the way to marketing and force a ban on packaging that does not meet their politically correct standards." Nevertheless, some state officials expect packaging and other environmental legislation to succeed. "I think we will see action on packaging reduction, fugitive emissions and incinerator standards," Mr. Jorling said. "National policy will evolve, but not in the most efficient way."
