'n Reg op omgewingsinligting

1

N REG OP OMGEWINGSINLIGTING

Wilhelmina du Plessis BJur LLB LLD

Skripsie voorgele ter gedeeltelike nakoming van die vereistes vir die graad Magister Artium in Geografie in Omgewingstudie

aan die

Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoer Onderwys.

Studieleier: Prof. A.B.\.de Villiers Hulpleier: Prof. G.J. Pienaar Desember 1998

Voorrede

Die skripsie is hoofsaaklik saamgestel uit •n aantal artikels en 1

n aantekening, waarvan drie reeds gepubliseer is en drie vir publikasie aanvaar is. Twee van die artikels is in engels gepubliseer. Daar is ook gebruik gemaak van materiaal wat in 1

n boekbespreking gebruik is, asook 'n kort aantekening oor die reg op inligting wat in die IUCN-News/ettergepubliseer is:

Du Plessis, W. 1998. Reg op omgewingsinligting in die Europese Gemeenskap. Tydskrif vir Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, (2):222-244.

Du Plessis, W. 1998. Right to environmental information in the USA South African Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 5(1):115-139.

Du Plessis, W. 1998. Book review. Environmental Law: A South African Guide. By Michael Kidd. South African Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 5(1): 170-180.

Du Plessis, W. 1998. Reg op omgewingsinligting in Duitsland. Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg, gepubliseer te word.

Du Plessis, W. 1998. Reg op omgewingsinligting in Nederland. Stellenbosse Regstydskrif, gepubliseer te word.

Du Plessis, W. 1998. The right of access to environmental information: South Africa. IUCN Newsletter Environmental Law Programme, January-April,

p.

7, 12.

Du Plessis, W. 1998. The right to environmental information in the new Bill on Environmental Management. South African Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, gepubliseer te word.

DEFINISIES:

Dratt Open Democracy Bill: Klousule 1 (1)

111_{Public safety or environmental risk}1 _{includes the risk or potential risk to the}

environment or the public (including individuals in their place of work) associated with

-(a) any p·roduct which is offered for sale or otherwise available to the

public;

(b) any substance which is released into the environment or workplace or

is present in food for human or animal consumption;

(c) any form of public transport; or

(d) any installation or manufacturing process or substance used therein.11

Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 108 van 1996 Artikel 24:

11

Everyone has the right

-(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future

generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that

-(I) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

(ii) promote conservation; and

(iii) ·secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural

resources while promoting justifiable economic and social

development. 11

•n Aktiewe reg op inligting

impliseer dat die staat uit eie beweging inligting verskaf (Du Plessis,

1986:160)

•n Passiewe reg op inligting

dui daarop dat die individu die staat om inligting kan nader (Du Plessis,

1986:160)

Gei'ntegreerde omgewingsbestuur (RSA, 1997:84):

11

a code of practice ensuring that environmental considerations are fully integrated into the management of all activities in order to achieve a desirable

balance between conservation and development.11

SUMMARY

Title: A right to environmental information.

Keywords: Information, environment, fundamental right. to environmental inf_ormation, · Constitution (RSA), Europe, United States of America, Netherlands, Germany, National Environmental Management Act.

Aim of the study. The aim of the study was to investigate the right to environmental information in the United States of America, European Union, Netherlands and Germany in order to make proposals regarding the existing and recommendations for South African legislation.

Research method. The study was mainly a literature study of the most important legislative measures and other material dealing with the right to environmental information. The research methodology employed was the legal comparative approach.

Core findings: Section 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa

108 of 1996 provides for a right to information. Read with section 24 of the Constitution that provides for a right to an environment that is not harmful to a person's health or well-being, it is argued that this entitles a person to a right

to environmental information. Section 31 of the National Environmental

Management Act 107 of 1998 includes such a right.

The right to environmental information has been enforced in the European Union by the Directive on Access to Environmental Information as well as by national legislation in the member states (e.g. Germany and the Netherlands). In the United States of America the Freedom of Information Act is used to obtain environmental information. It seems that the legislation and the interpretation of the legislation in these countries and the European Union have created problems but have also contributed to the establishment of a

culture of openness regarding environmental matters. Certain advantages of and problems relating to the right to environmental information are indicated in this study.

It is inter alia concluded that there should be a right to environmental information and that this right should be properly enforced. It is also argued that exceptions to the right should be limited and that the exception of confidential commercial information should not be applied absolutely. It is further recommended that the right to environmental information should be enforceable not only against the state but also against private institutions.

INHOUDSOPGAWE 'N REG OP OMGEWINGSINLIGTING ...•••...•... .! HOOFSTUK-1 •.•••••••••.•••••••.•••..•••••••••..••..•••••...••••••••.•.•.•••••••••••••.••.•.••...•••••.•••. 1 INLEIDING ....••.••... ~ ...•...•... 1 1 Problee'11'stelling

···~···

1 2 Doelstellings ... 5

3 Sentrale teoretiese argument ... 5

4 Metodologie ... · ... 6

HOOFSTUK 2 ..••...•...•...•...••...••...•.•... 13

VERENIGDE STATE VAN AMERIKA ... 13

RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION IN THE USA ... 14

1 Introduction ... 14 2 Disclosure measures ... 16

2.1

NEPA···-··· 16

2.2 Self-auditing ..•.•..•••••••.•••••••.••.••••••••....••..••••••..••••.••••.••.•••••••••••••••••••.••••••••.••••••••....•••••••••••••• 17 2.3 First Amendment ••••.••••••••••••••...•••.••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••••••••••.•.•.•••.••...•..•.•..••...•••• 17 2.4 Other statutes ..••••..•••••.•••..•.•••••••.•••••.•.•••••••••••••.••.•••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••.••••.••.••••••••••••••.• 18

3 Reasons for non-disclosure ... 20

3.1 Litigation purposes •••••••••.••••..•.•••••••••••••..•••••••••...•••••••••••••••..••••••.•••••••••••••••••.•....•.••••••••.•••• 21

3.2 National security •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••....•••••••••.•.•..••••••••••••••••••...•••••••••••••..•••••.••••••... 22

3.3 Court settlements···-··· 23

3.4 Alternative dispute resolution/mediation···-··· .. •••••••••••·•• ... 24

3.5 Law enforcement purposes ... 25

3.6

Trade

secrets •••••••••••.•.•..•••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• - •.•••••••••••••••••••••..•..•••••••.••••••••••••••••.•••• 25

4 Conclusion ...•... 26

HOOFSTU K 3 .••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••....•.•••..••••••••..•••••••••..•••••••...••••••....•••••... 27

EUROPESE GEMEENSKAP .•••...•....•....•..•.•.•.•...•...•...•.•....•.. 27

REG OP OMGEWINGSINLIGTING IN DIE EUROPESE GEMEENSKAP .... 28

1 lnleiding ... 28

2 Die riglyn op vryheid van toegang tot inligting rakende die omgewing ... 29

3 Die Europese Konvensie vir Menseregte ...•...••..••...•...•... 31

3.1 Artikel 10 ... - ... 31

3.2 Artikel 8 ···-··· 32

3.3 Artikel 1 van Pr-otokol 1 ···-··· 33

3.4 Artikel 2 van Europese Konvensie ... 33

3.5 Gevolgtrekking ... 33

4 Eur~pean Environment Agency ...•...•..•...•...••...•.. 33

5 Ander EG omgewingsdokumente ...••.•...•...•.... 34

5.1

Die Verdrag van Rome···-··· 34

vii

5.2 Single European Act •••.••••.••••••••••.••••••••••••.•••••.•••••••.••••••••••.•••••••••••.•••••.•.•••••••••••..••••••.•••••.. 34

5.3 Environmental Impact Reviews and Audits ••••..••.•.•••.•••••••••.••.••••••••••.•••••••.•••.•..•••••••.••••..• 34

5.4 Gemeenskap eko-bestuur en ouditskemas ... 35

5.5 Seveso-riglyn ••.•.••.••.•••••••••••••••••••.••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.•....•••.••••••••.•.•••••••••..• 35

5.6 Die "Eco-label" -riglyn ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••.••••••..••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••....••.•• 36

5.7 Algemene prosedure: opstel en opdatering van bronne oor omgewingsinligting •••••••.•..• 36

5.8 Lugbesoedeling en natuurlike bosse ... 36

5.9 Gevolgtrekking ···-··· 36

6 Ander EG dokumente rakende deursigtigheid ....•...•...•... 37

6.1 Besluit op open bare toegang tot raadsdokumente 93/731 ••••••••••••••.••.•.••.••••••••••.••••••••.••••• 37 6.2 Prosedurereels 93/66 •••.••••••.•••..••••.•••••••••••••.••..•••.••••••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••.•••••••.•••••••.••••.•••..•••• 37

6.3 Besluit op openbare toegang tot dokumente 1994 ... 37

6.4 Gedragskode 1995 ••••••••.••••...••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••..••.••.•••••.•.••••.••••••.•••••••..•...•..•.•••...•••..• 38

7 Algemene besware teen openbaarmaking .•...•.•.•...•... 38

8 Sleutelpunte vir effektiewe sisteem vir toegang tot . . l"gt• omgew1ngs1n 1 1ng •...•.•...•••...•...••...•...••.••....•... 38 9 Slot ....•... 38 HOOFSTUK 4 .•...•..•..•...•...•••... 40 DUITSLAND ..•...•...••..••...•...•..•...•...•.•... 40 1 N REG TOT OMGEWINGSINLIGTING IN DUITSLAND ... 41

1 lnleiding ... 41

2 EG-Riglyn ... 44

3 Umweltinformationsgesetz ... 46

3.1 Doe) van die Wet ... 46

3.2 Aanwendingsgebied ... 47

3 .3 Reg op omgewingsinligting ... 48

3 .4 Uitsonderings ... 50

3.S Kostes ···-··· 53

3.6 Openbaarmaking van toestand van die omgewing •••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.••.•.••••••. 53 3. 7 Hofsake ••..•••••..•.••••.•.••.••••••••.•.•••.•••••.••••••••••.••.•••••••..•.••••..••.•••••••••••••••.••••••.•••.••••••••.•..••••••••• 54

4 Ander toegangsreilings ... 55

4.1 Aktiewe inligtingspligtc .•.•••••••.•..•••.•••••••••••••••••.•...••..••••••.•••••••••••.•.•••.•.•.•••••.•.•••..••.•••..•.••.. 55

4.1.1 Lugl.-waliteit ... 55

4.1.2 Waterbenutting ... · ... 58

4.1.3 Voorkoming van ongelukke ... 62

4.1.4 Omgrwingsinvloedstudies ...•... 64

4.1.5 4.1.6 4.1.7 4.1.8 Beskerming van die natuurlike omgewing ... 66

Beplanningprosedures en konstruksie van paaie ... 68

lnligting vir skadevergoedingseise by omgewingskade ... 68

Aanmelding en toelaatbaarheid van produkte ...•... 69

4.2 Passiewe inligtini:,spliJ:, ···--···69 4.2.1 4.2.2 Dol-umentinsae ···.··· 69 Registrasieplig ...•...•... 70 5 Omgewingsouditreelings ...•...•...•... 71 6 Slot ... 73 ix

HOOFSTU K 5 ...•..•...••...•...•....•....•... 76

NEDERLAND ...••.•...•..•..••...•... 76

'N REG OP OMGEWINGSINLIGTING IN NEDERLAND .•.•... 77

1 lnleiding ...•...•...•••...•... 77

2 Europese Riglyn ..••...••...•...•.•... 79

3 Wetlike verpligting tot die verskaffing van inligting ... 85

3.1 Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur ... 86

3.2 WOB en die EG-Riglyn •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 89 4 Wet Milieubeheer ('limb) ... 90

5 Besluit Risico's Zware Ongevallen ... 94

6 Wet Milieugevaarlijke Stoffen (Wms) ... 94

7 Grondwaterwet (Gww) ....•...•.•.••...•...•...•...•••...• 95

8 Kontraktueel verpligte omgewingsverslagdoening ... 96

9 Vrywillige omgewingsverslagdoening ... 97

1 O Bedrifjsmilieuzorg ...••.•... · ...•..•... 98

11 Voorontwerp wettelijk verplicht milieuverslag ... 99

12 Slot en aanbevelings ...•.•...•..•...•...•...•... 102

HOOFSTUK 6 ...•••...•....•.••...••...•...•••...•...•... 110

SUID-AFRIKA ...•.•..•...•.•.•...•...•...•...•...•... 110

THE RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION IN THE NEW BILL ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ... 111

1 Right to environmental information ... 111

2 Organs of state •...•...•...•...•...•...••...•...•...•... 114

3 State of the environment reports ... 115

4 Time limit ...•... 115

5 Costs •..•...•.•...•...•••...•...•...•...•....•...•... 116

6 Clause 31 (2) ... 116

7 Grounds for refusal ...•.••••...•••...•..•...•... 117

8 Relationship with the Open Democracy Bill ... 120

9 Whistle blowers ...•••... 120

1 O Conclusion ...•..•....•.•..•....•...•.•..•...•...•... 121

HOOFSTUK 7 .•...•••••.••...•..•...•...••.•....••••...•...•... 123

SLOT •.•...•...•...•...•...•••••...•.•..••...•...•...•. 123

1 Reg op omgewingsinligting ... 124

2 Beperkings op die reg op omgewingsinligting ... 127

3 Voordele ...•...•...••...•...•... 129 4 Probleme ...••.•...•...•...•..•...•...•...•... 132 5 Gevolgtrekking en aanbevelings ... 136 BIBUOGRAFIE ... 139 Literatuur •••.•.•••••••••....••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•....••..••••••••••••.••..•••••••••.••••••••.•••••••••••••.••.•••••••.•••.••.••• 139 HOFSAKE ... 152 , Duitsland ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 152 Europese Gemeenslm.p ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 152 Nederland ... 153

V erenigde State van Amerilm. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 153 WETGEWIN"G ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 154 Duitsland ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• 154 Europese Gemeenskap ... 155

Nederland ••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 156 Suid-A&ika. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 157 Verenigde State van Amerika ... 157

STAATSKOERANTE~ ... 158

HOOFSTUK 1

INLEIDING

1

Probleemstelling

Daar is al sedert die sestigerjare in verskeie lande sprake van 1

n reg op inligting of vryheid van inligting, wat in die VSA in die Freedom of Information

Act en in Nederland in die Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur neerslag gevind

het {Du Plessis, 1986). Die reg is in artikel 32 van die Grondwet van die . Republiek van Suid-Afrika 108 van 1996 (hierna 1996-Grondwet) soos volg

geformuleer:

(1) Elkeen het die reg op toegang tot

-(a) enige inligting wat deur die staat gehou word, en

(b) enige inligting wat deur •n ander persoon gehou word en wat vir die uitoefening of beskerming van enige regte benodig word;

(2) Nasionale wetgewing meet verorden word om aan hierdie reg gevolg te gee, en kan voorsiening maak vir redelike maatreels om die administratiewe en finansiele las op die staat te verlig.

Sedert die negentigerjare het daar 'n klemverskuiwing ten aansien van die interpretasie van die reg op inligting plaasgevind (Winter, 1996:81-83; Hallo, 1996:19). Die reg op inligting sluit nie net meer die individu se reg op inligting teenoor die staat in om sy of haar demokratiese regte na behore te volvoer of sy of haar privaatinligting te beskerm nie (Weeramantry, 1994:113), maar dit word uitgebrei om ook die reg op omgewingsinligting in te sluit. Die besef dat die omgewing volhoubaar beskerm moet word, het meegebring dat individue dit al hoe meer op hulself begin neem om as bewakers van die omgewing op te tree. Hulle kan dit slegs doen as hulle inligting tot hulle beskikking het. Die inligting wat onder meer verband hou met besoedeling, die inhoud en voorwaardes van permitte, toestemmings en vergunnings is meestal 6f in die hande van die staat 6f in die hande van 1

privaatinstansies. Seide die staat en privaatinstansies is dikwels huiwerig om die inligting aan individue oor te dra. Daar word meestal agter die verskoning geskuil dat handelsgeheime geopenbaar sal word. (Vgl. Hallo, 1996:xxix,

xxxii.)

Die eerste· wereld neem die voortou in die oplossing van

omgewingsprobleme. Die ontwikkelende lande het nog nie •n reg op inligting gei"mplementeer nie. In die VSA.word die Freedom of Information Act (5 USC

§ 552) gebruik om omgewingsinligting te bekom. Die Wet word aangevul

deur ender meer die sogenaamde National Environmental Policy Act en

Emergency Planning Right-to-Know Act. (Dycus, 1993:302-303; Jones, 1994:183-205; Mendelsohn, 1996:689.)

Die Europese Unie het Riglyn 90/313/EEC uitgevaardig wat lidstate verplig om wetgewing te promulgeer wat vir •n reg op omgewingsinligting voorsiening maak (Winter, 1996:86-90; Jans, 1995:286-288). In Duitsland is die Gesetz

zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 90/313/EWG des Rates vom 7.6.90 iiber den freien Zugang zu lnformationen iiber die Umwelt ( UmweltinformationsgesetZj

uitgevaardig (Taeger, 1993:1951-1953; Schomerus, Schrader en Wegener, 1996), terwyl juriste in Nederland van mening is dat hulle Wet Openbaarheid · van Bestuur ruim voorsiening maak vir beide •n aktiewe en passiewe reg op

omgewingsinligting (Hallo, 1996:208-209; Anon, 1997:6) .·

In al die vermelde wetgewing word daar voorsiening gemaak dat inligting in bepaalde gevalle nie beskikbaar gestel mag word nie, byvoorbeeld waar openbaarmaking die veiligheid van die staat sal raak, inligting wat deur derdes aan die staat oorgedra is beskerm moet word of as handelsgeheime ter sprake is. Die uitsonderings wat in die verskillende wette aangetref word, kom nie altyd met mekaar ooreen nie en daar bestaan heelwat problems oor die interpretasie daarvan. (Winter, 1996:81-83; Kramer, 1992:281-282, 292-293; Campbell, 1997:174-180.) Aangesien die wetgewing al •n geruime tyd in hierdie state in werking is, is heelwat van die aanvanklike probleme wat

met die implementering van 1

n reg op inligting ondervind word, reeds uitgeskakel.

Die 1996-Grondwet maak verder in artikel 24 vir 1

n reg op 'n skoon en gesonde omgewing voorsiening. In Suid-Afrika bestaan daar nie soos in die VSA, Nederland en Duitsland •n algemene reeling om omgewingsinligting aan die publiek beskikbaar te stel nie. Privaatinstansies kan wel deur die staat verplig word om bepaalde inligting oor onder meer water- en lugkwaliteit aan hulle beskikbaar te stel kragtens die Nasionale Waterwet 36 van 1998 en die

Wet op die Voorkoming van Lugbesoedeling 45 van 1965. Hierdie inligting hoef nie deur die privaatinstansies aan die publiek beskikbaar gestel te word nie en die publiek het ook nie insae in omgewingsregisters soos in die VSA en bepaalde lande van Europa nie. Die inligting sou moontlik wel bekom kon word deur van die grondwetlike reg op inligting gebruik te maak.

Daar is onlangs wetgewing opgestel om die grondwetlike reg op inligting te konkretiseer en die Wetsontwerp op Oop Demokrasie 01'/67-98) is vir kommentaar gepubliseer. Klousule 9(1) van die wetsontwerp bepaal dat ongeag enige ander wetgewing die hoof van 'n bepaalde staatsdepartement 'n dokument in sy of haar besit moet ope_nbaar ashy of sy rede het om te glo dat die inligting in die dokument 'n ernstige openbare veiligheids- of omgewingsrisiko inhou. Die openbaarmaking moet in die openbare belang

wees. lndien die rekord inligting wat deur derdes verskaf is of

handelsgeheime t?evat, . moet die betrokke persoon of instansie van die openbaarmaking van die inligting ingelig word waarna sodanige persoon geleentheid sal kry om administratief of by die hooggeregshof beswaar aan te teken. Die wetsontwerp verleen egter nie 'n algemene reg tot inligting nie en maak nie voorsiening dat inligting van privaatinstansies bekom kan word nie. Die wetsontwerp bevat ook •n bree aantal kategoriee uitsonderings waaronder handelsgeheime en inligting wat deur derdes verskaf is.

Die feit dat privaatinstansies nie direk in die wetsontwerp aangespreek word

nie alhoewel die Grondwet uitdruklik daarvoor voorsiening maak, is 'n leemte

in die wetsontwerp wat aangespreek behoort te word.

In 1997 is •n Witskrif op 'n Omgewingsbestuursbeleid vir Suid-Afrika vir

kommentaar ·gepubliseer. Die Witskrif sit die beginsels vir omgewingsbestuur uiteen en plaas die klem op onder meer deursigtigheid, oop inligting en deelname (RSA, 1997:22-23). Daar word beweer dat omgewingsinligting oor die algemeen onakkuraat, onvolledig, weersprekend, ontoeganklik, tegnies en wetenskaplik is (RSA, 1997:71). Een van die aspekte van •n doeltreffende omgewingsbestuursplan is die beskikbaarstelling van inligting (SABS/l_SO, 1996:4-5, 8-9).

In 1998 is die Wet op Nasionale Omgewingsbestuur 107 van 1998 na

aanleiding van die Witskrif gepubliseer. Artikel 31 (1)(a)-(b) van die Wet reel 'n reg op omgewingsinligting:

(1) Toegang tot inligting wat deur die Staat gehou word, word gereel deur die wet beoog kragtens artikel 32(2) van die Grondwet: Met dien verstande dat hangende die afkondiging van sodanige wet, die volgende bepalings van toepassing is:

(a) enigiemand is geregtig op toegang tot inligting wat deur die Staat en staatsorgane gehou word en wat verband hou met die toepassing van hierdie Wet en enige ander wet wat die omgewing raak, en met die toestand van die omgewing en werklike en toekomstige bedreigings vir die omgewing, met ingebegrip van enige starting in die water, of op die grand of ernge uitlating in die lug en cfie vervaardiging, hantering, vervoer. behandeling, berging en verwydering van gevaarlike afval en stowwe;

(b) staatsorgane is geregtig op toegang tot inligting wat verband hou met die toestand van die amgewing en werklike en toekomstige bedreigings vir die omgewing, met inbegrip van enige stortirigs in die water, of op die grand of enige uitlating in die lug en die vervaardiging, hantering, vervoer, behandeling, berging en verwydering van gevaarlike afval wat deur enige persoon gehou word waar daardie

staatsorgane daardie inligting nodig het om hul pligte te verrig ingevolge die bepalings van hierdie Wet of enige ander wet wat betrokke is by die beskerming van die omgewing of die benutting van natuurlike hulpbronne.

Daar word nie spesifiek voorsiening gemaak dat die individu •n reg op omgewingsin-ligting wat in die hande van privaatinstansies is, het nie. Die minister kan wel regulasies oor sodanige reg uitvaardig (a 31 (2)). Uitsluitingsgronde is in artikel 31 (1)(c) opgeneem.

Na aanleiding van bogenoemde kan die volgende vrae gestel word:

• Kan •n soortgelyke reg op inligting soos aangetref in die VSA, Europese Unie, Nederland en Duitsland •n oplossing vir die Suid-Afrikaanse problematiek bied?

• Kan so •n reg in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg inpas in die lig van die implementering van omgewingsbestuurstelsels?

2 Doelstellings

Die doel van hierdie skripsie is om

1. •n Regsvergelykende studie te maak ten aansien van die reg op omgewingsinligting in die VSA, Europese Unie, Nederland en Duitsland ten einde aanbevelings vir Suid-Afrika te maak

2. Aanbevelings te maak oor die aanpassing van die Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing in die lig van die ontwikkelinge en probleme in die vermelde lande.

3 Sentrale teoretiese argument

Die reg op inligting gelees met die reg op 1

n gesonde en skoon omgewing in die Grondwet maak die deur oop vir •n reg op omgewingsinligting in Suid-Afrika. Die verskaffing van inligting rakende die omgewing is verder een van die temas van •n behoorlike omgewingsbestuursplan.

4

Metodologie

Hierdie studie is uitsluitlik 'n literatuurstudie. Vir doeleindes van die studie is daar hoofsaaklik van die regsvergelykende metode ten opsigte van teoretiese

sowel as die praktiese implikasies gebruik gemaak. Die metodes van

ontleding, vergelyking, evaluering en sintetisering is gebruik. Die vernaamste wetgewing en materiaal is bygewerk soos op 30 Oktober 1998.

In hierdie skripsie word die reg op omgewingsinligting in die VSA bespreek (hoofstuk 2) waarna die reg op omgewingsinligting soos deur die Europese

Gemeenskap voorgeskryf, bespreek sal word (hoofstuk 3). Die

konkretisering van die reg op omgewingsinligting van die Europese Gemeenskap soos vervat in Duitsland (hoofstuk 4) en Nederland (hoofstuk 5) word daarna bespreek ten einde tot 'n gevolgtrekking (hoofstuk 6) te kom.

HOOFSTUK2

VERENIGDE STATE VAN AMERIKA

Die volgende artikel is in 1998 in die South African Journal on Environmental Law and Policy 115-139 gepubliseer en bevat die vernaamste maatreels wat die reg op inligting in die Verenigde State van Amerika reel.

RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION IN THE USA'

Willemien du Plessis''

Introduction

Most people are unaware or the environmentul risks that exist. Worker:> are, for example, not informed or the toxic substances they work with and the effect it could have on them- and consumers or products do not know the environmental risks contained thercin.1 According to Futrcll2 the law serves the community 'to lead to the establishment or a selling in which the quality of human lil"e can be spirited, improved and unimpaired'. The environment deals with a wide spectrum of aspects and therefore open dialogue is needed.

On 18 October 1997 the South African Draft Open Democracy Bill3 was publish~d for comment. The Bi 11 is the enactment of section 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of 1996 that states

(I) Everyone has the righl of access lo -(a) any information held by 1hc state; and

(b)any information thal is held by anolher person and lhal is required for lhe exercise or prolection of any righls.

(2)National legislation maybe cnaclcd lo give effccl lo lhis riglll, and may provide for reasonable measures to alleviate th.: adn1i11is1ra1ive and financial burden on 1hc state.

Section 24 of the 1996 Constitution refers lo the right to an environment that is not harmrul to one's health and wdl-being.

As a result of these rights, clause 9 of the Draft Open Democracy 13ill places an obligation on the head or a governmental body to disclose a record if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the record reveals a serious public. safety or environmental risk and if it is in the public interest

The financial assislance of 1hc CSD is hereby acknowledged wilh apprecialion .

..

_{B Jur LLD (PU Cl-IE) Professor, Dcpartmcnl of Legal Pluralism and Legal 1 lislOry,} l'olclicfstroom University Ji.)r Christian I lighcr Education.

1

.CR Sunslein 'Informing America: Risk, disclosure, and the lirst amendmcn1' ( 1992) 20 Florida State University I.aw Re1•iew 655.

2

M l'ulrell 'Environmental asscssmen1: The necessary lirst step in successful cnvironmcnlnl s1ratcgies' (1991) 10 UCJ...I l'aci/it" /Jasi11 l.C1w.lo11rm1/235.

3

,... Vl

116 (I 997) 5 SAJELP

to disclose it to the public or the persons affected.'1 If the records contain inrormation that was submitted by a third party, such a person must be informed or the intended dist:losure after which written or oral representation for non-disclosure may be made. 5 The head of the department must notify the third party of his or her decision.6 Appeal may be lodged with the High Court within 10 working days after the notice to disclose was givcn.7

In some instances private institutions arc obliged to provide environmental inrormation to the state e.g. in terms or the Water Act 54 or

1956 and the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act 45 of 1965. There is, however, no obligation on the slate or the private institution to divulge this information except in terms or the Constitution and the Draft Open Democracy Bill.

In the USA there are several legislative meastll"es attempting lo ensure the disclosure or environmental information.H It is therefore worthwhile for South Africa lo take notice of these measures as it will help practitioners and the courts to interpret section 32 and the Draft Open Democracy Bill (when it becomes an Act) in the light or section 24 of the South African Constitution.

There are some problems in the USA with the provision of information

111 instances where it may be too expensive, ineffl!ctive or

counterproductive. Information strategies do not always deal with the external effects of the risk.'1

The Environment Protection Ag.ency (EPA) has developed.a set of rules

Cl 9(::!)-(3 ).

Cl 9(2 )-( J ).

Cl 9(5)- if1hc third pany ca111101 be loca!Cd any dccision 111 disclose information mus! be ni°ad~ by wking into accounl !he foci !hat 1hc third pmly had 110 opportunity lo make n.:prescnlalions in this regard. If third pany information is disclosed !he notice must stale the lindings 011 malcrial questions of foci n.:la1i11g lo lhc malerial on which 1hc findings were based and 1hc reasons for !he d<!cisions -cl 9(<>)1,a)·(h).

7

Cl 9(6)(c)-(d) mul (7).

Food and Drug Adminis1ra1io11 21 USC § JS 1-360cc ( 1988) - risk labels on plwnnacculical prnd11c1s: El'A 15 USC par 2601-2655 - pcs1icidcs and asbcslOs, O<!c11pa1io11al Safety and I lcallh Administration Siandard 29 CFR par 19 I 0.1200 ( 1989) - evaluate the chemicals produced. tcdmical hazard infnnnalion must he developed and infonuation must be 1ransmi11cd 10 users thereof; Emergency Planning and Cn111mu11i1y Righi Ill Know Act tEl'CIR/\) •12 llSC § %01-%22 (198!1) - qua111i1ies of plllcnlially hazardous chemicals lhal arc slored/rcleas<!d inlo the ell\0

irn11111c111. er :ilso I) Siever 'The privale Sl!elor's ll<!Cd for c11virn11111e11lal secrl!cy: prod Uc! regulation and the Sl!crccy or proprietary inli.mnation' (I 91_{JJ) 2}

Nl.'w York U11i1•ersil)' E111•iro11111e111a/ I.I 22,l-231. 9 Sunslcin 01; cit n I at 666-6 71.

I

·1

I

I

Right to Environmental h?/(J1"111atio11 in the USA _{I 17}

to protect those persons who may be hann~d by disclosure of information submitted lo obtain a license. The EPA has Lo ensure that the claim for protection is legitimate and Lo prevent unauthorised disclosure. w

Businesses are also concerned that in the process of compiling information on environmental issues, trade secrets may be leaked by the

governmental agencies. 11 .

A firm's records compiled when acting on behalf or an agency L~an be regarded as public records and arc therefore ,open lo the scrutiny ol' the public.12 The totality or factors test was followed in Sd111•artz111a11 v

Merritt Island Volunteer Fire De11w·t111e11tll --· the lest depends on the totality ofrefoted factors and activities of the private company whether its records can be regarded as open or not.

In this article, measures pertaining to lhl! environmental disclosure in the legislation of USA and the reasons for non-disclosure will be discussed in order to make recommendations for South Africa.

10

Siever op cit nl! at 225. In Capital Citie.1· Media Im' v Che.1·ter 797 F 2d 116'1 !)rd Cir 1986) Pennsylvania's Dcpar1111e111 of Environ111cmal Resources (DER) denied applicant's ~equest (a news~ape_r) for _docu111e11ts under the DER 's co111rol. An i11vcstiga1ion was launched 111to tl.1e contam1na11011 ol nonhcast Pennsylvania's drinking waler - an applicant wanled ₁₀ cs1abl~~h,DER's po~sible culpa~ilily and enforccmenl s1ra1egy. Applicant's arguniem was 1hai lhe. DER s refusal v10la1cd lhe hrs! a111end111c111 and !he right to know. The courls dismissed lhe chum because of failure lo allege the cxis1c11c'e of a historical 1rmli1ion or access to agcncy-hel~ ~loc_urnen.t_s. - cf B_ Greenhcr~ "Guaranle.:cl righl of public access to agency dc!cumenls. C111!1tal .C1t1e.r Mt1cl1t1, Inc 1• U1esta 797 F 2d 1164 (.1rd Cir 1986) ( 1988) )) na.~f1111gto11 U111vers1~1' .lounwl oj Urban 1111d ( '011te111_{11mwy /_aw 215-22,1.}

Siever 1993 op cit 118 at 228-229. 12

Cf F1:i1z ~ Norflor Co11.1·1r11clio11 Co ]86 So 2 d 899 (Fla 5th Dist Ct App 1980) 90 I in terms of the I· londa State Record Act Fla S1a1 § 110.011 (I) ( 199 I J. )\Jorllor was ₁₁₁₁ engineering fi:·n~ who construcled a waslewa1cr 1rca1111e111 fiicili1y on !>chair of a city. In /'ar.wn.i· & lll111t1•11wre Inc 1• M'.'tropolilc111 Dacie Co11nty ·129 So 2d 343 (Fla Jd Disl Ct App 1983) ii was

~ound .that com~an1c~ ni:~ nol nc.:cs~aril7 acling 011 behalf of govcrnmcnl r<!lying on a cnnlraclunl rcla.t1011sh1p. r he companies mclml<!d a conlractor of a solid wasle facilily, a cnn.1pm~y who IS to manage and operate lhe fi11!ili1y and the company that guaranlcl!s lhc obl~gallon~ of th~ ~thcr 1:v_o. The only distinction bc1wcc11 1hc 1wo decisions may be on th<! basis 11.1at Ill the 1_-r11z dcc1s1011 the company pcrfi.inncd a government function. The dis1inc1ion accord mg to R .Rivas 'Access ~o "privale" clocume111s under the Public Records Act' ( 1992) I (i tv.'.'I"<'. l.m~. R_ewe1.v 1242-124 7 1~ 1rnl clear; The co11r1 held in Nell's & S1m-Sentille/ ( 'ompimy ₁. ,\Ll111a/i, 111·'.llY <~ ll1111.1·er 1_lrc/n1e.ct11ra/ (Jm1tp /11c 570 So 2<1 1095 (Fla 4lh Dis! C1 App 1990) lhal the design of an archilccl I med by a school hoa1 d :,1 design a school was not a public record.

118 (llJ97) 5 SAJELP

2 Disclosure mc~su1·cs

2.1 NEPA

The National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA)1'1 point of departure is full and open disclosure. The underlying principle is that a well-informed public will make wiser decisions if they know the impacts of and alternatives to a proposed action. Read with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)15 these two pieces of legislation should ensure openness and there should be no place for secrecy in the handling of environmental impact statement (EIS).1'' However, the practice is diflcrcnt.17

Section I 02(2)(c) of NEPA requires that an EIS as well as the comments received on it should be made available to the public in terms of FOIA taking into account FOIA's exemptions.18 A NEPA plaintiff can lilc a parallel FOIA request for ccrmin portions of the EIS to be con!ldential. At a de novo judicial review the agency carries the burden to prove why withholding of the information is justified.19

NEPA also ensures that environmental considerations are to be taken into account in the agencies' decision-making processes by requiring the agency to prepare an EIS. The environmental costs of all actions (including those of national dclCncc) must be coui1ted.20 The NEPA process is un unique opportunity for the government and citizens to become partners in preventing lrnnnrut activities to the environment.21 An environmental impact assessment (EJA) and EIS are suppose to be 1rustworthy but it is a political reality that it docs not always succeed in this regard.22 The public should be involved during the scoping process

l.l ·352 Su 2d 1230 1232 (Fla 4th Dist Cl /\pp 1977 (Fla t 978 ).

14

42USC§4321-tl370c.

15 _{s use§} ss2.

lb Cf also S D)•cus···EJ'J\ secrets' (199)) New York Unil'ersity li11viro11111e11tal Law

.Jo11mr1/ 302-30-1; Futrell op cil n2 al 235; RE Hallo 'Opcnhaarhcill van milicugegevens: Een

transatlanlischc bescliouwing' in .f!IG v:m den llrock, D van dcr Mcijdcn and HE llullo (ed)

Opo!11lwe1rl11!id 1•w1 111iliL'11re(e.1·w11e 1i,~dryf.•.i:<'>:•"'ell.\" ( 1993) 51-54. 17 _er

MB Cicrrard 'The dynmnics of secrecy in 1hc environmental impact s1<11emen1

process' (I 99J) 2 Nc!w York U11i1•ersity J:'111'inm111e111ctl J.mr ./011mC1/ 279-29 I .

111

Dycus op cit n t (1 nl 302-JO).

19

Dycus op cit n 16 nt JOJ.

20 Dycus op cit nl6 al 300. 21 Futrell op cir 112 nt 235. 22 Furrcll op cit 112 al 236. ·, .

Right to Environmental h[/"orma1io11 in the USA 119

and all affected and interested parties must be contacted to identify key issues. ·The EPA can only function if proper and reliable information is available. The existence of the EPA and EIS can, however, not always prevent .environmental degradation.2.l National defence is, for example, sometimes used as an excuse lo avoid the compilation of an EIS.2'1

In South Africa aq environmental impact report has to be compiled if one of the activities listed in GN I I 8225 is undertaken. Such a report is

·regarded as a public document, subject to the fight of the owner thereof, after a record of decision is issued by the n::lcvanl authority. 2<•

In the USA, it is a question whether raw data (that. is the calculations and assumptions underlying the technical conclusions of an EIS) should be open to the public. Developers make mostly use of consultants to establish the environmental effects of the proposed development. ln nrnny instances the lead agency does not have the expertise or fun<ls to check the findings of the consultant. The consultants also need certain information to deal with their investigation - this information can be obtained by making use of the relevant fredlom or i1iformation acts. There are, however, certain deficiencies in this process. It might take a long time to receive the requested information or it may be refused by the agency on one of the exemption grounds. The person or environmental group who wants to review the findings may have the same problems.27

The New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)211 requires an EIS to be completed by al! slate and local agencies on any proposed action that may have a signi lie ant effect on the environment. In certain instances (emergency actions, criniinal and civil proceedings, in the case of the operation and expansion of existing landfills) an EIS needs not to be prepared. Even if an EIS is prepared there is no obligation lo release the underlying data to the public.2''

A tool which is used by the EPA to obtain information in their

investigation of hazardous waste sites is the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).30

23 _Fulrell

op cil 112 at 237.

2

'1 Cf also 2.J.2 and Dycus opcil nl6 at 311-JIJ.

25

·111 GG t8261 ofS Scplcmhcr 1997. 26

Cf reg 12 read wilh reg I 0 GN 1183 in (i(j I 11261 of S Scpt.:mbcr t 997. 27

Gerrard op cit n 17 at 283-2KS.

28

NY Envtl Conscrv l..;iw § 8-0 Ill I lo 8-0117 (l\k K inncy I 984 ).

29

Gerrard op cit n 17 at 285-286.

120 (1997) 5 SAJELP Par 104(e) of the Act authorises the EPA to

'compel "any person" to provide the agency wilh informntion pertaining to (I) the idenlification, nature and quantity of materials generated, !rented or stored at a hazardous substance facility; (2) the nature or extent of a release, or threatened release, of a hazardous suhstance from such a facility; and (3) the person's ability to pay for or

. I .JI

perform a c canup.

This request may be addressed to potentially responsible parties; it also serves as a first notification of potential environmental liability. Companies must respond in full to the request; compliance may otherwise' be enforced by administrative order, civil action or fines can be imposcd.32

2.2 Self-auditing

The government and the pri\'att' "l'Ctllr li:I\ e an u11dl'1 <;ta11di11g that it is useful and economic beneficial to H')1.11l:1tl'd t•111irie<;, 11:1111ely to conduct

from time to time self:·audits 1cgardi11g compliance with the various environmental laws (state and fedcral) . .11 The question however, is whether the EPA, regulatory agencies and third parties have access to these reports to use it against the company or agency for enforcement purposes or legal proceedings.H Various states pressurised by industry enacted a form of audit privilege law and bills were introduced on federal level for the same purpose. These legislative measures have to give industry the assurance that their implementation of self-auditing will not result in law enforcement or the imposition of fines. In 1995 a new EPA interim policy35 was published to give guidance and to provide incentives to companies conducting self-audits.36 The policy does not provide the

31

DM Abuhoff and S I lammer' Answering the call of the EPA' (1994) 17 Legal Times

S28.'

32

Abuhoff and l lanuncr op cit n3 I at S28-S29; er also their proposals how to react to u CERCLA rcquesl regarding nego1ia1ion, gathering of relevant information and drafting of the response.

. l.l Cf also Futrell op cit 112 at 235; I lallo op cit 118 at 79-80. In South Africa companies who want to obtain certilica1ion also have to conduc1 uuditi11g, monitoring and review - cf SABS/ISO E111·ircm111e11wl 1\la110J.:eme11t .\)•stems Specijic:C11io11 with G11icla11ce for U.re !SO

l./00/ { 1996) 4.5-4.6.

.14

GS Pon 'Does EPA policy really provide protection'/' ( 1995) 111 111e New l'ork Law .ftmmal 213.

J5

E111·iro1111w11tol /leg11lati1111 SelFl'olici11g mu/ Violation Disclosure and Correctio11 by llegi1l11ted li11titie.1·; l11ce11/ive /'11/icy State1111ml 60 Fed Reg 16875 (April 3.1995); 413/N 16875; 6/1/N 28613 - by June 1997 this policy had not been adopted.

36

Porl op cit n34 at t, 12. The principal incentives granted by the EPA are inter alia (a) penally reduction, (b) limited criminal proceedings regarding past violations discovered during

Right to Environmental Information in the USA 121

'complete security blanket industry groups have been seeking' .37 Third parties (environmental groups or state environmental regulators) are not barred from access by making use of a citizen suit, common law tort or contractual action. It is uncertain whether a public interest group will prosecute a company that is in the process of making amends except if they are not satisfied with the nature or extent of the efforts undertaken. The relationship between the EPA policy and the legislation granting immunity adopted by the states is unclear.38 ·

In 1995 a Bi1139 was introduced in the United States Senate dealing with protection in the case of environmental self-audits. The Bill provides that these audits will not be subject to discovery and will not be submitted as evidence in federal judicial or administrative proceedings. Immunity for civil and criminal violations discovered during the audit is given.40

2 .3 First Amendment

In the Pacific Northwest a discussion is held between the logging industry and environmentalists on whether the old-growth forests should be preserved. The environmentalists use the Endangered Species Act (ESA)'11 and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)42 to enforce protection. Jones43 is of the opinion that it will not ensure long-term preservation and submits that

'the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution upholds a societal right to access to information in addition to its guarantee of the individual right to expression ... The First Amendment is based on a system of values. In tht? context of cases upholding society's right of access to infornmtion, the Supreme Court implicitly recognizes the values of self-fulfilment, the attainment of knowledge and trnth, and the participation by members of society in decision making, and uses them to justify application of !he First

the audit, (c) no routine efforts to obtain audit results - in other word~ a report will not be requested to trigger criminal or civil proceedings. The incentives will only be invoked if there is compliance with·certain prescribed conditions.

37 Port op cit n34 at 12. 38 Ibid . 39 _s 582. 40

Port op cit 1134 at 12, 14. In a !louse Bill an exemption was included that an audit can be used in the court if n judge after an in camera hearing finds that compelling circumstances exist. The House Bill offers imnnmiry from both state and federal government actions while the Senate Bill only refers lo federal actions. .

41

16 USC§ 1531-1544. 42

16USC§1600-1687.

43

JD Jones 'A new paradigm for protection: First amendment principles and the environment' (1994) 69 Washington Law Re1•iew 183-205.

...

00

122 (1997) 5 SAJELP

Amendment'.

Environmental plaintiffs have some obstacles to demonstrate a personal interest and that they in fact suffered an injury. It has been proposed on several occasions that a fundamental right to environmental preservation should be included in the USA Constitution.44 Jones45 argues that the environment is a source of information and so-ciety'.s need for information can only be fulfilled if undisturbed environments can be studied. The preservation of the environment is therefore necessary to achieve self-fulfilment and to obtain knowledge, truth and the participation of individuals in the decision-making process.

2.4 Other statutes

The Clean Air Act'16 and Clean Water Act'17 ensure that environmental quality information for example on emissions and effluent data are to be disclosed on a regular prescribed basis. These reports are available to the public. A similar provision is included in the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.48

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)49 and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)50 also provide for the release of information on pesticides residues and chemical substances. Requests for this information are not always satisfactory.51 Use can, however, be made of FOIA to obtain information if one of the exemption categories is not

44 Jones op cit n43 nt 184-186. 45 Jones op cit n43 at 196-203. ~6_· 42USC§7414(1988). 47

33 USC § 131 S(a). § I JI 8(1i) provides for conlidenliality where trade secrets n_iay be divulged. The :uhninislraliun must, however, be satisfied thnt there is n need for confidentiality. In terms of this Act EPA had to release a report on ways to improve cnforccmenl of the /\ct. Although the report was compiled it w11s not released to the public. The National Resources Defence Council and the US Public Interest Research Group intended

10 brin11 suit during 1991 for the release of the report - cf in this regard DC Dilworth 'Clean Water Enforcement Rcporl boll led up by El' A' ( 199 I) 27 1i'ial 80-83. Cf also Futrell op cit n2 at 236. 48 _{42 use § Jooj-1} 1. 49 7 USC § 136-136y. 50 15 use § 2601-2692. SI

Cf JM Warren 'Problems encountered wirh confidentiality bars on toxic substances disclosure imposed by federal cnvironmenral slalutes' ( 1993) 2 Nell' York University E11viro11111e11tal I.aw .!011nw/ 292-299.

Right to Environmental Information in the USA 123

invoked.52

Before a pesticide ·manufacturer can be registered it has to supply extensive health and safety data on the substance including information on the residue thereof in food substances as well as the 'food tolerance' limit to the EPA.53 During the deliberative period whether or not to issue a licence for the sale and use of a pesticide, the public's right to information is excluded.54

The TSCA requires EPA to disclose all health and safety information that manufacturers were to submit pursuant to TSCA. The EPA has compiled an inventory of approximately seventy thousand chemical substances used in commerce in the USA. The EPA has health and safety information regarding some of these substances available. This information can be requested through FOIA. .Information that was voluntarily submitted outside the requirements of the TSCA is not subject to mandatory disclosure. If researchers require information, they might be requested to sign an affirmation stating that they are not employed by a multinational corporation and that the information will not be used for competitive purposes. The name of the researcher is ·also released to the registrant of the pesticide.55

The identity of some chemicals may be withheld in terms of the TSCA. EPA may decline to answer a request whether a certain chemical exists. It

creates some problems as a manufacturer or importer may only act if a chemical is listed. EPA on the other hand will only release the information once it is certain that there is a bona fide intent to import or manufactme. The reason is by making .use of EPA to prevent industrial espionage.56

The Emergency Planning and Commul1ity Right-To-Know Act57 was enacted after an environmental disaster in Bhopal India where methyl isocyanate MIC from a pesticide manufacturing plant was accidentally released; it had a devastating effect on the neighbouring population.58

52 SJ S4

55

Warren op cit 1151 al 294.

Amount of allowable residue in rhe food. 7 use§ I 36a(c)(2)(A).

7 USC § I 36h(g)( I )-(2). 56 _{Cf Warren op cit n51 al 295-296.} 57

42 USC§ I IOOl-l 1050(1988J(EPCRA). Cf also Futrell op cit n2 at 235; G Hadden 'Computers and the righ! to know' ( 1989) 3 Ad111i11i.1·tratfre I.all' .loumal 255; Hallo op cit n 16 nt 70-72.

58

( 1 YY I) J ;':JAJJ!,LJ:'

The objective of the Act is to inform members of the public on the release of air pollutants and water discharges into publicly owned water treatment works. Inventories of hazardous chemicals stored or used at facility sites

in umounts greater than the threshold arc kcpt.5'' The informntio1ds stored

in government dutahunks ancl is uvailublc lo the public on rcquest.611 The Act goes further than the Clean Wutcr Act but not us f'ar n:i infi.mnution needed for an EIS.

The Act also provides for a local emergency response as well as the right to know about it.6.1 In terms of§ 11021-11023.311 a list of chemicals groups by hazard category or a Material Safety Data Sheet describing inter a/ia the potential hazards of the chemicals are to be submitted.62 State and local governments are involved at this process in order to draw up emergency plans and actions.63 The state has to carry the costs but in the end the costs are devolved back to the user and not necessarily to the company involved.64 The social costs may therefore be increased.65 In terms of ISOl 400 I an environmental management system must provide for emergency preparedness and response programmes.66

Training and awareness programmes are to be undertaken.67 These

programmes should as a good practice be internally as well as externally communicated. 68

Section 11022 of the Emergency Planning Act requires certain

companies and other institutions (e.g. fire departments) to submit annual reports to certain departments estimating the maximum amount of chemicals in a hazard category that may be stored or released at one time as well as the general storage and disposal locations.69 The EPA has to compile an electronic data base of toxical chemical releases that includes70

59

42 USCS § 11002; Hadden op cit 1157 255; I lallo op cil n 16 73-75.

60 § t 1044. 61 62 64 65 66 67 68 § 11003-11044. § 11021; Hadden op cit n57 259. § 11003; Hadden op cit 1157 297. Hadden op cit n57 at 302. I ladden op cit 1157 al 266. SABS/ISO op cit 1133 al 4.4.7. SABS/ISO op cit n33 al 4.4.2.

JG Ncl E11viro11111e111al Ma11ageme111 Systems Certijicatio11 Course PUCllE ( 1997) Module 9. 69 Hadden op cit n57 at 260. 7 0 § 11023.

1

J(Jg/1! to Jinvironmental Information in the USA 125

(a) the identification of facilities, (b) the annual quantity of the toxic chemical entering each environment medium, (c) an estimation of the maximum amount of the chemical present in the facility the preceding year and (d) the treatment method employed for each wastcstrcmn and its cf'licicncy.71

Some problems nrc thut lccli11ical slw1dards 111usl bc dcvclopcd for lih.! transfer in order to compile a proper databasc.72 Companies supply other relevant information that can be manipulated as a result of increased access73 or trade secrets be discloscd.7'1 The United States Congress proposed that in exceptional circumstances only the specific chemical identity may be claimed as a trade secret and that the information be classified under the broad generic classes or categories.75 The EPA must list the adverse health and environmental effects associated with the chemical, this can be done without involving the trade secret status of the

chemical. The EPA drew up a matrix of 309 chemical components

compared to ten environmental and health effects that can be used.76 The United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations made 13 proposals regarding the federal policy dealing with the compilation and dissemination of electronic information.77 The

71

Hadden op. cit n57 al 260 265.

72

The software should be user-friendly and provision should be mndc for fee-waivers or reduction; cf Hadden op cit n57 111 286.

73

Hadden op cit 1157 nl 273-274 states that the EPA should mnintain the database nnd regulate public access to it, or that it should he made available through a commercial bibliographical retrieval service or the Nalional Ubrary of Medicine or a non-profil organisation. The government chose the N111ional Librnry of Medicine as ii was uncertain whal the number of users would be as well as their needs for informa1ion. Public libraries could also be used - smnll companies or inslilutions withoul co1npu1cr tnmsfer facilities can, eg, bring 1hcir diskelles lo a library or email it lo be accessed by a librarian. A member oflhe public can make use of.these facilities to salisfy.his or her righl lo know. If information is found that may have adverse environmenlnl effects, a prinloul can Ill: made mid lhc local governme1ll can investigate the complninl (310-312).

74

§ 11042; Hadden op cil 1157 at 279.

75

Hadden op cit 1157 al 279-280 proposes 1h:11 two scp:mllc dalabases be kept as ii will

nol adversely affect the costs.

76 _{E · · · . . I I I I I 'I' d . I} ~g carcmogc111c1ly, acute tox1c11y. ·. 01 1cr 111mnn 1ca l 1 c11 ccts an cnv1ronmentu toxicity; cf Hadden op cit 1157 nl 282.

77

(n) Modern technology should improve 1hc public's ahilily 10 access, copy and manipulate agency dala; (b) Federal agencies )'hould support a diversity of informalion distributing mechanisms; (c) ngcncics should mll exercise copyright-like controls 01•cr government information; (d) clcclronic tapes should be regarded as records; (e) before information is put into the database the companies should he consulted, (I) use should he encouraged; (g) there should he n lrnnsition from paper lo clcclrnnics, (h) clcclronic

N 0

126 (1997) 5 SAJELP

provision of health and environmental information is a . proper governmental activity as it provides consumers information on the ris~s of production. It maximises the freedom to choose and keeps direct government regulatory activity to the minimum.78

It seems as if the Right-to-Know Act brought about increased liability, new legislative requirements and the possibility 'of harm to some of the companies who will be forced to reduce their toxic emissions voluntarily to improve the surrounding environment.79 In this instance the release of information may be a tool to ensure legislative compliance.80 It also grants an individual the opportunity of making an informed choice regarding the buying ofproducts.81

In some instances the chemical identities may be regarded as confidential. 82 The confidentiality provisions are not frequently used as a significant substantiation is required by the EPA to claim trade se.crecy protection. Competitive harm must be proved and the substance should be

. . d 83

w

8·1 th t

one that cannot be readily reverse-engmeere . arren argues a information on a highly toxic substance should be released regardless the co11sequences thereof. In terms of the TSCA FOIA has to release the information if it is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to the health or the environment if an imminent hazard is posed.85 A similar provision is contained in the South African Draft Open Democracy Act.86 ·

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)87 allows the USA President to exempt a facility

information systems should be procured through cornpetilivc procedures; (i) the fee should only charge the marginal cost of dissemination, (j) the information programme should allow private sector ilwolvement, (k) monopolies of data dissemination by contractors should n?t be allowed and (I) the public seclor should limit the informalion products and allow the private sector to develop value-added services - cf I ladden op cit n57 at 289-293.

78 1 laddcn op cit n57 at 294. 79 Futrell op cit n2 al 238. RO Futrell op cit n2. at 239. 81

RG Vaughn 'Consumer access to product safety information and the future of the Freedom of Information Act' ( 1991) 5 Ad111i11i.1·1mtfre I.aw ./011m11/ 675-676.

82 42 USC § 11042. 83 § I 1042lb). 84 85 Warren op cit n5 I at 299. 15 USC § 2613(a). 86 Cf I supra. 87 42 USC § 9601-9675.

Right to Environmental Jnjormation in the USA ₁₂₇

from the requirements of CERCLA or the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)88 _{'to protect national security} interests' as long as this exemption is reported to Congress within 30

days.89 ·

The Department of Defence regulations90 _{envisages a 'NEPA-like'}

process. Environmental consequences are taken into account at each stage of the decision-making process.91 Public review would have been valuable but is regarded as not possible in a ~lassified environment. A solution could be to appoint a cadre of experts and cleared personnel to review the-decisions and to resolve disagreements on non-compliance.92

There are three areas of potential conflict between environmental legislation and the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) objectives namely (a) to meet the environmental standards, (b) to comply with recordkeeping and documentation requirements where the information is classified and (c) to deal with regulators who need access to classified areas of information to perform their duties.93 The CIA developed internal regulations to deal with such matters should it arise.94 _{It requires the}

Agency's Office of General Counsel and Office of Security to work together with the EPA, state and local environmental officials to ensure compliance with environmental requirements but at the same time protect classified information. The General Counsel may, however, exempt the CIA from this process if there is sufficient legal basis for doing so and if all reasonable alternatives have been considered.95 _{Until now, such}

conflict has not been created. 3 Reasons for non-disclosure

Various reasons are given why certain environmental information should not be released. The South African Draft Open Democracy Bill also

· 88 42 use§ 11001 -11oso.

89 '

42 USCS § 9604(c)(7); LR llourclc 'f\lililary secrecy and environmental compliance' ( 1993) 2 New York U11frersity E111·iro11111e11tal Law .Jminwl 336.

90 32 CFR § 188. 91 Cf Hourclc op cit n89 al 339. 92· Hourclc op cit n89 al 341-342. 93

. Cf RB Stiles 'Environmental law and the Cenlral lmelligence Agency: Is there a con~1ct between secrecy and cnvironmenlal compliance?' (1993) 2 New York University E11v1ro11111e11tal Law Journal 347-350.

94 .

CIA Headquarters Regulation 12-6 ( 1992) as referred lo by Stiles op cit n93 at 348.

95