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