August/September 2004
Working Group on Community Right to Know
Table of Contents:
1. Proposal Jeopardizes 30 Years of Right-to-Know
2. Paving Without Public Input
3. Secrecy Won't Protect Us
1. Proposal Jeopardizes 30 Years of Right-to-Know
The Bush administration has proposed to exempt from public review certain
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) projects that could damage the
environment. This proposal could allow the DHS to engineer public-works
projects without informing the public about the environmental impacts or
giving the public an opportunity to review and comment on the projects.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) - one of our
cornerstone environmental laws - requires government agencies, like DHS, to
conduct a public environmental assessment for projects that could damage the
environment, such as clear cutting forests or draining wetlands. NEPA
requires government agencies to notify the public, identify alternatives,
and acknowledge and respond to public comments. However, the administration
is proposing to allow DHS to proceed with environmentally destructive
projects without these important procedural safeguards.
The new proposal states that DHS will withhold from the public part or all
of an environmental assessment if material in the assessment is deemed
'protected.' 'Protected material' is a new term the Bush administration can
assign to non-classified information, hiding it from the public. It is
already standard to protect information that is classified, or that affects
trade secrets, privacy, or law enforcement.
The rule also lists a host of 'categorical exclusions' that would enable DHS
agencies to conduct environmentally risky activities - such as hazardous
materials storage, waste management, logging, or pesticide spraying -
without ever conducting an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement. The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on August
16, 2004.
2. Paving Without Public Input
On May 10, 2004, a federal judge ruled that the Department of Transportation
(DOT) failed to adequately consider environmental impacts in approving the
Chittenden County Circumferential Highway project near Burlington, Vermont.
This is just one of many transportation projects that DOT has approved
without involving the public and considering alternatives, as required under
the National Environmental Policy Act.
Why, because in September 2002 President Bush signed Executive Order 13274,
exempting transportation projects from certain requirements under NEPA.
While the stated purpose of the Executive Order was to encourage a
cooperative approach among federal and state officials and the public to
expedite transportation projects and promote environmental stewardship, the
Executive Order has been used to advance controversial transportation
projects.
"Time after time, the administration has cut the public out of the process
and turned the steamrollers loose," says Deron Lovaas, with the Natural
Resources Defense Council. According to a report coauthored by Lovaas, 12
out of 13 projects surveyed harmed the environment, or provided for scant
public participation.
3. Secrecy Won't Protect Us
Community right-to-know laws give people a greater voice in environmental
decisions by providing communities with information about dangerous chemical
storage, contaminated drinking water, or other potential hazards.
Shortly after 9-11, Washington, DC's Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant
switched from volatile chlorine gas, which could have exposed DC residents
to a toxic cloud, to safer chlorine bleach, which has little potential to
send toxic gases across the fence line and into the community. Knowledge of
both chemical hazards and viable solutions was essential in reducing an
unnecessary danger and ultimately making the community safer.
However, new rules under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 allow industries
to secretly inform the government about their vulnerabilities without any
requirements to fix them.
Please [check the website <http://www.crtk.org>] to read an Op Ed called
"Secrecy Won't Protect Us" by the Working Group on Community Right-to-Know,
that takes a closer look at these new rules, and makes the case that our
government should improve communities' right-to-know, not undermine it.
© 2004 Working Group on Community Right to Know. All rights reserved.
218 D Street S.E., Washington DC 20003, (202) 544-2714
Please feel free to copy and disseminate this newsletter with proper credit
http://www.crtk.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Make your voice heard! Find out how to get Take Action Alerts
and other important Sierra Club messages by email at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/email
|
