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
120359598
label
Katie McGinty Letters “E”
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120359598
contentType
document
title
Katie McGinty Letters “E”
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
120359598
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-047-005-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
464421b929f2151a
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:
2885
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Katie McGinty Letters "E"
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
9
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 14, 1994
Ms. Cathy Eaton
P.O. Box 34
Mustang, OK 73064
Dear Ms. Eaton:
Thank you for your letter about the
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture's
enforcement of herbicide laws. It was
good to hear from you.
As you know, the preservation of the
environment continues to be one of my
highest priorities. I appreciate learning
more about pesticide use in Oklahoma. I
understand your concerns in this regard,
and am forwarding your information to the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency for their review and response. I
am sure that your concerns will be given
every consideration.
Again, thank you for sharing this
information with me.
Sincerely,
Fathluna. mcGinty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
2-20-94
Dear ms. me Ginty:
y 20, 1994
Please help cause EPAto honestly
investigate the Oklahoma Department
Herberide Laws and compliance
of agriculture's enforcement of
with Federal Regulations.
yesterday to read some of the letters from
se, it is very sad to hear about illnesses
lot think the problem can be lumped into one
I can prove they conduct
he surface to be the need for legislation.
chemicals. Aova Turner,
"cover-ups" for use of illegal
e solved just by legislation. I understand
Oklahoma are making people ill. But, we
Drs Law -Rules and Regulations", which could
405/391-3330 has information
interpreted as written and if they were
illness caused. EPA
about damages to property and
be broken down into four separate segments:
toesn't help-
issue: This is what I believe is in need of
The people and environment
ce" is not defined in the statutes, electric
n spraying herbicides on easement and right
are rapidly becoming paisoned
state that spraying herbicides is included
the chemical companies have a
'ot of power here their tobby'sts
nts only convey certain rights of use of the
re always at the Capital
wners have no desire to interfere with the
Cathy Belon
ed in an easement. However, more rights are
405/376-3906 home
nted when trees not in electric lines are
297-2926 work
sprayed with herbicides by easement grantees
under the guise of "maintenance".
The damage caused by this spraying is far reaching. My ownership rights were
violated. I paid for the land and continue to pay property taxes on land
which I can not use and enjoy. In over a year, my grass still hasn't grown
back after being sprayed. The land has eroded and will continue to erode.
Since a high concentration of the growth hormone herbicides remain in my soil
and trees, almost all of the trees in my yard have died. There is
considerable research to provide evidence the herbicides are causing our
illnesses. In fact, the material safety sheet states the herbicides are a
health hazard.
This is why Senate Bill 952 was filed. Senator Hendrick is very intelligent
and respected. He understands the problem, and his concern is the best
interests of the Citizens of Oklahoma. I hope your group will support this
bill.
Some Laws governing herbicide application are already in existence: It
appears to me these laws could provide some protection, but they are not
interpreted as written and not enforced by the Department of Agriculture.
February 20, 1994
Ms. Nova Turner, Chairperson
Citizens Against Pollution
P. O. Box 1634
Choctaw, Oklahoma 73020
Dear Ms. Turner:
Thank you for the time you took yesterday to read some of the letters from
members of your group. of course, it is very sad to hear about illnesses
caused by the herbicides. I do not think the problem can be lumped into one
single issue, which appears on the surface to be the need for legislation.
I do not think the problem can be solved just by legislation. I understand
that the chemicals applied in Oklahoma are making people ill. But, we
already have "Pesticide Applicators Law -Rules and Regulations", which could
enforced. be more effective, if they were interpreted as written and if they were
The reason for the problems can be broken down into four separate segments:
and ease one and right of way issue: This is what I believe is in need of
legislation. Because "maintenance" is not defined in the statutes, electric
cooperatives and others have been spraying herbicides on easement and right
of way areas. The statues do not state that spraying herbicides is included
in maintenance.
Property owners know that easements only convey certain rights of use of the
property. Certainly, property owners have no desire to interfere with the
rights of use specifically granted in an easement. However, more rights are
being taken than have been granted when trees not in electric lines are
chopped down, and/or the land is sprayed with herbicides by easement grantees
under the guise of "maintenance".
The damage caused by this spraying is far reaching. My ownership rights were
violated. I paid for the land and continue to pay property taxes on land
which I can not use and enjoy. In over a year, my grass still hasn't grown
back after being sprayed. The land has eroded and will continue to erode.
Since a high concentration of the growth hormone herbicides remain in my soil
and trees, almost all of the trees in my yard have died. There is
considerable research to provide evidence the herbicides are causing our
illnesses. In fact, the material safety sheet states the herbicides are a
health hazard.
This is why Senate Bill 952 was filed. Senator Hendrick is very intelligent
and respected. He understands the problem, and his concern is the best
bill. interests of the Citizens of Oklahoma. I hope your group will support this
Some Laws governing herbicide application are already in existence: It
appears to me these laws could provide some protection, but they are not
interpreted as written and not enforced by the Department of Agriculture.
The Department of Agriculture says that no matter how severe the violation,
they only issue warnings to violators, until there is a history of violations
and the applicators can not be "rehabilitated". As we know, massive damage
is being done to human beings, to say nothing of our environment, while these
applicators, who are supposed to be trained, educated and licensed, are being
reformed. This is totally insensible.
The Department of Agriculture wrote a letter to me stating that portions of
the Regulations only apply to termite applications, although that is not what
the Regulations state. Those regulations provide for the licensed applicator
to correct damage done within twenty (20) days, and the requirement for the
property owner to sign a contract to acknowledge the specific hazards of a
misapplication, prior to application of a chemical.
out I do not know for certain to whom one would look for straightening this
perhaps the EPA. A legislator or another state agency could ask the
Attorney General for interpretation of the laws.
- The Department of Agriculture is not enforcing the require to follow
label directions: These toxic chemicals are being broadcast sprayed while
the label says not to, are commonly and massively being applied in ditches
in easements and right of ways, while the label says to not apply where water
may stand or move due to danger of entering the water, being applied near
desirable plants and killing themwhile the label says not to, and on and on.
It is my understanding the Department of Agriculture usually finds no
violation when these misapplications occur.
Again, I suppose the EPA may be able to straighten this out. There may be
other avenues to correct this problem.
1. Chemicals are being registered and used in Oklahoma which are on call in
or listed as "restricted use" with the EPA. because they have not been
adequately tested or evidence has been presented that they are hazardous to
human health: This is a most difficult issue. I would believe that some
sort of public policy would prohibit this.
Representative Pope said he will file a House Resolution to put a moratorium
on registering and using these chemicals on EPA call in and restricted use
lists. Maybe this will be a solution.
I realize the helplessness of the situation when you are repeatedly exposed
to the chemicals to the point of becoming chemically sensitive and are forced
to endure endless suffering, as some of your group stated in their letters.
This is grossly wrong.
If we can create public awareness of this problem, no doubt the Citizens of
Oklahoma and others will help resolve these problems. I believe Oklahomans
are good people, with a strong sense of right and wrong.
Please send me a copy of the letter from the lady from Weatherford who moved
to New Mexico to flee from the spraying. I also hope she will be able to
move back home to Oklahoma.
Sincerely.
Cathy Eston Cathy Eaton
P. O. Box 34
Mustang, Oklahoma 73064
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 6, 1994
Mr. William M. Eichbaum
Vice President
International Environmental Quality
World Wildlife Fund
1250 24th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037-1175
Dear Mr. Eichbaum:
Thank you for your letter and the
information you enclosed regarding
"Conserving Russia's Biological
Diversity.' It was good to hear from you.
I have forwarded the report to Jane
Bradley of my staff for her review.
Again, thank you for sharing this
information with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
WWF
February 7, 1994
Ms. Katie McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
The White House
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty,
I am happy to provide you with a final copy of the World Wildlife Fund report
entitled "Conserving Russia's Biological Diversity." I also enclose several copies of a short
summary document which you may find useful with colleagues.
We appreciate the interest which you have shown in supporting this work. We are
especially interested in working to develop a funding package for the Russians by the Spring,
so that actual work can rapidly begin on the many important projects described in the report.
WWF also looks forward to helping to provide a portion of the urgently needed financial
resources.
I look forward to talking with you further about this important work.
Sincerely yours,
William M. Eichbaum
Vice President
International Environmental Quality
World Wildlife Fund
1250 Twenty-Fourth St., NW Washington, DC 20037-1175 USA
Tel: (202) 293-4800 Telex: 64505 PANDA FAX: (202) 293-9211
Incorporating The Conservation Foundation. Affiliated with World Wide Fund for Nature.
paper
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1994
Mr. Jim Eaton, Executive Director
California Wilderness Coalition
2655 Portage Bay East, Suite 5
Davis, CA 95616
Dear Mr. Eaton:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
President Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear
from you.
As you know, President Clinton announced his Forest Plan for
a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment, based on the
analytical work of three working groups established at the Forest
Conference. This administration believes that the Forest Plan is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a new economic
assistance program that helps local workers, businesses and
communities in strengthening the region's economy by creating
family-wage jobs, offering new economic opportunities, and
ensuring the region's long-term economic health.
After receiving over 100,000 comments on the proposed plan,
we are now working to refine it further and expect to submit the
final Record of Decision around March 31st. I appreciate
learning your views on this very important issue.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Kaltleen a. mcMinty
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
California Wilderness Coalition
2655 Portage Bay East, Suite 5
Davis, California 95616
(916) 758-0380
Board of Directors
Alan Carlton, President
Mary Scoonover, Vice-President
Steve Evans, Secretary
Wendy Cohen, Treasurer
Bob Barnes
Sally Miller
Trent Orr
Nobby Rledy
Ron Stork
Bill Wald
March 11, 1994
Advisory Committee
Harriet Allen
David R. Brower
Joe Fontaine
Phillip Hyde
Sally Kabisch
Martin Litton
Norman B. Livermore, Jr.
Michael McCloskey
Julie McDonald
Tim McKay
Katie McGinty, Director of the Office of
Nancy S. Pearlman
Lynn Ryan
Environmental Policy
Bob Schneider
Bernard Shanks
Old Executive Office Building
Richard Spotts
Jay Watson
Washington, DC 20501
Thomas Winnett
Executive Director
Jim Eaton
Member Groupe
Ancient Forests Defense Fund
Dear Ms. McGinty:
Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club
Backcountry Horsemen of California
Backpack Section, Bay Chapter, Sierra Club
Bay Chapter, Sierra Club
The attached letter expresses our deep concern
Butte Environmental Council
California Alpine Club
over the failure of the FSEIS for Alternative 9 to
California Native Plant Society
Citizens for Better Forestry
adequately provide for habitat connectivity across
Citizens for Mojave National Park
Come Together
Committee to Save the Kings River
the landscape and to protect roadless areas in
Conservation Call
Davis Audubon Society
California within the range of the northern spotted
Desert Protective Council
Desert Survivors
owl. Any help you can give us in addressing these
Ecology Center of Southern California
El Dorado Audubon Society
concerns is appreciated.
Forest Alliance
Friends Aware of Wildlife Needs
Friends of Plumas Wilderness
Friends of the Inyo
Sincerely,
Friends of the River
The Fund for Animals
Hands Off Our Wild Landsl
High Sierra Hikers Association
Kaweah Flyfishers
Keep the Sespe Wild Committee
Kem Audubon Society
Kern Kaweah Chapter, Sierra Club
Klamath Forest Alliance
League to Save Lake Tahoe
Loma Prieta Chapter, Slerra Club
Director
Los Angeles Audubon Society
Lost Coast League
Madrone Audubon Society
Marble Mountain Audubon Society
Marin Conservation League
Mendocino Environment Center
Mono Lake Committee
Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society
Mountan Lion Foundation
Mt. Shasta Area Audubon Society
Mt. Shasta Recreation Council
Natural Resources Defense Council
NCRCC Sierra Club
Nordic Voice
Northcoast Environmental Center
Northern Coast Range Blodiversity Project
Pasadena Audubon Society
People for Nipomo Dunes Nat. Seashore
Peppermint Alert
Placer County Conservation Task Force
Planning and Conservation League
Porterville Area Environmental Council
Range of Light Club, Toiyabe Ch., Sierra Club
Redwood Chapter, Sierra Club
Redwood Coast Law Center
The Red Mountain Association
The Rural Institute
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
Salmon Trollers Marketing Association
San Diego Chapter, Sierra Club
San Fernando Valley Audubon Society
Save Our Ancient Forest Ecology
Sea and Sage Audubon Society
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Sierra Treks
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council
South Fork Watershed Association
South Yuba River Citizen League
Tulare County Audubon Society
U.C. Davis Environmental Law Society
Western States Endurance Run
The Wilderness Society
Wintu Audubon Society
Yolano Group. Slerra Club
Yolo Environmental Resource Center
California Wilderness Coalition
2655 Portage Bay East, Suite 5
Davis, California 95616
(916) 758-0380
Board of Directors
Alan Cartion, President
Mary Scoonover, Vice-President
Sleve Evans, Secretary
Wendy Cohen, Treasurer
Bob Barnes
Sally Miller
Trent On
Nobby Riedy
March 11, 1994
Ron Stork
Bill Wald
Advisory Committee
Harriet Allen
David R. Brower
Joe Fontaine
Phillip Hyde
Sally Kabisch
Martin Limon
Norman B. Livermore, Jr.
Michael McCloskey
Robert T. Jacobs
Julie McDonald
Tim McKay
Interagency SEIS Team Leader
Nancy S. Pearlman
Lynn Ryan
P.O. Box 3623
Bob Schneider
Bernard Shanks
Portland, OR 97208
Richard Spotts
Jay Watson
Thomas Winnett
Executive Director
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
Jim Eaton
Member Groups
Ancient Forests Defense Fund
Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club
Backcountry Horsemen of California
The California Wilderness Coalition welcomes the
Backpack Section, Bay Chapter, Sierra Club
Bay Chapter, Sierra Club
revisions you have made in the Alternative 9 FSEIS
Butte Environmental Council
California Alpine Club
with the exception of the abandonment of the 180-
California Native Plant Society
Citizens for Better Forestry
Citizens for Mojave National Park
year rotation period for California forests. We
Come Together
Committee to Save the Kings River
request that the following additional changes be
Conservation Call
Davis Audubon Society
made before the plan's final approval later this
Desert Protective Council
Desert Survivors
month:
Ecology Center of Southern California
Dorado Audubon Society
Forest Alliance
Friends Aware of Widlife Needs
--All National Forest wilderness areas in
Friends of Plumas Wildemess
Friends of the Inyo
Friends of the River
California within the range of the northern spotted
The Fund for Animals
Hands Off Our Wild Lands!
owl are contiguous to late-successional reserves
High Sierra Hikers Association
Kaweah Flyfishers
with the exception of those of the Mendocino
Keep the Sespe Wild Committee
Kem Audubon Society
National Forest. We request that the reserve
Kem Kaweah Chapter. Sierra Club
Klamath Forest Alliance
boundaries within the Mendocino be adjusted so
League to Save Lake Tahoe
Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club
that they will border the Snow Mountain and Yolla
Los Angeles Audubon Society
Lost Coast League
Madrone Audubon Society
Bolly-Middle Eel wilderness areas, or at least that
Marble Mountain Audubon Society
Marin Conservation League
additional late-successional reserves adjacent to
Mendocino Environment Center
Mono Lake Committee
these wilderness areas be established in order to
Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society
Mountan Lion Foundation
protect old-growth where it is currently
ML Shasta Area Audubon Society
Mt. Shasta Recreation Council
unprotected (such as along the Middle Fork Eel
Natural Resources Defense Council
NCRCC Sierra Club
River outside of the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel
Nordic Voice
Northcoast Environmental Center
Wilderness boundary). This will help to ensure that
Northern Coast Range Biodiversity Project
Pasadena Audubon Society
People for Nipomo Dunes Nat. Seashore
connectivity is maintained between reserves and
Peppermint Alert
Placer County Conservation Task Force
wilderness areas within the Mendocino National
Planning and Conservation League
Porterville Area Environmental Council
Forest, as is the case with every other wilderness
Range of Light Club, Tolyabe Ch., Sierra Club
Redwood Chapter, Sierra Club
area within northwestern California.
Redwood Coast Law Center
The Red Mountain Association
The Rural Institute
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
--The FSEIS fails to recognize the
Salmon Trollers Marketing Association
San Diego Chapter, Sierra Club
San Femando Valley Audubon Society
ecological and social value of roadless areas within
Save Our Ancient Forest Ecology
Sea and Sage Audubon Society
the range of the northern spotted owl. The
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Sierra Treks
protection afforded roadless areas by Alternative 9
Soda Mountain Wilderness Coundi
South Fork Watershed Association
South Yuba River Citizen League
Tulare County Audubon Society
U.C. Davis Environmental Law Society
Western States Endurance Run
The Wilderness Society
Wintu Audubon Society
Yolano Group, Sierra Club
Yolo Environmental Resource Center
outside of key watersheds are inadequate at best, and the ecological
consequences of developing these lands is not adequately considered
in the FSEIS. These wildlands are crucial components of ecological
recovery within the northwest California region, and to leave them
open to exploitation is a tragic mistake. These storehouses of
biological diversity, both RARE II roadless areas, as well as any
roadless area over 2,000 acres in size, should be protected as inviolate
reserves. This will help to both preserve connectivity across the
landscape and to maintain the health of unroaded watersheds.
--As the FSEIS admits, the mitigation measures for logging
within the matrix lands may not provide sufficient connectivity
between reserved areas. We request that further measures be taken
within the matrix to enhance connectivity, such as the retention of all
old-growth forest, the removal of key watersheds from the suitable
timber base, full protection for RARE II roadless areas as well as all
other roadless areas over 2,000 acres in size, and road closures and
roadbed rehabilitation programs designed to reduce road densities
within the matrix.
Please give these proposed changes to the FSEIS careful
consideration. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your
work.
Sincerely,
Jim Eaton
Executive Director
CC: Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Representative Vic Fazio
Representative Dan Hamburg
Jim Lyons
George Frampton
Katie McGinty
Page 2 of 2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1994
Mr. John Etheredge
Director of Engineering
Olin Chemicals Corporation
P.O. Box 248
1186 Lower River Road
Charleston, TN 37310
Dear Mr. Etheredge:
This is to notify you that I am in receipt of your letter to
Robert Boorstin regarding your thoughts about chlorine study and
the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It was good to hear from
you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Sincerely,
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Olin
CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 248, 1186 LOWER RIVER ROAD, CHARLESTON, TN 37310
Phone: (615) 336-4000
February 16, 1994
Special Asst to the Pres for Policy
Coordination, Robert O. Boorstin
Executive Office of the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Boorstin:
I am writing to request your assistance on an urgent matter that is of great concern to our local plant
here, our state and to Olin Corporation. On February 23rd, the full Senate Committee on the
Environment and Public Works is expected to mark up a version of S.1114, the Water Pollution
Prevention and Control Act. This bill may become the vehicle for potentially harmful language,
ultimately banning the use of chlorine and its compounds - a vital chemical for many of Olin's processes
and products. We already have several concerns with the bill, as drafted, but it is the chlorine issue in
particular that prompts this letter.
On February 2, during a news conference on the Clean Water Act Reauthorization, Carol Browner
outlined a policy based on the supposition that, as a class of chemicals, chlorine and all chlorine-based
compounds are harmful to human health and the environment - a sentiment long held by some in the
environmental community and one which lacks scientific basis.
Olin will oppose any efforts to prohibit or reduce chlorine use in our products and processes where such
efforts are not supported by sound science. Olin believes that the EPA should base its policies on
science, not supposition. We encourage aggressive, peer-reviewed scientific study of chlorine and its
compounds in a process that includes participation by all vital constituencies. We support the use of
risk assessment and risk management to identify unacceptable risks and prioritize actions to reduce or
eliminate the use of harmful compounds.
We recognize that chlorine is an emerging issue in certain segments of the public. We believe that
some chlorine-based compounds may be a cause of concern, and we fully support efforts to approach
these concerns from a scientific basis.
The policy shift on chlorine regulation announced by EPA on February 2 was not based on scientific
analysis and did not include the input of the vital industries and services that rely on the chemical. This
is wrong. We need your help to encourage your colleagues on the Senate Environment Committee to
influence the debates on reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. We must assure that our
environmental policies are based on sound judgment, reason and science as opposed to emotion and
supposition. In short, we want to participate in the process.
I would be glad to speak with you or your staff on this issue. We are very concerned about EPA's
policies and want to make sure that our concerns are apparent to Environment Committee members
before February 23rd. Thank you very much for your attention to this issue and your continued support.
Sincerely,
John Etheredge Etheredge
Director of Engineering
jmb
OLIN CORPORATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1994
Mr. Stan Edmond
CEO
Ellay, Inc.
6900 Elm Street
City of Commerce, CA 90040
Dear Mr. Edmond:
This is to notify you that I am in receipt of your letter to
Robert Boorstin regarding your thoughts about chlorine study and
the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It was good to hear from
you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
6900 ELM STREET
Ellay
CITY OF COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA 90040
Inc.
(213) 725-7010
FAX (213) 725-6466
February 17, 1994
Special Asst. to the Pres. for Policy
Coordination, Robert O. Boorstin
Executive Office of the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Boorstin,
This is a copy of the letter sent to President, William J. Clinton.
I am the president of a mid size manufacturing company that employs about 90 people and has revenues of
about 13 million dollars a year. My business has grown nicely over the past 5 years and my employees have
had steady employment with good wages and full medical benefits. I am proud of the relationship this
company enjoys with our employees, customers and vendors.
The above preamble is to let you know that not everything is bad. However, I have recently read the articles
in the February 2nd edition of USA TODAY and I am very disturbed about the illogical and non-scientific
approach that the EPA is taking including Polyvinylchloride plastics with other chlorine based products.
The PVC industry is one of the most regulated and also one of the safest industries in North America. We
have not only met all regulatory requirements but we have far exceeded them.
Good science and common sense tell us that banning an element like chlorine that is basic to our natural
environment is nonsense. Do we stop salting our foods or maybe do away with the oceans which are the main
source of chlorine. It seems to me that the Clinton Administration is responding to pressures from parties who
are more interested in political gain than what is good for our country.
I strongly encourage you to have the interested parties in your administration consult with parties in industry
and science who will help bring logic and reality back to this essential debate.
My business and the well being of my employees and customers in large part depend on the outcome of this
debate. I only hope that you will direct its outcome based on rational and logical information.
We service the health care industry with raw materials for disposable medical devices. PVC has been the most
reliable, versatile and cost effective material for these devices for over thirty (30) years. Our record of safety
shows that the public is far better off because our industry was there with plastics to service there needs.
Sincerely,
Ellay Inc.
Stan Edmond
Stan Edmond
CEO
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. Keith Eisberg
P.O. Box 5750
Ketchum, ID 83340
Dear Mr. Eisberg:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts
about the U.S. Air Force's proposed bombing range in Owyhee
County, Idaho. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, the protection of our nation's valuable natural
resources continues to be one of the Administration's highest
priorities. I appreciate learning your views about the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed bombing range. I have
taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental
Security for review of the specific issues that you raise. I am
sure that your concerns will be given the appropriate
consideration.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Lather Kathleen a. A. McGinty Miss
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Keith Eisberg
Start
P.O. Box 5750
Ketchum, ID 83340
tel. 208-726-5510
January 15, 1994
President Bill Clinton
c/o Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
Director of Office on Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building -Room 358
Washington, DC 20501
Ms. McGinty,
1 testified at the Twin Falls, Idaho public hearing on the
proposed expansion of the Composite Wing at the Mountain Air
Base. Enclosed is my written testimony which I requested be
included with my oral testimony provided to the Air Force on
January 14, 1994.
Please consider this as a national issue on the destruction of
our environment. Note my comments about the unethical practices
of the Governor of Idaho as well as concealment by the Air Force.
It's time we stop the Air Force from taking all the beautiful
wilderness areas of the US and then blatantly destroying wildlife
habitat in the name of National Defense. When will they wake up
to the fact the Cold War is over. To date the Air Force has
spent well over five million dollars (and more that are not
documented) on attempts to force an unwanted Bombing Range on the
people of Idaho.
I am and have been a registered Democrat in Idaho and continue to
support the party.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
toth Eisbay
Keith Eisberg
Encl. Eisberg Testimony
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Samantha and Tatiana Enochs
64336 Sea Cove Avenue West
St. Augustine, FL 32086
Dear Samantha and Tatiana:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Hatlen a. Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
To MS. McGinty
Iam a memder of the what Adoption
Project. I heard that Presiden+Clinton
is Supporting whating. I am Mad. I
think this should Step. that hurtsmy feelings
because Ilike whales. There are very
Few of them.
Sincerely
SAMANTHA ElvorHS
age G
Dear MS. McGinty,
I am a member OF the whole
Adoption Project. I See i vA the latest
newsletter that the government is
Supporting the resumption OF whaking.
This is wrong, We have no right to kill
these wonderful Creatures For any reason-
scientific, political or otherwise. Leave the
whales avone in their own home.
Myparents, who voted For president Clinton
Say that if the government doesn't change it's
policy on this they won't make that mistake
again.
Sincerely'
Tutiana Enochs
age 8
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Lynne B. Eichenfield
3203 East Paintedhills Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Dear Ms. Eichenfield:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy
17th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Ms. McGinty:
I am writing to you to strongly protest the Clinton Administration's position for the
resumption of commercial whaling. I find it hard to believe that after all these years of
moving forward to protect whales our government is considering taking a step backward.
If the fact that these are the gentle, intelligent largest mammals on earth does not move
you to protect them, may I remind you that commercial whaling almost wiped out some
species of whales last century?
I am currently sponsoring one of these beautiful creatures. I am extremely proud of my
participation in the protection of these other-than-humans. It deeply saddens me to think
that the administration of the country which I love dearly is toying with the future of these
wonderful beings.
I want Mr. Clinton and his administration to know exactly how I feel:
Take a stand against Norway's recent resumption of whaling! The Olympics are
over! It's time to show ourselves as defenders of the environment instead of agents of its
destruction.
Sincerely,
Lynne B. Eichenfield
Lynne B. Eichenfield
3203 East Paintedhills Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89120
cc: Whale Adoption Project
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Betty Eickler
276 Libertyville Road
New Paltz, N.Y. 12561-3715
Dear Ms. Eickler:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
276 Libertyville Road
New Paltz, N.Y. I2561-3715
February 27, I994
Kathleen McGinty, Deputy Ass't
for Environmental Policy
17th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty,
I am sure that you are just as interested as I am in
the condition of our environment or you would not have
taken on the huge responsibility of being the President's
personal advisor on this most important issue.
Please use your influence to reverse President
Clinton's stand that the administration supports the
implementation of science-based commercial whaling.
These magnificent mammals cannot defend
themselves. It won't take long to deplete their numbers.
Please support me in this issue.
Bitty H Eurlu
Very truly yours,
Betty H. Eickler, Postmaster Retired
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Margaret H. Emery
45 Country Lane
Bristol, CT 06010
Dear Ms. Emery:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
45 Country Lane
Bristol, CT 06010
February 23, 1994
Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
for Environmental Policy
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty:
This is written regarding President Clinton's policy on the U.S.
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Much to my shock, I was just
informed that the Clinton Administration supports the
implementation of science-based commercial whaling.
The only Christmas gift our daughter wanted this past year was to
adopt a whale as part of the Whale Adoption Project sponsored by
the International Wildlife Coalition. It was through literature
circulated by this organization that we learned of this issue.
My husband and I have been supporters of President Clinton from
the very beginning of his presidential campaign. We have
defended his policies to this day, feeling that the lack of
success of some of his programs has been the fault of congress
and not attributable to any lack of commitment or sincerity on
his part.
If the president continues his pro-whaling position, we will work
actively against his re-election and will cease to be supportive
in any way. We feel very strongly about this and feel that the
United States is taking a giant step backwards in this area. It
makes me ashamed of our government.
Please express our strong feelings to the President.
Sincerely yours,
Margant H. Emery
Margaret H. Emery
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Adrienne Elizabeth Eaton
470 Green Street
Northborough, MA 01532-1018
Dear Ms. Eaton:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter on the efforts of some
other countries to resume commercial whaling.
Let me reassure you that the United States is deeply opposed
to commercial whaling. The U.S. does not engage in commercial
whaling, and we allow no imports of whale products. The United
States also firmly supports creation of a whale sanctuary in the
oceans surrounding Antarctica.
We have to recognize, however, that not every country agrees
with us. Some countries believe that certain stocks of whales
are numerous enough to withstand the resumption of commercial
whaling without the danger of extinction. We think it is
important to make sure that this question is addressed with sound
science, and by giving the whales, not whalers, the benefit of
the doubt when there are serious scientific uncertainties. That
is why we are working within the International Whaling Commission
to assure that the methodology known as the "revised management
procedure" embodies these principles.
Some people fear that our work on this scientific
methodology signals that we are changing our position and are
preparing to support commercial whaling. Let me reassure you
that this is not true. The United States has no intention to
support commercial whaling.
I share your concern for whales and the environment. With
your support, we will accomplish a great deal to protect the
environment here in this country and around the world.
Sincerely,
Tableen Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Adrienne E. Eaton
470 Green St.
Northborough, MA.
01532-1018
February 22, 1994
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy
17th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty,
My name is Adrienne Eaton, and I am 11 years old. I have
heard that our country will be supporting commercial whaling
soon. I would like to please ask why we will be supporting
commercial whaling. Please correct me if I am wrong, but
commercial whaling, as I understand is hunters going out and
killing whales for money.
If people needed food and whales were their only source
of food, I can understand why they would kill whales. But for
money, I can not understand. People kill whales or any animal
for money or fur or any other thing they can get out of an
animal. I don't think that people should be killing animals,
especially whales for fun.
America had repealed commercial whaling for awhile, so
why do we have to start again? I think that many people are also
asking the same question. I not only have adopted a whale for
myself, but one for my cousin, also, from the Whale Adoption
Project, so you can probably expect how I feel.
When commercial whaling was allowed, every time I
heard of a whale being killed in my whale adoption newsletter, I
became very sad because the thought of people killing such
innocent mammals.
I hope myself and others will encourage you and President
Clinton to reconsider commercial whaling in the United States.
If you have time, please write back.
Sincerely,
adrienne Elizabech Eaton
Adrienne Elizabeth Eaton
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. David Edwards
Plant Manager
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 187
Calvert City, KY 42049-0187
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
elf atochem
Elf Atochem North America Inc.
P.O. Box 187. Calvert City, Kentucky 42029-0187. (502) 395-7121
ATO
February 18, 1994
Office Environmental Policy
Deputy Assistant to the President, Kathleen McGinty
Old Executive Office Building, Room 360
17th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20501
SUBJECT: U.S. EPA Proposal to Phaseout Chlorine
Dear Ms. McGinty:
As Plant Manager of Elf Atochem North America's Calvert City Plant, I am writing to express
to you my opposition to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Browner's
recent proposal for development of a plan to "prohibit, reduce or substitute (for) the use of
chlorine" over the next three years.
What is especially disturbing about the Administrator Browner's announcement is that it reflects
a continuing pattern that has excluded industry's input into the Agency's public policy-making
process. In the case of chlorine, the Administrator has sought to prejudice the public policy
debate in advance of sound scientific assessment and in the absence of input by all stakeholders.
By way of background, Elf Atochem North America is a diversified process chemical
manufacturer employing more than 5,200 people nationwide with 33 manufacturing facilities in
17 U.S. states. The Company is headquartered in Philadelphia, PA and reports annual sales of
just under $2 billion. Major product/market segments include: commodity organic and
inorganic chemicals and chemical intermediates; specialty chemicals; agricultural chemicals, and
polymers.
Chlorine and chlorinated compounds are essential to society
The EPA proposal makes no sense. The proposed ban represents an unscientific approach to
regulating chemicals because it proposes prohibiting or reducing the use of chlorine and
chlorinated compounds without regard to whether such a significant burden on society is
warranted.
Chlorine and chlorinated compounds are used to meet some of the most essential and vital needs
of modern society, including: protecting our public water supply, and in 85% of all medicines,
96% of all crop protection chemicals, all vinyl plastics and thousands of other products
(manufactured in the U.S. and marketed globally) that are the basis of modern life.
Approximately 1.3 million U.S. jobs depend on the chlorine industry. Wages and salaries total
more than $30 billion a year. Further, almost 40% of all U.S. jobs and income depend in some
way on chlorine and products of the chlorine industry. Two hundred and twelve industries use
chlorine and related compounds, generating 45 million jobs and $1.6 trillion in economic
activity--including a $3 billion net trade surplus.
Process for Evaluating & Minimizing Risk is Already Underway
Scientific experts have concluded that chlorinated compounds span a wide range and should not
be considered as a single group for purposes of risk assessment. The EPA proposal would
short-circuit such initiatives based on scientific risk assessment, including current projects
relating to a reassessment of dioxin and chlorine's use in the pulp and paper industry.
With the exception of a few persistent, bioccumulative chlorinated organic chemicals (e.g. DDT)
in localized areas resulting from historical uses, current concentrations of chlorine and
chlorinated compounds have not been shown to cause adverse effects on humans or the
environment. Continuing technological improvements are expected to lower the already low risks
of adverse effects related to chlorine in the environment.
Thank you for your consideration of the points raised in this letter. I hope that, upon a careful
review of the implications of the EPA proposal, that this administration will adopt a policy based
on (1) credible science that weighs all the evidence in an even-handed manner, including an
evaluation of potential alternatives; (2) a fair and balanced process that involves all stakeholders;
and (3) weighs social and economic factors.
Respectfully yours,
David B. Edwards
Plant Manager
/gjv
cc:
Mr. Charles A. Kitchen
Director Government & Community Relations
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
1200 North Nash Street
Arlington, VA 22209
Tel. (703) 527-2099
FAX (703) 527-2092
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. Maynard Engler
Superintendent
Environmental Affairs
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 187
Calvert City, KY 42049-0187
Dear Mr. Engler:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kahlen Kathleen A. a. McCinty Misi8
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
elf atochem
Elf Atochem North America Inc.
P.O. Box 187. Calvert City, Kentucky 42029-0187. (502) 395-7121
ATO
February 18, 1994
Office Environmental Policy
Deputy Assistant to the President, Kathleen McGinty
Old Executive Office Building, Room 360
17th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20501
SUBJECT: U.S. EPA Proposal to Phaseout Chlorine
Dear Ms. McGinty:
As Superintendent of Environmental Affairs of Elf Atochem North America's Calvert City Plant,
I am writing to express to you my opposition to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator Browner's recent proposal for development of a plan to "prohibit, reduce or
substitute (for) the use of chlorine" over the next three years.
What is especially disturbing about the Administrator Browner's announcement is that it reflects
a continuing pattern that has excluded industry's input into the Agency's public policy-making
process. In the case of chlorine, the Administrator has sought to prejudice the public policy
debate in advance of sound scientific assessment and in the absence of input by all stakeholders.
By way of background, Elf Atochem North America is a diversified process chemical
manufacturer employing more than 5,200 people nationwide with 33 manufacturing facilities in
17 U.S. states. The Company is headquartered in Philadelphia, PA and reports annual sales of
just under $2 billion. Major product/market segments include: commodity organic and
inorganic chemicals and chemical intermediates; specialty chemicals; agricultural chemicals, and
polymers.
Chlorine and chlorinated compounds are essential to society
The EPA proposal makes no sense. The proposed ban represents an unscientific approach to
regulating chemicals because it proposes prohibiting or reducing the use of chlorine and
chlorinated compounds without regard to whether such a significant burden on society is
warranted.
Chlorine and chlorinated compounds are used to meet some of the most essential and vital needs
of modern society, including: protecting our public water supply, and in 85% of all medicines,
96% of all crop protection chemicals, all vinyl plastics and thousands of other products
(manufactured in the U.S. and marketed globally) that are the basis of modern life.
Approximately 1.3 million U.S. jobs depend on the chlorine industry. Wages and salaries total
more than $30 billion a year. Further, almost 40% of all U.S. jobs and income depend in some
way on chlorine and products of the chlorine industry. Two hundred and twelve industries use
chlorine and related compounds, generating 45 million jobs and $1.6 trillion in economic
activity--including a $3 billion net trade surplus.
Process for Evaluating & Minimizing Risk is Already Underway
Scientific experts have concluded that chlorinated compounds span a wide range and should not
be considered as a single group for purposes of risk assessment. The EPA proposal would
short-circuit such initiatives based on scientific risk assessment, including current projects
relating to a reassessment of dioxin and chlorine's use in the pulp and paper industry.
With the exception of a few persistent, bioccumulative chlorinated organic chemicals (e.g. DDT)
in localized areas resulting from historical uses, current concentrations of chlorine and
chlorinated compounds have not been shown to cause adverse effects on humans or the
environment. Continuing technological improvements are expected to lower the already low risks
of adverse effects related to chlorine in the environment.
Thank you for your consideration of the points raised in this letter. I hope that, upon a careful
review of the implications of the EPA proposal, that this administration will adopt a policy based
on (1) credible science that weighs all the evidence in an even-handed manner, including an
evaluation of potential alternatives; (2) a fair and balanced process that involves all stakeholders;
and (3) weighs social and economic factors.
Respectfully yours,
Maynard Englee
Maynard Engler, Superintendent
Environmental Affairs
/gjv
cc:
Mr. Charles A. Kitchen
Director Government & Community Relations
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
1200 North Nash Street
Arlington, VA 22209
Tel. (703) 527-2099
FAX (703) 527-2092
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1994
Mr. Stan Edmond
CEO
Ellay, Inc.
6900 Elm Street
City of Commerce, CA 90040
Dear Mr. Edmond:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding your thoughts
about chlorine study and the Clean Water Act reauthorization. It
was good to hear from you.
Rest assured that neither EPA nor this Administration has
made any decision in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act
that would restrict or ban the use of chlorine or chlorinated
compounds. Because of the continuing rigorous public debate on
this matter, EPA has proposed a thorough and careful review of
the issues. I assure you that the proposed EPA study will be
conducted in a fair, objective and balanced fashion, using the
best available information and with the participation of all
interested parties.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kathlen Kathleen A. McGinty Mibing
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
6900 ELM STREET
Ellay
CITY OF COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA 90040
Inc.
(213) 725-7010
FAX (213) 725-6466
February 17, 1994
Office of Environmental Policy
Deputy Asst. to the Pres. and Dir.
Kathleen McGinty
Old Executive Office Building
room 3560
17th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty,
This is a copy of the letter sent to President, William J. Clinton.
I am the president of a mid size manufacturing company that employs about 90 people and has revenues of
about 13 million dollars a year. My business has grown nicely over the past 5 years and my employees have
had steady employment with good wages and full medical benefits. I am proud of the relationship this
company enjoys with our employees, customers and vendors.
The above preamble is to let you know that not everything is bad. However, I have recently read the articles
in the February 2nd edition of USA TODAY and I am very disturbed about the illogical and non-scientific
approach that the EPA is taking including Polyvinylchloride plastics with other chlorine based products.
The PVC industry is one of the most regulated and also one of the safest industries in North America. We
have not only met all regulatory requirements but we have far exceeded them.
Good science and common sense tell us that banning an element like chlorine that is basic to our natural
environment is nonsense. Do we stop salting our foods or maybe do away with the oceans which are the main
source of chlorine. It seems to me that the Clinton Administration is responding to pressures from parties who
are more interested in political gain than what is good for our country.
I strongly encourage you to have the interested parties in your administration consult with parties in industry
and science who will help bring logic and reality back to this essential debate.
My business and the well being of my employees and customers in large part depend on the outcome of this
debate. I only hope that you will direct its outcome based on rational and logical information.
We service the health care industry with raw materials for disposable medical devices. PVC has been the most
reliable, versatile and cost effective material for these devices for over thirty (30) years. Our record of safety
shows that the public is far better off because our industry was there with plastics to service there needs.
Sincerely,
Ellay Inc.
Stan Edmond
Stan Edmond
CEO
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1994
Ms. Sara Ellis
Dalhousie University
Biology Department
Halifax, NS B3H 4J1
CANADA
Dear Ms. Ellis:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the potentially harmful effects of high noise levels on fish and
cetaceans. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, Vice President Gore and I are committed to the
protection of the diverse pant and animal life found on our
planet. I certainly appreciate learning of your concerns about
the effects of the operation of loudspeakers off the coast of
Hawaii and California on animal life in the vicinity. I have
taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for review and
response to the specific issues you raise.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jdm
Sara Ellis
Dalhousie University
Biology Dept.
Halifax, NS B3H 4J1
Katy McGinty
Director of White House Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Bldg., Rm. 360
Washington D.C. 20501
February 23, 1994
Dear Ms. McGinty,
I am writing to protest the "Acoustic Thermography of Global Ocean
Climate" or ATOC. Its purpose is to supposedly examine global
temperature trends in the ocean as a way to monitor global warming. The
multi-million dollar project is being funded by the U.S. military.
The plan is to send out incredibly loud noises at depths of 700-800 m,
and monitor changes in sound speed over time. The intensity of the sounds
will be 195 dB, which is 10,000,000 times the threshold pain for humans in
air (120dB).
I am very concerned about the effects of such intense noise on deep
diving marine mammals who use sound to communicate and/or to
echolocate for food. I am particularly concerned about sperm whales, but
also consider beaked whales and elephant seals to be at risk.
Even grey whales, which are thought to be fairly insensitive to sounds,
as far as whales go, show avoidance to sounds as low as 120 dB. The
projected sounds will be loud enough to travel halfway around the world,
using the deep sound channel.
The project plans to blast these sounds cyclically-ON, 20 min, OFF, 4
hrs. The present plan is just for the next few years, but the ultimate goal is
to continue for decades in all oceans. The first 2 sites are in the Pacific, off
Hawaii and off Pt. Sur California. I was amazed by the location of the Pt.
Sur site, since the California coast was just declared a marine sanctuary. It
was S0 declared because of its rich marine life, particularly mammals!
I believe these extremely loud, repetitive sounds could be very
dangerous to marine mammals. The sounds could cause either immediate
deafness, or gradual deafening. They might interfere with communication
and/or echolocation. Such non-stop, cyclical sound blasts could lead to
psychological stress.
ATOC is sponsoring some marine mammal studies, but they won't
start until the sound blasts begin, S0 there will be no baseline data. Also if
whales are gradually deafened by the sound source, they will show less and
less disturbance to ensuing sound, leading to the erroneous conclusion of
"no adverse effects."
There are no studies planned on sperm whales. The studies off
Hawaii will be on humpbacks. These whales are not deep divers, and being
baleen whales, they do not depend as heavily on sound as do sperm whales
and other toothed whales. Have the studies been chosen for their ease and
good public image rather than necessary science?
There seems to be little or no advance publicity about this project. Yet,
there are important questions to be asked before it should be allowed to go
ahead. Why study temperature change at such depth? Will there really be a
delay time in knowledge of a decade? If so, what use is such out-of-date
information? Are there in fact ulterior motives that are being kept hidden
from the public (i.e., defense-related, Low-Frequency Active Sonar). Are
there better, less invasive ways of studying temperature change?
My main goal, if not to stop this project, is at least to get them to lower
the sound levels to 120 dB-to err on the side of caution rather than just
going blindly ahead.
Sincerely,
Sana Illis
Sara Ellis
Ph.D. candidate-whale behavior and ecology
U.S. taxpayer-Woods Hole, Massachusetts
C.C.
The Honorable Gerry Studds,
Drew Littman, Policy Director of Barbara Boxer