=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #344
—July 1, 1993—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
INDUSTRIES CAN BENEFIT FROM REGULATION
It is fashionable these days to claim that environmental
regulations harm American industry, damaging its competitive
position in world markets. However, this is not necessarily
true. In some instances, strong regulation can help industries
innovate and prosper.
Take the American paper industry. The paper industry has
traditionally used chlorine-based chemicals to bleach wood pulp,
the raw material for making paper. Chlorine bleaching of paper
in the U.S. gives rise to about 150,000 tons of persistent toxic
pollutants each year, including substantial quantities of dioxin.
All of this is dumped directly into the environment near the
mills. (A good-sized paper mill uses 10 to 70 million gallons of
water EACH DAY, so they always locate on rivers or lakes.)
In 1983 the state of Wisconsin documented the presence of high
levels of dioxins in fish downstream from paper mills and began
closing affected commercial fisheries.[1] Similar findings of
dioxins in fish below paper mills had already begun to appear in
Europe. In Europe, regulatory officials reacted by clamping down
on the paper industry, pressing for an end to the use of
chlorine. The phrase TCF (totally chlorine free) began to come
into use.
In the U.S., however, regulatory officials took a different
approach. U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] immediately
fell into line with the wishes of the pulp and paper industry,
refusing to set a firm federal standard for dioxin in waters
below pulp and paper mills. Throughout the ’80s, EPA encouraged
states with pulp and paper mills to set their own water quality
standards for dioxins near the mills. This created a decade-long
brawl with the paper industry pushing aggressively for loose
dioxin regulations in 21 states.[2]
While the American paper industry mounted a state-by-state
campaign to weaken dioxin regulations, European regulators and
paper industry officials worked together to phase out the source
of the problem–chlorine. By the early 1990s, for example, the
German paper industry had achieved totally chlorine free paper
production. Today the rest of Europe is not far behind.
While these divergent responses were developing in the U.S. and
Europe, the environmental community on both continents was
relentlessly documenting the damage caused by chlorine, and was
getting the word out, so consumers began to demand chlorine-free
paper products. (For example, RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS has
been printed on non-chlorine-bleached paper since 1988.)
Here again, we see a contrast between the European response and
the U.S. response to changing market demand:
In its promotional literature, Soedra Cell, a Swedish
manufacturer of chlorine-free pulp, writes:
“Soedra Cell produces pulp, and pulp alone. We are in fact the
largest producer of market pulp in Europe. This, of course,
gives us certain responsibilities, and we were one of the few
producers of sulphate pulp who immediately took up the TCF
(totally chlorine-free) challenge.
“As we see it, the right approach to the problem of chlorine is
very simple: there is considerable pressure on the market
against bleaching with chlorine-based chemicals. We as a
producer accept this. Our aim is to supply the products the
market demands.
“For us, TCF means that we use no chlorine derivatives whatsoever
in our production. No chlorine gas. No chlorine dioxide. In
other words 0 percent chlorine.”
By way of contrast, in February, 1992, PULP AND PAPER WEEK
reported that A.D. “Pete” Correll, then-chief operating officer,
now chief executive officer, of Georgia-Pacific wrote to
customers saying that the firm “can find no scientific evidence
to indicate measurable health impacts linked to the release of
properly treated mill effluents from our pulp and paper mills
that use chlorine in the United States… The scientific evidence
clearly indicates that our level of use of chlorine is
environmentally safe.” Later in the letter he wrote, “If you
feel you must have ‘chlorine-free’ bleached pulps which cannot
have used even chlorine dioxide and your markets will accept the
difference in quality and performance, then Georgia-Pacific can
no longer be a supply source.”
The plain fact is that the world is beginning to demand
chlorine-free paper. If Georgia-Pacific won’t supply it, then
some European manufacturer will. It is worth noting that U.S.
firms (Scott Paper and International Paper, and perhaps others)
have held patents on chlorine-free processes since the 1970s, but
they have not developed them. Instead, they have insisted on
their right to use chlorine and create “negligible” amounts of
dioxin, no matter what the customer may want. As a result, every
year control of the intellectual property of papermaking
–designs, patents, royalties –worth millions of dollars, and
the key to competition in the next century, is being lost to
European companies.[3]
The dioxin/chlorine problem came upon the American paper industry
at a bad time, just when the disastrous effects of Ronald
Reagan’s “supply side economics” (which George Bush called
“voodoo economics,” then embraced) had hit. Like many U.S.
businesses, the paper industry got caught up in the merger mania
of the 1980s. The Tax Reform Act of 1981 had made it attractive
to get rid of tangible assets and to go into debt. As a result,
many paper companies took on a load of debt in the 1980s that
they now cannot sustain. Partly to service this debt, and partly
to liquidate assets, some paper companies have been cutting trees
(the raw material for paper) faster than natural growth can
replace them. Both old growth trees and plantation trees are
being cut faster than they grow back. For example, the former
chief forester for Louisiana-Pacific estimates that his company
cuts trees at 225 percent of the expected growth rate.[4]
Reasonable regulation on the use of old-growth forests would
prevent this self-destructive (and eco-destructive) behavior by
paper companies. Furthermore, sensible financial regulation of
mergers and acquisitions would have prevented the massive slide
into debt that characterized the ’80s and which is now working to
the advantage of foreign competition.
The American pulp and paper industry is also guilty of plain bad
management. For example, it has failed to integrate recycling
technology into its mills. The ability to make paper from
recycled stock could keep mills open as tree cutting is reduced
to sustainable levels.
The industry has also failed to recognize that phasing out
chlorine would bring important additional benefits:
** Obviously, by eliminating chlorine-based chemistry, the pulp
and paper industry, could eliminate the production of thousands
of pounds of persistent, toxic, organochlorine pollutants. These
pollutants, which include dioxin, pose a serious threat to the
environment and human health downstream from pulp mills using
chlorine-based bleaches. In many places, the fishing industry is
threatened as whole species are being depleted by
organochlorines.[5]
** In addition to preventing organochlorine pollution,
eliminating chlorinated chemicals from the pulp and paper
industry would allow pulp mills to close the loop and reuse their
process water. (Currently, pulp mills are forced to dump their
process water because the chlorine-based chemicals prevent reuse;
the corrosive nature of chlorine would destroy equipment if the
water were reused.)
** If pulp mills eliminate chlorine and close the loop, they can
cut their use of fresh water by as much as 88 percent (cutting
water use from 4000 gallons per air-dried metric ton [ADMT] of
pulp to 500 gallons per ADMT). Based on 1991 bleached-pulp
production figures, if U.S. mills closed the loop, they could
save 94 billion gallons of water each year.
** Although treatment of pulp mill effluent will still be
necessary to remove solids and adjust BOD [biological oxygen
demand], COD [chemical oxygen demand] and pH [acidity], companies
should realize significant cost savings by not having to meet
increasingly stringent limits on dioxins, furans and AOX
[chlorinated chemicals] discharges. Further, sludge from
settling ponds is now considered a hazardous waste because of the
chlo-rine content. If chlorine is eliminated, the sludge would
consist of woody residues and could probably be sold as a mulch
and become a value-added product of the mill.
** As mentioned above, many of the chlorine-free alternatives
allow for the recovery of the bleaching chemicals. If all
chlorine-based chemicals are eliminated and the loop is closed,
pulp mills can also recover significant percentages of caustic
soda (sodium hydroxide). Estimates place the recovery rate well
above 50 percent, in some cases as high as 90 percent.
** Currently, chlorine and caustic soda are produced from brine
via electrolysis, one of the most energy-intensive manufacturing
processes known. If chlorine is eliminated from the pulp and
paper industry and caustic soda is recovered, the need for
electrolysis will drop sharply. During 1992, the industry used
4.8 billion kiloWatt-hours of energy producing chlorine, much of
which could have been saved by going chlorine-free.
** If pulp mills can close the loop, they can produce paper at
lower cost. Industry analysts estimate that chlorine-free,
closed loop mills can produce paper products for 30 percent less
than their chlorinated counterparts.
Strict regulation wouldn’t solve all of this industry’s ills,
some of which were brought on by an imprudent faith in voodoo
economics. But strict regulation could provide a guiding hand
toward a sustainable future.
–Mark Floegel and Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: regulation; regulations; costs; economics;
pulp and paper industry; chlorine; wildlife; fish; epa; europe;
wisconsin; water quality regulations; soedra cell; sweden; tcf;
georgia-pacific; scott paper; international paper; supply side
economics; voodoo economics; tax reform act of 1981; taxation;
debt; louisiana-pacific; recycling; electrolysis;