Re: apologies for bashed mail message

["Jon Campbell" <jon@cqs.com>]

   Hello again,
  
  This is really a waste of time. Didn't you read the
  account
  of Carol Browner - the head of the EPA, for goodness
  sakes -
  providing a dual mechanism whereby the incinerator
  industry
  could keep on operating "business as usual" after being
  given a death-blow by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms
  Browner
  had the ash testing rule changed and allowed the
  operators
  to combine their ash. The new test does not acidify the
  ash  as acid rain undoubted will. Lime from the fly ash
  renders it alkaline, which allows the metal leaching
  test
  to pass. The combining of the ash dilutes the dioxin
  content
  of the fly-ash so it passes the dioxin test. Voila:
  it's safe to
  put into an ORDINARY LANDFILL!!!
  
  Sorry, I don't buy it. The regulators have become
  industry boosters...try to stop a Superfund waste
  incineration project and you'll see how much
  the EPA is concerned with making sure the
  environment stays clean. People shuold learn
  from the struggle in New Bedford, MA, where
  the New Bedford City Council finally voted to
  keep the EPA mobile incinerator out. The EPA
  is now negotiating with the community organization
  which technology is appropriate for PCB
  destruction which will not create dioxin.
  
  Regards
  Jon
  
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Sam McClintock <scmcclintock@ipass.net>
  To: Multiple recipients of list
  <dioxin-l@essential.org>
  Date: Sunday, August 03, 1997 9:22 PM
  Subject: Re: apologies for bashed mail message
  
  
  
  >> From: Jon Campbell <jon@cqs.com>
  >> But the big picture reveals that they cannot help us
  >> to make institutional changes,
  >
  >MOST cannot make any real changes to law.  But is
  important to note
  >that a FEW actually do make the original draft of any
  one law or
  >regulation.  It is extremely important to identify
  these individuals
  >and cultivate a working relationship so that honest
  and timely input
  >can be provided when new rules emerge.  It will not
  solve all the
  >problems between laws and protection - a lot of
  problems and changes
  >occur after a regulation or law is drafted.  But it
  starts the process
  >on the right foot.
  >
  >> and the EPA and DEPs
  >> are - by policy - decreasing their commitment to
  >> environmental protection and finding loopholes in
  >> the laws and advising their industrial "clients" to
  >> drive trucks through them.
  >
  >A lot of decreased committment is not due to a lack of
  will, it is a
  >lack of manpower.  The federal and state governments,
  for the most
  >part, continue to slash budgets at a time of
  conspicuous industrial
  >growth.  Not a good combination.
  >
  >The loopholes themselves, when they exist, are usually
  found by the
  >consultant or head-guru of the industry, not the
  regulatory personnel.
  >If constrained by the law, the regulatory personnel
  have few options -
  >they can of course quit - but that means a novice or
  other overworked
  >regulatory person gets to fill in.  Not smart.  And
  you also have the
  >problems of time and loopholes that may or may not be
  relevant -
  >currently, there are not enough regulatory personnel
  to adequately
  >review all material that comes before them.  In the
  case of air
  >quality, this problem will become much worse once the
  Title V program
  >starts to generate the mandated data.
  >
  >
  >> We need to have an alternative strategy that will
  >> make institutional changes. Any thoughts will be
  >> gratefully received. I have some thoughts of my own
  >> which I will share later.
  >
  >I agree completely.  Not only institutional changes,
  but institutional
  >funding.  It will take a massive, coordinated, short
  AND long-term
  >approach.  The sooner you/we start, the better
  everybody else will be.
  >
  >
  >Sam McClintock
  >scmcclintock@ipass.net
  >