ustxtxb_obs_1996_01_26_50_00006-00000_000.pdf

own terms, as “one-sided, inaccurate and misleading,” not to mention dishonest and hypocritical. It purports to be based upon “sound science” \(a favorite CCC catch materials also cannot be bothered to quote correctly the resolution it opposes, again citing the resolution as explicitly asking to ‘phase out and eliminate the use of chlorines in industrial processes,'” something it does not say. That direct mis-quotation is from Professor Charles D. Holland of Texas A&M and “The Texas Institute for Advancement of Chemical Technology Inc.” Holland at least acknowledges the danger of dioxin; Peggy Venable’s CSE \(in a paper she described as rushed to weighs in with the following boldface announcement: “In fact, according to many recognized experts in the field, there exists no credible scientific evidence to implicate dioxin as a significant health hazard.” Even the Chemical Council itself couldn’t swallow that whopper \(contradicted resolution the Council finally supported acknowledges that it’s at least a good idea to reduce human exposure to dioxin. When asked about these inconsistencies, and particularly about the misleading nature of the Council cover letter, the industry representatives were evasive at best. They denied the contradictions and insisted they were acting only as concerned PTA members. Mark Shilling reiterated that the original dioxin resolution called for a “ban” on chlorine, then read to me its actual language: “Resolved: that Texas PTA supports the use of alternative processes, technologies, and products that avoid exposure to Dioxin, especially those that are chlorine-free.” After first insisting that this language “pushes the agenda” of Greenpeace and the Citizens Clearing House on Hazardous Waste, Shilling finally admitted that, on the contrary, it “does not say specifically that the PTA wants to ban chlorine.” Then he changed his tack, arguing that “it’s fair to characterize it as an objective, to ban chlorine.” The distinction is not just semantic. The CCC and its allies are quick to characterize any attempt to point out the connection between dioxin, organochlorines and chlorine production as part of a sinister campaign to “ban chlorine” immediately, so that they can conjure up the catastrophic effects and costs of an abrupt elimination of chlorine as if it were to happen overnight, without transition or alternatives. In fact, despite Shilling’s feeble attempt at green-baiting, the environmental groupsincluding Greenpeace and CCHW among many othersthat have addressed the matter have called for a staged phase-out of chlorine as an industrial feedstock, beginning with its most pervasive uses \(e.g., polyvinyl chlosafe alternatives. Greenpeace’ s “chlorinefree” proposal even explicitly exempts pharmaceutical uses of organochlorines until such time as safe alternatives can be developed. Moreover, this is not even a particularly radical proposal. In 1992, the MICHAEL ALEXANDER International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes \(which hold twenty percent of the world’s freshwater supply, plagued by noting that a “chemical by chemical” approach is impractical and unrealistic, also proposed attacking the problem at its root, by the gradual phasing out of chlorine. THE CHEMICAL ASSAULT on the PTA did not end, of course, with blind letters and chlorinated hysteria. Industry representatives, according to Shilling, requested the TNRCC to intervene on their behalf, and Chairman Barry McBee obligingly provided a letter to TPTA board members which, without mentioning the industry request and in the guise of “additional clarification,” doggedly adopted the industry positions, particularly its creative interpretation of the dioxin resolution as calling for the “banning of chlorine,” which it then characterized as “irresponsible and unscientific.” Without mentioning TXI, McBee also defended the burning of hazardous waste in cement kilns, citing its own recent and scientifically controversial findings that the practice does not pose a health risk to Midlothian area residents. Meanwhile, environmental chair Kim Phillips was hearing directly from industry representatives, including the CCC in Washington, demanding to know if she wanted to “remove chlorine from the peri odic table.” An unidentified caller from Alabama, describing herself as a “school teacher,” interrogated her about her organizing strategy, and Texas legislative aides were contacted by industry reps and asked, Phillips said, “to do something about the PTA.” A delegation of industry representatives met briefly with the state senator for Phillips’ Twenty-Second District, Republican David Sibley, asking him to set up a meeting between Phillips and industry lobbyists. Sibley says he recalled Phillips from her work with a group called the Citi zens to Save Lake Waco”they seemed to me like reasonable, de cent folks; I didn’t consider them communists or anything”so he put the group in touch with CSLW’s lawyer, who contacted Phillips on their behalf. The eventual result was three days of extraordinary meetings, prior to the convention, between Kim Phillips, on the one hand, and five professional chemical industry representatives, on the other. The industry was represented by Bernie Allen Mark Shilling, Barbara Pederson, Julie Moore \(lobbyist for Occidental As Phillips describes it, the meetings were initially very tense, but became more cordial as she and the others eventually found at least some common ground, primarily a general concern for children and an agreement that exposure to dioxin should be minimized. Industry balked at any mention of chlorine or even the suggestion of alternatives to chlorine \(“It makes chlorine look bad,” they comsubject to major revisions, and Phillips’ subsequent misgivings seem amply justified by the final product. Shilling admits frankly that his group wrote the revised resolution, “with the help of the Chlorine Chemistry Council,” and brought ‘it back to Phillips as the substitute p 6 JANUARY 26, 1996