Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120359442
label
[P-February 1994] [Loose]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120359442
contentType
document
title
[P-February 1994] [Loose]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120359442
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-040-010-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d0a92cea252f682d
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
[correspondence]
OA/ID Number:
2256
FolderID:
Folder Title:
[P - February 1994] [Loose]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
3
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1994
Mr. William Paul
Senior Vice President
United Technologies
1401 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Paul:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
Superfund reauthorization. It was good to hear from you.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to the preservation of our environment in a way that
leads to strong and sustainable economic growth. In his first
State of the Union address, the President reaffirmed his goal to
increase the efficiency of toxic waste cleanup, as well as to
decrease the numerous liability lawsuits associated with
Superfund sites.
As you know, the Administration's Superfund reauthorization
bill was introduced in Congress on February 3. We believe the
bill is an excellent starting point for improving the fairness
and efficiency of the Superfund program and reflects the
positions of a large number of stakeholders. I certainly
appreciate learning your concerns about this important issue.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
UNITED
Suite 600
1401 Eye Street, N.W.
TECHNOLOGIES
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/336-7400, 336-7463
January 24, 1994
William F. Paul
Senior Vice President
Ms. Kathleen A. McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
Director, Office on Environmental Policy
360 Old Executive Office Building
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty:
United Technologies is very concerned about the recommendations of the Keystone
Superfund Commission and the potential for misunderstanding regarding industry's
support for this document. The attached letter from UTC's Chairman, Robert F.
Daniell, to President Clinton states our opposition to the report's suggested changes
in the remedy selection process and outlines our views on these important matters.
UTC is a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) at 83 Superfund sites. The
development of cost effective cleanup standards which are protective of public
health and the environment is one of our top priorities for Superfund reauthorization.
As you participate in efforts to reauthorize Superfund, we urge you to reject the
Keystone approach. While full details of the Clinton Administration's interagency
Superfund task force report have not been made available and the draft continues to
be modified, we believe their proposal offers significant improvements in the risk
assessment, remedy selection, cleanup standards and land/groundwater use areas
which we can support.
If you or your staff would like further information regarding UTC's views on
Superfund reauthorization issues, please contact me or Judith Bayer, Director,
Environmental Government Affairs at 202-336-7436.
Sincerely,
Bue
William Paul
Enclosure
United Technologies Building
UNITED
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
TECHNOLOGIES
203/728-7643
Robert F. Daniell
Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
January 19, 1994
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Re: Keystone Commission Superfund Report also known as the
National Commission on Superfund Report
Dear Mr. President:
United Technologies strongly encourages you not to endorse or
otherwise rely on the Keystone Report in finalizing the Administration's
proposal for Superfund reform. We have been working with other
companies to provide specific recommendations to EPA and the
Administration in their consideration of Superfund reform. As a
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) at 83 Superfund sites, we have
played an active role in helping to develop a proposal which takes into
account the present and future uses of land and groundwater in
determining what level of cleanup is appropriate to the site.
Underlying that proposal is the conviction that we as a nation are
spending too much money to treat pollutants in cases where there is no
real exposure or risk to public health and the environment.
The recent report of the Keystone Commission is inherently flawed on a
fundamental issue concerning cleanup standards: i.e. is it worthwhile to
clean up the soil and groundwater at all sites to the level of drinking
water standards or pre-industrial background levels? We believe not.
The report assumes that if cleanup to such levels is technically feasible
at an old municipal dump, an industrial facility or a Department of
Energy munitions plant, it should be done, without regard to either real
risk or cost. At stake here are billions of dollars in expenditures by
industry and government that could be better spent elsewhere.
We believe that the EPA National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT) on Superfund, which included
extensive public input, and the Administration's interagency task force
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
The President
Page 2
January 19, 1994
have developed a far more accurate diagnosis of the inherent flaws in
Superfund that need to be addressed to make the program both
workable and a wise investment in environmental protection. While
there are parts of the Keystone effort that United Technologies can
endorse, the report completely sidesteps the need for cost-effective
cleanup standards which is the biggest issue in remedy selection and the
biggest objection of industry to the current Superfund program.
We hope that EPA and the interagency task force will be allowed to
continue the process of addressing head-on the problems of Superfund.
The work of the Keystone Commission, while well intentioned, does not
represent the views of United Technologies or many other companies
which have been working to propose sound policy options to EPA and
the Administration.
Sincerely yours,
Janiell
Robert F. Daniell
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 22, 1994
Dr. James L. Peterson
President
Science Museum of Minnesota
30 East Tenth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Dr. Peterson:
Congratulations to the Science Museum of Minnesota on
receiving the Partner Certificate of Distinction for First Year
Implementation Progress for the EPA's Green Lights Program! The
program is doing remarkably well, in no small part because of
participation like the Science Museum of Minnesota's, and we are
pleased to have your organization joining in efforts to help the
environment and the economy. Commitment to sustainable
development is a cornerstone to President Clinton's philosophy
and is driving our environmental agenda throughout the
Administration.
As you may know, last October President Clinton released his
Climate Change Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to
1990 levels by the year 2000. The Green Lights Program is one of
the initiatives which will play a significant role in the
implementation of the Action Plan. I want to commend you for
your active participation in this program.
Again, congratulations.
Sincerely,
Lathen Kathleen A. a. McGinty Mabor
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 8, 1994
The Honorable Federico Peña
Secretary
Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Attn: Ann Bormolini
Dear Secretary Peña:
As you know, the President recently signed the Executive
Order on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention to
establish the Federal Government as a model for private and
public institutions in this regard. It will reduce solid waste,
build markets for recycled products, encourage new
technologies and protect the environment.
Among other important provisions, the Executive Order
requires the appointment of a Federal Environmental Executive to
spearhead the implementation of the Order. Consequently, in
conjunction with the EPA, we are currently in the process of
reviewing the many qualified applicants, and hope to make an
announcement soon.
In the meantime, we request that each agency move
expeditiously in naming an internal Environmental Executive as
specified in the Order. As you know, the Order sets an
aggressive timeline for implementation. In the time until the
Federal Environmental Executive is named, please notify me of
your choice. This will allow the Federal Environmental Executive
to quickly avail him or herself of the expertise of each agency.
Thank you for your support.
Landley
Office on
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 8, 1994
The Honorable William Perry
Secretary
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301
Attn: Rudy DeLeon
Dear Secretary Perry:
As you know, the President recently signed the Executive
Order on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention to
establish the Federal Government as a model for private and
public institutions in this regard. It will reduce solid waste,
build markets for recycled products, encourage new
technologies and protect the environment.
Among other important provisions, the Executive Order
requires the appointment of a Federal Environmental Executive to
spearhead the implementation of the Order. Consequently, in
conjunction with the EPA, we are currently in the process of
reviewing the many qualified applicants, and hope to make an
announcement soon.
In the meantime, we request that each agency move
expeditiously in naming an internal Environmental Executive as
specified in the Order. As you know, the Order sets an
aggressive timeline for implementation. In the time until the
Federal Environmental Executive is named, please notify me of
your choice. This will allow the Federal Environmental Executive
to quickly avail him or herself of the expertise of each agency.
Thank you for your support.
Office on
Environmental Policy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 16, 1994
Dr. J. Winston Porter
President
Waste Policy Center
21400 Ridgetop Circle
Suite 180
Sterling, VA 20166
Dear Dr. Porter:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
Superfund reauthorization. It was good to hear from you.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to the preservation of our environment in a way that
leads to strong and sustainable economic growth. In his first
State of the Union address, the President reaffirmed his goal to
increase the efficiency of toxic waste cleanup, as well as to
decrease the numerous liability lawsuits associated with
Superfund sites.
As you know, the Administration's Superfund reauthorization
bill was introduced in Congress on February 3. We believe the
bill is an excellent starting point for improving the fairness
and efficiency of the Superfund program and reflects the
positions of a large number of stakeholders. I certainly
appreciate learning your concerns about this important issue.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
WPC
Waste Policy Center
21400 Ridgetop Circle, Suite 180
Sterling, Virginia 20166-6511
J. Winston Porter
Phone: (703) 450-9700
President
FAX: (703) 450-9701
1/26/94
Dear Katie
Enclosed is a recent article on
Superfund which may be of interest. I really
believe the administration should get beyond the
fine tuning and try to fix this program, perhaps
along the lines of the enclosed.
Also enclosed are a few booklets
which might serve as useful resource material.
Best regards,
Gn Per
THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL.
© 1994 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
EASTERN EDITION
MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1994
WHITE OAK, MARYLAND
Superfund Cleanups:
Give Them to States
Letters to the Editor
As EPA's Superfund manager from 1985
to 1989, I read Tim Noah's Dec. 2 Politics &
Policy article with interest. He describes
A9
well the competing interests attempting to
fix Superfund. All the old favorite issues
are there: "How clean is clean," excessive
costs, retroactivity, insurance and liabil-
ity.
Rather than debate all this fine-tuning
of an ill-conceived statute, let me propose
a better approach. Turn Superfund over to
the states.
Every day, the states are proving they
can clean up sites faster, and at lower cost,
than the federal Superfund program. The
typical federal cleanup takes 10 years and
costs about $30 million. By contrast, Min-
nesota cleanups take two to three years
and average less than $5 million. Wiscon-
sin already has cleaned up 227 sites, more
than the entire federal program. New York
has completed about 140 sites.
The reasons are increasingly appar-
ent. The states are much closer to the site
problems and land-use issues. The federal
program is built on "national consis-
tency" in site remedies, which ignores the
fact that each site is a unique local prob-
lem. Sites differ widely in terms of pollu-
tants involved, hydrology and geology,
site area (acres to square miles), and
land-use patterns.
Another complication is the cottage in-
dustry financed by taxpayers to micro-
manage Superfund. EPA funds almost 100
people in the inspector general's office to
find fraud, waste and abuse-which, of
course, they always do. Congress has
tasked an alphabet soup of agencies to
fine-tune every aspect of Superfund.
Operating away from the glare of this
national spotlight has allowed the states to
quietly clean up their sites. EPA, on the
other hand, spends most of its time de-
fending the program before Rep. Dingell,
Sen. Lautenberg and others.
EPA should set minimum standards for
state programs, but without demanding
exact "consistency," and should maintain
its lead in cleaning up federal facilities.
Otherwise, the states should take over.
J. WINSTON PORTER
President
Waste Policy Center
Sterling, Va.