Document ypoKB2E5ddXZQDr1z803580Qd

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT M. C. Throdahl Industrial Research Institute Fall Meeting - Chicago October 16-18, 1973 Thank you. Dr. Sarett. In studying the present and future impact of EPA on industrial R&D, I have a natural tendency to concentrate on Monsanto Company, Its experience to date and Its prospects. Further qualifying myself as a witness here today, I should add that Monsanto and EPA have some rather close ties as well as some rather sharp differences. (I will get to the dlfferences.later In my presentation.) As for close ties, Monsanto is -- - a contractor for EPA - a supplier - even a landlord. Through our research subsidiary, Monsanto Reaearch Corporation -- - we perform analytical research for EPA; - we produce Instruments such as microwave-induced emission spectrometers. MONS 043697 -2- In North Carolina's Research Triangle Park, our Chemstrand Research Center, Inc. has leased a wing of its laboratory space to EPA 1 s nearby research facility which did not have sufficient laboratories of comparable design. So I find myself in a delicate ambivalency in discussing EPA. In common with the general public, we of the Monsanto family (in which I include employes, shareowners and customers) are beneficiaries of EPA activities. Still, as technological sophisticates, we detect bureaucratic trends in EPA to which we object. In broad generalities,* the enabling legislation passed by the Congress to establish EPA as an ongoing, viable function is good. It reflects, through the political process, the desire of the general public. There are parts to which Industry takes exception; there are parts to which EPA Itself takes exception. The laments are a good sign. I have always held the belief that if everyone is supremely happy and superbly confident, the S.S. Titanic effect is about to be experienced. EPA, as designed by Congress, is charged with - controlling evil effects of human activity on the environment by regulation of these activities; - its work is in the area of technology; - its regulations presume an up-to-date working knowledge of scientific vocabulary and concepts. In its regulations, EPA must deal . - with the interrelation of qualities, and this interrelation is extremely difficult to understand in many cases. There is no way in which generalities can be established as universal guidelines. Bigger, for example, is not always better than small; but neither is smaller guaranteed to yield Improved results. Faster is not always a route to progress; but slower is not necessarily a virtue in every case. 043498 HONS -3- There are times in the cycle of laundering clothes where a part of the system is supposed to collect the dirt; in effect, it gets dirtier, and this is good, even though cleanliness Is next to you-know-what and is one of the constant ambitions of humanity. The interrelation of qualities is difficult for a morally responsible manufacturer of a new product to anticipate, and who can be expected to know more about a new product at the outset than its originator? (Remember, 1 said a morally responsible manufacturer. The key word here is "morally.") I am going to leave unanswered the rhetorical question I have just asked, but this (as X see it) is the largest effect on industrial R & D that EPA is going to have. In order to satisfy EPA regulations, morally responsible Industry is going to become more and more involved in second and third order effects. How does the product behave in use? What becomes of it when it is declared refuse and joins the world's waste? a How does it hold up under abuse? a How does it behave under a maximum credible accident when six to eight contingencies are encountered simultaneously -- that is, when things which should not go wrong do go wrong, not one at a time but all together. These are difficult questions and they are going to challenge industrial R & D expertise in new ways in the future. They are already challenging the engineering portion of this Industrial capability as air, water, solid waste and noise regulations close in on production plants in the various industries. HONS 043499 -4- I feel we are very close to the crest of a breaking tidal wave in the marketplace in this regard. We advertise ourselves as Monsanto: The Science Company. Evidently, our customers read this advertising and when an environmental regulation impinges on their activities, they have a way of picking up the phone and calling us. From week to week these calls increase in number as well as in complexity. If there were a consistent set of regulations, life would be a lot simpler for us in helping these customers (as well as ourselves), but the multiplicity of Federal, State and local requirements is presenting ub with daily problems. Take such an elementary item as the definition of the hydrocarbons which are not supposed to be released in effluents of various categories. e You will find one definition in Rule 66 of Los Angeles County, another in Regulation 3 of the San Francisco Bay Area. . Los Angeles says it's a molecule with eight or more carbon atoms in it. The Bay Area says it is a sub stituted aromatic molecule. And so it goes: differently in Rule 5.07 of the State of Ohio and again in Regulation 5 of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Federal definition hasn't quite reached the point where a hydrocarbon is defined as any liquid which floats on water, but it seems to be headed in that direction. To state that this leads to confusion is putting the case quite mildly. 1 would like to take the time to recite three stories about the Impact of regulatory activities on operations. In each of these Instances, no clear-cut regulations were Involved. They all came too early in the HONS 043500 -5- developing scheme of things. But moral suasion was employed by regulatory authorities which had, in fact, been established by enabling legislation. I am going to give you a brief sketch of PCBs, In which the assistance of regulatory authorities was needed to effect the desired changes in use; of NTA, In which 1 feel the suasion was not based on proper experimental data; 1 want to describe a third Instance which has not yet become an Issue. Let us start with PCBs, since they came first in time. Once upon a time, and a very good time It was back in the 1920*8, the manufacturers of large liquid-cooled transformers had a problem. They were using a flammable petroleum derivative to carry out the cooling process and when there was a short circuit, there was generally an explosion followed by a fire. A short circuit in a transformer is an unusual incident, but It does occur, and people were being injured and killed. It was discovered that certain chlorinated biphenyls would do the cooling job without the explosion and fire risk, thanks to peculiar characteristics Inherent in the molecules. Swan Chemical Company, later acquired by Monsanto, began making the compounds for this application, and polychlorinated biphenyls (or PCBs as they became known to the headline writers) became an article of commerce. Among Its unique properties, the PCB molecule exhibits a wonderful stickiness --- e It adheres to anything in its vicinity --wood, metal, paper, stone. It naturally found a use in paints, printing inks, and other applications where stickiness was one of the criteria. HONS 043501 6 It also extended its applications in heat transfer from transformers to large sterillz ers and cooking vat 8 . Until gas chromatography was invented and put to perceptive use, PCBs could only be described as a boon to mankind. The gas chromatography undid this reputation. When it was used to check for DDT residues in the environment> some strange peaks showed up on the charts. Other instrumentation identified these recurring peaks as PCBs* It rapidly became apparent that due to their long lives, PCB molecules were not helping the world once they got loose in it. Because of the compound's stickiness, it was adhering to particles as small as passing dust, which was swept up into the atmosphere only to fall again as precipitation. The molecule has been found in polar bear fat, as well as in the fauna of tropical rain forests. It became necessary to put a leash on PCBs. Monsanto decided, on its own initiative, to limit sales to customers who supplied applications in which the PCBs could be controlled, and to halt sales for use In applications where the material could not be controlled. It waa determined that on balance, the closedloop cooling application in power transformers and the closed system use in electrical condensers could be continued, at least until a substitute fluid might be found. But Monsanto decided it would no longer sell PCBs for use In paint. In inks. In food processing, etc. HONS 043502 -7- I am sure many of you have had the chilling experience of walking Into a purchasing agent's office with a sample and a spiel about how all the prospective customer's problems can be solved If only he will put his name at the bottom of the purchase order. But, how many of you have walked into a valued customer's office with a technical report In one hand and a spiel that starts out -- "Harry, I know you make the stickiest printing ink in the trade and we're glad we've been able to help you get that reputation..but you're not going to be able to buy PCB from us any more." , If you think the initial sales call on an Introductory product met with a cold and glassy-eyed reception, you should try the second variety. - Good old Harry can't believe you're saying It, so he literally cannot understand you. - It takes multiple repetitions to get the message across. - In some cases, it takes some outside help to enforce a supplier's decision to cut off a supply. While we were the major manufacturer in the U.S., we actually welcomed the assistance of regulatory agencies in restricting release of PCBs Into the environment It should be noted that the initial action was In the United States, but that this still left a problem. There were manufacturers in Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Japan. It took additional promulgation of area guidelines to close down these sources of supply for non conforming applications, and it is a testament to international cooperation that this has now been accomplished. The point 1 want to make la that the Job was done. And, In this esse, with the scientific evidence clear-cut, we welcomed all the assistance we could find. MONS 043503 -8- In the case of nltrllotrlscetic acid, better known perhaps as NTA, we have a different problem entirely. Monsanto had started the manufacture of sodium nltrllotriacetate as a replacement for phosphates in detergent formulations. NTA does a good job of chelating or tying up the metal ions of calcium and magnesium in the wash water so that they do not interfere with the cleaning action of the detergent. Our tests Indicated that NTA was degraded by biological activity In rivers and lakes and left no nutrient moieties after Its degradation. At the time, detergent phosphates were under attack as contributors to eutrophication of bodies of water. Then a government laboratory performed an experiment which seemed to suggest that NTA Increased the incidence of birth defects caused by mercury and cadmium. It has long been known that these toxic heavy metals are teratogenic (or cause birth defects) and the concern was that minute amounts of NTA in the surface water might exaggerate the toxicity of the heavy metals already present in our water. In spite of the preliminary nature of the data and the extreme exaggeration of the dose levels employed in the experiment, the Surgeon General recommended, with EPA's concurrence, that the use of NTA in detergents be voluntarily discontinued. Naturally, the detergent manu facturers agreed. As suppliers of raw materials to this industry, we of Monsanto returned to our laboratories to check the accuracy of the implied toxicity and to continue our long-established program of searching for new and envlronmentallyacceptable detergent ingredients. MONS 043504 -9- In retrospect, I am not at all sure this was a wise move on EPA's part. The scientific issues are still under consideration. The original concerns over potential birth defects or Increased heavy metal toxicity have been thoroughly refuted as far as ve can tell, to everyone's satisfaction. Evidence to support the claim of easy and complete biodegradation has continued to grow both in the laboratory and in the environmental monitoring program in Canada, where NTA is in use in detergent formulations. Let me try to be objective about this controversy. My feelings are naturally hurt that all of our careful work showing the environmental acceptability of NTA and its general lack of toxicity was sent down the drain on the basis of a single set of unrealistic, unconfirmed experiments. More than our feelings were hurt, too. At the time, Monsanto was operating a plant with an annual capacity of over 100 million pounds of product a year. It would now be shut down completely, except that in Canada there was a calmer approach to the issue, and we are still shipping some material there. The moral to this story is rather obvious and aimple. When quick decisions are made about emotional subjects (and birth defects are an emotional subject for good reason) and these decisions are made on the basis of fragmentary data, it is possible to make an error. When the error is backed with the clout of a respected regulatory agency acting by moral suasion outside normal regulatory channels, society as a whole can Inherit a real problem. HONS 043505 -10- A continuation of such practices will rapidly go far beyond "rings around the collars" to become restrictive collars around the public's collective neck. So now, in the case of PCBs, I have described a case in which I feel we need the intercession of the authorities. And in the case of NTA, I have outlined a case in which I feel we could have done very nicely, thank you, without such intercession. Let me move on Into some futurology, if you will, some spots in technology where Industry may prove to be of long-range assistance to PA In the discharge of Its public obligations. A year ago. Industry's general reaction to the ultimate goal of zero plant discharge was one of hilarity and ridicule. We have made considerable progress in the past year, and the individuals who populate Industry have had some time to think things through. Now, the conversation of industry engineers is more likely to start - "When the zero discharge goal takes effect, we will have to ........... " and the end of the sentence is filled with the appropriate words to show that the message is getting through. There is no way that human activity can be carried on with absolute zero discharge. At Miamisburg, Ohio, Monsanto operates Mound Laboratory for the Atomic Energy Commission. Due to their radioactive nature, certain emissions from this laboratory have no counter parts in the surrounding air, water and land behind which they can hide. Our instrumentation can find the atoms In concentrations so small that it boggles the mind. Again because of its nature. Mound Laboratory is very close to zero discharge right now. It is a clean facility, with sn outstanding safety record. My point is that it does discharge something in addition to the cigarette smoke from unreconstructed employes on their way home at night. It is not a hazardous leakage In any HONS 043506 -11- sense of Che word. The amounts are incredibly small and if they were not radioactive, they could never be found in the background of atoms normally in the environment. But they can be found, and we have found them. We report regularly to the appropriate authorities and to the local press and community leaders on what our tests how. e The amounts are so small they lead us to think about plants which are stackless and sewerless and produce no solid waste. Such plants will be products of creative engineer ing, and they will have to have just the right product lines and just the right raw materials. But would you be surprised to know that engineers in industry right now are thinking about these as possibilities? They are doing this on their own initiative and often on their own time as well. As the history of technology shows, this is the wellspring of creative advances. When a number of individuals become enthused about an advance, then its time has come. Without a receptive atmosphere, good ideas wither on the vine. In establishing EPA, Congress expressed the hope that the agency would foster these further developments. This was a wise move and the responsibility is now in EPA's lap. How does this affect the EPA/industry inter action? e it puts a burden of leadership on EPA for one thing. If the agency should degenerate from its present posture into some sort of traffic cop for garbage, measuring effluents and comparing these readings with prescribed standards and hauling offenders into court, then we will all lose the momentum we already have. The individual engineer at his desk, the individual chemist at his bench, each sees in EPA something more than a regulatory agency. Each sees in EPA MQNS 043507 -12- a sort of stamp of approval, a motivation, a reason for doing what he wants to do in the first place. Everyone wants to feel useful, and scientists are no exception. No sane person wants to create havoc merely for havoc's sake, and scientists are no exception. The basic spirit of technology is the spirit of service. To this end, the charter of EPA is a valid rallying point for individual desires, and it becomes the responsi bility of EPA leadership to carry the banner high and maintain the enthusiasm of unseen Individuals. This is not going to be as simple as It sounds* There is going to be an Increasing amount of drudgery in EPA work and in industry work as well. Setting guidelines and objectives and working out regulations can be a stimulating task. Policing these can be somewhat less than challenging. My reaction to the overall theme of this meeting is that government regulation will require industrial R & D to invest more manhours in each project and program in order to satisfy legal requirements and develop the numbers to put Into the appropriate columns on the prescribed forms. It follows that we will either have to Increase totsl R & D expenditures or settle for fewer projects. Since many of the required tests established by regulations will be* tedious, repetitive and non challenging, it is easy to predict that industrial R & D will be working harder and enjoying it less. I foresee that this will continue -as a trend in the United States at least until that nearly indefinable element we refer to as "the quality of life" returns to its levels of a few decades ago. HONS 043506 -13- Should "the quality of life" decline any further than it already has, government regulation will increase geometrically, at leaat until the rate of decline levels off. The public has no other way of imposing Its desires on the producers of its goods. ' To raise "the quality of life" we need inspirational leadership at the national, group and very local levels. EPA has the national chore at the moment. Companies hold most of the group responsibility and at the very local level we come down to section heads vln industrial R & D, university and government laboratories --even some military activities. How these responsibilities will be discharged remains to be seen, but it Is the positive side to the question of which way mankind will go: toward ever-growing piles of garbage or toward a world which expresses the true promise of technology. HONS 0<,3509