On October 24, CLF will join with people around the country to celebrate Food Day as part of a nationwide movement for healthy, affordable, and sustainable food. This is a time for us to gather and reflect on the agricultural abundance our region can provide, and the importance of making sure that our food systems not only supply bodily nutrition, but  also contribute in a healthful way to our community ecosystems.

At the smallest scale, CLF’s Boston staff will celebrate Food Day by breaking local bread (and cheese!) from Allandale Farm and sharing in the story of one urban community fighting for food justice: we’ll be getting together to watch The Garden, a documentary about the community’s fight to save a14-acre community garden in South Central Los Angeles from being sold for development. This important story reflects the struggles that many of our communities of color and low income communities face in order to gain access to a basic right: nutritious food. (For more on CLF’s Farm & Food work, check out this page.)

But CLF’s celebration of healthy, affordable, and sustainable food is not limited to October 24th. CLF attorneys working on our Farm and Food Initiative work year round to protect, expand, and improve our regional food system, tackling some of our region’s most pressing environmental and health issues, and making our region more resilient to the impacts of climate change already underway.

From our efforts in Vermont working with farmers and other professionals to demystify community-financing tools available to farmers seeking to start, or grow, their farms, to our study of policy and market barriers related to urban agriculture in Greater Boston, CLF and CLF Ventures’ Farm and Food work is both advocating sustainable farming practices and unlocking the economic development potential of agricultural development. And this is just the beginning: over the next two years, CLF will engage in the most comprehensive regional policy analysis that has ever been done for commercial agriculture in New England, leading to a suite of policy recommendations that will enable our region to develop a self-supporting food system.

CLF understands that food lies at the intersection of many of our most pressing problems – the obesity epidemic, soaring healthcare costs, a faltering economy, climate change, and social inequity. We hope you’ll not only join CLF in celebrating Food Day on October 24 (check out activities in your area here), but continue the journey with us as we advocate solutions that bring healthy food to all of New England’s communities using sustainable farming practices and reducing the impacts of climate change.

Many of you have been waiting for the next opportunity to voice your concern over the BU Biolab. Your time is coming – the state’s public comment process will begin soon, and the Patrick Administration needs to hear from you.

The proponents of Boston University’s proposed National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) – known as the BU Biolab – in the densely populated urban environmental justice community of Roxbury/ South End are in the process of submitting the risk analysis of their project for environmental review. Having failed at this twice before – in the view of the Massachusetts courts and the National Research Council, among others – this is the third time  the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and BU have attempted to adequately explain how the risks associated with placing a a high-level biocontainment laboratory that would test pathogens like ebola and the plague are acceptable for this community.

The latest Risk Assessment, which was recently completed by NIH, is now under final consideration by that same agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CLF has reviewed the final Risk Assessment and, like NIH and BU’s past attempts, it still falls extremely short of addressing concerns about the lab raised by community members.

In particular, NIH’s final Risk Assessment  does not meaningfully address the fact that the Boston location selected for siting the NEIDL comes with substantially more risk potential than rural or suburban alternative sites. The final Risk Assessment also fails to fully analyze the ways in which the environmental justice community living near the NEIDL site, which already battles disproportionately compromised health, would be unfairly affected by proximity to the facility – which unfortunately has great potential for disaster in the event of an accident or malevolent attack. For a copy of the written comments submitted to NIH by CLF and its legal partners last Friday explaining why the latest Risk Assessment is still insufficient, click here.

BU will soon submit its Risk Assessment for review by the state pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), at which point the public will have the opportunity to comment. Public input is the heart of the environmental review process. It is essential that the Patrick administration hear why this facility presents too much risk, and not enough benefit, for this already overburdened environmental justice community. CLF will provide updated information here on how you can submit public comment as soon as those details become available. Check back here soon for how you can get involved!

Image courtesy of epSos.de @ flickr.

New Englanders are driving and emitting more pollution every day. Emissions from New England’s transportation sector – the fastest growing emissions sector — produce about 40% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the region, more than half of which comes from passenger cars. This is a problem for New England’s people, environment and economy.

That is why CLF has been working hard with a coalition of environmental advocacy organizations to support the creation of a Clean Fuels Standard (CFS) in eleven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. A successful CFS would achieve several mutually reinforcing goals:

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector through the promotion of alternative fuels (such as electricity, advanced biofuels, and natural gas);
• Drive regional economic growth; and
• Ensure energy security and insulate residents of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states from rising oil prices.

This week, the CFS advocacy coalition – comprised of CLF, PennFuture, Environment Northeast, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environment America, and Ceres – welcomed good news regarding litigation in California over the CA Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion to stay sought by the State of California and its co-appellants (including CLF, who is a party to the CA litigation). This decision blocked the injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, which prevented CA from enforcing its LCFS regulations while the appeal was pending.

In real terms, as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the LCFS will be alive and well in CA while the Appeals Court considers the merits of the case – a significant victory for California, CLF, and the other appellants, and a positive step toward combating climate change in the transportation sector.

CLF and its partners also made important strides this week toward promoting a regional CFS by standing up against threats from the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a trade association comprised of fossil fuel interests and affiliated with organizations like the American Petroleum Institute. CEA (along with the American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Trucking Associations, and the Center for North American Energy Security), is an opposing party in the California litigation described above.

Earlier this month, the CEA contacted Attorneys General in all of the states participating in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic CFS program, spreading misinformation about the California litigation and threatening to lodge a similar battle against a CFS program in our region. CLF and its allies responded strongly with a response letter to the Attorneys General, making clear that CEA severely mischaracterized the direction of the CA litigation and its implications for the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region. In fact, the CA litigation is not a predictor of the legality of fuel standards still under development in other locations, and resource-specific regional differences between the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region and California undercut CEA’s claims. The Massachusetts version of the letter to the Attorneys General is available here.

CLF believes that a regional CFS is a crucial means of significantly reducing the region’s dependence on oil, transportation costs, and greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time providing consumers more choices. CLF will continue to work with allies to ensure that the CFS program progresses in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

Boston University (BU) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are preparing a mandatory revised risk assessment for BU’s National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories (NEIDL), which has received substantial federal funding through NIH. I described the specifics of this risk assessment in an earlier post. The draft of that risk assessment is currently ready for public review. Though we reported in our last post that the public hearing for NIH’s draft risk assessment would be held February 16, that hearing was delayed by NIH. NIH recently announced that the hearing has been rescheduled for April 19 and that they are accepting public comments on the draft risk assessment. Your input in this public process is crucial – here is how you can get involved:

• Review the Draft Risk Assessment: The first step is to review what NIH has prepared. You can access the draft risk assessment electronically here, and the accompanying Reader’s Guide here. You can also obtain a hard copy of the draft risk assessment and Reader’s Guide in the mail by e-mailing NIH at NIH_BRP@od.nih.gov or calling (301) 496-9838 to place your request.

• Submit Written Comments: Any member of the public can submit comments to NIH on the draft assessment – that means you! The public comment period closes on May 1, 2012. After reviewing the draft risk assessment, submit your comments to NIH by May 1^st via email at NIH_BRP@od.nih.gov or in hard copy to: The National Institutes of Health, ATTN: NEIDL Risk Assessment, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892.

• Attend the Hearing: The public hearing on the draft risk assessment has been rescheduled for Thursday, April 19, 2012, from 6:30-9:30 PM at Roxbury Community College, 1234 Columbus Avenue, Boston, MA 02120. This is your opportunity to offer comments on the risk assessment verbally. We strongly encourage you to support the local community members opposing this project by attending this public hearing – either to offer comments yourself, or to offer support through your presence. If you would like to offer oral comments, you will need to sign-in prior to the start of the meeting. You can sign-in beginning at 5:30 PM.

Your written and oral comments can be as long/detailed or brief/big-picture as you like – there is no one way to express your opinion. The important thing is that you speak up.

Check the CLF Scoop for more updates or contact me at jrushlow@clf.org with any questions.

Late on Wednesday night residents of Springfield celebrated an important victory in their longstanding fight against a biomass-burning plant that Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) proposes to construct in their community. Acting on the petition of local residents Michaelann Bewsee and Toni and William Keefe,  the Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) overturned the two building permits that were issued to PRE last November. Media coverage of the ZBA decision is available here and here.

The ZBA declared the building permits unlawful because, in an attempt to avoid City Council review of the project, PRE had not obtained a special permit that is required for the proposed plant. Responding to convincing presentations from Ms. Bewsee and Attorney Pat Markey, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that because the facility will engage in incineration, the Springfield Zoning Ordinance requires a special permit from the City Council before building permits can issue. CLF has worked closely with Ms. Bewsee, her organization, Arise for Social Justice, Toxics Action Center and the community group Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, to protest this proposed power plant, which would bring additional harmful air pollution to Springfield. Siting this project in this location would be particularly inequitable, as Springfield is already a grossly overburdened environmental justice community that suffers disproportionately from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases because of exposure to air pollution.

CLF warmly congratulates the community on this victory, and thanks the Springfield City Council for the important role it played in upholding the integrity of their Zoning Ordinance.

While much of Boston was distracted by the approaching holidays, public health and the environmental justice communities of Roxbury / South End scored a victory last Friday, December 23^rd, when Secretary Sullivan issued his final decision to deny BU’s request to begin high level research at BU’s National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories (NEIDL) until a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA.

This decision brings to a close one chapter in a larger, protracted debate regarding acceptable levels of risk for this project, otherwise known as the BU Biolab. Biodefense research conducted at the lab would bring highly contagious, rare and lethal pathogens, such as ebola, to densely populated urban neighborhoods. Members of local communities have expressed strong opposition to the siting of this facility near their homes and schools.

Meanwhile, BU has failed multiple times to assess and justify the risks associated with the NEIDL as required by state and federal statutes. Their assessments have repeatedly been subject to criticism for the poor quality of their analysis. Despite this, BU requested a waiver to proceed with operating the lab – a request that applied to all proposed research for the NEIDL except that which would occur in Biocontainment Safety Level 4 (BSL-4) labs, including BSL-3 research. CLF and other opponents of the lab strongly opposed this request.

Secretary Sullivan’s final decision denies BU’s request to begin BSL-3 research before a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA. We welcome this decision, and consider it to be a victory for the security of the local community and the integrity of the legal process. As stated in joint comments filed last week, we support this decision for the following reasons:

1) It’s the law. The Secretary’s decision is in line with the Superior Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rulings that require the EOEEA to fully review risk assessments for BSL-3 and 4 research at the NEIDL.

2) It’s too risky not to understand the risks. Careful review and oversight of this facility is necessary given BU’s poor track record of reporting accidents in a timely manner and communicating with the community on this issue.

3) The public not only should participate – they are required to. The EOEEA Environmental Justice Policy requires enhanced state review and public participation opportunities because of the proposed facility’s location in Roxbury/South End.

What You Can Do:

NIH’s Blue Ribbon Panel will come to Hibernia Hall in Roxbury on February 16^th to hold a public meeting and hear comments on NIH’s draft risk assessment for the NEIDL. CLF will post the time and other details for the public meeting here when they become available. Mark your calendar and join CLF and its partners in seeking to ensure that this facility does not introduce unnecessary risk to an already overburdened environmental justice community.

Protestors at BU Biolab. Courtesy of Steph PS @ flickr. Creative Commons.

There’s a common saying that if you can’t measure it, you can’t control it. Leaders of Boston University’s proposed National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) – known as the BU Biolab – in the densely populated urban environmental justice community of Roxbury/ South End, have asked the state to waive required review of their plans to build a lab involving rare and lethal pathogens even though their prior risk assessments were found inadequate multiple times. In other words, they want to build a risk laden facility without accountability to the public. We oppose the grant of this request.

We Support Secretary Sullivan’s Decision in Favor of Thorough Review

Today advocates in the fight against the Biolab filed joint comments with Secretary Sullivan supporting his draft decision which, if adopted as final later this month, will deny BU’s request to begin high level research before a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA. You can read a copy of our comments here, and find the draft decision here.

Background on the Biolab

The facility would focus its research on biological agents used in acts of bioterrorism – a mission the community fears will bring biodefense research on highly contagious pathogens to their densely populated urban neighborhoods.  Members of the Roxbury/South End communities have expressed vocal opposition to the siting of this facility near their homes and schools.

Biocontainment Safety Level ratings, established by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, increase from 1 to 4 based on the danger associated with research on different biological pathogens and mandate increasing levels of physical protection to prevent a public health crisis in the event that a pathogen leaves the lab (e.g. through transmission from an infected lab worker, an escaped animal subject, or an outbreak resulting from a natural disaster or a malevolent act at the lab). BU’s NEIDL would include research in each of the four Biocontainment Safety Levels.

Research in labs designated as Biocontainment Safety Level 4 (BSL-4), the highest level, includes rare and lethal pathogens, such as ebola. According to BU’s waiver application to EOEEA, their BSL-4 research would involve pathogens that “cause diseases that are usually life-threatening” and are spread through the air or “an unknown cause of transmission.” BU has also quoted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as stating that pathogens appropriate for research in BSL-3 laboratories “cause diseases that may have serious or lethal consequences” and are transmitted through the air.

BU’s Multiple Failures

BU has attempted – multiple times – to explain and justify the risks associated with the NEIDL as required by state and federal statutes. Each time, they have failed and been subject to criticism for the poor quality of their analysis.

Their risk assessments (which must satisfy requirements under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act) have been found to be insufficient and not credible by the EOEEA and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, as well as the National Research Council. Each of these failures to acknowledge the risks associated with the NEIDL has alienated the community, resulting in a marked distrust of BU.

BU has now partially completed its third attempt to justify the risks associated with the NEIDL. This time the risk assessment is being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (who provided significant federal funding for the project) and their private consultant, Tetra Tech.

BU’s Request to Limit Review of Risks

Concurrently with their third attempt to justify the risks associated with the NEIDL, BU filed a written request asking Secretary Sullivan to waive the legal requirement for EOEEA review of certain research at the lab. BU’s request applied to all proposed research for the NEIDL except that which would occur in BSL-4 labs.  CLF and other opponents of the lab strongly opposed this request. A waiver from full EOEEA review would deny the Commonwealth the opportunity to ensure that the risks to the surrounding environmental justice community from this facility had been fully considered.

On December 2, in his draft waiver decision and Certificate on Notice of Project Change, Secretary Sullivan allowed lower level research (BSL-1 and 2) to proceed but stated that EOEEA is “legally barred from acting on [BU’s] waiver request for BSL-3 level research until I am able to independently review the risk assessment for the contagious pathogens proposed for study by BU at the Biolab.”

Today CLF joined the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Anderson & Kreiger, a law firm representing the Safety Net, a community group led by local activist Klare Allen, and other affected community members, in submitting written comments to Secretary Sullivan calling upon him to finalize his draft decision denying a waiver of EOEEA review for BSL-3 research at the NEIDL, and reminding him of his charge under the EOEEA Environmental Justice Policy to ensure that this review process provides enhanced public participation opportunities.

As we state in our comments, we thank the Secretary for recognizing that the NEIDL will involve “research on extremely contagious biological agents that could pose serious harm to an already compromised Environmental Justice community.”

What You Can Do:

• A final decision from Secretary Sullivan on BU’s waiver request is expected on December 28. Stay tuned for news about that decision here. A final draft of NIH’s risk assessment is expected to be issued by NIH in the next few months.
• NIH’s Blue Ribbon Panel will come to Hibernia Hall in Roxbury on February 16^th to hold a public meeting and hear comments on NIH’s draft risk assessment for the NEIDL.  CLF will post the date, time, and other details for the public meeting here when they become available.  Mark your calendar and join CLF and its partners in seeking to ensure that this facility does not introduce unnecessary risk to an already overburdened environmental justice community.