And here's the information and mindset that will virtually guarantee the possibility of that...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001vLr

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 04, 1999

Answers

I have watched a dock full of Det cord blow up, the refinery complex in Bayway, N.J. go up in response to either an air dropped bomb or rocket (company denies the cause), and also saw a Propane tank farm provide fireworks.

Trust me...these things have a way of not being able to be KEPT QUIET! LOL!!

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), December 04, 1999.

But here we're talking before the event, not after...:)

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 04, 1999.

I think it is very likely that we will see one or more Bhopal-type disasters in the US, as a direct consequence to Y2K problems. We will, without a doubt, see dozens or hundreds of smaller scale disasters. That's why I think it is very important that everyone who is seriously preparing for Y2K include getting information about potential hazards in their area, and in any areas they might be thinking about relocating to.

The best source for this information is http://www.epa.gov/enviro/

Whatever you do, don't believe the statements of a few fearmongers that the information you need to protect yourself and your family is somehow being kept secret. It's all publically available.

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), December 05, 1999.

"don't believe the statements of a few fearmongers that the information you need to protect yourself and your family is somehow being kept secret. It's all publically available."

[That's me Jerry is referring to, folks, and this is the response that got him so upset. Read it and see if it agrees with his quoted assertion above. If you're interested, click on the link at the top of this thread for the full facts, and to watch Jerry wriggle, dance, and spin on behalf of the chemical industry :)!]

My, Jerry - you aren't even successful as a liar.

Read this critical part of the EPA regulations on this law again slowly [it's okay if your lips move while you're doing so]:

"2. How are these materials restricted? A. DISCLOSURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE OCA MATERIALS IS LIMITED AT LEAST UNTIL AUG. 5, 2000. The federal government must conduct an assessment and issue regulations by that date to govern the distribution of the OCA materials. PRIOR TO AUG. 5, 2000, OCA materials are to be distributed ONLY to "covered persons" (as defined in the law) with certain geographic restrictions. Covered persons may not disclose to the public the OCA materials in any form (electronic or paper), except as authorized by the law and regulations issued under the law."

Hardly "selective quoting."

Do you remediate code for your unfortunate employer as badly as you parse the law? If so, we're all in very deep trouble...

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 04, 1999.

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 05, 1999.

I agree, anyone who wants to read a boring argument and a lot of senseless name calling and flase accusations can go to the link you gave.

Anyone who wants to find out the truth about actual and potential chemical hazards in their community can go to the web site I posted above.

Readers choice.

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), December 05, 1999.

You're quite right, Jerry. The last thing you'd want is to have people read these threads and discover your main 'refutations' were in fact innuendo and 'name calling.' Skilful attempt, though, on your part to deflect them :)!

So, adopting your new 'time-saving' technique, here were the other key parts of that thread that you were anxious to obcure - there, and once again, in this one.

These are from the official EPA guidelines to the regulations implementing this law...]

[Extract follows...]

III. Restrictions For OCA Data

1. Exactly what materials are subject to the restriction?

A. The following materials are subject to restriction under the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (PL 106-40):

• Sections 2 through 5 (concerning the off-site consequences of "worst case" and "alternative releases" of toxic and flammable substances) of the RMPs that facilities have submitted to EPA under 40 CFR part 68;
• The portions of EPA's electronic database created from those sections; and
• Any statewide or national ranking of identified facilities derived from those sections.

2. How are these materials restricted? A. Disclosure and distribution of the OCA materials is limited at least until Aug. 5, 2000. The federal government must conduct an assessment and issue regulations by that date to govern the distribution of the OCA materials. Prior to Aug. 5, 2000, OCA materials are to be distributed ONLY to "covered persons" (as defined in the law) with certain geographic restrictions. Covered persons may not disclose to the public the OCA materials in any form (electronic or paper), except as authorized by the law and regulations issued under the law.

[Remember as you read these extracts from the 'Guidelines' - all emphasis is mine, by the way - that Lyin' Jerry has consistently maintained that he, and other Chemical industry employees, can give OCA's out to anyone, right now if they so choose!]

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 04, 1999.

Getting a little desparate, John? You still haven't cited one single fact in defense of your alarmist position. It seems that you have been reduced to nothing more than childish name calling. As I said above: "If you have, in fact, read the law, quote me the part that states that either you or me would be subject to a fine for revealing the contents of an Off-site Consequence Analysis. Time to put up or shut up!

Furthemore, perhaps you could name just one member of the public or chemical company employee who has been fined, or threatened with a fine, as a result of this law. Or, name one member of the public who has been denied any information about the worst-case off-site consequences of a facility in their area because of this law."

You haven't responded to this challenge because you can't.

Still waiting...

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), December 04, 1999.

[Extract...] 9. What are the penalties for violating these restrictions?

A. A covered person who willfully violates a restriction or prohibition of the law, including any issued regulations, is subject to a fine of not more than $5,000; for organizations, the fine is not more than $10,000. If unauthorized disclosure relates to more than one facility, disclosure of each facility's OCA information is a separate offense. The total of all penalties that may be imposed on a single person or organization cannot exceed $1,000,000 for violations committed during any one calendar year.

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 04, 1999.

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 05, 1999.

Since you seem intent on quoting yourself, I'll respond in kind. Here's part of a quote that you conveniently left out.

"A little selective quoting isn't going to help you, John.

How about this quote from the FAQ:

"4. Are private individuals of companies prohibited from distributing OCA materials?

A. Restrictions only apply to "covered persons". A private individual or entity is not prohibited from distributing OCA materials. Because a facility may choose to distribute the OCA sections of its RMP, covered persons may disclose to the public the OCA sections of an RMP that has been released to the public "without restriction" by the facility that submitted the RMP."

Now, does this section support your assertion that anyone with access to OCA information is subject to "million dollar fines" for disclosing that information, or does it support my assertion that any employee could disclose the OCA information to anyone he or she wants to?"

It doesn't get much plainer than that.

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), December 05, 1999.

Idiot! How often do I have to keep repeating this until you get it?

Watch these BIG letters.

"PRIOR TO AUGUST 5th, 2000..." [This is a BIG clue - 'it doesn't get much plainer than that'!] ..."PRIOR TO AUGUST 5th, 2000..." and, once again, "PRIOR TO AUGUST 5th, 2000..." [is this sinking in yet?] "Prior to Aug. 5, 2000, OCA materials are to be distributed ONLY ['OMLY', that says 'ONLY'; and once again, 'ONLY'] to "COVERED PERSONS" [that's right, "COVERED PERSONS"; and, once again, "COVERED PERSONS" [big clue: NOT 'members of the public'] (as defined in the law) with certain geographic restrictions. Covered persons MAY NOT DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC THE OCA MATERIALS IN ANY FORM..."

What you choose to do after August 5th, 2000, is irrelevant, to this regulation and to us on this topic. But if you reveal an OCA to someone who is not a "covered person" before August 5th, 2000, you have breached this regulation, which the EPA declares to have the force of law.

So we now have you on record in a public forum as saying multiple times that you can and are willing to do this. Right now. For anyone who asks you to. If you so choose. And that the law backs you up.

Not only that, you're also asserting and assuring that other employees in the chemical industry are free to do this, too.

I hope your interpretation's right. It would make me very happy. But I don't want to take your word for it. It's too important for that. So I'm going to copy this correspondence to the EPA and request a finding of law on it. I simply don't have any further time to devote to repetitively going over the same points with you.

If you've been telling us the truth on this, you've got nothing to fear and neither have we.

But if if you've been consistently and wilfully misleading us...

If they say you're right - I'm happy!

But if they say you're wrong...? Better get your resume up to date.

I'll post the response I get.

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 05, 1999.

Before I leave this well-worn topic for more urgent matters, here's a .pdf link to an EPA document which expressly exempts OCA material from Freedom of Information applications, limits OCA disclosure to strictly limited parties. and reinforces the 5th August, 2000, restriction for public release. I've posted this for serious researchers on this vital topic.

http://www. epa.gov/swercepp/factsheets/fuelfcsh.pdf

As soon as I get a response from the EPA on Jerry's arguments, which appear clearly to fly in the face of everything the EPA is publicly saying, I'll post it.

If he's right, we'll have information galore coming at us from the chemical industry.

If he's wrong...well, I wouldn't like to be Jerry under those circumstances :)!

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 05, 1999.

"I think this might happen, therefore we should worry ourselves to death over it."

My, some people sure have an over-inflated view of their opinions, now don't they.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), December 05, 1999.

Hey Jerry, you done been had. Give up and get preppin, leave the parsin to the Parsin-In-Chief !!

Chicken Little .......... soon to be Chicken BIG!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), December 05, 1999.

Go John. I don't know why you think I'd have to be worried about by anything you might do.

I've read the actual text of the law, not just the EPA FAQ on it. I've read the brochure that was sent out to all covered facilities by the FBI's Domestic Anti-Terroism Unit on this law. I've looked at other documents describing the law and it's effects, from both supporters and detractors of the law. I've yet to see anything from any of these sources that supports your position.

I doubt you'll get anything from the EPA in time to make a difference in regards to Y2K.

And Ray, I've been preparing for Y2K for three years. I'm ready for a 9-10. Are you?

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), December 05, 1999.

Jerry, glad to hear you are PREPARED!

I started cutting code in 1964 on an IBM 7080 mainframe, that should answer your question as to if I am prepared or not.

I DOUBT we'll EVER get anything from the EPA contradicting the Parser-In-Chief or his assigns.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), December 05, 1999.