THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, January 31, 1995 TAG: 9501310317
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY SCOTT HARPER, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long : 112 lines
One issue getting scant attention this legislative session is the environment. Gov. George F. Allen is talking mostly about his budget, and lawmakers are talking mostly about Allen.
But while the focus so far in the 1995 General Assembly has been on politics and personalities, tax cuts and new jails, environmental groups are warning that several bills could pass with little notice and significantly change how Virginia protects its natural resources.
Their biggest worry is what some call the ``Polluters Relief Act,'' a measure that would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to businesses that find their environmental violations and confess them to the government.
The Allen administration supports the measure, which passed a Senate committee and was sent to the Senate floor Monday with what environmentalists say were modest amendments.
Department of Environmental Quality officials say the bill offers an incentive for business and industry to conduct detailed inspections that may uncover serious, previously unknown problems.
Officials also note how cleanup plans must accompany any confession of past wrongdoing.
``It's a self-policing type of action,'' said Kevin Finto, an attorney representing the Virginia Manufacturers Association, a key supporter of the bill. ``A lot of companies are afraid to do these assessments for fear of hanging themselves with what they find.''
Chesapeake Bay Foundation attorney Roy Hoagland likens the bill to ``robbing a bank, then going to the police and saying you're sorry and that you'll one day return the money.''
Under the measure, companies could inspect their operations for problems and not have to show the government, neighboring citizens or even a judge their findings - unless the results unveil a ``clear, imminent and substantial danger to public health or the environment. . .''
Hoagland says this section creates a ``huge cloak'' under which polluters could hide information, and does not compel them to tell anyone if a problem is discovered.
Finto counters that without the bill, no one - not even the company - would know a problem exists. Voluntary audits, he says, give businesses leeway to at least determine what's wrong on their property.
Julie Overy, a spokeswoman for Natural Resources Secretary Becky Norton Dunlop, said the Allen administration is intentionally shying away from environmental issues this year because its plate is so full with other initiatives, such as school reform and tax cuts.
Overy highlighted just seven environmental bills the administration is pushing. Most are simple, house-keeping measures.
But with a devout conservative like Allen in the governor's mansion, environmentalists worry that pro-business lawmakers will take advantage of the prevailing wind and spring bills that roll back environmental rules. And if those bills pass, the governor would likely sign them into law, they say.
How bad is it for environmentalists? Del. W. Tayloe Murphy Jr., D-Warsaw, known for his environmental sympathies, has introduced a symbolic, if not pointed, resolution reminding the General Assembly of its constitutional commitment to protect Virginia's ``atmosphere, lands and waters from pollution, impairment or destruction . . .''
``We'd be very happy just to keep the status quo,'' Patty Jackson, executive director of the James River Association, said after a particularly trying hearing Thursday. ``We just feel like all we're doing is fighting and defending.''
Another bill that environmentalists pledge to fight is one reflecting a growing discontent with the erosion of private property rights.
Backed by the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, the measure would require any proposed government rule or regulation to first undergo a study of its potential impacts on the integrity and value of private property.
It dovetails with a bill passed last year mandating that a cost-versus-benefit analysis be done before new regulations can take effect. Both bills are sponsored by Sen. William C. Wampler Jr., R-Bristol.
While environmental advocates portray the measure as another attempt by farmers, developers and other land-use groups to stall new restrictions on damaging activities, proponents say their bill is a basic protection against overzealous environmentalism.
``This is not a rigid requirement,'' said John Johnson, a farm bureau spokesman, noting a proposal in Congress that would pay landowners when their property is devalued because of environmental rules.
Not all is gray, however, from the green perspective. Several environmentally friendly bills have been introduced, although most are not given good chances for survival.
They include:
A measure expanding the right of citizens to fight and sue companies over proposed air- and water-pollution permits. Their inability to challenge permits in court is the chief reason the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to accept Virginia's clean-air strategy. The governor, in turn, has sued the EPA for interfering in state law.
A proposal from Portsmouth Del. Kenneth R. Melvin attacking environmental racism. Melvin wants the Waste Management Board to certify that a proposed landfill, incinerator or transfer station would not have a disproportionate impact on poor or minority communities nearby.
The bill stems, in part, from a study that showed waste facilities in poor neighborhoods are not inspected or monitored as closely as those near affluent communities. The study called for more state inspectors. But the governor is proposing to cut money for waste enforcement, according to his budget.
A measure to create a Virginia Abandoned Waste Site Authority, which would be empowered to issue as much as $25 million in bonds to help clean up an estimated 2,000 sites where contamination is present but the polluter is not.
A proposal requiring owners of plants and facilities handling toxic substances to inventory their environmental conditions each year.
Unlike the voluntary audit, which environmental groups are so adamantly opposed to as written by the Virginia Manufacturers Association, these inventories would not be shielded from public view or from government agencies. Indeed, the state Toxic Substances Board would determine all requirements.
KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY by CNB