| News |
Jobs |
Features |
Books | Magazines |
All Products |
Blogs |
Forum |
Home
EPA's Library Plan Presages a New Environmental Dark Age
Submitted by Green Machine on Mon, 10/01/2007 - 01:33.
Why EPA’s Library Plan Presages the Beginning of a New Digital Dark Age of Environmental Regulation, Enforcement, and Emergency Response
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on August 15, 2006 the EPA FY 2007 Library Plan: National Framework for Headquarters and Regional Libraries (Library Plan or Plan). The Plan, which was several years in quiet development, proposes a transition from a physical library system (PLS) comprised of the Headquarters and Regional Office libraries to a virtual library network (VLN). The Plan went into effect immediately upon publication and was accelerated in advance of the FY ’07 budget hearings on self-imposed budget cuts to justify the Plan.
The transition from PLS to VLN is being accomplished by closing the Headquarters and Regional Office libraries, eliminating library support services and staff provided by the PLS, decommissioning hardcopy documents and data sets held by the PLS, digitizing some but not all hardcopy documents and data sets held by the PLS, archiving some but not all of the hardcopy documents and data sets that are not digitized for access by Agency staff and the public, and by making some but not all of the digitized documents and data sets accessible to EPA staff, other federal state, and local agencies, NGOs, and the public via the Internet. Those documents and data sets that have not been excluded as a matter of policy (e.g., contractor work products) may be literally lost in translation.
There is no requirement in the Plan to retain readily accessible and verifiably true hardcopies of the documents and data sets of the digitized records, because that would justify the continuation of the PLS. Based on EPA’s responses to my FOIA requests, digitization of documents and data sets is occurring without adequate chain-of-custody, quality control, or process audit protocols. This means that EPA is accountable only to itself as to whether reports and databases containing inconvenient facts or conclusions disappear altogether or whether the digital copy is a true copy or a conveniently doctored chimera.
The wholesale destruction of hardcopy documents and data sets and the attendant diminution of public access to original or true copies embodied in EPA’s shift from PLS to VLN are violations of the E-Government Act of 2002, NEPA, and FOIA and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. The failure to consult or involve the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) is a violation of the enabling statute and derivative regulations. EPA was also arbitrary and capricious in not following its own data polices, procedures, and standards issued under the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA). The failure to public notice the changes in information management policy, program, and procedure embodied in the Plan is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The methods, hardware and software EPA is using to accomplish this digitization are substandard, contrary to the E-Government Act and its antecedent statutes, including the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
EPA’s shift from PLS to VLN is a also a major federal action requiring a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS). This is because it has the reasonably foreseeable potential to diminish the quality of EPA’s and other federal agencies’ programmatic and project-specific EISs and the policies, regulations, and projects deriving therefrom that directly affect the human environment.
After EPA’s Administrator, Stephen Johnson, testified at the February 6, 2007 budget hearings, a letter signed by a number of members of Congress directed EPA to cease further implementation of the Plan until the FY ’07 budget hearings were concluded. EPA initially agreed to this, but in April 2007 issued a policy statement precluding any further decentralized storage of hardcopy documents or data sets to facilitate completion of the transition from PLS to VLN. If EPA is ignoring the will of Congress, it is up to the public to take EPA to court to protect the public interest in libraries and the public access to hardcopy documents and data sets and expert services those libraries provide.
I intend to file a lawsuit against EPA that enjoins EPA from further implementation of the Library Plan until the claims of violations of law, regulations, and minimum standards of practice are resolved in federal court. One of the remedies I will seek is court-supervised restitution of all hardcopy documents and data sets advertently or inadvertently destroyed in the process of implementing the Plan by using EPA’s data call-in powers under several environmental statutes. Another remedy is the appointment of a special master who will oversee the reopening of EPA’s PLS and the digitization of documents and data sets for public access via the Internet. This will be accomplished using a new Plan developed by a committee chaired by the special master and approved by the court. It will be composed of representatives from EPA, NARA, and OMB, academia, the American Library Association, the National Commission of Libraries and Information Science, regulated industry, and environmental NGOs appointed by the special master with court approval.
I am asking for your assistance in one or more of the following areas:
n Spread the word
n Urge the environmental groups to which you belong to join the lawsuit as co-plaintiff or to file an amicus brief
n Assist in identifying law firms with an interest in pro bono support for this fundamental defense of public access to information and the institutions that have been created to ensure that access, including physical libraries containing hardcopy records.
This is a seminal moment in history. If EPA’s Library Plan goes unchallenged, then agency staff and public access to critical documents and data will be diminished, contrary to the letter and spirit of the E-Government Act of 2002. This will reduce the quality and timeliness of environmental decision-making by EPA staff and of review and comment on that decision-making by NGOs and the public. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of NEPA and FOIA. Stand with us now in defense of physical libraries and the public access to hardcopy records and expert search services they provide. Otherwise, we are at the brink of a new digital dark age of government secrecy, when our access to true copies of the records we need to keep the Federal Government honest can be compromised or precluded altogether with the flip of a digital switch. This is a cause for alarm and a call to action.
Your immediate attention to this request is greatly appreciated.
Most sincerely,
Larry E. Fink
Environmentalist
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on August 15, 2006 the EPA FY 2007 Library Plan: National Framework for Headquarters and Regional Libraries (Library Plan or Plan). The Plan, which was several years in quiet development, proposes a transition from a physical library system (PLS) comprised of the Headquarters and Regional Office libraries to a virtual library network (VLN). The Plan went into effect immediately upon publication and was accelerated in advance of the FY ’07 budget hearings on self-imposed budget cuts to justify the Plan.
The transition from PLS to VLN is being accomplished by closing the Headquarters and Regional Office libraries, eliminating library support services and staff provided by the PLS, decommissioning hardcopy documents and data sets held by the PLS, digitizing some but not all hardcopy documents and data sets held by the PLS, archiving some but not all of the hardcopy documents and data sets that are not digitized for access by Agency staff and the public, and by making some but not all of the digitized documents and data sets accessible to EPA staff, other federal state, and local agencies, NGOs, and the public via the Internet. Those documents and data sets that have not been excluded as a matter of policy (e.g., contractor work products) may be literally lost in translation.
There is no requirement in the Plan to retain readily accessible and verifiably true hardcopies of the documents and data sets of the digitized records, because that would justify the continuation of the PLS. Based on EPA’s responses to my FOIA requests, digitization of documents and data sets is occurring without adequate chain-of-custody, quality control, or process audit protocols. This means that EPA is accountable only to itself as to whether reports and databases containing inconvenient facts or conclusions disappear altogether or whether the digital copy is a true copy or a conveniently doctored chimera.
The wholesale destruction of hardcopy documents and data sets and the attendant diminution of public access to original or true copies embodied in EPA’s shift from PLS to VLN are violations of the E-Government Act of 2002, NEPA, and FOIA and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. The failure to consult or involve the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) is a violation of the enabling statute and derivative regulations. EPA was also arbitrary and capricious in not following its own data polices, procedures, and standards issued under the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA). The failure to public notice the changes in information management policy, program, and procedure embodied in the Plan is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The methods, hardware and software EPA is using to accomplish this digitization are substandard, contrary to the E-Government Act and its antecedent statutes, including the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
EPA’s shift from PLS to VLN is a also a major federal action requiring a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS). This is because it has the reasonably foreseeable potential to diminish the quality of EPA’s and other federal agencies’ programmatic and project-specific EISs and the policies, regulations, and projects deriving therefrom that directly affect the human environment.
After EPA’s Administrator, Stephen Johnson, testified at the February 6, 2007 budget hearings, a letter signed by a number of members of Congress directed EPA to cease further implementation of the Plan until the FY ’07 budget hearings were concluded. EPA initially agreed to this, but in April 2007 issued a policy statement precluding any further decentralized storage of hardcopy documents or data sets to facilitate completion of the transition from PLS to VLN. If EPA is ignoring the will of Congress, it is up to the public to take EPA to court to protect the public interest in libraries and the public access to hardcopy documents and data sets and expert services those libraries provide.
I intend to file a lawsuit against EPA that enjoins EPA from further implementation of the Library Plan until the claims of violations of law, regulations, and minimum standards of practice are resolved in federal court. One of the remedies I will seek is court-supervised restitution of all hardcopy documents and data sets advertently or inadvertently destroyed in the process of implementing the Plan by using EPA’s data call-in powers under several environmental statutes. Another remedy is the appointment of a special master who will oversee the reopening of EPA’s PLS and the digitization of documents and data sets for public access via the Internet. This will be accomplished using a new Plan developed by a committee chaired by the special master and approved by the court. It will be composed of representatives from EPA, NARA, and OMB, academia, the American Library Association, the National Commission of Libraries and Information Science, regulated industry, and environmental NGOs appointed by the special master with court approval.
I am asking for your assistance in one or more of the following areas:
n Spread the word
n Urge the environmental groups to which you belong to join the lawsuit as co-plaintiff or to file an amicus brief
n Assist in identifying law firms with an interest in pro bono support for this fundamental defense of public access to information and the institutions that have been created to ensure that access, including physical libraries containing hardcopy records.
This is a seminal moment in history. If EPA’s Library Plan goes unchallenged, then agency staff and public access to critical documents and data will be diminished, contrary to the letter and spirit of the E-Government Act of 2002. This will reduce the quality and timeliness of environmental decision-making by EPA staff and of review and comment on that decision-making by NGOs and the public. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of NEPA and FOIA. Stand with us now in defense of physical libraries and the public access to hardcopy records and expert search services they provide. Otherwise, we are at the brink of a new digital dark age of government secrecy, when our access to true copies of the records we need to keep the Federal Government honest can be compromised or precluded altogether with the flip of a digital switch. This is a cause for alarm and a call to action.
Your immediate attention to this request is greatly appreciated.
Most sincerely,
Larry E. Fink
Environmentalist