What is important? What should we focus on first? How should we prioritize our objectives? In the wake of Sept. 11, many Americans are revisiting these questions, and justifiably so. Such unspeakable tragedy jolts us out of the contentedness of the status quo and forces us to take stock of what is essential.In the world of chemical weapons demilitarization, some argue that the heightened awareness of the threat of terrorism dictates that the incineration program continue unhindered by debate. The logic is that the sooner the weapons are destroyed, the sooner the community is safe from the risks of continued storage, including the threat of terrorism. But a closer look at the incineration program by the Department of Defense’s top-to-bottom review concludes that there is only a 50 percent chance of Anniston’s stockpile being incinerated by 2011, even if processing begins on schedule, next year.
Others, including the Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG), argue that the essential goal of eliminating the storage risk to the community can be achieved years sooner by focusing on agent neutralization first. They argue that the start date of processing is not as important as the end date, and that the most important date could actually be somewhere in the middle when the chemical agent is no longer a threat. With chemical agent separated and neutralized, even the National Research Council agrees that the storage risk to the community is gone.
The measure offered recently by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and the proposal put forward by the CWWG represent a constructive reassessment of what is really important and deserve a more thoughtful appraisal than the summary dismissal proffered by The Star. Thankfully there are not only thoughtful citizens but members of Congress who are not afraid to question the status quo and will ensure that such proposals receive fair consideration.
David C. Christian
Anniston
Environment
Don Siegelman, once Alabama’s “environmental” attorney general, and sometimes Alabama’s “environmental” lieutenant governor, has done precious little as governor to address what ails Alabama’s environment. And what ails Alabama’s environment the most is the dysfunctional and off-mission Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). While the governor does not exercise direct control over the activities of ADEM, he does have authority to make appointments to the Alabama Environmental Management Commission which oversees ADEM. The Commission selects the director of ADEM, adopts rules for ADEM, hears appeals of ADEM actions and advises ADEM on policy. Since taking office in January 1999, Gov. Siegelman has had the opportunity to appoint no less than six new members to the seven member Environmental Management Commission which oversees ADEM. He has only appointed one new member.
During the waning days of Gov. Fob James’ term, James appointed two members to the Commission. Had Siegelman asked the Senate to reject those appointments, the governor would have had the opportunity to appoint his own candidates.
During Gov. Siegelman’s term, three more opportunities to appoint new Commission members arose. Ten months later, Gov. Siegelman re-appointed one and appointed Pat Byington to replace the other. The governor has yet to act on the remaining position.
On Dec. 5, Richard Thigpen resigned from the Commission, thus giving Siegelman his sixth opportunity to appoint a new member to the Commission.
Gov. Siegelman’s failure to appoint reform-minded individuals to the Commission has allowed the dysfunction at ADEM to continue. Will he appoint reform-minded individuals to the two remaining vacancies on the Commission or will he opt to maintain the status quo to please business interests? If history is any guide, he is likely to do the latter. Alabama needs for him to do the former.
David a. Ludder
General Counsel
Legal Evironmental Assitance Foundation, Inc.
Tallahassee, Fla.
