|
|
- Secrecy Bills Derailed in States
- States That Stopped Pollution Secrecy
- Federal audit privilege/immunity legislation
- Industries Supporting Pollution Secrecy
by Mark Woodall, Chair, Audit Privilege Task Force
So-called audit privilege legislation would provide blanket immunity
for environmental crimes, no matter how serious, and would establish
unprecedented legal privilege allowing corporate polluters to hide
civil and criminal misconduct from judges, juries and the public. In
the view of the pro-secrecy, pro-immunity National Association of
Manufacturers, "It was the hottest environmental issue in the states
this session."
Powerful corporate polluter coalitions overpowered the public interest
to pass audit privilege (or "dirty secrets") bills in five states
during the 1996 state legislative sessions: Michigan, New Hampshire,
Ohio, South Carolina and South Dakota. But thanks to the hard work of
Sierra Club volunteers and the state lobby corps, such legislation was
defeated in over 20 states.
Vice President Gore recently wrote members of Congress to affirm the
Clinton administration's opposition to the dirty-secrets bills in
Congress and to similar bills at the state level. In testimony before
the Senate, Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator
Steve Herman said that "the enforcement of federal law Ñ whether
carried out by states or the EPA Ñ ought to be subject to some minimal
national standards. Otherwise, it is no longer federal law. If it is
cheaper to violate the law in some states, then companies that operate
legally in neighboring jurisdictions will be put at a disadvantage."
In order to maintain the integrity of federal environmental laws, the
EPA has warned Texas, Idaho, Michigan and Utah that their delegation of
the federal Clean Air Act Ñ that is, their authority to implement and
enforce the law at the state level Ñ is at risk due to state
privilege/immunity statutes.
Environmentalists have petitioned the EPA to withdraw delegated
programs in Idaho, Michigan and Texas. In Texas, the Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International has joined the Environmental Defense Fund
petition due to the threat to employee health and safety posed by the
Texas secrecy statute. The Texas law makes health and safety audits
secret in addition to environmental audits.
Ohio state Sen. (and newly elected Congressman) Dennis Kucinich
announced from the Ohio Senate floor that he will ask the EPA and
federal Department of Justice to intervene in the implementation of the
new Ohio secrecy law. Kucinich also vowed to ask the EPA to block
Ohio's delegation of environmental program authority.
After stopping the momentum of the dirty secrets legislation around the
country in 1996, Club activists and lobbyists will face a renewed push
in 1997 from corporate polluter secrecy advocates. The EPA's actions to
ensure that state statutes do not conflict with federal environmental
laws could provide opportunities to repeal or amend state dirty secrets
statutes.
For more information:
Contact your chapter's state lobbyist or Paula
Carrell, the Club's state program director, at (415) 977-5668; e-mail:
<paula.carrell@sierraclub.org>
The following states have considered, but chosen not to enact,
environmental audit privilege/ immunity bills during the 1995 or 1996
legislative session:
Alabama Nebraska
Alaska Nevada
Arizona New Mexico
California New York
Delaware North Carolina
Florida Oklahoma
Georgia Rhode Island
Hawaii Pennsylvania
Iowa Tennessee
Louisiana Vermont
Maryland Washington
Massachusetts Wisconsin
Missouri West Virginia
Montana
Federal audit privilege/immunity legislation -- H.R. 1047 by Rep. Hefley
(R-Colo.) and S. 582 by Sens. Hatfield (R-Ore.) and Brown (R-Colo.) --
was also considered and defeated during 1996.
A partial list of the major industry players supporting pollution
secrecy legislation across the country includes:
The Corporate Environmental Enforcement Council
(AT&T, Kaiser Aluminum
& Chemical, BF Goodrich, Kohler, Caterpillar, 3M, Coors Brewing, Owens-
Corning, Du Pont, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Polaroid, Elf Atochem, N.A.,
Procter & Gamble, Hoechst-Celanese, Textron, ITT, Weyerhaeuser),
The Compliance Management and Policy Group
(American Forest and Paper
Association, American Petroleum Institute, Chemical Manufacturers
Association, National Solid Waste Management Association, AT&T, Boeing,
Browning Ferris, General Electric, Monsanto, Waste Management)
http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199701/states.asp
Up to Top
|
