 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Environmental Justice:For the People, by the PeopleOhioans for Health, Environment,and Justice (OHEJ)
Statewide Environmental Justice ForumDeer Creek State ParkNovember 30-December 1, 2007
The following is our commitment for accountability to all the citizens of Ohio that attended the Environmental Justice forums.
Center for Health, Environment, and Justice Ohioans for Health, Environment, and Justice Buckeye Environmental Network Ohio Environmental Council
The process that led to the development of this report represents a model of collaboration and shared commitment to the spirit of environmental justice. The achieved results came from the commitment to an open and accessible process and to achieving meaningful citizen involvement. We would like to extend our sincerest appreciation to the hundreds of citizens throughout Ohio who inspired us with real-life experiences and lessons learned, and most of all, for your invaluable contribution to the content of this report.
Following is a list of groups that have actively participated in the planning and implementation of these forums: REACH (NE Ohio) We would also like to extend specific thanks to the many elected officials that attended or sent staff to our forums:
Fred Hanley Hubbard Twp. Trustee
INTRODUCTION
This report reflects the collective judgment of hundreds of citizens about the steps needed to make environmental justice a reality for all Ohioans.
This report outlines many things that can and should be done to achieve the goal of environmental justice. Citizens fully endorse the use of good science, and robust and meaningful participation by the public in environmental decision making; at the same time, we do not want our recommendations for developing data and tools to result in delays in implementing those steps that can clearly be taken right away.
The Environmental Justice movement is deeply rooted in civil rights, and the struggles of people who have historically been marginalized. In their fight to be treated fairly and accorded equal protection under all of our nation’s laws, they have demanded equal protection of their health and environment. In particular, the Environmental Justice movement has been championed by people of color, Native American tribes, farm workers, and low-income communities. The movement has been characterized by passionate debate, and many different views; although this report does not completely set out the scope of these views, we must acknowledge their importance in shaping public policy. As background, a general history of the movement is provided. What this report does show, however, is that environmental justice is of great importance to the people of Ohio and must become a fundamental goal for the state’s environmental programs.
Environmental justice first gained national prominence through a protest against the proposed siting of a landfill for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in a predominately African-American county in North Carolina. The phrase "environmental racism" was used to refer to policies and activities that, either intentionally or unintentionally, resulted in the disproportionate exposure of people of color to environmental hazards. A 1983 study published by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that in the southeastern United States, three of four commercial hazardous waste landfills were in communities with more African-Americans than whites. The United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice expanded the 1983 GAO study to the national level and found similar results. A total of 45 studies conducted by various investigators between 1967 and 1993 examined the role of race and income level in exposure to environmental hazards, and found disparate impacts in the great majority of cases studied (87 percent and 74 percent, respectively).
In October 1991, advocates attending the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit drafted a statement called “Principles of Environmental Justice.” These principles articulated broad goals for communities and environmental justice. They asserted that all people have a fundamental right to clean air, water, land, and food. They called for policy based on mutual respect, free from discrimination or bias. They affirmed communities’ right to self-determination, and to participate as partners in every level of decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement, and evaluation. Finally, the principles expanded the concept of “environment” beyond ecological and natural systems, to include places where people live, work, play, and go to school.
In 1994, a newly inaugurated President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898: “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The executive order requires that all federal agencies incorporate environmental justice into their missions. Specifically, federal agencies are required to address situations where their programs, policies, or activities result in adverse health or environmental impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse in low income communities or communities of color.
The order is binding on all federal agencies. The Order directed agencies to conduct their programs, policies and activities in a manner that does not subject persons to discrimination. Some of the specific steps agencies were directed to take include working to ensure that public documents, notices and hearings relating to human health or the environment are concise, understandable and readily accessible to the public. In a corresponding 1994 memorandum, the White House directed federal agencies to analyze the effects of specified federal actions on low income communities and communities of color. The memorandum also directed federal agencies to ensure that environmental programs or activities receiving federal assistance did not discriminate on the basis of race, color or natural origin in accordance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
OHIO LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
NONE WHAT WE DID
We reviewed existing knowledge about environmental justice, and engaged in an extensive public process. Community members provided a wealth of knowledge about the effectiveness of agency efforts to ensure environmental justice.
We considered public participation in a broader context, which is a crucial part of achieving environmental justice. We identified successful and unsuccessful programs in public participation. We sought specific guidance on how to enhance the availability of information and the effectiveness of efforts to increase public participation in agency decision-making processes.
We completely support the importance of full and meaningful public participation in the environmental decision-making processes. In keeping with this belief, we provided extensive opportunities for the public to engage in discussions about the development of these recommendations, and about environmental justice in general.
We developed a list of questions under three sections: Community Participation, Permitting, and Enforcement. We used these questions to guide public discussion at a series of six public forums held throughout the state. Forums were held in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Athens, Toledo and Warren, during 2007.
We conducted extensive community outreach in advance of each forum, including mail-outs, email announcements, personal communications, and posting on the Ohioans for Health, Environment and Justice web site. A combined total of roughly 500 people participated at the six locations.
At each of the forums, we reviewed recent legislation on environmental justice at the federal and state level. Questions were presented, and citizen input was sought. During the facilitated discussion, citizens were encouraged to articulate concerns and perspectives and respond to each question. Citizens made comments and provided examples that illustrated problems within each of the three sections, and subsequent written comments were encouraged.
Summary of Citizens Ideas
The following is not in any way a complete list of the concerns that have been raised, nor does it capture the strong emotions that accompanied much of the discussions. It is also not organized to reflect any priority or importance. It does, however, provide a general sense of the range of concerns that will be considered in preparing the final Environmental Justice Policy. The detailed written comments are included in “Attachment A.”
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?????
ATTACHMENT “A”
Environmental Justice Forums 2007 Report from Small Group Discussions ________________________________________________________________________
I. Community Participation: This small group work is focused on participants thinking about community participation.
A. How and when should government agencies provide the public with notice of a permit, enforcement action or other like activity?
Timing: 1. Notice should be immediate and timely; state agencies should provide notice when company first contacts agency regarding a permit, or as soon as a company applies for a permit, if not prior to filing for permit
2. Company should be required to give community 6-months (or one year) notice of intent to apply for an application for a permit to site or amend existing permit.
3. An Applicant for ANY kind of activity, except for the construction of single-family residences, must be required to submit a notice of intent document to the City Mayor/Manager (if within he city limits) and/or the County Commissioners and the Township Trustees six (6) months in advance of submitting an official Application.
4. The responsibility to advise the citizens of a city (if within the city limits) and/or the citizens of a county (which will automatically include the specific township) of the receipt of a NOTICE OF INTENT lies solely as a civic duty and responsibility with the City Mayor/Manager (if within the city limits) and/or the County Commissioners via appropriate Website posting, local radio and 3 weekly special newspaper environmental notices (not legal notices) starting within 30 days of the receipt of the notice of intent.
5. Any company w/toxic chemicals, etc. should release all activities (expansions, etc.)
6. Notice on complaints – freedom of information for Free
7. No transfer of license applicant at any step, or re-start of process would be triggered
Content: 1. Notice should be comprehensive and include information about the company, its track record and other facilities owned, and complete information about the process
2. Notice must be in language accessible to the community
3. Any company w/toxic chemicals, etc. should release all activities (expansions, etc.)
4. Potential pollutants/contaminants and the health effects, safety; potential impact on costs to community of the facility
5. Impact to road safety, commercial infrastructure costs
6. Impact on property values
7. Required to release all information
Method 1. Notice should be made by someone knowledgeable about community concerns, and who does not have a conflict of interest
2. Notice must be made in a way that is accessible to the community, e.g., not exclusively in the legal section of the newspaper
3. Notice should be given in writing to media (multiple media outlets, advertisements—need attention-getting lead line; local officials and trustees, and all residents of the community
4. Public service announcements; public forums; community phone tree
5. Certified mail by County govt. sent to a set radius depending on the:
6. Newsprint, radio, TV
7. Email, website/internet notice; government websites
8. Public meeting – public should not have to ask
9. Press release: to all media, all of Ohio, with emphasis on public access
10. Registered mail
11. Notice should be printed in own section of the classified ads in newspapers
12. Public libraries
14. Community registers with OEPA to receive notice by mail
Who is entitled to notice: 1. Notice should go to all individuals who actually live in the community, or within 5 mile radius
2. Build in flexibility as to area of notice depending on the expected impact of the facility
3. Impartial community representatives, automatic release to advocacy groups
4. Businesses operating in the affected area
5. Responsible parties: comm. and trustees and Board of Health
6. Variety of community stakeholders – unions, environmental groups, religious institutions and other faith-based groups, community/neighborhood groups
7. Expansive community beyond barriers! Anyone in U.S. (applies to nuclear and coal)
8. People in the community should be at the geographical location
Cost: 1. Responsibility for the notice must be with the company/applicant, the costs paid by the company as part of permit application fees
2. Notification should be paid for by applicant
3. Landlords should be responsible for providing notice to tenants who live in the affected area
4. The expense of notice procedure must be borne by the party submitting the notice of intent in the form of a pre-payment submitted along with the notice of intent, as negotiated with the public authorities responsible for the appropriate public notifications.
Accountability: 1. Notice requirement must create accountability, process stops unless required notice is made.
2. Public participation must be integral to the process
1. People affected by a permitting decision should be involved in shaping that decision -- as experts on community issues and needs, and should be able to monitor project development to the end; NO EXCEPTIONS, community is never to be by-passed
2. Immediate public meeting, with all the information available and open to discussion, and comments submitted by email, letter or phone call
3. Veto power if evidence of negative environmental or health impact; Final say to citizens after being informed of each step; Local people need to be empowered; outside entity should not be allowed to force something on a community
4. Company requesting a permit should have to work directly with the community, not through an agency such as OEPA
5. Community should have a role, along with the agency, in testing the information a company provides in an application
7. Designated citizens equal part in decision with the licensing authority
8. Research company history; record of violations, history of relationships with communities in which company has facilities
9. Watchdog role – notices of permits and hearings
10. Ballot referendum (e.g. zoning change)
11. Political action – target elections
12. Legal action – (e.g. petition)
13. Conditional use permit hearing
14. Most locally and directly affected should have strongest voice, but also those indirectly affected should have say
15. Interest groups: information – labor unions; religious groups; concerned citizens; medical; etc.
16. Community members on corporate boards
17. Present records
18. Public meetings/forums; Community education; mandatory informational meetings (both sides -- public and company)
1. Census data/population density; income levels, economic data
2. Residents’ observations and complaints; number of violations per capita
3. Annual assessments
4. Record of habitual violations
5. Number of permits issued/applications made
6. Existing pollution/air quality; cumulative impacts; number of superfund sites; flows (mining)
7. Minority status
8. Community health status; asthma rates; number of people with particular diseases
9. Existence of subsistence communities
10. Low income; low tax base; low employment
11. Falling economic indicators in community, e.g., falling property values; land values
12. Resources (e.g., lakes, rivers, streams); water tables (underground water); proximity of groundwater and water resources (e.g. wells) to facilities; watershed bio-region
13. Potential impact on community life
14. Number of violations per capita
15. Number of schools, day care in community; number of nursing facilities, assisted living and retirement communities; presence/significant percentage of vulnerable populations (e.g., low income, people of color, elderly, and children)
16. Education level of population
17. Zoning; lack of home rule
18. Impact on any part of the environment – air, water, land
19. Number of insects
20. Infrastructure
21. Presence and use of railways
22. Lower fees for certain activities than other states (e.g., Ohio ahs lower tipping fees for Construction and Demolition landfills than other US states and Canada)
23. Geo-political boundaries (counties, states) should not determine assessment area as much as land, water and other natural formations
24. Economic level – an imbalance between ability of community to repair damage and the risk of damage
25. Including maternal-fetal/infant/child-focused health data (miscarriages, other birth/neonatal problems) (Idea: gather a “people’s” health database – post cancer cases and deaths on community bulletin boards)
26. Stream surveys, biological data that show loss of biodiversity, loss of species impacts on livestock/fish/etc.
27. Local govt./citizen petition
28. Presence of known toxics above permitted levels
28. Pre-existing conditions - legacy/history of generation(s) affected by toxics
29. Distance/radius from polluting industry (rather than analyzing county by county), radius varies w/industry, and how the pollution/toxics travel
30. Presence of habitual offenders
31. Upon new investment or land purchase by habitual offenders, an investigation of potential effects should ensue
32. Demographic triggers – low income, comm. of color, elderly, female head of household
33. Presence of vulnerable cultural groups, and their demographics (e.g. Appalachian, Native American)
34. Random but regular air, soil, water tests
35. Long-term vs. transient: in some cases, a long term, stable population is more at-risk, because they may lack options; in other cases, a transient population is easier to take advantage of, may not be as likely to organize
36. Lack of diversity of employment opportunities
1. Income
2. Demographics/concentration of minorities; special populations such as seniors, children, disabled persons
3. Public facilities – schools, senior facilities
4. Economic impacts
5. Health/medical statistics
6. Traffic and noise levels
7. Hazardous chemicals
8. Cumulative environmental impacts; environmental assessment
9. Expense to the community in public resources, risks, health costs, transportation
10. Location of rivers you can’t swim in
11. Where the money is in the community
12. Disposal of waste (factory farms)
13. Citizen studies
How should the voices from the impacted community be weighted? 1. Size of the political entity and, also, their capabilities
2. Government entities
3. Base it on expertise and arbitrators
4. The community should outweigh considerations of other entities
5. Public hearings – place for citizen voice; media and publicity as ways citizens can have a voice. Citizens’ voices need to be backed up by legislation that provides for their interests, otherwise voices can be ignored by corporations & government
6. Citizen advocate to give more weight to citizen point of view
7. When citizens give their voice through letters, form letters are less effective than personal, individualized letters, even handwritten
8. Volunteer expert – attorney or other – to assist us in gathering the right info to make our voices heard
9. Control group – demographic profiles and health data of other communities in the same area that have less exposure to pollution and toxics, to compare
10. Allow government to initiate litigation (criminal prosecution) through attorney general’s office
11. Also strengthen OEPA to enforce laws & policies, to issue consequences for violations
12. Locals should be able to say “no”
1. Timely information
2. Funding for an ombudsman
3. Funding for costs to hold meetings
4. Funding for outreach and organizing
5. Experts to assist with independent environmental testing
6. Transportation/facilities
7. Legal fees and consultation
8. Student groups to take on projects
9. Community relocation when every other option has been exhausted
10. Information about a company’s track record and number of previous environmental violations – the right to know, coupled with the right to decide
11. Need to coordinate and educate community
12. Need an abstract of the issue
13. Access to good legal counsel that will spend the time on your case
14. Access to public records
15. We need money for community, legal defense fund
16. Public information – no more secrets
17. Memorandums of understanding
18. Community oversight
19. Independent reports and evaluations
20. Media attention
21. Video coverage/documenting 100% (community given documentary equipment)
22. Know beforehand w hat will happen to it
23. State-provided scientist, to read confusing documents, should be neutral, possibly from local university
24. Attorney(s)
25. Environmental advocate/environmental steward; needs to be paid/stipend position in each county to play a watchdog role. Can help Helps with, among other things, community access to monitoring equipment and documentation
26. Ability for affected community/individuals to have access to info quickly
27. Permits available to communities (if the business doesn’t provide – stiff fine/jail! Ability of regulating agencies to control purse strings in such instances)
28. More transparent process
29. More communication face-to face
30. Notification of, access to surveys (example: coal mines); clear information about who has mineral rights (education of the people; attorney to do research)
31. Access to information from meetings via internet/website
32. OEPA, other agencies, should be accountable, available 24/7; agency close by – needs to near community, not too far away
33. More localized resources readily accessible.
34. Frequent public meetings at reasonable times that cover all issues
35. Required to hold hearings without community having to ask
36. Requirement of EPA/agencies to explain documents
37. Percent of population must be available and attend public meetings, before permitting is possible; otherwise, or re-schedule meetings
38. Education
39. Federal government should be a resource for community (ex: rating of nuclear facilities
40. Political representatives should be required to attend hearing
41. We need a voice to develop before going to state level; and we need a voice at the state level
42. Political reps should be required to attend meetings
43. Local officials need education
44. Popular vote (might lose battle)
45. Networking
46. Media attention – film meetings
47. Adopt a mountain
48. Outreach to citizens – public meetings at time of day most locals can attend
49. Events to educate/fundraise
50. Local community needs to be prepared with some sort of council, organization, or standing committee, EJ leader needed!
51. Responsible party should be forced to issue bonds to cover potential damages, if the community is too poor to absorb.
52. Water tests for baseline assessments; ability in future to determine effects of the facility
53. Need more participation from cooperating legislators and agencies
54. State Environmental Bill of Rights should be part of EJ policy
Ways citizens can create resources for themselves: 1. Interaction with local officials – you know them and they know you (attend meetings, every time!) 2. PAC fundraising 3. Endorse and target elected officials 4. Fundraiser dinners, concerts, ask for support of celebrity entertainers 5. Know how to motivate news media
II. Enforcement: This small group work is focused on your thinking about enforcement issues.
A. What should be done with corporations who keep violating the laws, pay their fines, and then violate the law again? (Habitual violators)
1. Temporary suspension of any permits
2. Increasing fines that have a mandatory number
3. Impose criminal liability
4. Make the CEO pay the fines
5. Shut them down, then company must show that it is working on a corrected plan before starting up again; shut them down while legal process is going on
6. Criminal liability for executives, plus use the three strikes you go to jail approach - just like citizens who commit crimes
7. CEO should be forced to live in the contaminated community (but not their children)
8. Strengthen legislation
9. Use publicity to expose bad behavior – such as the company pays for full page ad in local paper to admit the problem and say how they will fix it
10. Provide incentives to corporations to stay in compliance
11. The CEO and others should be criminally and civilly liable (go to jail)
12. Establish independent committee
13. Intimidation
14. Probation on permits
15. Grade violations
16. Permit period needs to be shorter (? years) (annual permit)
17. Like DUI – treated the same; Increasing fines & penalties– jail time – remove license same as DUI
18. Injunctive relief and enforce current laws
19. Hang them by their toes; skull & crossbones on license plates
20. Three strikes and you’re out!
21. Get rid of loopholes
22. Enforce the enforcers (consequences for regulating agencies if they don’t uphold law)
23. Corp. owners and CEOs need to be held responsible, receive special penalties due to their level/nature of responsibility
24. CEOs need to live near the polluting facility, like judges sentence a “slumlord”
25. Publication of violations w/CEOs’ pictures
26. Community service
27. Limit # of variances for pollution violations
28. Eliminate modifications of permits
29. Concern & responsibility of people in communities to refuse jobs offered as enticement
B. What role should residents have when negotiations are going on with a corporation about violations/fines?
1. Process should be transparent or open
2. Settlements should require community input or approval/involvement before it is accepted (not in a public meeting after parties agree)
3. Weekend enforcement squad should be established as compensation because that is when the pollution increases
4. Double fines on weekend and after usual business hours
5. Mandate community representative from designated neighborhood at private meetings
6. Because too often the community that is being polluted does not work in the industry/facility that is polluting – part of the settlement should include they get priority hiring and are properly trained to work there. It’s a dual violation when you have no job and some corporation is trying to poison you!
7. Local people should be at the negotiation and should have 100% control over decision
8. Self-defense laws should apply; reparations for harm
9. Labor and small business and families at the table
10. Established mandatory fine system with citizen oversight (no negotiation)
11. Cleanups costs separate from fine
12. Needs public interest review by local people (who decides who the members are?)
13. Community awareness through public meetings:
14. Percent of community on corporate boards and on government agency boards (fines could help subsidize paid board placement)
15. Victims’ Rights, testimony by victims at sentencing
16. Community member(s) must have sign-off and input on violations consequences
17. Watchdog committee paid by corporation to alert community
18. Community defined by stakeholders
19. PAID community ombudsman
20. Community roles should provide checks and balances at all levels of government and corporate activity
21. All public documents, consent Decree, stakeholder impacts, need to be assessed by bi-partisan interpretation
C. When a corporation must pay a fine, where should that money go? Establish Citizens fund for use by EJ community?
1. Money from fines should be put into a state citizen’s fund for communities.
2. Fines should stay in the community; money from fines should be put into a fund that can only be used locally
3. EJ Committee should be governed by a majority of EJ leaders
4. Funds should be managed by a “trusted” Non-profit organization
5. Largest funds to the most impacted/less funds to the least impacted
6. Funds used for local testing
7. Fines funds could be used for healthcare of local people
8. Funds to go to legal defense funds
9. Watchdog group local to the situation
10. Some to statewide fund (like REACH), governed by community leaders: OEPA – 5%, Local – 40%, State Program – 55%
11. % of fines to state fund, % to local community for local battles
12. Workers empowered as part of penalty
13. Use for paid ombudsman
D. What could the EJ community use the funds for?
1. Legal work/support for community
2. Education
3. Research
4. Health studies of communities
5. Establish a grant process
6. Incentives for private enforcement actions
7. Given to community and they should decide not pick off a list
8. Provide companies with compliance workshops especially the smaller ones
9. Community gardens, healthy food to impacted community
10. Local people to obtain jobs w/training for work on lead abatement, stream cleanups and other
11. 50/50 to the funds (100%)
12. Pick from the various grassroots groups to make decisions – only victims receive funds
13. Legal defense/offense
14. Environmental/Health testing/monitoring; experts
16. Preemptive legal actions
17. Medical expenses
18. Green, clean business initiated
19. % corp. develop clean energy
20. School curriculum
21. Health protections
22. Clean-up
23. Fund paid positions (community members on corporate boards, watchdog committee, and ombudsman)
24. These funds could also come from CEO bonus
25. Random and regular environmental assessments (done by independent experts)
26. Violating corporations could also fund environmental summits and annual reports to community
III. Permitting. This small group work is focused on your thinking about permitting issues.
Timing: 1. Prior notice, immediate notice of all permit requests, no matter how “benign”
2. Notice should be provided all individual residents, and a large sign should be placed on the site stating the nature of the proposed industry or action, and a point of contact for questions
3. Notified by Agency – when application goes in for original permit and/or for any expansion or modification within 10 days of initial contact with OEPA
4. Six months in advance
5. As soon as company contacts OEPA – or perhaps even before company contacts OEPA, or when zoning changes are attempted
6. Companies should notify community member before the Ohio EPA and before the newspaper
Content: 1. Published permit review must be in plan English, lower or no cost, available in libraries
2. EPA should notify council persons, mayor, state representatives, who can channel information to their citizens in an efficient manner
3. Business should be required to disclose previous violation/infractions
4. Criminal background check
Method: 1. Community meetings
2. The kinds of individual notices should be determined by the geographic radius from the epicenter of the facility, or other specific or political divisions), e.g., registered mail notice to closest residents, flyers sent to next ring out
3. Site notices also should be provided, such as a large sign on the site stating the nature of the proposed industry, the point of contact for questions
4. Website listing all permits pending
5. Newspaper (not just in Legal Notices section)
6. Certified, registered mail to residents; paid for by company
7. News release in the paper (legal section) -- largest paper in circulation in the county
8. Company to place sign on property with information on proposed development: contact name and phone #, company name, 8 ft. x 8 ft., 4 ft. off the ground, large enough to read, on public road and all abutting roads
9. Newspaper notification
10. Notice in electric and water bills, Notice thru public officials (city, county, etc.)
11. Hold a town meeting to notify the public that a permit is requested which has environmental impact. Everyone who attends a town hall meeting should be notified of actions on permit
12. Major emitters should notify citizens the same way solid landfills do
Who is entitled to notice: 1. EPA should notify council persons, mayor, state representatives, who can channel information to their citizens in an efficient manner
2. Notify local officials (County commissioners/Twp./village/City – whoever has land jurisdiction)
3. Board of Health
4. Letters to everyone in community within 1 mile radius
5. Notify abutting properties
6. All potentially affected persons
7. Community should be notified even if business is a minor polluter
Cost: 1. Notification by certified mail at developer’s expense
Accountability: 1. Rule of thumb for a permit to “new industry” No Net Gain -- so citizens may need to influence the decision
2. Must be flow of information between community, state agencies and business
3. Onus of responsibility is on the EPA to increase number of agents who will facilitate environmentally sound permits.
1. Combined “burden” assessment, including air and ground water monitoring. Especially important to have baseline assessments; OEPA should be responsible for the assessment, Board of Health to use the same criteria
2. An environmental impact study must be mandatory, performed by a professional with proven experience selected by the City Mayor/Manager and/or the County Commissioners selected from a list of pre-selected professionals who have filed a request to be listed on an approved environmental impact study source listing after having submitted resumes in response to a formulated application form
3. The expense of the study must be borne by the party submitting the notice of intent in the form of a pre-payment submitted along with the notice of intent, as negotiated with the public authorities responsible for the appropriate public notifications
4. The selected “study contractor” must submit an Affidavit stating that he has had no prior direct or indirect dealings with the Applicant where money or services have been exchanged in any way that may be considered as anything that would represent unorthodox and questionable services rendered, any suspected violations heard in a court of law
5. The City Mayor/Manager and/or the County Commissioners shall then prepare a risk-benefit analysis to be presented to the public as being available for distribution by the same means as the original notice of intent was published
6. The environmental impact study must be completed within three (3) months after the date of the notice of intent and the risk-benefit analysis must be completed 30 days after the environmental impact study is completed
7. Citizens then have two (2) months to initially respond to the City Mayor/Manager and/or the County Commissioners in writing, either before or within ten (10) days after a public hearing is held by the appropriate City Mayor/Manager and/or the County Commissioners. The public hearing shall be published by the same means as the original notice of intent was published
8. The final approval of the Application will be the civic and political responsibility of the City Mayor/Manager and/or the County Commissioners within 90 days after the Public Hearing, having at this time ALL the facts from which to make a decision in regards to the Application. The pressures associated with a political future shall provide the necessary emphasis upon the publicly elected officials to prove their fulfillment of mandated duties/responsibilities of protecting the Health, Safety and Welfare of their constituent citizens
9. Health, cultural resources and ethnicity, and socio-economic factors
10. Immediate geographical and extended area
11. Short-and long-term effects
12. Siting criteria
13. Proximity to/impact on Scenic Rivers
14. Enforceable criteria
15. Residents’ complaints/facility record
16. Existing permits or facilities
17. Traffic Congestion; noise
18. Health – (e.g. effects of air quality)
19. Property values/tax base
20. Air quality
21. Soil
22. Water; recognize both “identified” and “unidentified” aquifers
23. Aesthetics/quality of life
24. Proximity to churches, residences, schools
25. Existing facilities (e.g. if Ohio has enough landfills to handle Ohio’s waste, a moratorium should be put in place)
26. Should be done at developer’s expense
27. There should be a State level process that would parallel the EPA process
28. Burden assessment should be done BEFORE permitting is resolved, so it can be used to compare “before & after” a problem occurs
29. Look at “recycling” potential
30. Substances to be released, how much
31. Regulating agency should do a burden assessment – existing, and proposed toxic burden should then be explained by the ombudsman
32. What kind of facility and processes involved in site, history of processes’ risks
33. Health risks to employees and community; cumulative effect of emissions
34. Whether government or private/independent
1. Legal representation/legal resources
2. Independent testing/experts/data sampling/technical expertise
3. Resources for public education)
4. Environmental supplemental project
5. Panel representation
6. Notice of designation to each residence
7. Public hearings – held in the local community
8. Better communication with and regularly scheduled meetings between community leaders and regulators
9. Money/funds for community to get organized
10. More independence in decision making
11. Community Involvement
12. Community spokesperson/leader
13. Political access (politicians) -- Local, state, federal
14. Local regulations and laws
15. Health surveys
16. Inventory of other pollution sources within a 10 mile radius
17. Basic knowledge*
18. Ecosystem & social economic permitting approach
19. Equal time for public review compared to applicant, ex. Factory farms – 2 years to process application, less than 40 days for public to review and 30 days to appeal
20. Background of owners & operators
21. Funding for citizen experts to troubleshoot permits, review/evaluate -- Funding should come from applications and fines
22. Citizens can require that the language in the laws be implemented
23. Eliminate “grandfathering” until process has run its course
24. Require public notices, which quantify landfill or environmental test results, be put in newspapers
25. Educational info on health risks should be provided
26. Laws need to be enforced – what better resource can be provided to citizens than to enable them to participate?
27. High-speed internet and the computers and training to use it
28. Periodicals, videos & VCRs, photographs
29. Community gardens to gather and build community
30. Access to senators, other local leaders/officials; (e.g. mandated time for meeting w/community members)
31. Access to best tools for staying connected to basics of life: water, soil, etc.
32. Access to info about corp. operations & plans (rather than groups learning about problems after the fact) – transparency, participatory decision-making
33. Childcare so parents can participate
34. Access to experts (ex. scientists) who can produce date and proof
35. Fewer corrupt officials, politicians (Do we want environmental justice to be subsumed into the government? Maybe keep EJ issues protected from the problems with democracy and corruption
36. Local, regional control that stays centered on the real issues – don’t let the state take control
37. Access to best tools about decision-making, democracy, theoretical frameworks to facilitate more participation, more civic engagement, voting
38. Change the burden of proof from individuals to bad actors/government
39. Paid staff person
40. Money (e.g. re-route tax dollars, dedicate to EJ communities)
41. Since we agree the laws need to be changed, we ask regulators what laws from your point of view – such as “stop work” authority
42. Communities are passing city-wide ordinances or are writing their own constitutions that change the law with regard to businesses. These should include the metrics of how the permit is established, e.g., how to test water quality
43. We need to change the technical standards or change what can be considered in a public meeting, and how it is weighted in the permitting process
44. The definition of an EJ community should be clarified and communicated
45. Leadership identification and training; skill development, grassroots organizations and empowerment committees, public speaking and research support, How to training; must decrease the digital divide, smaller complete access and training
46. Public hearings, companies regulated, also in terms of informing the public
47. Access to technical consulting
48. Training on Title V, etc.
49. Dedicated Community Application Review Fee from the company, earmarked solely for community to use to review application, investigate, and verify. Fee should be $50,000, plus 10% of property’s appraised value.
50. An ombudsman should be provided to help citizens review permit applications
51. All info submitted by the company to the regulating agency should be available to the community in a local repository (e.g. library)
Ombudsman?
Yes, but depending on who controls and who appoints
Responsibilities 1. Should be an Ombudsman to mitigate between lawmakers and the public
2. Must be independent of any government influence
3. Perform a background investigation on companies that apply for environmental permits
4. One ombudsman for the state of Ohio, who would have a staff of people to help, or regional representatives could be more diversified than one person and change decision-making style, shake things up, change power structure (e.g., consensus decision-making on a board of environmental justice representatives, or explore other decision-making styles, such as horizontal, participatory, e.g. “basins of relation” (watersheds, river basins, etc.)
5. Have position be a team/staff (not individual); Rotating ombudsman for each region who live in region they serve – keep them local enough to stay accountable to who they represent
6. Should be someone from an EJ community
7. Create an Environmental Justice Congress with reps. from each EJ community
8. Issue of competition among regional ombudspeople and EJ congress members, perhaps a rotating position would be better
9. Education about EJ:
10. Shrinking long distance links (commodities traveling long distances) and returning to a more localized, sustainable lifestyle – much of waste streams could end with more sustainable development
11. Watchdog of regulatory agencies and legislators
12. Dialogue and alliances w/strategic community groups, e.g. police, mediation groups, unions
13. Vaccinate everyone to have common sense & responsibility; vaccinate them against greed
14. Fundraising, petitioning for additional funds for community groups
15. Advocate for alternatives to pollution
16. Records permanently kept on all proceedings and available for public viewing
17. Offering sustainable jobs (movement-wide push) – work with economic development officers of state – find jobs, don’t just nix polluters (& their jobs)
18. Advocate for tax abatements for sustainable businesses in EJ communities
19. Office of EJ Ombudsman should have with as much authority as EPA or an attorney general office at state level, with possible Federal support.
20. Eliminate ERAC
21. Waste reduction incentives
Funding 1. Ohio legislature should fund and support job of Ombudsman, one ombudsman for state of Ohio 2. Paid by applicant fees, all fees (e.g. “tipping fees”) should go to a Department of Environmental Affairs, which then determines how funds are portioned out to Ombudsman, EPA, communities, etc. Make Ohio “tipping fees” (cost of dumping) equal to that of other states, then use the extra money for recycling, support of local air and water issues, enforcement and correction
|
Ohioans for Health, Environment and Justice |
Privacy Policy • Site Credits |