OUE Update
A Publication of Organizations United for the Environment   

Spring 2002

 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES OF THE
GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION

We co-wrote this article with Prof. Jim Cornehls, a lawyer and a professor of Urban and Public Affairs, who teaches environmental law and policy at the University of Texas at Arlington. We sought his help because of his expertise in the field and because he is more familiar than we with Bush’s environmental record as governor of Texas, and with his environmental record more generally.

Primarily through their appointments to the EPA and to the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior, and Commerce, U.S. Presidents have immense power to shape the overall structure and tone of environmental policy. The law permits many of these appointees to issue rules about energy and environmental policy that do not have to go through the Congress. While the EPA lacks the authority to issue regulations, it carries out the dictates of environmental policies with lawsuits selected by its director and carried out by the agency’s legal department. In addition to having people loyal to him running these powerful federal agencies, the president can support any bill that comes through the Congress and veto any he doesn’t like. In all these ways, and in others, presidential power crucially shapes and defines the political and economic environment in which organizations like OUE try to do their work. That is why we have paused to take a closer look at the environmental policies of the Bush administration.

The Bush Policy: What are its Basic Premises?As the crowning example of Bush’s environmental zeal, his critics usually cite his ruling, one that originated under the Clinton administration, that General Electric -- until recently headed by a major Bush supporter, Jack Welch -- must spend half a billion dollars to clean up PCBs it deposited in the Hudson River over a period of some 50 years. Bush is also praised for reversing his earlier decision to increase allowable arsenic levels in municipal drinking water. He has demonstrated this limited kind of flexibility in other areas as well, when faced by stiff public criticism.

However, most of the alleged positive aspects of Bush’s environmental policies are in the form of promises about the future. Bush’s claimed friendliness to the environment is predicated on the assertion that limiting environmental regulations will encourage economic growth. Implied by this argument is that many of those corporations that have been major polluters for decades would, with greater profits and fewer regulations, be encouraged to develop the technology that would ultimately lead to less polluting production methods. In this regulatory world, the ideal firm performs "self-audits" on its emissions and voluntarily cleans up its operations because of the economic incentives of "free markets." As governor of Texas, George Bush ushered in a "self-auditing" plan with the result that the ambient air in Houston which already had some of the dirtiest air in the U.S. became even more toxic.

It seems quite clear that the Bush administration’s policies for the environment are a very big gamble and may not be made in good faith. We are asked to accept the proposition that only by waging current war against long fought for environmental regulations can we achieve the economic growth which will result in new, environmentally conscious private corporations doing even more to clean up the environment. Through economic expansion, technological change, and unregulated markets, it is claimed, we will attain our environmental goals. This is indeed a very tall order, most particularly because, as we shall see, the people put in charge to do this are corporate officials from industries whose operations and products cause most of the pollution.

This view of the Bush administration is not surprising because he, Cheney, and dozens of other top administration officials come from the oil and gas industry. The corporate leaders in that industry have long claimed that they are over-regulated by bungling government intervention, and thus government regulations are the major cause of high energy prices and dirty air and water.  Oil and gas lobbyists, and those from the private utility sector, have pushed successfully for deregulation of electric utility markets, with the promise of greater competition, more abundant energy supplies, and lower prices. Their claims were given a very severe test in California last summer and were found seriously wanting.  While Governor of Texas, Bush was responsible for pushing through electric utility deregulation with the assistance of his long-term friend and political supporter, and former head of the Enron Corporation, Kenneth Lay. Another of Bush’s cronies, and a former employee of Enron, Patrick Day, was appointed by Bush to head the Texas Energy Regulation program, on Lay’s recommendation. After Enron helped push through electric utility deregulation in California and then in Texas, Bush also helped Lay in his negotiations with Pennsylvania Governor, Tom Ridge, to open up that state to electric utility deregulation.

In addition to the idea that fewer regulations will result in a better long run environmental record, Bush also vigorously denies two basic arguments of environmental critics: (1) that the planet is threatened by excessive emissions, and (2) that conservation will be central to reducing the emissions and helping to reduce energy shortages. Recently, Dick Cheney "contemptuously dismiss[ed] as a mere ‘sign of personal virtue,’" the idea that conservation could help reduce our energy needs (N.Y. Times, 1-13-02). So complete is the Bush administration’s commitment to the idea that faster economic growth is the long range solution to environmental problems, he has said that his administration will actively push for such growth in the U.S., even if it results in some short term further costs to the environment. Allowing more pollution now will supposedly provide a cleaner environment in the future. Can we afford to gamble on this unproven claim from a man with the proven anti-environmental track record of Mr. Bush?

Major Environmental Actions by the Bush Administration

Environmentalists see Bush as a genuine anachronism, whose environmental policies are thinly disguised efforts to pay back corporate sponsors, particularly those in the oil, gas, and mining industries. Our readers will know most of the arguments they make and we don’t need to repeat them here.  Rather, we have produced a list of policy actions Bush has made, one that is representative rather than exhaustive, and we believe it leaves little doubt that he intends to assign the responsibility for protecting the environment to agencies run by ex-corporate officials with suspect environmental records themselves, or politicians friendly to them. Here are the actions:

  • Appointed J. Steven Giles, an oil and coal lobbyist, as Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
  • Appointed David Lauriski, former mining company executive, as Asst. Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
  • Appointed Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto, for the number two job at the EPA.
  • Appointed Bennett Raley, who opposes the Endangered Species Act, as Asst. Secretary for Water and Science.
  • Cut half a billion dollars from the EPA budget.
  • Cut funding by 28% for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks.
  • Championed drilling for oil in the highly sensitive Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, despite the knowledge that oil that might be recovered from this source would contribute only a minuscule amount of new reserves in relation to total U.S. oil consumption.
  • Lobbied behind the scenes for the recent defeat by the Congress of new, stiffer gasoline mileage requirements for the automotive industry by 2015, allowing the industry again to drag its heels on making more fuel efficient vehicles.
  • Eliminated EPA’s office of Environmental Education ($7 million a year) on grounds it was not based on "sound" science and promoted "activism."
  • Canceled a plan to reduce air and water pollution from coal-burning power plants, on the grounds that a nation at war cannot risk a power shortage.
  • Abandoned the Kyoto treaty to limit global warming, despite its support by almost all other nations of the world.
  • Reversed a policy that put tight limits on road building, oil and gas leasing and logging in 60 million acres of pristine national forests.
  • Reversed a rule that the government should halt new mines likely to cause major harm to water quality and other natural resources.
  • Cut funding 50% for research/development of renewable sources of energy, and provided $34 billion in additional subsidies to the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear industries.
  • Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
  • Cut EPA criminal prosecution staff by 40%, leading to a decline in cases brought against polluters as follows: Toxic Substance Control Act, 80%; Clean Air Act, 54%; and Clean Water Act, 53%. (This led, late last month, to the resignation of Eric V. Schaeffer, director of the office of regulatory enforcement for the last five years, who wrote to his boss that he was ''fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce.'') 
  • Proposes to shift the burden of cleanup costs of Superfund Sites to taxpayers.  The Fund was established in 1980 on the premise that "polluters should pay." In 1994, taxpayers paid about 20% of the cost and the polluters paid the rest. However, the Fund is running out of money because corporations got their share of the tax burden eliminated in 1995. Bush opposes reinstating the tax on corporations and he plans to shift the burden of the cleanups entirely to taxpayers by 2004.
We gleaned our list above from the sources that follow, and with space it could have been much longer. We used the following articles from the NYTimes: Kathryn Seelye (three articles), "Bush Team is Reversing Environmental Policies," 11-18-01; "The Art of Turning a Sow’s Ear into a Silk Purse," 1-13-02; "Top EPA Official Quits, Criticizing Bush’s Policies," 3-1-02; Paul Krugman, "Crony Capitalism," 1-15-02;Editorial, "More Environmental Rollbacks," 10-29-01; D. Van Natta & N. Banerjee, "Top GOP Donors in Energy Industry Met with Cheney Panel," 3-01-02; D. Van Natta, "Energy Firms Were Heard On Air Rules, A Critic Says," 3-2-02; Carol Browner, "Polluters Should Have to Pay," 3-1-02. Other sources were Rachels Environment and Health Newsletter, #740, 12-1-01 (and several of these weekly newsletters during the past year have items that could be added to the list above). "Environmental Enforcement Plummets Under Bush," Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Press Release, 1-10-02 (and PEER’s web site contains countless items beyond those on our list. Michael Moohr, Stupid White Men, Regan Books (HarperCollins), 2002. R.A. Dyer and Jay Root, "Bush's Archived Letters Reveal Lay's Influence," Fort Worth Star Telegram, 2-10-02. Eric Pianin, "Administration Seeks Delay in New Water Cleanup Rule," Fort Worth Star Telegram, 7-17-01, from the Washington Post. 

White Deer Creek Watershed Restoration Committee: An Update

The article below is drawn largely from the latest newsletter of the Restoration Committee, whose efforts we have supported in the past and whose activities we regularly cover. The Committee’s work is an especially good example of the kind of environmental action citizens can take on their own, and we hope some of our readers will be encouraged by its work to clean up the waterways in their own areas.

The Restoration Committee recently held two public meetings with approximately seventy-five people attending as it continues to move forward with plans to improve and repair the natural character of the White Deer Creek and its watershed. The first meeting was held to discuss its plans and to gauge the interest of the community in its project, and the response was a good one. The second meeting featured engineers with a consulting company, Skelly and Loy, who outlined plans for a future assessment and proposal that would utilize natural stream channel design to remedy problems with the Creek, including erosion. The Committee is joining the consultants to apply for a DEP "Growing Greener" grant to pay for the initial assessment and by July will find out if they have received a grant. In April, the Committee will hold a public meeting at the White Deer Community Park, where Skelly and Loy engineers will make an audio-visual presentation on the Creek and its restoration.

In the meantime, the Restoration Committee has formed volunteer sub-committees for water quality monitoring of the creek and rainfall monitoring in the watershed. This monitoring will help to define possible problems and to insure water quality of the Creek. During 2002, the Committee will also begin working more closely with the Union County Conservation District to improve the condition of the Creek for all those in Union County. Because improving the condition of the Creek and watershed will not be a quick fix, the Committee is calling for volunteers to help with the monitoring, people to become members of the Committee, or to be a sponsor of its work. Those interested should contact Van McBryan, the Committee’s chairperson, at 538-2519.

 

Synfuel at Washingtonville: An Update

By Bill Smedley, GreenWatch

The following article is the follow-up we promised in our last issue about synfuel operations at PP&L’s power plant in Derry Township, Montour County. We are concerned because PP&L uses synfuel that is actually produced at this plant by another company, but the DEP has not yet required the utility to test its emissions when using synfuel, nor has it required the facility producing synfuel on-site to test its emissions. As Bill Smedley’s article indicates, we will need to dig deeper into the issues of "synfuel at PP&L."

At the request of OUE, GreenWatch conducted a file review on synfuel -- synthetic coal -- in DEP offices in Williamsport, in March. We focused our review on a synfuel production facility at the PPL Washingtonville power plant in Derry Township. A Connecticut firm, Iris Energy (a limited liability company) owns this facility, and it submitted a plan approval on July 28, 2001 to produce 2,628,000 tons per year (TPY) of synfuel using bituminous coal and "organic binders." Operations began on August 20, 2001 without any trial burn air emission testing. What exactly is happening at the plant, and at the Iris Energy facility? And should we worry about it? Here’s what we know.

According to a June 2001 DEP Application Review Memo, written by Richard Maxwell, the Iris facility will blend raw coal with an additive to produce synthetic fuel pellets. Maxwell notes that "this facility essentially coats coal with a surfactant, and sends the resulting product to the station for use. The final product is not a pellet since the pellet machines are to be rigged to allow the coal to pass through virtually untouched. Although I see no ‘value added’ to the raw coal, this facility reportedly does qualify as a manufacturer of synthetic fuel for tax purposes." The reason why Maxwell makes this comment is that synfuel producers are given a $26 per ton tax credit for producing it. Thus, the fact that the coal is not being crushed or turned into pellets, but only coated, seems to belie the notion that Iris Energy is producing a synfuel. If it is not doing that, we are being bilked to pay the tax credits it is receiving.

More relevant to our principal concern, Maxwell also states that "I would not expect to see any significant change in the air contaminant emissions from burning the synthetic fuel vs. burning raw coal." How does he reach that conclusion? His Memo reports that the facility will emit up to 2.7 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per year as well as an "insignificant" amount of fugitive particulate matter. Though Iris Energy has received one Notice of Violation on February 19, 2002 from DEP for operating without a valid plan approval (operating after the expiration date on their permit), the report argues mostly that all these emissions are harmless.

Despite these calming words from DEP, there are four aspects of the operations at Washingtonville that should cause anyone concern: (1) that the synfuel facility will be emitting tons of VOCs, which are always toxic; (2) that it will emit particulate matter harmful to lungs, and this includes one chemical specifically warned against in this regard; (3) that PP&L, as we reported in our last issue, is now burning synfuels without having been required to test them for additional toxic effects. And (4) is implied by the last sentence of the DEP memo when Maxwell rather nonchalantly states that "I would not expect to see any significant change in the air contaminant emissions from burning the synthetic fuel vs. burning raw coal." His use of the word "expect" tells the tale: he can only "expect," rather than know, because DEP refuses to require either the synfuel facility or PP&L to test to see how the producing of synfuel and the burning of synfuel affect the ambient air.

Thus, the story now is that we still don’t know about the effects of synfuel production and use at Washingtonville. Though not particularly an exciting one, that’s an important story because we have the right to know whether this new twist in PP&L operations is harmful to us. OUE will continue to press the DEP to respond to its concerns, and GreenWatch will continue its own research into the matter. For additional information on this and other synfuel operations, contact Bill Smedley at 570-398-7383 or bill@greenwatchusa.org.

WANT TO JOIN US? Working to maintain the beauty of this Valley takes time, but it’s also absolutely necessary and can be absolutely gratifying. You can find out how we are working toward this goal at our monthly Board meetings, open to the public. Why don’t you join us? We meet on the first Monday of every month, 7:00 p.m., at the United Methodist Church in Watsontown. Or, if you would like more information about our organization,send us an email at oue@ouenews.org

 

VICTORY IN MILLVILLE!

In earlier issues we’ve reported on the efforts of C.L.E.A.N. (Columbia/Lycoming Environmental Action Network) to stop Anthony Mascaro from Scranton, from taking in another 800 tons of municipal waste—daily—into the White Pines landfill north of Millville. On January 30, they did just that, stopping Mascaro in his tracks and leaving him the single road of appealing the decision or rewriting his application. C.L.E.A.N. expects him to do one or both, but now, it is a sweet, sweet victory. Below are excerpts from an article in the group’s last newsletter, written by Kay Kuryloski. We have excerpted those parts that explain how its members achieved this great victory over Mascaro and because it contains an excellent description of how the new "harms-benefits" work when applied to applications for municipal landfills.

How it Went -- In a Nutshell

Central to the denial of White Pine's permit change was the Harm/Benefits Component that was enacted in December 2000 and empowers DEP to more adequately assess the social, economic, and environmental impact on a community. The applicant must complete an analysis in which the benefits and harms are identified and the applicant must describe how they will attempt to mitigate the harms. For a permit to be approved the benefits must clearly outweigh the harms. White Pines harms/benefits analysis was conspicuously absent from the original application and was listed as one of 69 deficiencies in DEP's initial review of the application. When White Pines first harms/benefits was finally submitted in July, DEP evaluated it, as well as an extensive response prepared by C.L.E.A.N and submissions from the Columbia County Commissioners and the office of Columbia County Planning Commission. In October, DEP declared that the harms of the project outweighed the benefits. White Pines was given 60 days to respond with additional documentation and revision.

A few days before Christmas, White Pines submitted their second harms/benefits analysis. This document was far more extensive than the first and consisted of a 47-page response with 36 exhibits. It filled a 3 inch binder and included new traffic studies with spread sheets, bar graphs and pie charts, a noise study, and "expert" opinions from a real estate appraiser and a psychologist (both from suburban Philadelphia) -- all claiming a municipal waste landfill would cause no harm to the people and environment…. The public had until January 16th to respond. From January 8th to January 15th, C.L.E.A.N members scrutinized White Pines' document, checked figures, researched data, contacted relevant experts, wrote and edited a response, and assembled our own supporting documentation.

On the morning of January 16th, three members walked into DEP's Williamsport office and handed over our extensive findings. C.L.E.A.N had uncovered seriously flawed data in the studies provided by an engineering firm for White Pines, and documented the dubiousness of most of the benefits claimed by White Pines. As part of our response, C.L.E.A.N hired a reputable local real estate appraisal firm, Lynwood Real Estate Appraisal, to evaluate White Pines' appraiser's letter. It concluded that White Pines' expert's opinion that there would be no potential harm to real estate values was unsubstantiated and possibly biased. C.L.E.A.N also engaged a local psychologist who refuted White Pines' expert testimony that local citizens couldn't claim to be emotionally or psychologically harmed by the prospect of a municipal waste landfill. And once again, C.L.E.A.N, the Columbia County Commissioners and the office of the Columbia County Planning Commission joined forces in providing responses to White Pines' second harms/benefits analysis. After a few weeks (and a failed last minute attempt by White Pines to submit yet another harms/benefits statement), we learned that months of hard work had been rewarded with DEP’s denial of the permit.

White Pines Corporation has the right to appeal and probably will. If they lose an appeal, they can make changes to the application and resubmit it. C.L.E.A.N. is already preparing to actively participate in the defense of the DEP decision and/or opposition to another White Pines permit application. On a broader front, the harms/benefits component in the DEP permitting regulations is under attack by the waste management industry. There are at least two pending appeals to the Environmental Hearing Board that challenge the legality of the harms/benefits component. This is a critical issue! Without a harms/benefits analysis, the local community has very little power against the waste management industry.

Most importantly, we are asking for your continued support of C.L.E.A.N. The next battles will require legal help and financial resources that depend on your contributions and support of our fundraising activities…. With the continued support of the citizens of Columbia and Lycoming Counties, we will defeat the formidable resources of the waste management industry.

Blue Vinyl Coming to your Community!

"Blue Vinyl," judged one of this year’s best documentaries at the Sundance Film Festival, will air on HBO May 5th 2002 at 10:00 PM Eastern time. The story has been described as a "toxic comedy" which begins when the parents of one of the film’s makers, Ann Helfand’s, have their house re-sided with blue vinyl. Tracing the vinyl to its source, Helfand discovers that the carcinogenic chemicals used in its manufacture have been responsible for decades of illness and death. Helfand, who narrated the film herself, interviews scientists, victims, communities fighting for environmental justice, applicators and manufacturers in a film that tells the human story of vinyl in an understandable way. Cartoon graphics depict the toxic path of vinyl production and disposal, telling the toxic story of dioxin formation and bio-accumulation around the planet. www.myhouseisyourhours.com is a web site that gives details about the film and provides additional information. "Blue Vinyl" has the potential to change forever the false concept of safe PVC or vinyl chloride. To arrange a group viewing in your area or to obtain a short trailer of the film please contact Bill Smedley, GreenWatch, "Blue Vinyl" Regional Coordinator for EPA Region III at 570-398-7383 or at bill@greenwatchusa.org.