"
March 18, 2003: On the brink of war and with the nation's threat level again at Code Orange, the Bush administration still has yet to take appropriate action to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on the nation's 15,000 chemical plants. The General Accounting Office, Congress' nonpartisan investigative agency, released a report warning that chemical facilities remain highly vulnerable despite the post-9/11 focus on homeland security. GAO said that reducing levels of toxic chemicals on site would make these facilities less attractive as terrorist targets. GAO faulted the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to invoke its statutory responsibilities (under the Clean Air Act) to gather much-needed vulnerability information and reduce the risk.
Nationwide, 123 chemical facilities could release clouds of toxic gas deadly enough to harm more than a million people in surrounding areas, according to EPA. There are 700 plants that endanger 100,000 people or more, and 3,000 that endanger 10,000 or more. GAO chided the administration for its scattershot approach to protecting these sites from terrorism. Since Sept. 11, the EPA has issued security alerts to plants and visited a few dozen facilities; the Homeland Security Department has assessed security at 11 facilities.
In announcing the Bush administration's new "Operation Liberty Shield" -- calling on federal, state and local governments and private industries to help bolster security of the nation's "critical infrastructure" -- Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge said, "[t]here is no question that when we take a look at a chemical facility, the possibility that terrorists could use that economic asset and turn it into a weapon is something that we need to be concerned about and are concerned about." Yet, to date, the administration has relied only on voluntary efforts by industry to secure their plants -- an approach GAO found insufficient. GAO recommended that the administration propose legislation "to require these facilities to expeditiously assess their vulnerability to terrorist attacks and, where necessary, require these facilities to take corrective action." Last year, after an intensive lobbying effort by industry groups, the Bush administration opted not to incorporate into its homeland security legislation a Senate bill that would have mandated better security measures at chemical plants.
"More than a year and a half since 9/11, the government has done next to nothing to ensure chemical plant security," said Jon Devine, an attorney with NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). "The best way to safeguard Americans is to make plants less vulnerable to terrorism by replacing toxic chemicals when safer technologies are readily available."
"
mere propaganda, I know....
"
March 13, 2003: Somebody must have missed a memo at the Environmental Protection Agency. Less than two weeks after EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman told a Senate committee that she knows of no incident in which environmental protections have ever hampered the military's ability to train, her agency's enforcement chief, J.P. Suarez, testified in support of legislation that would exempt the military from federal environmental and public health laws. "We believe the [Bush] administration's bill appropriately takes account of the interests of the American people in military readiness and in environmental protection," Suarez said at a House Armed Services Committee. The Pentagon is asking Congress to approve its "Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative," which would grant the military sweeping exemptions from the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Superfund cleanup law, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Endangered Species Act.
"This is an outrageous retreat on environmental and pubic health protections, which begs the question who is running the show at EPA, anyway, Whitman or her underlings?" said Alys Campaigne, NRDC's legislative director. "Giving the military blanket immunity is unwarranted because the laws protecting our air, water, wildlife and public lands already contain exemptions for national security."
"
March 10, 2003: In a rather slick deal for oil and gas drillers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency exempted that industry from a new water regulation aimed at reducing polluted runoff. Under the EPA's phase II stormwater pollution rule, issued during the Clinton administration, construction sites between 1 and 5 acres are now required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. But the agency gave the oil and gas industry two years to comply, and will it studies whether a permanent exemption is warranted. Six U.S. Senators promptly fired off a letter to EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman, saying there is "voluminous evidence" of an oil and gas industry review before the rule was created in 1999.
"The Bush administration has found another way to help out its oil and gas buddies," said NRDC senior attorney Sharon Buccino, "by excusing the industry from complying with a rule that is critical to reducing pollution in America's streams and waterways."
"
"
February 11, 2003: The Bush administration plans to relax rules requiring chemical plants, pulp mills, auto factories, steel mills and other industries to curb their toxic air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a set of new rules to exempt these businesses from current requirements to reduce toxic fumes from their plants to the maximum extent possible. The new rules also would allow businesses to self-regulate their operations using less rigorous controls.
For the first time since the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, EPA is prepared to shift from stringent control of toxic emissions to allow companies to avoid pollution restrictions. The six industrial categories affected include brick and clay manufacturing; plywood and wood products makers; stationary backup engines; auto-paint shops; industrial boilers and process heaters; and gas-fired turbines. Environmentalists decried the proposed changes as an attack on the Clean Air Act and a rollback of public health protections. They also pointed out that many of EPA's proposals are contained in so-called white papers drafted by industry.
"EPA's skewed twisted interpretation of federal law and its unwillingness to enforce existing clean air standards is part of the Bush administration's overall effort to rewrite federal environmental protections for industry," said John Walke, director of NRDC's clean air program. "The net effect will be increased emissions from these industries, resulting in an increased cancer risk." Walke noted that the emissions from the affected industrial sources can lead to cancer, brain damage or even harm fetal development.
EPA proposed the new rules in September of last year. Public comment could last until mid-March, with the agency expected to finalize the rules by the end of the year.
"
oh bunches and bunches of that silly old propaganda..
serioulsy though...
there is much more, and it is not propaganda, it is fact... remove the spin and the twists, and you are still dealing with facts, these things did happen and much more has and will in the future...
Granted he must feel it is in the best interests of Industry, and that must mean it is good for the economy so that must mean it is right ofr the people... I don't have a clue why or what he thinks, so I won't presume to agrue that...
But the actions, yes... the exact things that have brought around those same changes you mentioned that started in the 70's are being reversed all the time, and we will be stuck with it all over again in the future...
anyway....
it's all propaganda...
