-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: THE MEMO THE BUSH CAMPAIGN HOPED YOU'D NEVER READ THE MEMO THE BUSH CAMPAIGN HOPED YOU'D NEVER READ How Bush Operates Behind Closed Doors Jim E. Kennedy was an engineer for the Dupont Corporation when this memo was written in 1997. He is now retired. Editor's Note: This memo was written by Mr. Kennedy, an engineer with Dupont, on Friday, June 20th, 1997. Offering a rare glimpse into how Governor George W. Bush governs behind closed doors, it describes Kennedy's bewilderment at the governor's plan to let industry write its own pollution rules. Kennedy wrote the memo after attending a secret meeting at Exxon where he learned that some of Texas's biggest polluters had orchestrated a deal with the governor to enact new environmental laws with "no meat, with respect to actual emissions reductions," as Kennedy puts it. The memo makes it clear that Governor Bush was willing to bypass the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), the state regulator. The memo was emailed to TNRCC, from whom it was obtained through a Texas Open Records act request, filed by the Texas SEED Coalition, an Austin non-profit. For a complete analysis, see TomPaine.com's "Putting the Fox In Charge of the Hen House." Click here to locate the key paragraph. Subject: Grandfathered Meeting From: Jim E. Kennedy, Dupont To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@ESDS01@MRGATE, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@ESDSO1@MRGATE, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@ESDS01@MRGATE, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@ESDS01@MRGATE, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@ESDS01@MRGATE, Jon, Ed, Steven, Bernie, and Mark -- Attached are my internal notes from the meeting yesterday in case they are of any value to you. ---------------- I attended the meeting at Exxon yesterday. There were approximately 40 people in attendance--I would guess representing 15-20 companies. Most were from the oil & gas industry, although Texas Utilities and Simpson Paper were represented, and Bernie Allen (Dow), Steven Cook (Lyondell Petrochemical), Mark Bryson (Alcoa), and myself were there from the chemicals industry. Exxon and Amoco made the presentations, with occasional contributions from Marathon. It was a very strange meeting to me in that the approach of the presenters was pretty much like, "This is the way it's going to be--do you want to get on board or not?" The feeling of at least three of the chemicals folks there seemed to be 'Not". I'll try to explain. Conoco will, I'm sure, make their own decision as to whether or not they will participate. A "delcaration" (sic) letter will be mailed out with the meeting minutes/materials, Please let me know who in Conoco would like to get copies of this information. PROCESS: The draft concept paper (attached) was developed by a very small (2-3) group of companies from upstream oil & gas. Amoco presented the paper to the group at the meeting as something that has been agreed to at high levels and was not subject to change. After a number of protestations from around the table, Exxon moderated that stance somewhat by saying that good ideas for change/additions could be considered. Amoco basically said that they had better be real good ideas. The belief was clearly communicated at the meeting that this industry group was going to be in the leadership role in transforming the concepts into a program that would be approved by the Governors Office. The term "TNRCC" did not even appear in the overheads that were used in the meeting. There were references to TNRCC participation ranging from "participate with us" to "call them in as a resource." My input was that this is neither a desirable nor a realistic approach. [House Bill] 3019 clearly gives responsibility for development of this program to the TNRCC and I believe that the commissioners take that legislative mandate quite literally. I told the group that I believe that TNRCC will be in the lead on this very soon. Clearly, the "insiders" from oil & gas believe that the Governors Office will "persuade" the TNRCC to accept whatever program is developed between the industry group and the Governors Office. I don't believe that will be the case. There was some discussion about public input and support. The concept put forward was that the industry group and the Governor's Office would develop the program, then take it to some broad-based group, including public representatives, who would then tweak it a little bit and approve it. I told them that this was dreaming in today's environment -- to think that industry wuld put together a detailed program on this hot subject, then take ft to such a group and expect any kind of buy-in. If support from the "public" is a goal, they will have to be involved much earlier in the process. This thought was pretty much dismissed-I believe mainly because the leadership doesn't have any real value for public involvement. The structure of this group is clearly set up for individual company participation, rather than participation as representing a trade association. I believe this would be very uncomfortable for chemicals. Our culture is that individual companies don't like to get In the "lone ranger" position on high-profile, high-impact initiatives. We are going to have to get our heads together and decide how the chemicals industry is going to work this initiative. That certainly will be influenced by the signals we get from the TNRCC around "process". CONTENT: The concept paper has no 'meat" with respect to actual emissions reductions. One of the leaders actually stated that emissions reductions was not a primary driver for the program. I know for a fact that in the mind of at least one TNRCC commissioner, emissions reductions IS the primary driver for the program. The chemicals and refining companies represented expressed a very high level of concern about the health effects review aspect of the concept. This is something that was overlooked by the crafters, primarily I believe because they were not thinking of large, complex facilities when the concept paper was developed. The concerns in this area center around: The TNRCC would most certainly want to review the potential health effects for a large, multi-source grandfathered facility in a collective manner -- not one source at a time. Because of the extremely conservative nature of the technical health effects review process, these facilities would not pass muster on paper. This concern was answered by the leaders of this group by saying that TNRCC management had agreed to implement a different, less rigorous health effects review procedure for grandfathered facilities than they use for new facilities. Chemicals industry input was that if TNRCC management said that, they will have to eat their words before this process reaches its end point. Such a position is indefensible to the public, and would most certainly be vigorously opposed by the Toxicology & Risk Assessment group at the TNRCC. Copyright 1999-2000 The Florence Fund
