The federal government has a responsibility to its citizens to balance development with safety, to monitor and ensure that development is not excessively dangerous or polluting the public and the environment. As a society we are obligated to protect our air and water. As a democracy we have agencies and a process that are supposed to represent the citizens, their health and environment.
Air quality permitting for Arctic offshore exploration and development formerly occurred through the EPA, citizens were given 30 days of notice, 30 days comment and 30 days for administrative appeal. At least with that process was time for public comment and appeal.
Now through political maneuvering (a Murkowski rider through congress that moved Clean Air Act permits from the EPA to BOEM) we no longer have this established process.
Recent major seismic exploration permits through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas gave only nine and 16 days for comment. And there is no opportunity for administrative appeal of these permits. And almost no information was made available to the public about the projects until forced to, through Freedom of Information Act requests, and that was at the last minute.
So why is there an upcoming listening session to be held by Interior's Tommy Beaudreu asking for input on how to improve the offshore permitting process? When public input on major national projects is tampered with, or muted, then it becomes hard to participate in the process at all.
It appears to be a streamlining that is merely a rubber stamping of major industrial development, benefitting industry with a position where it is not hindered by the public with issues like clean air or clean water, or a citizen's right to appeal permits that would harm citizens and the environment.
Is this the future of the government and the environment? These same agencies say that public input in the process is so critical, but at the same time restrict that voice through many avenues, leave those in the environmental and subsistence communities to wonder how (and if at all) their voices are being considered. The Arctic has a "special" regulatory process now under the Clean Air Act for new drilling permits, or should it be called an exemption from the permitting process? For development of this magnitude, moving permitting from EPA to BOEM is exactly that -- an exemption.
This is starting to happen too at the state level, through HB 77, which would allow agencies to decide development without the public (and stakeholders) having a voice. Officials like Murkowski and Parnell work on federal and state levels to mute the voices who would oppose dangerous and unproven development such as Arctic offshore drilling and the Pebble Mine. Whether or not they support development is not the issue. The issue is that they do not want the public to be part of the process! If a big mine is being planned upriver of your homestead, HB 77 tapes your mouth shut. Do you want to an administrative appeal to a BOEM offshore permit regarding air quality from an oil rig near your village? Well, you can't.
But the most important consideration regarding offshore permitting is the complete, absolute and total lack of oil spill response on location. All of the BOEM and EPA permits, current and prior, fail to address the lack of proven oil spill response capability, in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in any, much less various, sea and ice conditions.
To this day there has been no public demonstration of spill response drills in rough or icy water. In those lease sale sites that is exactly what you will find -- rough and icy water. Skimmers and booms and other spill technology is ineffective, otherwise industry would have shown us! In all other energy sectors like nuclear, coal, natural gas, refineries etc., containment must be proven. There is no precedence for containing oil in rough and icy waters, because it cannot be done. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), who approves oil spill contingency and response plans, does not have a requirement for public review and comment.
Keeping the public out of the process is the method to ignore the obvious liabilities coming soon to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. I believe in the democracy of the United States, and I believe citizens should have a real voice and real input on development that would affect their family and food.
Daniel Lum, author of "Nuvuk -- the Northernmost," soon to be released by the University of Alaska Press, is married with 6 children in Fairbanks and works on environmental issues.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.