Environmental Justice Policy
DRAFT DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
III. Permitting
Environmental Justice
Policy Discussion Draft
III. Permitting
________________________________________________________________________________
III. Permitting. This small group work is focused on your thinking about permitting issues.
- A. What should be a business’s or facilities responsibility or notifying the community that a permit will be applied for in the community, and when should that notice occur?
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. Sign should be 8 ft. x 8 ft, 4 ft. off the ground, large enough to read, on public road and all abutting roads.
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
4. Website listing all permits pending
5. Newspaper (not just in Legal Notices section)
7. News release in the paper (legal section) -- largest paper in circulation in the county
10. Notice in electric and water bills, Notice thru public officials (city, county, etc.)
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
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.
- B. Should an environmental “burden” assessment be conducted in the effected community? If yes, what should be included in the assessment of the community’s burden prior to permitting process?
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
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
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
- C. If a community is defined as an Environmental Justice Community what resources should be provided to the local residents/group to enable them to participate fully?
1. Legal representation/legal resources
2. Access to independent testing/experts/data sampling/technical expertise (ex. scientists) that can produce data and proof
3. Resources for public education)
4. Environmental supplemental project
5. Panel representation
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
12. Community spokesperson/leader
15. Health surveys
16. Inventory of other pollution sources within a 10 mile radius
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
23. Eliminate “grandfathering” until process has run its course
25. Educational info on health risks should be provided
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.
33. Childcare so parents can participate
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. 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
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
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:
- · Sharing standard definition of what EJ issues are
- · Education about what EJ is provides more WATCHDOGS keeping an eye on the exploiters
- · Bringing resources to underserved communities
- · Enforcing not just the letter but the spirit of the law
- · Learning about best practices from other states/regions and sharing them in Ohio
- .
11. Watchdog of regulatory agencies and legislators
12. Dialogue and alliances w/strategic community groups, e.g. police, mediation groups, unions
14. Fundraising, petitioning for additional funds for community groups
15. Advocate for alternatives to pollution
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
|
