Hi all - Here is the follow-up analysis from a member of the APHA, as
promised.
Kelly
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dr. Deborah N. Wallace <privateemail68535(a)connect.apha.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:07 AM
Subject: [ENV Section] Proposed Rule for Environmental Impact Consideration
under NEPA
To: Environment Section APHA <env_section(a)connect.apha.org>
Dear section members:
We all received Kathleen Rest's summary of the proposed rule's erosion of
environmental protection.
I scanned the proposed rule on changes to the Council on Environmental
Quality's guidance to federal agencies on environmental assessment of
federal projects and will highlight some parts relevant to environmental
health to help with your commenting. Much of this proposed rule is purely
bureaucratic such as shifting a paragraph from one section to another
without change but hidden in a mass of these innocuous rewrites are changes
that would subvert the entire intent of NEPA and erase much of the history
of the regulations' evolution.
Bases for this proposed rule are Executive Orders 13807 and 13891. These
are not long documents and I recommend we all scan them. The President
wants the whole process of environmental impact assessment both streamlined
and weakened in order to usher in an era of big construction projects,
especially carbon-dependent energy projects. The sections referred to below
are those of the proposed new CEQ guidance document on environmental
assessment by federal agencies.
*Issue #1. The Definition of "significant environmental effect"*
In section 1508 "Definitions" at the very end of the proposed new Guidance,
"effects should not be considered significant if they are remote in time,
geographically remote, or the product of a lengthy causal chain."
This narrow definition rules out climate change effects, interstate
pollution effects, and lengthy processes such as generation of widespread
antibiotic resistance via microbial cassette exchanges. It could also
disallow consideration of cumulative effects that build over decades.
"Remote" is undefined and could be subject to agency bias.Discharges to the
Mississippi River from its origin in Minnesota down to its delta end up in
the drinking water of many Louisiana towns and cities. Air emissions in the
Midwest end up in the lungs of East Coast dwellers. Minimizing remote
impacts is one reason for a federal environmental system. This new
narrowing takes this responsibility away from agencies.
I*ssue #2. Finding of no significant effect relies on mitigation.*
In section 1501.6, even if a project is found to have significant effect,
it can be labeled as having no significant effect if there is a mitigation
plan and mitigation monitoring. Mitigation may or may not work in any
particular circumstance. If the devices are not reliably maintained and
repaired, the significant effect will be realized.
If an agency decides that a project has no significant effect, no full
impact statement is required. Thus, between issues #1 and #2, the number of
projects requiring full impact assessment and statement is greatly whittled
down to the detriment of public health and the environment.
*Issue #3. Time limits for environmental assessment and environmental
impact statement*
Section 1501.10 limits the time to produce an EA to one year and an EIS to
two years.
In the contexts of climate change, major social trends that affect
underlying public health such as growing income inequality, and growing new
knowledge about such problems as massive plastic pollution, these time
limits do not reflect the work needed to understand the environmental
impacts of a large and complicated project.
Although a senior agency official may allow a set lengthening of the time,
agencies will be under great pressure to keep to the time limits. Indeed,
near its end, the guidance document describes a scoring system that
includes consideration of keeping to the time limits and a system of
punishment of agencies that don't score well.
These time limits come straight from Executive Order 13891.
*Issue #4. Page limits for EIS*
Section 1502.7 limits A normal EIS to 150 pages and a complicated one to
300 pages, not including the appendices. The senior agency official may
allow a longer EIS in the case of an especially complex one. A large
project will need assessment for a number of issues from air and water
quality to generation of traffic, human population change of the local
area, shifts in the ecosystem, and land use suitability.
One way that the CEQ wants to limit pages is to include information and
analyses by reference. This would put a great burden on the reader to look
up myriad references to gauge whether the data and analyses are valid and
appropriate for the project. Another way to limit pages according to CEQ is
to put loads of information and analyses in the appendices. Thus, crucial
information may get buried, much the way the crucial definition of
"significant effect" was buried at the end of the guidance document.
*Issue #5. Definition of "reasonably foreseeable"*
Many EISs have to present scenarios of possible future events and processes
in order to judge whether the proposed project would have future
environmental impacts should present circumstances change. The language in
these instances is "reasonably foreseeable". Section 1508 (definitions)
limits "reasonably foreseeable" to the judgment of " a person of ordinary
prudence".
This definition strikes at the heart of the role of science in
environmental impact assessment. Even we scientists sometimes underestimate
severity and rapidity of processes such as climate change. Yet we have a
much better probability of predicting likely changes in circumstances that
could turn the proposed project into one with unacceptable environmental
impacts than "a person of ordinary prudence".
*Issue #6. General narrowing and weakening of the EIS process.*
The proposed Guidance substitutes important words. In section 1500.1,
"possible" becomes "practicable" in the proposed document. Instead of
"all
possible means and measures to foster general welfare, ...", it becomes
"all practicable means and measures..." Practicable in this document is
heavily weighted by economic considerations, so that the economic
overwhelms the environmental and NEPA is subverted. The economic has become
so overwhelming in this proposed Guidance that the cost of the EIS is
required to be put on the cover page!
Sections 1501.1 and 1501.3 ("Threshold applicability analysis" and
"Appropriate level of NEPA Review") invite classifying projects as not
needing an EIS.In the first, an agency is left to decide whether an action
is major or not or is non-discretionary and therefor not up for
environmental consideration. In the second, actions can be excluded if
normally they have no significant effects; if significant effects are
unlikely or unknown, then only an environmental assessment is issued and
not a full EIS. Without appropriate criteria for any of these decisions,
these sections give large leeway for abuse of process and subversion of
NEPA.
Throughout the document, agencies are pressed to use existing data and
analyses and existing EIS's from similar projects. This efficiency may or
may not be scientifically appropriate. There are no criteria for such
adoption. There is no recognition that the state of the art develops so
that an EIS of a decade ago is obsolete in its methodology and cannot
provide the best assessment. The agencies are ordered not to generate new
data and analyses. The Guidance document does not state whether agencies
may ask sponsors of private projects to generate site-specific data and
analyses. The sense of the document is not to have any new specific data
and analyses.
I*ssue #7. The last one in this list and possibly the most important: the
Guidance document states that the only responsibility of an agency is to
produce the EIS and inform the public about it.*
The summary at the front of the Fed. Register posting on page 1693 and the
rewriting of section 1500.1 assert that federal agencies need only consider
environmental impacts and not come to any particular conclusion. It removes
the reference to "action-forcing" provisions. In other words, the agency
could produce an EIS without a conclusion. Section 1505.3 discusses
implementing the decision and says nothing about saying no to a damaging
project. If a project is found environmentally "unsatisfactory" by one
agency in a multi-agency effort, the agencies involved must refer it to the
CEQ to resolve the issue and get a consensus (section 1504). There is
nothing in the Guidance about stopping a damaging project or imposing a
non-damaging alternative.
I apologize for such a long message, but the topic is serious for
environmental health professionals and the proposed Guidance document
threatens public health and our science. I omitted many items of interest
and focused only on the Big Ones. Please consider submitting comments. The
deadline is March 10, 2020. The comment portal is
https://www.regulations.gov which will give you directions. You need the
agency name (Council on Environmental Quality) and the docket number
(CEQ-2019-003).
Thanks for your indulgence,
Deborah Wallace
Furthermore, on page 1694, we learn that NEPA violation in and of itself is
not the basis for injunctive relief or a finding of irreparable harm. "A
showing of irreparable harm in a NEPA case does not entitle a litigant to
an injunction or stay."
~~~----~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Manage your Group settings:
* To reply to sender (Dr. Deborah N. Wallace):
privateemail68535(a)connect.apha.org
* To view sender's profile, click this link:
Dr. Deborah N. Wallace
<http://connect.apha.org/profile.htm?mode=vp&pid=68535>
* To post to entire group, send email to:
ENV_Section(a)connect.apha.org
* To email the group moderator(s) (Megan, Fran, Jyotsna, Jennifer,
Nirupama):
ENV_Section-moderator(a)connect.apha.org
* To UNSUBSCRIBE or change delivery settings, click this link:
edit delivery settings
<http://connect.apha.org/p.htm?m=qs&em=kelly@thinkstreetsmart.org&sk=BE1J3g>
* To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send email to:
ENV_Section-unsubscribe(a)connect.apha.org
* To remove yourself from this group, send email to:
ENV_Section-remove(a)connect.apha.org
* To visit this group on the web, click this link:
view group <http://connect.apha.org/group.htm?igid=159703>
Powered by GoLightly,
http://www.golightly.com/
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~~~-~--~
--
Kelly Rodgers
Executive Director, Streetsmart <http://welcome.thinkstreetsmart.org/>
kelly(a)thinkstreetsmart.org
503.442.7165
Portland, OR
*Please note I am working in Pacific Standard Time.*