If this is true, it is truly horrendous!

(Yeah, yeah, I know,..."sightings.com" is not the most credible site, but they DO sometimes have "real" stuff, sourced and verifiable....)

I would like to find this "Public Law y2k Readiness and Disclosure act 105-271." Anyone give a clue where to look for this?

I tried to post a link, but didn't work, so copy and paste:

www.sightings.com/politics5/stateemerg.htm

-- Birdlady (Birdlady@nest.net), December 04, 1999

Answers

Here's a clip on Birdlady's link, no comment needed, heh:

Corporate America Under Siege: The Undeclared State of Emergency By Stuart H. Rodman 12-2-99 Suppose you found corporate documents which say that your company has a chemical plant that could send a poisonous, billowing cloud of lethal byproducts hovering over your neighborhood killing thousands of people instantly and leaving the survivors blinded, with scarred lungs, cancers, and otherwise maimed for life. And, what if you also discovered that the government already knows about this but that it is now a federal crime to tell anyone else what you discovered! Even if you survive the pending calamity, your life will be ruined by your own government, just for trying to save others. Sound like fiction? It's not. It is as real as a heart attack. Recent legislation enacted by Congress creates just such a possibility. Consider the following: Under provisions of the recently enacted Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, Public Law 106-40, you could be fined up to a million dollars a year for speaking ill about a corporate chemical plant! In a posting from "Roleigh's Lodge", Roleigh Martin's prominent Y2k related internet site, observer Scott Secor offers this caution to "covered persons" and researchers, Whether you are or not, you better keep your mouth shut about chemical plants. You can be fined $5000 per facility per mouth off, up to a total of $1 million/year. Speech restrictions will be in effect until Aug. 5, 2000, at which time a decision will be made on the restoration of democracy."

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 04, 1999.

Thanks Hokie!

-- Birdlady (Birdlady@nest.net), December 04, 1999.

Come August it will be decided that Democracy is to messy and the Dictatorship will stand, for the good of the children of course.

-- Squid (Itsdark@down.here), December 04, 1999.

Chip..chip..chipin'away at... 'by the people' 'of the people''for the people'It has become 'by the government' 'of the government 'for the government' Starting to remind me of the old USSR. If we had this kind of government in the old days we would still be living east of the Mississippi. OSHA would require seat belts on wagon seats. The EPA wouldn't allow trains to burn coal. The FDA would frown on using herbal medicines. The SPCA would try to put a stop to using animals to drag wagons clear across the nation.The Department of Education wouldn't allow kids to be out of school during their trek to the west. DHS would remove children from parents who traveled in a conestoga and had no plumbing facilities. I'm sure there are many other examples. The sturdy,hard working people built this country...not government.

-- citizen (lost@sea.com), December 04, 1999.

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

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

See also...

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

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

Blab, blab, blab, blab, blab...

Hey, go ahead and make your laws dumb gubmint, we don't need to say the NAMES of any particular companies, because it has already been highly publicized that somewhere around...

80% OF THEM ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING COMPLIANT.

Oh, they are so brilliant that they think they can avoid any accidental release of...

POISONOUS AND DEADLY TOXIC FUMES AND GASES

by simply turning everything off for a few hours.

The problem is trying to guess how the embedded systems are going to react when they turn them back on, and the even more unpredictable factor of no longer being able to know precisely WHEN something could go wrong.

People, you don't need to go spreading around names of any companies, but if you live near one, you have every right to DEMAND proof that they have guaranteed there will be no risk to your health and safety.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 04, 1999.

It's not true. The article by Stuart Rodman contains several serious errors about the law pertaining to chemical companies.

The only people who are restricted from publishing information about the "Off-site Consequences Analysis" are government employees and contractors who received the information as part of their official duties, and researchers who received the information from the EPA.

Anyone else, including journalists, members of the public, and chemical company employees, are free to share any information they have.

Check out this site to find information about chemical facilities in your area

http://www.rtk.net/rmplist.html

Here is the EPA's explanation of the law

http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/pubs/newlawqa.html

Also, check out the threads that John Whitley posted links to above. He has been posting misinformation about this law and it's effects for awhile; I've been trying to provide some facts and useful information to counter his FUD. Those threads contain all the gory details.

Just so everyone is clear on where I'm coming from: I work for a large chemical company in Milwaukee, WI in a very responsible position, and am heavily involved in Y2K remediation. Despite this, I'm not just mouthing a corporate policy. If I was aware that my employer was covering up a serious safety hazard, whether related to Y2K or not, I would take any steps necessary, including going to the press, to make sure the hazard was taken care of.

I think people should be very concerned about chemical facilities in their neighborhoods. There is a very good chance that there will be some serious accidents in some of these facilities caused by Y2K problems; some people will probably die, many will get hurt, and many more will have to evacuate or shelter in place, at the same time that other Y2K problems might be affecting utilities, communications, and transportation. It could get real ugly, real fast.

People should educate themselves about the risks in their areas and make contingency plans accordingly. That's why I've posted information detailing how and where to get this information. People like Stuart Rodman and John Whitley are doing everyone a great disservice by spreading frightening and misleading statements telling people that the information they need to protect themselves and their families is being kept from them, when in fact it is not.

Of course, I'm sure that both Stuart and John would be happy to sell you one of their books...

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

So...Let's see Jerry: that's Stuart Rodman, another named and knowledgeable source that he quotes, and me who have all read this law ans independently concluded that it says what we assert it to say.

On the opposite side there's you, all on your own, busy accusing us of "disinformation" while you admittedly draw your paycheck from the industry in question.

And you question our integrity!

At least you've given up on the venomous personal attacks...

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

Oops..I was wrong!

"Of course, I'm sure that both Stuart and John would be happy to sell you one of their books..."

You really are an unpleasantly sarcastic individual, aren't you? Unable to deal with the issues, you seem to instinctively resort to vituperation and innuendo.

Which book of mine are you implying that I'm trying to push with this? I haven't written any books!

It may surprise you to know that people still pursue truth without regard to financial gain. It won't surprise you to know that others concentrate on obscuring it because of their own vested interests.

Which camp are you in, Jerry?

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

Bold off.

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

Okay, folks. We've seen Lyin' Jerry, the Spinmeister for the Chemical Industry, in action repeatedly here. Now judge for yourselves - read the detailed guidelines, prohibitions and permissions set out in this link:

http://www.epa.gov/ ceppo/pubs/newlawqa.html

For those of you which wish to do so, go back through Lyin' Jerry's responses on this and the previous threads listed above and note how he always covers himself by first declaring that he can release this information to anyone who asks for it [not, as you read through the guidelones on this link, true in every case at all].

Then recollect that this thread has always and only been about 'whistleblowers' - those who release vital information because nobody outside their organization is aware of it, or the import of it and therefore their organization has not been asked for it or released it.

Note also the 'requirement' dates, which fall beyond the year 2000.

And note also this deviousness:

[Lyin'Jerry]"Of course, I'm sure that both Stuart and John would be happy to sell you one of their books..."

[my response]Which book of mine are you implying that I'm trying to push with this? I haven't written any books!

[Lyin' Jerry]"And are you now trying to claim that you don't sell books?.."

Behold the art of the spinmeister!

Lyin' Jerry, just to leave you no out, I have not written, nor do I sell, any books even remotely connected with this topic. I do not stand to gain financially in any way from this.

You, on the other hand, "work for a large chemical company in Milwaukee, WI in a very responsible position, and am heavily involved in Y2K remediation", and no doubt draw a nice fat paycheck from your chemical industry employer.

You were talking about 'financial interest', Jerry? Who's selling what? I'm not selling any books on this, but you, as a chemical industry salaryman, on the other hand, are peddling snakeoil as fast as you can!

Folks, walk right on by Lyin' Jerry's booth: follow the link I provide, read the guidelines to this law for yourself, and decide whether Stuart Roadham, his quoted experts, and myself are correct in our interpretation of it or whether Lyin' Jerry is.

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

[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.

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?

Inquiring minds want to know...

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

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.

So what. All that this section says is that "covered persons" can only disclose the OCA to other "covered persons". I've never disputed that. What I have stated, and what you have never refuted, is that the definition of "covered persons" is very narrowly defined, and does not apply to myself or any other chemical company employee, or to any private individual or organization.

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

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

Actually, I don't do much code remediation. I'm responsible for ensuring the Y2K compliance of about 700 computer systems with a mix of packaged software applications and custom programs.

If everyone was as thorough and diligent about their responsiblities as I try to be, we wouldn't have half the problems that we will have.

That's why I sent out an email to all the directors, officers, and managers last week stating that we would not be finished with our Y2K remediation by the end of the year.

I also stated that we couldn't guarantee compliance of the systems we have already remediated, because the software vendors are constantly changing their minds about what's compliant and what's not. Wouldn't you know it, by the end of the week, four mission-critical applications went from being "Y2K compliant" to "needs update which is not yet available".

Meanwhile, the corporate "Y2K" office wants me to sign off on a progress report stating we are 100% compliant. This is so they can avoid getting sued for publically stating that we were 100% compliant a month ago. As far as I'm concerned, they can just go to hell.

And, other top management is trying to pressure me into allowing a packaged application that is known not to be Y2K compliant to be reinstalled, because an expensive and mission critical custom inventory tracking program (that is supposedly Y2K compliant, although I have ample evidence otherwise) needs this particular packaged program to work. They can go to hell too.

Oh, and every once in a while I get called in to help evaluate compliance of an embedded system or process controller. Most of these are older PC's. I got a look at one on Thursday: nothing about (hardware, operating system, applications) would have a prayer of working right after 12/31/1999. This was only the operator interface to the building control system (HVAC) for a chemical manufacturing plant containing tens of thousands of gallons of extremely toxic and deadly stuff. I told them to set the date back, and we'd get around to replacing the system sometime next year. Of course, they didn't like that.

I'm sure we are in better shape than most chemical companies. Not something I like to think about a lot. And yes, we are all in very deep trouble, as you so flippantly pointed out above.

That's why it's important that as many people as possible find out the truth about hazards in their community, and why it's so dangerous for you to be claiming that the information people need to make intelligent decisions is being kept secret. In fact, a visit to a web site, or a phone call to their regional hazmat response team, will get them all the information they need.

No one is going to die or be hurt because of anything I've said or done. Someone might read your crap, and decide not to make the effort to find out the information that could save their lives in 26 days.

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

Perhaps if we signed our post with our IQ's then we could avoid these sophmoric pissing matches?

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 05, 1999.

The Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, PL106-40 imposes restrictions on the free speech of researchers and others, and on the distribution or dissemination of information related to hazardous chemical materials potentially affecting most if not all Americans. Other point of interest,

 Although corporate or other entities are free to disclose any or all information that is detrimental to their own public standing among concerned citizens within or near their respective communities, they are not required to do so.

 The law does not require that the same relevant entities share with the public the OCA documents or hold them open to public inspection.

At the same time, if a covered researcher discovers that a subject corporation or other entity has an OCA projecting potential catastrophic consequences for a given community, and that researcher chooses to disclose the details of that document in order to save others, that researcher will commit a criminal act under federal law,as provided in PL 106-40.

The EPA notes, on their website:

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.

With respect to these same researchers the Act provides:

(vii) Qualified researchers.

(I) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Administrator, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall develop and implement a system for providing off-site consequence analysis information, including facility identification, to any qualified researcher, including a qualified researcher from industry or any public interest group. (II) Limitation on dissemination.The system shall not allow the researcher to disseminate, or make available on the Internet, the off- site consequence analysis information, or any portion of the off- site consequence analysis information, received under this clause.

And what of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Again citing the EPA-

A covered researcher may not disseminate any portion of the OCA materials received from EPA under the qualified researcher provision of the Act or any statewide or national ranking of identified facilities derived from those materials.

Covered persons are forbidden from publicly disclosing Sections 2 through 5 of an RMP because those sections could be compiled fairly easily into a large OCA database that could be posted on the Internet. Consequently, a covered person may not show or distribute duplicate copies of those RMP sections. 

Potentially affected private citizens still have the privilege, if they dot all their Is and cross all their Ts of obtaining edited representations of the OCA contents. Without direct access to the actual documents, however, they may have a very difficult task of holding corporate feet to any fires.

Some apologists have pointed out that the law does not prevent a corporation or other relevant entity from voluntarily informing the public about the worst case scenario or other risks and dangers involved in allowing the plant to operate within the host community. We might want to ask the remaining survivors from Bhopal, however, if that was done for them.

It has been said that "no man (or woman) is free unless all men (or women) are free". And I remember high school civics, democracy depends on a well informed citizenry. Tell me why it should now be otherwise.

P.S. here is a URL for "Public Law y2k Readiness and Disclosure act 105-271." http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ271.105

Talk to a lawyer about this tonight at 10PM Pacific Time (its still legal). www.jimbell.com! Terry Francke,Chief Counsel for the California First Amendment Coalition (www.cfac.org), myself and Jim Warren, nationally known Civil Liberties Advocate, will discuss these issues live with a call in audience. Real Audio or its equivalent is needed. Thanks!

-- Stuart H. Rodman (jrodman527@aol.com), December 05, 1999.