300R04900
ENSURING RISK REDUCTION
IN COMMUNITIES WITH MULTIPLE STRESSORS:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND
CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS WORK GROUP
DRAFT REPORT
JANUARY 31,2004
volume 1 of 2
Produced for Purposes of Discussion at the
NEJAC Meeting
New Orleans, Louisiana
April 13 through 16,2004
Do NOT QUOTE OR CITE
-------
[Page Intentionally Blank]
-------
ENSURING RISK REDUCTION
IN COMMUNITIES WITH MULTIPLE STRESSORS:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND
CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS WORK GROUP
DRAFT REPORT
JANUARY 31,2004
volume 1 of 2
Produced for Purposes of Discussion at the
NEJAC Meeting
New Orleans, Louisiana
April 13 through 16,2004
Do NOT QUOTE OR CITE
This DRAFT report and recommendations have been written as part of the activities
of the National EnvironmentalJmtice Advisory Council (NEJAC), a public federal
advisory committee providing independent advice and recommendations on the issue
of environmental justice to the Administrator and other officials of ate U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This report has not been reviewed for approval by the EPA, and hence, its contents
and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and the policies of the
Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government.
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
CUMULATIVE RISKS AND IMPACTS WORK GROUP
Judith Espinosa, Surface Transportation Policy Project Albuquerque, New MexJco(Co-Chair)
Sue Briggum, Waste Management Inc., Washington, DC (Co-Chair)
Neil Carman, Long Star Sierra Club, Austin, Texas
David Clarke, American Chemistry Council, Arlington, Virginia*
Calvert Curiey, Navajo Nation Environment Department Window Rock, Arizona
Bahrain Fazeti, Communities for a Better Environment Huntingdon Park, California
Timothy Reids, Jr., TetraTech EMI, Inc., Reston, Virginia
Kenneth Geiser, University of Massachusetts/Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts
Hector Gonzalez, Laredo Health Department Laredo, Texas
Walter Handy, Cincinnati Health Department Cincinnati, Ohio
Jody Henneke, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Austin, Texas
Darfyl Hood, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee
H. Patricia Hynes, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
Karen Medville, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona
Shankar Prasad, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California
Kenneth Sexton, University of Texas/Brownsville, Brownsville, Texas
Peggy Shepard, West Harlem Environmental Action, New York, New York
Wilma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, New Iberia, Louisiana
Connie Tucker, Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice, Atlanta, Georgia
Holly Welles, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California
Janet Phoenix, National Safety Council, Washington, DC (Liaison to
EPA Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee)**
Charles Lee, EPA Office of Environmental Justice (NEJAC Designated Federal Officer)
Dennis Utterback, EPA Office of Research and Development (Work Group Designated Federal Officer)
Susan Conrath, EPA Office of Air and Radiation (Work Group Designated Federal Officer)
Paul Locke, Consultant
Served until December 2003
1 Sewed until August 2003
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
Introduction 1
Defining the Issue: Multiple, Aggregate, and Cumulative Risks and Impacts in the Context of
Environmental Justice 5
Multiple Stressors 6
Multi-Media Approaches to Overcome Programmatic and Regulatory Fragmentation 7
EPA's Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment 11
NEJAC's Core Response to me EPA Charge: Adopting a Community-Based Collaborative Problem-
Solving Model for Addressing Cumulative Risks and Impacts 15
Discussion of Key Concepts 21
Stressors 21
Vulnerability 24
Community-Based Participatory Research 30
Proportional Response 33
Qualitative Analysis 36
Efficient Screening, Targeting, and Prioritization Methods/Tools 38
Unifying Fields of Public Health and Environmental Protection 39
Social Capital 40
Special Concerns of Tribes 41
Proposals for Recommendations 43
To institutionalize a bias for action within EPA through widespread utilization of an
Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model 45
Action Items 46
To fully utilize existing statutory authorities 48
Action Items 50
To address and overcome programmatic and regulatory fragmentation within the nation's
environmental protection regime 52
Action Items 52
To fully incorporate the concept of vulnerability, especially its social and cultural aspects, into
EPA's strategic plans and research agendas 54
Action Items 55
To promote a paradigm shift to community-based approaches, particularly community-based
participatory research and intervention 57
Action Items 58
To incorporate social, economic, cultural and community health factors, particularly those
involving vulnerability, in EPA decision-making 59
Action Items 60
-------
To develop and implement efficient screening, targeting, and prioritization methods/tools to
identify communities needing immediate intervention 62
Action Items 62
To address capacity and resource issues (human, organizational, technical and financial)
within EPA and the states, within impacted communities and tribes, and among all relevant
stakeholders 64
Action Items 65
-------
ENSURING RISK REDUCTION IN COMMUNITIES WITH MULTIPLE STRESSORS:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
DRAFT REPORT
January 31,2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"/ am sick and tired of being sick and tired " This poignant plea for assistance has
been voiced at every single meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) and echoed by numerous environmentally overburdened people of
color, low-income, and tribal communities throughout the nation. This plea reflects
profound disappointment in such communities with the status of their health,
frustration with the public health community's failure to assist in improving health,
anger over the unresponsiveness of many businesses complacent with the adequacy of
their regulatory obligations and unresponsive to the health problems their neighbors
face, and bewilderment at the government's failure to understand and correct these
shortcomings. Communities richly understand the degree to which they are
burdened, yet find the government unwitting to seek their counsel and to provide the
resources needed for communities to exercise their full voice in regulatory decisions
that impact their lives. For many communities facing stresses from factors beyond
their control, living with a myriad of polluting facilities, this affront is compounded
by the impacts of racial and economic discrimination.
The sense of anguish expressed above and uniformly experienced by disadvantaged, underserved,
and environmentally overburdened communities reflects a complex web of combined exposures. In
recent years, this combination has come to be described as "cumulative risks and impacts."
Manifested in the above plea is the concept of vulnerability, a matrix of physical, chemical,
biological, social, and cultural factors which result in certain communities and sub-populations being
more susceptible to environmental toxins, being more exposed to toxins, or having compromised
ability to cope with and/or recover from such exposure.
It is in the context of this kind of community experience that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), through its Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), has requested that the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) address the following question:
In order to ensure environmental justice for all communities and tribes, what short-
term and long-term actions should the Agency take in proactively implementing the
concepts contained in its Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment?
The NEJAC Cumulative Risks/Impacts Work Group (hereinafter referred to as "NEJAC Work
Group" or the "Work Group"), consisting of representatives from communities, academia, business
and industry, non-governmental organizations, and state, local, and tribal governments, has worked
diligently over the past 12 months to address this question. It respectfully submits this report and
proposals for recommendations for deliberation at the NEJAC meeting to be held in New Orleans,
Louisiana (April 13-16,2004).
-i-
-------
DEFINING THE ISSUE: MULTIPLE STRESSORS AND MULTI-MEDIA APPROACHES
The issues of cumulative risks and cumulative impacts are inherently multi-faceted, interconnected,
and complex. The NEJAC Work Group began its work with an understanding its focus must be the
real life context of communities confronting environmental justice issues. The Work Group chose to
begin with a discussion of two key definitional topics: (1) the idea of using multiple stressors as a
common starting point of discussion, and (2) the need for multi-media approaches to address
cumulative impacts in a holistic way and to overcome programmatic and regulatory fragmentation.
With respect to the identification of multiple stressors, the Work Group quickly recognized a need to
ascertain and mitigate these stressors in a time frame shorter than traditionally envisioned by
cumulative risk assessment. This early identification and response has come to be termed the Work
Group's
-------
DISCUSSION OF KEY CONCEPTS
Stressors: The report notes that the EPA's Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment places no
limitation on the definition of stressors, explicitly stating that they include not only chemicals but
also socioeconomic stressors such as lack of health care. This is one reason why the Framework is
such an important milestone, laying the basis for a realistic and meaningful dialogue about
comprehensive risk in disadvantaged, underserved, and environmentally overburdened communities
and tribes.
Vulnerability: The concept of vulnerability goes to the heart of the meaning of environmental
justice. Vulnerability recognizes that disadvantaged, underserved, and overburdened communities
come to the table with pre-existing deficits of both a physical and social nature that make the effects
of environmental pollution more, and in some cases unacceptably, burdensome. As such, the concept
of vulnerability fundamentally differentiates disadvantaged, underserved, and overburdened
communities from healthy and sustainable communities. Moreover, it provides the added dimension
of considering the nature of the receptor population when defining disproportionate risks or impacts.
The EPA's formal definition of vulnerability, i.e., susceptibility/sensitivity, differential exposure,
differential preparedness, and differential ability to recover, allows an analytical framework to
understand how a disadvantaged community may face greater impacts from pollution than the
general population. Moreover, it takes on new meaning when linked to concepts like health
disparities. Vulnerability and health disparities are integrally related concepts, and in some ways,
health disparities are both an outcome of and a contributor to vulnerability.
Community-Based Participatory Research: The National Institute for Environmental Health
Sciences defines community-based participatory research as "a methodology that promotes active
community involvement in the processes that shape research and intervention strategies, as well as
the conduct of research studies." Community-based participatory research can be an extremely useful
tool not only to obtain valuable information for cumulative risk/impact assessments, but also to
empower the affected community and to engender more effective prevention/intervention efforts.
Proportional Response: The concept of proportional response is a direct outgrowth of the NEJAC
Work Group's thinking on conducting cumulative risk analysis in the context of a bias for action and
its promotion of a collaborative problem-solving model for addressing cumulative risks and impacts.
First, the idea of proportional response seeks to match the needs of communities and tribes with an
appropriate level or type of analysis and action at any given point. In other words, analysis should be
commensurate with community needs and the nature of the intervention to be taken. Secondly,
response must be proportional to the harm caused.
Qualitative Analysis: An integrated analysis of cumulative risk and impacts will require making
both quantitative and qualitative judgements. The report notes that there exists a body of literature hi
the area of environmental impacts analysis and cumulative impacts analysis that may prove to be
useful to such an integrated analysis. For example, the White House Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) published a report entitled "Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National
Environmental Policy Act" in which CEQ provided eight principles and eleven methods for
conducting cumulative effects analysis.
Other Key Concepts:
• Efficient Screening, Targeting, and Prioritization Methods/Tools;
• Unifying the Fields of Public Health and Environmental Protection; and
• Social Capital.
-------
Special Concerns of Tribes: American Indian and Alaska Native tribes are sovereign governments
recognized as self-governing under federal law. Under its well recognized (*trust responsibility" to
Indian tribes, the federal government has special fiduciary obligations to protect tribal resources and
uphold the rights of indigenous peoples to govern themselves on tribal lands. Many federal laws
have delegated authority to tribes in recognition of their sovereign status. The unique legal status of
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes creates an important requirement for governmental entities
and other stakeholders to understand that the federal government must consult directly with tribal
governments when contemplating actions that may affect tribal lands, resources, members, and
welfare.
PROPOSALS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The NEJAC Work Group has decided to frame its proposed advice and recommendations under the
eight major interrelated themes. While each is critically important by itself, addressing each (or a
few) without all of the others will not be sufficient Hence, they need to be addressed together in an
integrated manner within a broad based Agency-wide framework for implementation. In addition, the
report currently contains more than 60 proposed action items. Summary or consolidated versions of
the most significant ones are provided below. When the NEJAC Work Group submits its final report,
it intends to articulate the short- and long-term goals associated with this framework. A plausible
way to organize this implementation framework could be around action items which promote a
change in Agency action, a change in Agency thinking, and a change in Agency capacity. As a
start, EPA should incorporate all relevant concepts and recommendations of this report in any
and all work growing out of the Agency's Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment and the
development of Agency cumulative risk guidance.
To institutionalize a bias for action within EPA through the widespread utilization of an
Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model.
• EPA should initiate a set of multi-media, risk reduction pilot projects in low-income, people
of color, and/or tribal communities, which will be the focus of EPA's bias for action in
addressing cumulative risks and impacts. There should be at least one per each EPA Region.
Activities should include but not be limited to community-based assessment, partnership
building, provision of resources, prevention/intervention risk reduction efforts and
application of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model. EPA also
should develop measures of success for these pilot projects.
• EPA should designate up to five disadvantaged, underserved, and environmentally
overburdened communities per each EPA Region, where various aspects related to the
Agency's bias for action will be integrated as part of the Agency's day-to-day activities. In
EPA Regions with significant tribal populations, these should include at least one tribal
community.
• EPA should develop: (1) efficient and effective screening, targeting, and prioritization
methods/tools; and (2) a toolkit of implementable risk reduction actions to support such risk
reduction efforts.
• EPA's FY04/05 Headquarters and Regional Environmental Justice Action Plans should be
revised to reflect the above activities and associated performance measures by no later than
September 30,2004.
-TV-
-------
To fully utilize existing statutory authorities.
• EPA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) should provide a memorandum explicitly
identifying authority to evaluate and address cumulative risks and impacts in the statutes it
administers and delegates, building on the OGC' s December 1 , 2000 memorandum on
environmental justice authorities in permitting.
• EPA's program offices should draft guidance based upon the General Counsel's legal
opinions, in areas including but not be limited to standard setting, permitting, and
enforcement.
• EPA should create incentive programs that go beyond compliance to reduce cumulative
impacts.
To address and overcome programmatic and regulatory fragmentation within the nation's
environmental protection regime.
• EPA should conduct a systematic examination of issues related to programmatic and
regulatory fragmentation, including convening an advisory committee, and develop strategies
to address the shortfalls of such fragmentation, including but not be limited to integrated and
coordinated multi-media approaches, procedures to eliminate barriers caused by
fragmentation, and interagency/intergovernmental approaches.
• EPA should develop information systems and assessment systems that looks across all media
and at community-wide risks.
• EPA should develop guidance for working with disadvantaged, underserved and
overburdened communities significantly affected by programmatic and regulatory
fragmentation.
To fully incorporate the concept of vulnerability, especially its social and cultural aspects, into
EPA's strategic plans and research agendas.
* EPA should make it clear that although quantitative evaluation of vulnerability is precluded
in almost all cases by a scarcity of scientific knowledge and understanding, this is not an
excuse to ignore it. Vulnerability should be an integral part of cumulative risk assessment
even if it must be analyzed using qualitative measures.
* EPA should direct all offices whose missions relate to policy making, program
implementation, regulatory enforcement, and professional and community training, to
develop strategic plans for incorporating the concept of vulnerability into their operational
paradigm.
• EPA should issue guidance on the meaning of vulnerability in the context of risk assessment,
providing unambiguous direction to risk assessors and risk managers that vulnerability is
defined as the combined effects of physical, biological, and social stressors on communities
and individuals.
• EPA should integrate measures of vulnerability into all existing and new screening, targeting,
and prioritization tools.
• EPA should direct all relevant offices to develop a long-term intramural and extramural
prevention/intervention research agenda on vulnerability, including its social aspects.
-v-
-------
To promote a paradigm shift to community-based approaches, particularly community-based
participatory research and intervention.
• EPA should adopt and expand the use of a community-based participatory research and
intervention approach in its training, outreach, and education programs for its personnel, as
well as those of its partners in communities, tribes, state and local government, universities,
business and industry, and others.
• EPA should formulate and implement a clear plan to utilize community-based participatory
research methods in each of the ten proposed multi-media risk reduction pilot projects.
To incorporate social, economic, cultural, and community health factors, particularly those
involving vulnerability, in EPA decision-making.
• EPA should develop the quantitative and qualitative capacity to incorporate social, economic,
cultural, and community health factors into its research, regulatory, and grant programs.
• EPA should strengthen its capacity to conduct social science and community health analysis
in an environmental justice context, including recruitment of social scientists, community
health scientists, and community health representatives, and persons with community-based
experience to the Agency's staff.
To develop and implement efficient screening, targeting, and prioritization methods/tools to
identify communities needing immediate intervention.
• EPA should inventory and review of existing screening, targeting, and prioritization methods
and tools to ascertain the following: (1) strengths and weaknesses of existing tools, including
best features and gaps; (2) ways in which these tools can be improved; (3) determine steps to
move forward development and use of these tools, including guidance regarding minimum
criteria for selection and use of a particular tool. In addition to methods and tools available at
EPA, this inventory should include other federal agencies, states, public health agencies,
universities, etc.
• In the long-term, EPA should incorporate indicators into such screening and targeting tools
that allow it to address other factors of concern to cumulative risk analysis, such as social,
economic, and community health factors, and those related to vulnerability.
To address capacity and resource issues (human, organizational, technical, and financial)
within EPA and the states, within impacted communities and tribes, and among all relevant
stakeholders.
• EPA should ensure that there are adequate resources (human, technical, organizational,
financial) for communities to meaningfully participate in a community-based efforts to
address cumulative risks and impacts as part of a paradigm shift to community-based
approaches. EPA should ensure that its FY04/05 Headquarters and Regional Environmental
Justice Action Plans have adequate resource commitments to meaningfully accomplish the
above.
• EPA should develop and implement a short- and long-term plan to systematically build the
social science capacity at EPA, and to promote this concept among its partner agencies at the
federal, state, local, and tribal levels.
• EPA should ensure training for its staff, as well as promote training for state and local
government, tribes, business and industry, and community-based organizations on the various
aspects of the paradigm change being proposed in this report, including but not be limited to
environmental justice, community-based collaborative problem-solving, community-based
participatory research, social science analysis, and qualitative analysis.
-vi-
-------
[Page Intentionally Blank]
-------
[Page Intentionally Blank]
-------
1
2 ENSURING RISK REDUCTION m COMMUNITIES
3 WITH MULTIPLE STRESSORS: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
4 AND CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS
5
6 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
7 CUMULATIVE RISKS AND IMPACTS WORK GROUP
s DRAFT REPORT
9 January 31,2004
10
11
12 INTRODUCTION
13
14 "lam sick and tired of being sick and tired " This poignant plea for assistance has
15 been voiced at every single meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory
16 Council (NEJAC) and echoed by numerous environmentally overburdened people of
17 color, low-income, and tribal communities throughout the nation. This plea reflects
18 profound disappointment in such communities with the status of their health,
19 frustration with the public health community's failure to assist in improving health,
20 anger over the unresponsiveness of many businesses complacent with the adequacy of
21 their regulatory obligations and unresponsive to the health problems their neighbors
22 face, and bewilderment at the government's failure to understand and correct these
23 shortcomings. Communities richly understand the degree to which they are
24 burdened, yet find the government unwitting to seek their counsel and to provide the
25 resources needed for communities to exercise their full voice in regulatory decisions
26 that impact their lives. For many communities facing stresses from factors beyond
27 their control, living with a myriad of polluting facilities, this affront is compounded
28 by the impacts of racial and economic discrimination. l
29
30 In a recent report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pointed out that:
31 "Despite great improvements in the overall health of the nation, Americans who are members of
32 racial and ethnic minority groups, including African Americans, Alaska Natives, American
33 Indians, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Pacific Islanders, are more likely than
34 whites to have poor health and to die prematurely..."2 The CDC findings, together with the
35 experiences of communities populated by people of color, Native American tribes, and the poor,
36 have led to a deep frustration over the cumulative adverse conditions impacting their lives and a
37 rising demand for the government, business and industry, and the public health community to
38 take effective action to improve conditions.
39
40 The sense of anguish expressed above and uniformly experienced by disadvantaged,
41 underserved, and environmentally overburdened communities reflects a complex web of
42 combined exposures. In recent years, this combination has come to be described as "cumulative
43 risks and impacts." Manifested in this plea is the concept of vulnerability, a matrix of physical,
1 The phrase "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired** comes from renowned civil rights advocate
Fannie Lou Hamer during the 1960s. It has come to embody the feelings of overburdened communities in
the emerging environmental justice movement during the 1990s.
2 Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) 20 JO: Addressing Disparities in Health
2003, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 2
l chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors which result in certain communities and sub-
2 populations being more susceptible to environmental toxins, being more exposed, or having
3 compromised ability to cope with and/or recover from such exposure.
4
5 It is in the context of this kind of community experience that the U.S. Environmental Protection
6 Agency (EPA), through its Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), has requested that the
7 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) address the following question:
8
9 In order to ensure environmental justice for all communities and tribes, -what
10 short-term and long-term actions should the Agency take in proactively
11 implementing the concepts contained in its Framework for Cumulative Risk
12 Assessment?3
13
14 The NEJAC is the formal advisory committee chartered, pursuant to the Federal Advisory
15 Committee Act, to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on matters
16 related to environmental justice. Through its charter, the NEJAC has been charged with
17 providing advice and recommendations on matters including, but not limited to, the "direction,
18 criteria, scope, and adequacy of the EPA's scientific research and demonstration projects relating
19 to environmental justice."
20
21 To address this question, the NEJAC constituted a Work Group consisting of representatives of
22 communities; academia; business and industry; non-governmental organizations; and state, local,
23 and tribal governments; which has worked diligently over the past 12 months. The NEJAC
24 Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group (hereinafter referred to as "NEJAC Work Group")
25 respectfully submits this report and proposals for recommendations for deliberation at the
26 NEJAC meeting to be held in New Orleans, Louisiana (April 13-16,2004).
27
28 SUMMARY OF REPORT
29
30 With the multiple challenges and frustrations confronting disadvantaged, underserved, and
31 environmentally overburdened communities and tribes in mind, the NEJAC Work Group has
32 developed the following report containing advice and recommendations for both short-term and
33 long-term actions. The NEJAC Work Group's proposed recommendations are structured around
34 eight overarching themes. These proposed recommendations are preceded by a discussion of the
35 need to adopt a community-based collaborative problem-solving model to operationalize the
36 important concepts of the Agency's Frameworkfor Cumulative Risk Assessment in the real life
37 context of communities and tribes suffering environmental injustice. In addition, the report
38 discusses some concepts critical to understanding and addressing cumulative risks and impacts
39 within an environmental justice context, i.e., stressors; vulnerability; community-based
40 participatory research; proportional response; qualitative analysis; efficient screening, targeting,
41 and prioritization methods/tools; unifying public health and environmental protection; and social
42 capital. As always, the NEJAC Work Group stresses the importance of ensuring that the special
43 concerns of tribes are understood and addressed.
44
The full text of the EPA Charge to NEJAC on cumulative risks and impacts is provided in Appendix A.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 3
1 In the view of the NEJAC Work Group, the approaches recommended here will help EPA and
2 other involved parties to systematically focus on the multiplicity of exposures, risks, impacts,
3 and stressors facing communities-including a complex web of environmental, health, social,
4 economic, and cultural factors-and to set priorities for action. But we recognize that before
5 solutions can be implemented effectively, problems must first be defined clearly.
6
7 Thus, to institutionalize a bias for action within EPA, this report underscores the need to fully
8 utilize existing statutory authorities to address environmental justice and cumulative risks and
9 impacts. Recognizing that such authorities are fragmentary, we urge EPA to address and
10 overcome programmatic and regulatory fragmentation within the nation's environmental
il protection regime. Recognizing the pivotal importance of the relationship between cumulative
12 risks and impacts and vulnerability to environmental justice, we urge EPA to fully incorporate
13 the concept of vulnerability, especially its social and cultural aspects, into the Agency's strategic
14 planning and research agenda. To enhance the Agency's capacity to work with communities, we
15 urge EPA to take steps to promote a paradigm shift to community-based approaches. As part of
16 that shift, EPA must act to incorporate social, economic, cultural, and community health factors,
17 including those related to vulnerability, in EPA decision-making. A vital need in addressing
18 community needs is the development of cogent methodologies for timely, accurate, and
19 comprehensive community assessment and characterization. Last, EPA must address the
20 capacity and resource issues (human, organizational, technical, and financial) within EPA and
21 the states, within impacted communities and tribes, and among all relevant stakeholders to
22 ensure that community-based approaches have the wherewithal to succeed.
23
24 Section n of the report contains a set of appendices that provide illustrations of and background
25 information to the key points made in this report. The appendices include:
26
27 Appendix A: Full Text, EPA's Charge to NEJAC on Cumulative Risks and Impacts.
28 Appendix B: Matrices Illustrating Multiple Stressors (Laredo, Texas).
29 Appendix C: Excerpts, Chelsea Creek Community-Based Comparative Risk
30 Assessment Report
31 Appendix D: Tables, Council on Environmental Quality Report, "Considering
32 Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act."
33 Appendix E: EPA Risk-Reduction/Healthy Community Initiatives and Programs.
34 Appendix F: EPA Community Assessment Methods/Tools.
35 Appendix G: Implementable EPA Risk Reduction Actions and Tools.
36 Appendix H: Impacts of Economic, Racial, and Social Inequality on Health
37 Appendix I: Community-Based Study of Vulnerability (WEACT-Columbia University
38 Partnership).
39 Appendix J: Summary, EPA Human Health Research Strategy.
40 Appendix K: Background, Statutory Authorities Related to Cumulative Risks/impacts
41 and Environmental Justice.
42 Appendix L: Pollution Burden Matrix.
43 Appendix M: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Draft Cumulative Risk
44 Activities.
45 Appendix N: Local Government Cumulative Risk Prevention/Intervention Effort
46 (Portland, Oregon).
47
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 [Page Intentionally Blank]
12
13
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report - January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
PageS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
DEFINING THE ISSUE: MULTIPLE, AGGREGATE, AND CUMULATIVE RISKS AND
IMPACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The authors of this report recognize that the issues of cumulative risks and cumulative impacts
are inherently multi-faceted, interconnected, and complex. It is important, therefore, to clarify
the nature of the problem that the EPA charge is requesting the NEJAC to address. One way of
doing so is to provide the reader with a graphic illustration of the multiple and interconnected
factors which are at play hi communities confronting environmental justice issues. The table
below provides a graphic illustration of such factors in the Mississippi River Industrial Corridor,
a 2,000 square-mile area between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana.4
Table #1: Multiple, Aggregate, and Cumulative Risks and
Impacts in the Mississippi River Industrial Corridor
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Demographics
• African
American:
63%
• Caucasian:
35%
• Asian:
3%
Pollution Sources
• Petrochemical
facilities
• Refineries
• Wastewater treatment
facilities not meeting
permit limits and
bypassing raw sewage
due to under capacity
• Drinking water taken
from Mississippi River
• Toxic organics,
pesticides, and heavy
metals in drinking
water
• Atrazinefrom
Midwest agricultural
fields present year
round in raw and
finished water
• Pesticides, herbicides,
and fertilizers applied
to sugar cane crops
• Aerial and tractor
application drifts on to
adjacent residential
areas and school yards
• Burning sugar cane
during fall harvest
season results in
paniculate matter and
pesticides being
dispersed into the air
for 1/3 of the year
Existing Health
Problems &
Conditions
• Asthma
• Respiratory
distress
• Skin rashes
• High rate of a
large variety
of cancers
• Lack of
access to
healthcare
• Lack of
trained
environmental
health
physicians
Unique Exposure
Pathways
Air
• Industrial facilities:
semi-volatile and
volatile organics,
dioxins, pesticides
and herbicides,
toxic heavy metals,
and smoke from
sugar cane burning
Water:
• Drinking water
contaminated
• Surface water
contaminated with
industrial and
agricultural
chemicals and
partially-treated
waste water
- Contaminated
crops
• Contaminated
terrestrial game
species
• Seafood
contaminated with
pesticides,
industrial
chemicals, mercury
from chlor-alkali
facilities by way of
air deposition.
Social/Cultural
Conditions
• Very poor/
minority
communities
• Live off land and
gardens
contaminated
with air deposited
chemicals
• Hunting and
fishing of
contaminated
organisms
• Generations have
lived off the land
and not profited
by industrial
development in
the area.
Community
Capacity &
Infrastructure/
Social Capital
• Good infrastructure
in areas of low-
income communities
of color with respect
to roads and rail; the
industry needs these
items.
• Poor infrastructure
within the
communities: poor
road conditions,
improper drainage,
waste water
collection and
treatment system
inadequate.
• Very little to no
social capital:
education system
very minimal; the
area was impacted
by white flight;
primarily African
Americans attend
the public schools.
47
4 The table was developed by Ms. Wilma Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action Network. It is
noteworthy that the above is an example of one of the methodologies for conducting cumulative effects
analysis, i.e., matrices, which were described in the Council on Environmental Quality report, Conducting
Cumulative Effects Analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. A fuller discussion of such
methodologies is found the Qualitative Analysis section of this report.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 6
1 Communities and tribes confronting environmental justice issues typically are historically
2 disadvantaged and underserved, environmentally overburdened, and suffer adverse health
3 conditions. The table above illustrates the range of cumulative risks and impacts as well as the
4 factors which serve to decrease the ability of residents to cope with or recover from
5 environmental exposures.
6
7 It would be instructive, at the outset, to thoroughly discuss two key definitional questions that
8 are critical to ensuring sensitivity to community concerns and the bias for action so important to
9 the NEJAC Work Group's views on the cumulative risks and impacts issue. They are the
10 following: (1) the idea of using multiple stressors as a common starting point of discussion, and
11 (2) the need for multi-media approaches to address cumulative impacts in a holistic way and to
12 overcome programmatic and regulatory fragmentation.
13
14 Multiple Stressors
15
16 To be sensitive to community concerns, there must be a common conceptual framework and
17 common definitions for understanding the issue at hand when one speaks of "cumulative risks
18 and impacts." The lack of such is a major contributor to the lack of a coherent, consistent, and
19 transparent framework for assessing and responding to situations involving cumulative risks and
20 impacts. This, in turn, leads to the inability to create the confidence, trust, and capacity in the
21 process that is fundamental to building the community capacity, institutional support, and social
22 capital necessary to address over time the complex issues of community-wide risks and burdens.
23 Hence, it is important to tease out what actually is meant when the terms "cumulative risks" and
24 "cumulative impacts" are used.
25
26 Typically, regulators and risk assessors tend to see cumulative risks and impacts as a set of
27 stressors (risks, impacts, burdens) for which there is a combined valuation. In the environmental
28 risk assessment field, these combined valuations are usually expressed quantitatively. In the
29 environmental impact assessment field, these combined valuations are usually qualitative in
30 nature.5 However, most members of impacted communities, as well as the larger public, use the
31 term cumulative risks or impacts to mean a collection of individual stressors that occur
32 simultaneously and multiply. This is precisely what is illustrated by the table on risks and
33 impacts in the Mississippi River Industrial Corridor.
34
35 In most instances, a cumulative analysis, in the sense that most risk assessors or regulators
36 understand the term, has yet to be conducted. If there is to be a bias for action that is sensitive to
37 the needs of overburdened communities and tribes, then the starting point for examination of the
38 problem at hand should not be "cumulative risks or impacts" but "multiple stressors." In other
39 words, the contradictory understandings of what is meant by cumulative risks and impacts may
40 be a "train wreck" in the making. Not having multiple stressors as the common starting point of
41 reference will likely lead to more inaction and frustration. Hence, a common understanding by
42 all parties of multiple stressors as the starting point for a dialogue is key to beginning the
43 iterative process of building the confidence, trust, and capacity within the impacted community
5 The development of the environmental impact assessment field is closely related to conducting analyses
under the National Environmental Policy Act hi the main, qualitative methods of analysis are used. See
section on Qualitative Analysis in this report.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 51,2004 Page 7
1 and among all stakeholders that is the foundation for a coherent, consistent, and transparent
2 framework for assessing and responding to cumulative risks and impacts.
3
4 Multi-Media Approaches to Overcome Programmatic and Regulatory Fragmentation
5
6 Environmental protection in this country has grown by individual pieces of legislation,
7 developed to address a particular environmental media or a pressing problem like abandoned
8 toxic sites. Environmental law has not evolved from a master game plan or unifying vision. As
9 a result, the statutes have gaps in coverage and do not assure compatible controls of
10 environmental releases to all media from all sources.
11
12 While virtually all communities suffer from the statutory, regulatory, and programmatic
13 fragmentation inherent within the Nation's environmental protection regime, its ill effects for
14 people of color, low-income, and tribal communities are especially egregious. Recognizing the
15 ways in which such fragmentation undermines a unified approach towards addressing cumulative
16 risks and impacts and presents major obstacles to positive action is a critical starting point for
17 understanding the issues confronting highly impacted communities. The following paragraphs,
18 provided by Ms. Wilma Subra, describe how the Mississippi River Industrial Corridor is affected
19 by such fragmentation.
20
21 The environment in communities along the Mississippi River corridor in Louisiana bear
22 the environmental and health burden of programmatic and regulatory fragmentation.
23 The regulation of the industrial facilities falls primarily under the regulation of the state
24 environmental agency (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality). Oversight is
25 provided by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Both the state program and EPA
26 oversight have been extensively criticized in recent audits. Criticism has covered all
27 program areas with particular emphasis on enforcement and compliance, expired
28 permits, and lack of oversight.
29
30 In addition to the pollution sources under the jurisdiction of environmental agencies,
31 there are a number of other major pollution sources that impact the public health of the
32 community members and the quality of the environment. The Louisiana Department of
33 Agriculture and Forestry regulates agricultural crop programs and pesticide and
34 fertilizer applications. The pesticide applications, surface water runoff, and burning of
35 the agricultural crops result in a heavy pollution burden. These sources of pollution are
36 never considered when evaluating environmental regulatory programs. The drilling and
37 production of oil and gas is regulated by the Louisiana Office of Conservation. The air
38 emissions, waste streams, glycol dehydration facilities, and compressor stations have
39 produced a large environmental burden. Hundreds of oil and gas exploration and
40 production sites are present in each community of the Mississippi River corridor and yet
41 their pollution burden is never considered when evaluating environmental situations
42 under current permitting and reporting processes. The Mississippi River water is a
43 source of transportation as well as drinking water. The air emissions from ships, boats,
44 and barges contribute to the air pollution in the communities but are not regulated or
45 considered by the environmental regulatory programs. The contaminants in the
46 Mississippi River water that are distributed to people in the communities are never
47 considered as pollution burdens.
48
49 Based upon the above, a comprehensive, integrated, and unified approach towards multiple
50 environmental hazards in overburdened communities is critical to properly addressing
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report - January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
PageS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
cumulative risks and impacts. In the context of an environmental protection regime that suffers
programmatic and regulatory fragmentation, a logical corollary to using multiple stressors as a
common starting point for dialogue on cumulative risks and impacts is that of using multi-media
approaches to overcome such fragmentation.
It should be noted that the above example is hardly unique. While there are many other similar
situations throughout the Nation, space prevents us from providing a detailed description of
them. All have different fact patterns and exhibit different types of environmental impacts and
social dynamics. All evidence the adverse impact of multiple stressors and burdens. Therefore,
it is important to highlight some implications of these kinds of communities for public health
strategy and action that grow from an understanding of cumulative risks and impacts.
American Indian World View
Intellectual/
Mental Health
Figure 3: The four aspects of a healthy being must be
considered in a cumulative risk/impact assessment. They are
integral to the nature of American Indians and are reflected in
the four cardinal points of the medicine wheel or sacred circle.
When in balance, this will promote community health. Graphic
developed by Karen Medville.
A NATIVE AMERICAN HEALTH PARADIGM
Many Native Americans are concerned
about pesticide use, particularly in forested
lands that are owned or managed by the
federal government The EPA Tribal
Science Council has worked with the
Agency to develop an alternative to
traditional risk assessment that better
incorporates Native American perspectives
on wellness and health. Tribal relationship
with the land is inseparable from Native
American culture. If the land and water
are not healthy, then people cannot be
healthy. As Figure 1 illustrates., health is a
strong aspect of traditional Indian culture,
and has spiritual as well as mental and
emotional components. Practitioners of
traditional medicine and other members of
the Native American community are called
upon to enrich these components. For
example, in the Mohawk culture, the canoe
is used as a key symbol and represents the
"holder of the culture."
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 9
i SOUTHEAST Los ANGELES: AN URBAN AIR HOT SPOT
2
3 Southeast Los Angeles, in California, is an air toxics "hot spot." It is the home of a cluster of
4 polluting facilities as well as the stationary and mobile pollution sources that result from being a
5 major goods-movement corridor. Some of these polluters are regulated by local ordinances;
6 many are not regulated at all. According to a report by Communities for a Better Environment
7 (CBE), the health effects caused by these multiple sources of pollution provide compelling
8 reasons for timely action. The pollution sources create environmental injustice because they are
9 overly burdensome to the Southeast Los Angeles community, harmful to its health, and lead to a
10 lower quality of life. CBE's report concludes that current environmental policy ignores
11 cumulative impacts, and that toxins are not regulated adequately to protect human health.6 A
12 cumulative approach could help document the issues that the community faces.
13
14 WEST HARLEM: STUDYING CHILDREN'S HEALTH
15
16 In the Harlem neighborhoods of New York City that were studied by West Harlem
17 Environmental Action (WEACT) and Columbia University's School of Public Health, children
18 are impacted by a cascade of environmental and other stressors that negatively affect their
19 health, welfare and quality of life. Living in deteriorating housing with substantial pest
20 infestation results in a double whammy for developing fetuses and infants: high levels of
21 pesticides results in widespread exposure to pesticides during pregnancy as well as in utero
22 sensitization to multiple indoor pest allergens. Many of the children who live in these conditions
23 start iheir lives as highly exposed individuals, and with developmental disorders, frequent
24 respiratory symptoms, and other health deficits. Because of these cumulative impacts, even a
25 small exposure to environmental toxins can be significant in this community.7
26
6 Communities for a Better Environment, Holding Our Breath: The Struggle for EnvironmentalJustice in
Southeast Los Angeles, Los Angeles: Communities for a Better Environment, 1998.
7 See Appendix I for detailed description of these studies.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 [Page Intentionally Blank]
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report - January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
EPA's FRAMEWORK FOR CUMULATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
o£
ssesanent at EEA
1970s
-toofc
* aiphasisonoral mute per FDA praeedait
1980s
1990s
graddoies -
basic methodotogjes
doanietiy
data bases (DOS)
• new tools/data bases
innovative approaches
refinement of existing took
understanding mechanisms
(faction/interactions
ecological assessment
* convex mixtures
• sensffivesubpopulations
2000s
In May 2003, EPA
published its Framework
for Cumulative Risk
Assessment (hereinafter
also referred to as the
"Framework" or EPA's
"Cumulative Risk
Framework"), which is a
first step in the Agency's
long-term effort to
develop guidelines for
assessing and responding
to cumulative risks and
impacts. While the
Framework represents a
profound milestone for the
Agency's efforts to
address the cumulative
risk issue, it is especially
significant for addressing
the relationship between
cumulative risks and
environmental justice. In
fact, many of the tenets of
the Framework were
informed by the attempt to develop a coherent approach to situations involving environmental
justice issues.
Taken in historical context, past risk assessment approaches, and environmental protection
principles generally, were geared to controlling sources of pollution through technology-based
regulation or an individual chemical-by-chemical approach. It became evident that the broad
national regulations produced uneven results and left significant pockets of higher exposure and
adverse impacts. These pockets, in large part, were the many communities and tribes where
issues of environmental justice are manifested. More often than not, these remaining pockets of
higher exposure and adverse impacts are the "toxic hotspots" hi which historically disadvantaged
and underserved communities and tribes live, work, worship, and play. Some of the major tenets
of the Framework (community-based approach; place-based and population-based analysis;
multiple stressors; involvement of impacted community members and other stakeholders; and the
concept of vulnerability) also are basic tenets of a strategy to remedy environmental injustice.
* new tools/approaches
• input into costs/benefits
analysis
Figure 4: Thomas A. Burke, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of
Public Health, Presentation to EPA Region 3 Cumulative Risk Workshop. May
28-29,2003
8 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Frameworkfor Cumulative Risk Assessment, EPA/630/P-
02/00 IF, Washington, DC, USEPA, May 2003. The EPA Frameworkfor Cumulative Risk Assessment is
the first major document in EPA's efforts to develop approaches and methodologies for assessing and
responding to cumulative risks. It provides the basis for eventual EPA guidance on conducting such
assessments. The report is available on http://crbub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/recordisplav.cmi?deid=54944.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts WorkGroup
Draft Report - January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The EPA Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment represents a major advance in the
Agency's quest to resolve these remaining challenges.
The Framework is key to ensuring the goal of environmental justice for all communities because
of the following features:
• It takes a broad view of risk. The Framework explicitly states that the
formulation of risk can include areas outside EPA's regulatory authority, and
poses questions for which a quantitative method or answer does not yet exist.
Population-based" approach
FigureS: Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, USEPA
It utilizes a population-
based and place-based
analysis. Conventional
human health risk
assessments usually focus
on the source or stressor
("a risk assessment for
benzene, an industrial
plant, etc.") and follow the
stressor to various
populations affected.
Cumulative risk
assessment, like many
ecological assessments,
will be done with the
focus on a population or
place, and consideration
of various stressors
affecting them ("a
cumulative risk assessment for a community, etc.").
It promotes a comprehensive and integrated assessment of risk. Although
combining human health and ecological concerns has been a challenge for risk
assessors for decades, the possible interaction between ecological and health risks
makes this even more important hi cumulative assessments than it has been in
conventional risk assessment.
It involves multiple stressors (chemical and non-chemical). While past risk
assessments have often addressed a number of chemical stressors individually, the
Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment requires the consideration of how
these multiple stressors act together. It also discusses broadly considering not
only chemical stressors, but also other stressors such as biological, physical, or
even cultural, and how they affect the cumulative risk.
It posits an expanded definition of vulnerability to include biological and
social factors. Using the definition of vulnerability from the Framework,
'Vulnerability" is broader than just another word for biological susceptibility or
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page IS
l sensitivity. The Framework adopts a social science view of vulnerability which
2 allows consideration of any number of types of stressors that result in a widely
3 different effect for two populations who suffer the same intensity of insult.
4
5 • It places a premium on community involvements and partnerships.
6 Cumulative risk assessment will largely play out in geographically or population-
7 based settings. Because of this, the Framework puts heavy emphasis on making
8 use of local expertise of various sorts available within the areas studied.
9
10 * It emphasizes the importance of planning, scoping, and problem-
it formulation. Cumulative risk assessment has the potential to be much more
12 complex than conventional risk assessment. It is essential that the questions to be
13 answered be clearly identified and articulated, and that the participants have clear
14 agreement on what is to be done and the limitations of the potential results of the
15 assessments.
16
17 • It links risk assessment to risk management within the context of community
18 health goals. Because of its potentially broad scope, including many different
19 types of stressors, cumulative risk assessment has a high potential for bringing
20 attention to a variety of sources of risk. Managing these risks may require a wide
21 variety of approaches (not all regulatory) discussed jointly among the
22 participants.
23
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 [Page Intentionally Blank]
11
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 15
i NEJAC's CORE RESPONSE TO THE EPA CHARGE: ADOPTING A COMMUNITY-
2 BASED COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL FOR ADDRESSING
3 CUMULATIVE RISKS AND IMPACTS
4
5 The EPA Charge requests that the NEJAC provide advice and recommendations on what short-
6 term and long-term actions EPA should take on the issue of cumulative risks and impacts to
7 ensure environmental justice for all communities. After much deliberation, the NEJAC Work
8 Group decided that it can add the most value by offering another perspective to the ones already
9 articulated by the Framework. This added perspective is meant to address the question: How
10 does one operationatize the important concepts in the Agency rs Cumulative Risk Framework
11 in a manner that is sensitive to the "real life" context of communities and tribes suffering
12 environmental injustice?
13
14 To answer this question, the NEJAC Work Group takes the position that combining the new
IS Cumulative Risk Framework with a collaborative problem-solving approach is arguably the
16 fastest and surest way to bring about tangible and sustainable benefits for disproportionately
17 impacted communities and tribes. Some significant experience and lessons are now emerging hi
18 the use of an Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model, developed by the
19 EPA Office of Environmental Justice through the Federal Interagency Working Group on
20 Environmental Justice. Such lessons can be of great value to operationalizing the concepts of the
21 Agency's Cumulative Risk Framework. Together, they provide a critical set of strategies and
22 tools for achieving what is presumably the ultimate goal of both environmental justice and the
23 Cumulative Risk Framework, i.e., healthy and sustainable communities.9
9 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EnvironmentalJustice Collaborative Model: A Framework
to Ensure Local Problem-Solving (EPA 300-R-02-001), Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Copies are available from: www.eDa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice.
The environmental justice collaborative model is the basis of a new grant program administered by OEJ
called the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Grant Program. Fifteen grants will be
awarded to community-based organizations in FY2003 and another fifteen in FY2004. See U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, "Office of Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice Collaborative
Problem-Solving Grant Program Request for Applications," Federal Register, June 6,2003.
Also see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Towards an EnvironmentalJustice Collaborative
Model: An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues in
Communities (EPA/100-R-03-001) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Towards an
EnvironmentalJustice Collaborative Model: Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address
EnvironmentalJustice Issues in Communities (EPA/1 OO-R-03-002). These reports were based on studies
conducted by the EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (www.epa. gov/evaluate). The
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is nearing completion of a study on the IWG
demonstration project collaborative partnerships, particularly looking at the community-local government
interface. It is to be entitled Not Business at Usual: Using Collaborative Partnerships to Address
EnvironmentalJustice Issues. Last, see Lee, Charles, "Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental
Justice and Healthy Communities," in Pellow, David and Robert Brulle, People, Power and Pollution: A
Critical Appraisal of the EnvironmentalJustice Movement, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report-January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model is an emerging community-
based, interagency, multi-stakeholder model to address environmental justice issues and achieve
healthy and sustainable communities. It is premised on the following:
Seeks proactive,
strategic,
community-based
solutions to
environmental
justice issues,
building on
community
visioning and
planning processes;
Promotes an asset-
building approach10
to building
community capacity
and social capital,
particularly for
disadvantaged and
underserved
communities;
Incorporates
consensus building
Elements of the
Environmental Justice
Collaborative Problem-
Solving Model
Figure 6: "Utilizing the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving
Model," EPA Office of Environmental Justice, December 1, 2003
and dispute resolution principles and methods, including
the "Mutual Gains Approach to Negotiations";11
Utilizes community-based participatory research methodologies;
Establishes multi-stakeholder partnerships to leverage human, organization,
technical, and financial resources;
Fosters an integrated approach to addressing environmental, health, social, and
economic needs;
Promotes multi-agency coordination to effectively utilize resources of all relevant
federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies; and
Integrates an evaluation framework and promotes replication of lessons learned
and best practices.
10 Asset building is an approach towards community development and problem-solving that seeks to
identify (asset-mapping) and build upon community-based assets such as the skills of local residents,
power of local associations, resources of public, private and non-profit institutions, and the physical and
economic resources of local places. See Kretzmann, John P. and John L. McKnight, Building
Communities From the Inside Chit: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing A Community's Assets,
Chicago, EL: ACTA Publications, 1993.
11 The "Mutual Gains Approach to Negotiations" was developed by Lawrence Susskind, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology planning professor and president of the Consensus Building Institute. It calls for
a process by which parties with different interests can create value by exploring mutually beneficially
options. See: http://www.cbuilding.org.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts WorkGroup
Draft Report ~ January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
BUILDING ON THE NEJAC POLLUTION PREVENTION REPORT:
In a very real sense, the recommendations of this report build on
the recommendations of the NEJAC's report on "Advancing
Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention." In that
report, the NEJAC confronted the issue of determining which of
the myriad of currently available pollution prevention tools would
be most effective in any given community or tribal situation, most
of which suffer from cumulative risks and impacts. As a result,
the NEJAC proposed a "multi-stakeholder collaborative model"
to focus, in the first instance, on the assessment process but
also to fashion a pathway to implementation of pollution
prevention and risk reduction solutions. The issue of cumulative
risks and impacts that the EPA now requests the NEJAC to
examine presents, in large part, a mirror image of the earlier
question.
See National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Advancing
EnvironmentalJustice Through Pollution Prevention, June 2003
fhttp://www.eDa.aov/compnance/environmentaliustice/neiac). A major
recommendation of this report calls upon EPA to develop and implement a
multi-stakeholder collaborative model to advance environmental justice
through pollution prevention that ensures a meaningful role in design and
implementation for impacted communities.
To be sure, the Agency's
Framework for Cumulative
Risk Assessment represents
a profound advancement in
the kind of thinking that
will help communities and
tribes address their
concerns. The Cumulative
Risk Framework is
important because, for the
first time, it dramatically
opens the scope of risk
assessment to include the
factors that are key to
understanding community
risk. It allows for a
discussion of multiple
sources, as well as social
and cultural factors and
issues of vulnerability.
Finally, the community can
enter into a dialogue about
risk that realistically
incorporates the factors
experienced by
disadvantaged,
underserved, and environmentally overburdened communities and tribes. Past risk conversations
have always had limitations that caused risk assessments to miss the target and sometimes even
bias decisions against communities with multiple stressors.
As important an advance as the Agency's Cumulative Risk Framework is, the NEJAC Work
Group fears that, by itself, the Framework will not lead to dramatic progress. Rather, the
NEJAC Work Group fears that it can be used to slow down progress if it causes analysis of risk
to be more complicated and time consuming in order to reach the answers needed for action to
take place. In fact, the increased complexity can easily become an excuse for never taking
action.
For this reason, the NEJAC Work Group sees the need to place this important advance in the
context of a bias for action. Such a bias for action means that a Cumulative Risk Framework
must be combined with other key strategies if it is going to make a meaningful difference in the
health of impacted communities and tribes. To get to actions that will reduce risk means that the
new expanded view of risk has to form the starting point for a process in the community that
builds the community's capacity to actually do something about risk.
While the Cumulative Risk Framework opens up the possibility for a new and more realistic
dialogue on risk, it will not, by itself, cause that dialogue to take place. To get results, a
conscious effort to develop a collaborative process that brings governments and all sectors of the
community together hi a problem-solving mode must be combined with the expanded cumulative
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31, 2004 Page 18
1 perspective. This means that all relevant stakeholders will need to engage in an open and
2 deliberative discussion of causes of risk and be willing to contribute to a community-wide effort
3 to reduce risk. This collaborative problem-solving approach is a paradigm shift of equal
4 importance to the paradigm shift embodied in the cumulative perspective on risk laid out hi the
5 Framework.
6
7 Joining in a real, community-based collaborative process also will require difficult adjustments
8 on all sides: Governments and risk experts must recognize that residents have an essential and
9 vital role to play in the discussion of risk and risk management. Residents must be willing to
10 look at risk broadly and use science to understand risk and to target risk reductions efforts.
11 Industry must be willing to go beyond its narrow facility perspective, look at risk from the
12 community perspective, and become willing partners hi efforts that go beyond mere regulatory
13 compliance to improve community health.
14
15 This collaborative process will create the capacity that is needed to get something done.
16 Solutions to health problems hi impacted communities will not come from government or from
17 industry or from residents alone. It will take a collaborative partnership that brings everyone to
18 work together to find solutions. A cumulative perspective on risk and a collaborative
19 community process will bring the changes needed to finally address the longstanding needs of
20 communities and tribes suffering environmental injustice.
21
22 The NEJAC Work Group cautions that using cumulative risk analysis alone to select a few
23 targets for action under applicable regulatory authority will raise the bar for the level of analysis
24 for those few and result in long delays and legal challenges. If only a few contributors to wide-
25 spread community burdens are selected to respond to concerns about community health and
26 welfare, those few contributors will spend their resources explaining why such selective
27 enforcement is unfair rather than channel new resources to reduce the portion of community
28 burden for which they are accountable.
29
30 We need to use the critical breakthrough that comes with the cumulative risk perspective to
31 dramatize the accountability of all contributors for unacceptable cumulative community burdens.
32 We need to use this perspective to help create a new conversation that brings all sectors together
33 in a collaborative approach to reach some workable agreement resulting in action. This
34 conversation will have to be an iterative one that gradually builds both trust and a better
35 understanding of risk and ways to reduce it It will start with a fairly quick screening of multiple
36 stressors and deliberative conversation that will identify the risks that everyone can agree to
37 address immediately. Actions will be taken on these immediate risks and vulnerabilities while
38 the partnership works simultaneously to refine its understanding of the full scope and extent of a
39 community's burden. The trust built through common action and the common knowledge built
40 through further cumulative risk analysis will result in new, refined targets and more extensive
41 and productive actions. This is a process that should continue indefinitely as a regular function
42 of a healthy community.
43
44 In presenting the above perspective, the NEJAC Work Group recognizes that its enthusiasm for
45 these eminently sensible concepts must be tempered with a realistic appreciation of the
46 challenges which often confront disadvantaged and underserved communities and tribes. We
47 realize that, despite the good efforts of many well-intentioned parties, some contributors to
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 19
l environmental burdens-be they business or government-still refuse to come to the table to
2 acknowledge the environmental burdens for which they are accountable. In those instances, the
3 NEJAC Work Group calls upon EPA, as well as delegated state programs, to exercise their
4 regulatory and enforcement authorities to the fullest extent possible.
5
6 Taken together, the concepts articulated hi both the Agency's Cumulative Risk Framework and
7 in this report must be integrated in a manner that leads to a coherent, consistent, and transparent
8 framework for conducting assessments and taking meaningful action to reduce risk on the part of
9 all parties involved. Much of what will make the concepts articulated in both the Agency's
10 Cumulative Risk Framework and in this report come to life is a unifying process that overcomes
11 fragmentation, builds confidence, trust, and capacity on the part of the communities and all
12 relevant stakeholders. The degree to which such confidence in the process, trust among all
13 stakeholders, and capacity on the part of all parties involved, is achieved will determine, in large
14 measure, the quality of the analysis and the meaningfulness of the actions taken to reduce risk.
15
16 In a very real sense, the recommendations of this report build on the recommendations of the
17 NEJAC's report on "Advancing Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention." In that
18 report, the NEJAC confronted the issue of determining which of the myriad of currently
19 available pollution prevention tools would be most effective in any given community or tribal
20 situation, most of which suffer from cumulative risks and impacts. As a result, the NEJAC
21 proposed a "multi-stakeholder collaborative model" to focus, in the first instance, on the
22 assessment process but also to fashion a pathway to implementation of pollution prevention and
23 risk reduction solutions.12 The issue of cumulative risks and impacts that the EPA now requests
24 the NEJAC to examine presents, in large part, a mirror image of the earlier question.
25
26 In conclusion, the NEJAC Work Group believes that adopting a community-based collaborative
27 problem-solving model to address issues of cumulative risks and impacts is intended to
28 accomplish the following:
29
30 • Address multiple stressors;
31 • Create a transparent process that instills confidence, trust, and other positive
32 features of social capital;
33 • Institutionalize a bias for action;
34 • Develop a coherent and consistent framework for doing cumulative risk assessment;
35 • Incorporate community-based participatory research methods;
36 * Address issues of vulnerability in communities, when assessing cumulative risks/impacts
37 as well as when undertaking prevention/intervention efforts;
38 • Utilize efficient screening, targeting, and prioritization methods/tools;
39 • Bring about significant risk reduction; and
40 * Employ regulatory authorities to bring recalcitrant parties to the table.
41
12 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Advancing Environmental Justice Through
Pollution Prevention, June 2003. See http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliiistice/neiac. A
major recommendation of this report calls upon EPA to develop and implement a multi-stakeholder
collaborative model to advance environmental justice through pollution prevention that ensures a
meaningful role in design and implementation for impacted communities.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 37,2004 Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 [Page Intentionally Blank]
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 21
i DISCUSSION OF KEY CONCEPTS
2
3 In the opinion of the NEJAC Work Group, the implications of adopting a community-based
4 collaborative problem-solving model to address issues of environmental justice and cumulative
s risks and impacts can be profound. This section of the report discusses certain key interrelated
6 and interdependent concepts critical to understanding these implications. Two were discussed
7 earlier, i.e., (1) the idea of using multiple stressors as a common starting point of discussion; and
8 (2) the need for multi-media approaches to overcome programmatic and regulatory
9 fragmentation. Other concepts are: the EPA Cumulative Risk Framework's definition of
10 stressors; vulnerability; community-based participatory research; proportional response;
11 qualitative analysis; efficient screening, targeting, and prioritization methods/tools; unifying
12 public health and environmental protection; and social capital. We have chosen to discuss these
13 concepts because they are directly related to the NEJAC Work Group's thinking on promoting a
14 collaborative problem-solving model to address and eliminate cumulative risks and impacts in
15 disadvantaged, underserved, and environmentally overburdened communities and tribes and
16 ensure environmental justice for all people.
17
18 Stressors:
19
20 The concept of stressors is used from the very beginning of this report. Hence, it is important to
21 examine it more extensively. The EPA Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment defines
22 "stressor" in the following manner:
23
24 A stressor is a physical, chemical, biological, or other entity that can cause an
25 adverse response in a human or other organism or ecosystem. Exposure to a
26 chemical, biological, or physical agent (e.g., radon) can be a stressor, as can the lack
27 of, or destruction of, some necessity, such as a habitat. The stressor may not cause
28 harm directly, but it may make the target more vulnerable to harm by other stressors.
29 A socioeconomic stressor, for example, might be the lack of needed health care,
30 -which could lead to adverse effects. Harmful events, such as automobile crashes,
31 could also be termed stressors. Obviously, calculating risks from different types of
32 stressors can use widely differing methods, including probabilistic estimates of
33 disease via dose-response relationships or looking up rates in statistical tables of
34 historical events, among others.13
35
36 Notably, the Framework says that "...There is no limitation that the 'agents or stressors' be only
37 chemicals."14 For example, the above definition specifically mentions socioeconomic stressors,
38 such as lack of health care. This is one reason why the Framework is such an important
39 milestone; it lays the basis to begin a conversation about comprehensive risk in an impacted
40 community or tribe.
41
42 From the perspective of the Framework, stressors are those things that cause or promote both
43 risks and impacts. However, the meaning of the term "risk" has been shaped by a historical
44 association with quantitative risk assessment. Risks has been defined as the probability of harm
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, pg. 2
14 Ibid, pg. 7
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 22
l and heretofore has been expressed quantitatively as a metric. As a result, impacted communities
2 have had a strong aversion to the concept of risks and risk assessment They see the historic
3 concept of risk as being as overly narrow, overly technical, and highly removed from the reality
4 of their situations. Residents of impacted communities see themselves as living with the
5 impacts, or "harm or adverse effects found in populations or individuals as a result of a stressor
6 or stressors," and believe that their knowledge of community conditions, community needs, and
7 community assets are important to any effort to assess and address risk in then- community. A
8 good description of this tension is described in the report of the Chelsea Creek Community-
9 Based Comparative Risk Assessment.
10
11 Risk assessment is a tool created to compare and rank environmental problems based
12 on the potential for environmental and public health impacts. Traditionally, risk
13 assessments draw together a number of experts infields such as toxicology,
14 economics, and natural resources. These experts are expected to use "pure science"
15 to assess the risk to public health from contaminants, and identify appropriate
16 resource investment or mitigation measures. This approach does not generally allow
17 for public participation or input into the process.15
18
19 A major concern of environmental justice is the timely, accurate, and comprehensive
20 characterization of communities inundated with multiple sources of pollution. These sources
21 may include, but certainly are not limited to: industrial facilities; noxious land uses; deteriorated
22 housing; contamination in air, soil or water; transportation related emissions; and/or food
23 consumed as a result of subsistence diets.
24
25 As previously stated, and as the above definition of stressors shows, the EPA Framework for
26 Cumulative Risk Assessment seeks to think about risk hi a broad and unified manner. Some
27 implications of this integrated approach are:
28
29 • It provides flexibility in terms of the assessment scope and the type and nature of
30 the input data, i.e., to able to take communities as you find them;
31 • It promotes the development of ways to characterize and use information
32 differently, including thinking and making judgments in both a quantitative and
33 qualitative manner,
34 -It requires the assessment to be more data intensive, and include collection and
35 analysis of data pertinent to all the factors relevant to multiple risks and impacts;
36 • It involves additional areas of expertise to do the assessments;
37 • It places a greater premium on involving and getting input from impacted
38 communities and tribes; and
39 • It fosters the development of partnerships among multiple disciplines and
40 multiple stakeholders.
41
15 Chelsea Creek Community-Based Risk Assessment Report, Chelsea Creek Action Group and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Spring 2003. Excerpts from the report are provide in Appendix C.
The fail report can be obtained at http://www.eoa.gov/region01/eco/uep/boston/bprogress.html. The
NEJAC Work Group intends to provide a case study of the Chelsea Creek risk assessment project for the
final draft of this report.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 23
1 The concept of stressors is important because, as discussed earlier, it represents the logical
2 common starting point for the discussion of how to characterize disadvantaged and overburdened
3 communities and tribes and how to describe vulnerability. The concept also provides a way to
4 dramatically open the scope of risk assessment to include the factors which are key to
5 understanding community risk and community health.
6
7 The NEJAC Work Group cannot overemphasize the reality that in impacted communities and
8 tribes, both residents and risk assessors initially confront a situation with a set of multiple
9 stressors, the combined risks and impacts of which have yet to be ascertained. While one goal is
10 ultimately a comprehensive characterization of such combined risks and impacts, the impacted
11 community should not have to wait until such a full characterization of combined risks and
12 impacts is completed before action can be taken.
13
14
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report-January 31,2004 Page 24
1 Vulnerability:
3 The concept of vulnerability £oes to the heart of the meaning of environmental justice.
4 Vulnerability recognizes that disadvantaged, underserved, and overburdened communities come
5 to the table with pre-existing deficits of both a physical and social nature that make the effects of
6 environmental pollution more, and in some cases unacceptably, burdensome. As such, the
7 concept of vulnerability fundamentally differentiates disadvantaged, underserved, and
8 overburdened communities from healthy and sustainable communities. Moreover, it provides
9 the added dimension of considering the nature of the receptor population when defining
10 disproportionate risks or impacts.
12 The Framework includes a definition of vulnerability that can serve as a starting point for
13 discussing this concept.16 According to the Framework, a subpopulation is vulnerable if it is
14 more likely to be adversely affected by a stressor than the general population. There are four
15 basic ways in which a population can be vulnerable: susceptibiHty/sensitivity, differential
16 exposure, differential preparedness, and differential ability to recover. Each of these types of
17 vulnerabilities is discussed below.
Jo
9 Susceptibility/Sensitivity: A subpopulation may be susceptible or sensitive to a
20 stressor if it faces an increased likelihood of sustaining an adverse effect due to a
21 life state (e.g., pregnant, young, old), an impaired immune system, or a pre-
22 existing condition, such as asthma, A subpopulation could have been previously
23 sensitized to a compound, or have prior disease or damage. In some cases,
24 susceptibility also could arise because of genetic polymorphisms, which are
25 genetic differences in a portion of a population. For example, a community with
26 a large subpopulation of young children could be more susceptible to the effects
27 of lead poisoning. A community with many elderly residents could be more
28 vulnerable to a stressor such as a heat wave. And a community with a high
29 number of asthmatics will be more susceptible to air pollution. The
30 environmental justice implications of this phenomenon are significant. For
31 example, given the fact that children are considered to be a highly susceptible
32 subpopulation, then children in low-income and people of color communities
33 must be considered an even more susceptible group within that subpopulation.17
35 Differential Exposure: A subpopulation can be more vulnerable because it is
36 living or working near a source of pollution and is therefore exposed to a higher
37 level of the pollutant than the general population. Children living in older,
38 deteriorated housing are more likely to receive greater exposure to lead paint dust,
39 and their breathing zone is closer to the ground where such dust is more likely to
40 be found. Communities situated close to the fence line of a facility that is
41 emitting air pollutants, or living near a major roadway, will most likely
42 experience higher levels of air pollution. Due to contaminated fish or wildlife,
16 The following definition was provided by Roger Kasperson, noted environmental risk expert and
executive director of the Stockholm Environmental Institute. Among other things, Dr. Kasperson was the
first social scientist appointed to me EPA Science Advisory Board.
17 See EPA, America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Bio-dens, and
Illnesses, EPA 240-R-03-001, February 2003.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 25
l subpopulations, such as Native Americans, that are dependent on subsistence
2 consumption represent another example of differential exposure.
3 In reviewing differential exposure, it is important to take into consideration what
5 is sometimes referred to as background exposure or historical exposure. It is
6 particularly important to recognize historical exposures in communities and tribes
7 suffering environmental injustice. In some cases, community members were
8 exposed to pollutants for many years in the past from facilities that are no longer
9 functioning or in business. These past exposures could act to increase the body
10 burden of a subpopulation so that vulnerable individuals start off at a higher dose.
11 Even if the dose-response curves among the subpopulation are the same as the
12 general population, starting off at a higher point on this curve puts the members of
13 the vulnerable subpopulation at greater risk for exposure to the same amount of a
14 compound than the general population. This fact is highly pertinent to the
15 historical legacy of racial and economic discrimination, and the relationship of
16 vulnerability to health disparities. In this sense, it may be productive to explore
17 the relationship between health disparities and susceptibility.
}g
9 Social, economic, and cultural factors can play a role with respect to differential
20 exposure. An intriguing example of a lessened ability to prevent environmental
21 insult and resulting exposure is found in the research of Professor Manuel Pastor,
22 Jr. and Ms colleagues. They found a strong correlation between periods of
23 greatest community demographic change and the introduction of noxious land
24 uses. It is surmised that this is a period when the community's social capital, in
25 terms of stable leaders, networks, and institutions, is perhaps lowest. Pastor's
26 colleagues coined a term to describe this phenomenon, i.e., "ethnic churning."18
28 While it is clear that social, economic, and cultural factors can play a salient role in the area of
29 differential exposure, they are perhaps more prominent with respect to the next two categories of
30 vulnerability, i.e., differential preparedness and differential ability to recover. Moreover, as
31 previously noted, these factors cut across the different categories of vulnerability.
33 Differential Preparedness: Differential preparedness refers to subpopulations
34 which are less able withstand an environmental insult. This is linked to what kind
35 of coping systems an individual, population, or community has: the more
36 prepared, the less vulnerable. Examples of lessened ability to withstand insult
37 include lack of actions to prepare for a stressor (vaccination, for example, to ward
38 off disease) or poor access to preventive health care (which has the potential to
39 improve community response to stressors). Poverty, poor nutrition, or
40 psychosocial stress may affect the strength of one's coping system. Preparedness
41 against many stressors also can depend on the general state of social and cultural
18 Manuel Pastor, Jr. is a professor of Latin American and Latino Studies at University of California at
Santa Cruz and director of its Center for Justice, Tolerance and Community. He has authored numerous
publication on the subject of environmental justice. Dr. Pastor presented on his research on issues of
"ethnic churning" and facility siting to the NEJAC Enforcement Subcommittee in December 1999. His
presentation was based on the following article; Pastor, Manuel, Jr., Jim Sadd, and John Hipp, "Which
Came First? Toxic Facilities, Minority Move-In, and Environmental Justice," Journal of Urban Affairs
23(1)1-21,2001.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Wort Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 57,2004 Page 26
l health of a subpopulation. As the American Indian World View of Health in
2 Figure 1 shows, preparedness in these communities often will be linked directly
3 to the balance between emotional, physical, spiritual, and mental health.
4
5 Differential Ability to Recover: Differential preparedness and differential ability
6 to recover are closely related categories of vulnerability. Some subpopulations
7 are more able to recover from an insult or stressor because they have more
8 information about environmental risks, health, and disease; ready access to better
9 medical and health care; early diagnosis of disease; or better nutrition.
II Clearly, social factors, including but not limited to income, employment status,
12 access to insurance, discrimination in the health care system, language ability, and
13 the existence of social capital, can play an important role in determining the
14 ability to prevent, withstand, or recover from environmental insults. Last,
15 isolation, whether economic, racial, linguistic, or otherwise, leads to less
16 connections, less access to information or influence, and, thus, less ability to
17 prevent, withstand, or recover from environmental stressors. Indices which
18 measure such isolation, such as dissimilarity indexes, may be useful in this area.19
19 Once again, this may point to the relationship of health disparities to all four
20 categories of vulnerability.
22 This formal definition of vulnerability takes on new meaning when looked at within the context
23 of a community and provides a framework for understanding how a disadvantaged community
24 faces greater impacts from pollution than the general population. As already illustrated, linking
25 vulnerability with the concept of health disparities can produce a very powerful analytical tool.
26 Vulnerability and health disparities are integrally related concepts, and in some ways, health
27 disparities are both an outcome of and a contributor to vulnerability. Greater vulnerability
28 of individuals to a stressor can result in health disparities to an entire community. For example,
29 if an entire community receives higher exposure to a single or multiple pollutants, this may result
30 in the community having a higher incidence of disease, such as asthma or cardiovascular disease,
31 resulting in a health disparity. If these same individuals are also more susceptible to a stressor,
32 are in poor health to begin with and do not receive proper medical attention, the potential for
33 health disparities and the magnitude of the disparities from the higher exposure increases. Once
34 a community shows disparities in various diseases, the community members have a
35 compromised state of health, the community is more vulnerable. This cycle of multiple
36 exposures coupled with vuhierabiHty can lead to a downward health spiral to greater disparities.
EPA's Cumulative Risk Framework is a good place to begin to understand the concept of
39 vulnerability because it lays the groundwork, perhaps for the first time in an EPA document, to
40 incorporate those social factors (as well as physical) which are numerous in historically
41 disadvantaged and underserved communities but heretofore have not been considered part of the
42 scope of an environmental risk assessment While vulnerability has yet to be clearly or fully
43 articulated as a salient factor, it has been an implicit part of the debate over risk within
44 communities and tribes suffering environmental injustice. One example of this is the proposal
19 See discussion in Appendix H by R Patricia Hynes and Russ Lopez (Boston University School of
Public Health) about different bdices available for examining vulnerability factors such as the impacts of
economic, racial, and social inequality on health.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 57,2004 Page 27
l that a protocol for characterizing communities with environmental justice issues must take into
2 account preexisting risk conditions. This was proposed by Jerome Baiter of the Public Interest
3 Law Center of Philadelphia. In essence, Mr. Baiter was suggesting that vulnerability factors, as
4 described in this report, be taken into account20
6 As previously stated, the concept of vulnerability goes to the heart of the meaning of
7 environmental justice, that is, the idea that disadvantaged, underserved, and overburdened
8 communities come to the table with pre-existing deficits, of both a physical and social nature,
9 that will make the effects of environmental pollution more and, sometimes, unacceptably
10 burdensome. Some will make the case that the concept of vulnerability is bigger than the risk
11 assessment process or that it deals with things which fall outside of EPA's jurisdiction. They
12 would argue that it speaks to larger questions like poverty, education, or employment
13 opportunity. Or the concept of vulnerability speaks to a community's cultural or linguistic
14 practices, access to information, capacity to engage in the decision-making process, social
15 networks and assets, and other aspects of the community's social infrastructure. The NEJAC
16 Work Group would argue that these are the very things which must be considered in order to
17 obtain an accurate characterization of community risk. Moreover, they are critical to
18 meaningfully involving impacted communities in the risk assessment process and to developing
19 and implementing risk reduction and community health solutions.
21 There is, in fact, a rich literature on the social determinants of health that makes a compelling
22 case for the role of social factors in significantly affecting the health of a community. These
23 social factors include poverty; unemployment, poor nutrition; housing and transportation,
24 deprivation in early childhood; exposure to drugs; lack of control over one's life; poor social
25 relations, discrimination and segregation, and others.21 Researchers in the field have concluded
26 that health disparities within populations are most commonly caused by environmental factors,
27 where environment includes social, built, and physical environments, and not by individual
28 genetic susceptibilities to disease alone.
30 There needs to be more examination of concepts like racial and economic discrimination as a
31 social stressor with health outcomes, as well stress which grows out of such discrimination.
32 Clearly, many of the issues raised require long-term research. However, this should not be an
33 excuse for lack of action in the short term. To the extent possible, the social, cultural, and
34 community health factors which can be incorporated into EPA's decision-making process should
35 be identified. On the other hand, there will be factors which fall outside of EPA's jurisdiction.
36 This requires leadership on the part of EPA, as well as all interested parties, in identifying the
37 appropriate agencies, be they health, transportation, housing or others, which need to be brought
38 to the table early on as part of initial scoping, planning, and problem-formulation.
39
40 Last, the NEJAC Work Group believes that the area of vulnerability should be pursued
41 systematically as part of the EPA's basic and applied research agenda. Such a systematic effort
42 should address the questions, array of concepts, body of theory, and assemblage of tools and
20 Jerome Baiter, Testimony at the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Meeting, May 24,
2000, Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Baiter was the attorney for the plaintiff in Chester Residents Concerned for
Quality Living v. Seif, 132 F.3d 925 (3d Cir. 1997), the famous case involving use of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
21 See discussion iri Appendix H by H. Patricia Hynes and Russ Lopez, referenced previously.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report - January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 28
l methods that can
2 characterize the condition
3 of social, political,
4 economic, and
5 environmental
6 vulnerability; its variable
7 distribution within a
S population; and its social
9 and psychological
10 meaning. Investigations
11 need to consider the
12 various factors that lead to
13 the generation of
14 differentiated vulnerability
15 and to the social and
16 economic disparities that
17 result from those
18 differences. Such a science
19 is by nature multi- and
20 inter-disciplinary, drawing
21 from many of the social
22 sciences for its concepts,
23 theories, and methods but
24 focused upon questions
25 directly drawn from the
26 experience of people
27 living in vulnerable
28 communities. It should be
29 reiterated that
30 understanding
31 vulnerability and the
32 economic, social, and
33 cultural aspects of
34 community risk are key to identifying and implementing effective community-based prevention
35 and intervention strategies. This is especially true when one links the concept of vulnerability to
36 that of social capital. Hence, this research will be most effective if it were done in such a way
37 that employs community-based participatory research and is geared towards studying prevention
38 and intervention strategies and the achievement of healthy and sustainable communities.
From O'Neill M, etal., "Health, Wealth, and Air Pollution: Advancing Theory and
Methods," Environmental Health Perspectives, December 2003
We structure the discussion with an interpretative framework based on three related
propositions. First, groups with lower SEP (socioeconomic position) may receive higher
exposure to air pollution. Second, because lower-SEP groups already experience
compromised health status due to material deprivation and psychosodal stress, they may
be more susceptible to the health effects of air pollution. Third, because of the
combination of greater exposure and susceptibility, these groups are likely to suffer
greater health effects.
Conclusions:
Research may show that groups most likely to be made ill from air pollution also
receive the highest exposure, and this exposure then exerts larger effects on their health
than it does on the average or reference population. The public hearth and regulatory
implications of such a finding could be significant because most air pollution standards aim
to reduce average exposure over large regions, rather than targeting exposure reduction
and mitigation programs to those areas receiving Hie highest exposure. Thus, targeting
exposure reduction would be justified on the grounds of maximizing public health benefits.
Differential distribution of adverse health effects (as addressed in this article) also need to
be considered alongside differential distribution of the benefits (e.g., employment or car
ownership) related to the emission sources. In one of the few studies that has assessed
the impact of air quality regulations, the overall conclusion was that poor people and
communities tend to benefit most from air quality improvements.
Including both air pollution and socioeconomic variables in eptdemiologic studies can
help inform public policy that aims to protect those most vulnerable to air pollution
exposure; identify cost-effective, targeted mitigation efforts; ensure equitable protection
from health risks; and develop physiologic explanations tor the observed associations with
SEP. As researchers evaluate how socioeconomic disparities and pollution can affect
health and quality of fife, their work can benefit through careful consideration of the
themes addressed in this article. First, researchers can dearly define their working
hypotheses, considering exposures and susceptibilities and both temporal and spatial
dimensions. Second, new collaborations can be formed among environmental and social
epidemiologists, exposure assessment experts, and other researchers to aid selection of
appropriate tools and data sets. Third, research ideas can be developed in collaboration
witt) affected communities and policy makers tasked with environmental and health
protection, as well as social and economic policies. Finally, international perspectives and
collaborative studies can enhance understanding and improve public health action by
showing how the complex interrelationships among SEP, pollution, and health vary across
communities and nations.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report - January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 29
Exposure to Environmental Hazards
SUSCEPTIBILITY
- Genetic predfspoBon to disease
-Effects on fetus, infants & chWren
Compromised immune system
^Preexisting health conditions
DIFFERENTIAL EXPOSURE
- Proximrty to pollution sources
- Employment in high exposure/dangerous jobs
-.Past exposures;
- Multiple, routes of exposure to one chemical
- Multiple: exposures to different pollutants
- Subsistence consumption :
-Discrimination
- lack of Information
-Lack of social capital
DIFFERENTIAL PREPAREDNESS
- Poor nutrition " ;
- Compromised heaflh/immune system -„
-Poor or no healthcare
- Cultural practices _ '
- Lack of recreation facilities
- Poor community services
-Lowincome
- Low education
- Dilapidated housing
- Emotional stress
'Crime
- Vermin (Bisects and rodents)
- Unemployment or «nderempk>yir»ent
- Disenmmafion
Lead paint
Air pollution
Contaminated soil
Contaminated drinking wafer
Untreated drinking water
Household toxic substances
Pesticide exposure
household and farmworkers
: Lack of sociat capital
DIFFERENTIAL ABILITY TO RECOVER
-Poor nutrition
- Compromised heaSMmmune system
- Poorer no health care
-Gutturalpractices" - " ~
- tadt erf recreatiwial -facilities
- Poor community services
-towincome
- Low education ~
- Dilapidated housing
- Emofional stress
-Crime
-Vermin Qnsectsand rodents)
- Unemployment or underemployment
- Discrimination
- Lack of information
-c Lack of social capital
I
HEALTH DISPARITIES
Asthma
Cardiovascular disease
Diabetes
Infant mortality
Birth defects
Figure 7: This graphic was developed by the NEJAC Work Group to illustrate the relationship between
environmental hazards, vulnerability, and health disparities, and how health disparities are both an
outcome of and a contributor to vulnerability.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 30
1 Community-Based Participatory Research:
2
3 The premises which gave birth to title Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving
4 Model are similar to those which gave birth to "community-based participatory research"
5 (CBPR). It is safe to say that this methodology has been utilized in some form or fashion for
6 more than fifty years. A review of case studies in public and environmental health reveals that
7 community-based participatory research principles have been utilized by health care providers,
8 particularly professionals such as social workers and public health nurses. These professionals
9 often worked hand in hand with residents of a community to alleviate public health problems
10 including contagious diseases such as tuberculosis or contaminated water supplies. Assessments
11 of both the affected residents and the community was done utilizing interviews, surveys, and
12 scientific collection of contaminated sources to make a determination of how the individual
13 became ill and what environmental or housing/residential impacts may have contributed to the
14 problem..
15
16 In the eyes of community groups, CBPR enables them to promote tue following goals:
17
18 • Equality of partners;
19 • Capacity building;
20 • Validity of community knowledge;
21 • Fair compensation to community members;
22 • Bias for action;
23 • Shared research findings;
24 • Publication of findings with the community as a partner; and
25 • Place-based approaches.
26
27 Over the last decade, many people of color, low-income, and tribal communities have become
28 sophisticated advocates in promoting the health of their communities while protecting against
29 further degradation of their environment The members of these communities gained recognition
30 nationally and internationally by developing expertise in public health assessments, toxicity level
31 monitoring, and regulatory processes influencing siting and permitting of hazardous waste
32 facilities. Those residing and working in impacted communities have gained knowledge through
33 self-education-learning about the federal, state, and local regulatory processes that have allowed
34 for the existence of multiple health risk stressors in communities. Beyond these self-help
35 scenarios, these environmentally overburdened communities now have members who have
36 formal education in health sciences, urban planning and zoning, environmental law, and the
37 biological and environmental sciences. "Home grown" experts who not only personally have
38 experienced cumulative risk stressors during their lifetimes, but return to their communities to
39 improve the health and economic standing of its residents. It is important for EPA and other
40 agencies to recognize this expertise if a meaningful working partnership is to develop in
41 promoting community-based cumulative risk assessments.
42
43 Community-based participatory research, particularly as related to environmental or public
44 health impacts, cultural or social issues within the community, has been undergoing refinement
45 during the last several years. This research is done with, for, and by community members,
46 sometimes in partnership with scientists or environmental researchers utilizing well accepted
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 31
1 research methodologies. Data collected often provides the basis for community health
2 assessments and learning about cumulative health impacts to the community. Such community-
3 based research techniques is recognized by researchers as a legitimate reflection of community
4 knowledge and expertise.
s
6 Community-based research attained new significance after being adopted by government
7 agencies and institutions of higher learning, which seek to break out of their traditionally
8 constrained methodologies and partner with community residents. These institutions sought to
9 obtain a grassroots determination of how the community has become overburdened and provide
10 a multi-dimensional picture of cumulative risks and impacts. There are now several coramunity-
11 based research centers in the nation, usually located in institutions of higher learning, ha the last
12 few years, they began to create a "network" of such centers. The demand for this type of
13 research has increased because of the recognition of its value in working directly with the
14 community and because of its ability to allow for direct public participation and collaboration.
15 Notably, Canada and the Netherlands presently lead the United States in the development of
16 community-based research institutions and the national research funding that these countries
17 provide to such centers and their respective communities.
18
19 The National Institutes of Environmental Health (NIEHS) defines community-based
20 participatory research as "a methodology that promotes active community involvement in the
21 processes that shape research and intervention strategies, as well as the conduct of research
22 studies." CBPR is an important component of NIEHS' Translational Research Program, which
23 was initiated in the early 1990s to link researchers and community residents by encouraging
24 collaborative research projects. The purpose of the program is to refine intervention methods,
25 provide exposure assessment data, study environmental disease etiology, and facilitate the
26 conversion of findings from basic, clinical or epidemiological environmental health science
27 research into information, resources, or tools that can be applied by healthcare providers and
28 community residents to improve public health outcomes in at-risk neighborhoods.
29
30 NIEHS endorses the following six principles for effective CBPR:
31
32 • Promotes active collaboration and participation at every stage of research:
33 CBPR fosters equal participation from all partners. It provides all participants
34 with an equal sense of ownership over the research and the outcomes.
35 • Fosters co-learning: CBPR provides an environment in which both community
36 residents and researchers contribute their respective expertise and where partners
37 learn from each other. Community members acquire new skills in conducting
38 research, and researchers learn about community networks and
39 concerns-information that can be used to inform hypothesis generation and data
40 collection.
41 • Ensures projects are community-driven: Research questions in CBPR are guided
42 b the environmental health issues or concerns of community members. NIEHS
43 recognizes that for research and prevention/intervention strategies to be
44 successful, they must address the concerns of community residents.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 32
1 • Disseminates results in useful terms: Upon completion of CBPR projects, results
2 are communicated to all partners in culturally appropriate, respectful, and
3 understandable terms.
4 • Ensures research and intervention strategies are culturally appropriate: With
5 active participation of community residents from the beginning, research and
6 prevention/intervention strategies are likely to be based in the cultural context of
7 the community in which such work is intended to benefit.
8 • Defines community as a unit of identity: NIEHS Translational Research programs
9 promote collaboration among academic scientists and community partners from
10 underserved communities. In the case of these projects, community is typically
11 characterized by a sense of identification and emotional connection to other
12 members through common interests and a commitment to address shared
13 concerns, such as harmful environmental exposures or environmental injustice.22
14
15 There are important linkages between the Agency's Cumulative Risk Framework, the
16 Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model, and Community-Based
17 Participatory Research that needs to be systematically developed. CBPR is an important and
18 useful tool in collaborative problem-solving initiatives. It is believed by many to be the missing
19 link of empowerment for affected communities to be able to participate in the decision-making
20 process. It provides the opportunity for community members, experts, and other stakeholders to
21 dialogue separately to identify respective concerns and interests while at the same time allowing
22 the entire collaborative partnership to set priorities together. CBPR research and intervention
23 outputs not only help the affected community, they also contribute valuable information on local
24 environmental and health conditions.
22 O'FaUon, Liam R. and Allen Dearry, "Community-Based Participatory Research as a Tool to Advance
Environmental Health Sciences," Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 110, Supplement 2, April
2002.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report - January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Proportional Response:
The concept of proportional
response is a direct outgrowth
of the NEJAC Work Group's
thinking about conducting
cumulative risk analysis in the
context of a bias for action and
its promotion of a collaborative
problem-solving model for
addressing cumulative risks and
impacts. The idea of
proportional response seeks to
match the needs of communities
and tribes with an appropriate
level or type of analysis and
action at any given point In
other words, analysis should be
commensurate with community
needs and the nature of the
intervention to be taken. Figure 6,
CoBipreh
-'-
wa
«- =
86 -
iff -
B
- 'B
_ .Prelimia
V
osive ^ -_
~ '
^
^
/•
• ^
^ _ - - :
x
*
arc' -
oluntaiy Action Regulatory
Figure 8: This graph was developed by the NEJAC Work Group to
illustrate the concept of proportional response, the relationship between
the comprehensiveness and rigor of analysis needed and the severity of
the action to the taken. The relationship is generally applicable, with the
exception of cases involving an imminent threat to public health or safety.
above, attempts to capture the idea of proportional response.
Response also must be proportional to the harm caused. In nearly all communities with
environmental justice issues, the adverse effect results from environmental impacts from
multiple sources, some large and some small. The key to engaging the sources of impact in
collaborative problem-solving and achieving meaningful pollution reduction in the short- and
long-term is the expectation of proportional responsibility on the part of all contributors to the
harm. Those with the most severe impacts should be held to the most aggressive and significant
response. Those with lesser impacts should be expected to contribute their fair share to
community improvement. This proportional approach is the most likely to engender immediate,
positive response because the causation is clear and the expectation of pollution reduction
sensible and achievable.
This proportional response can be contrasted with the "tipping point" approach where a facility
needing a permit in an overburdened area becomes the sole target for pollution prevention.
Simply because a facility's permit is due for renewal or the facility is seeking siting or
expansion, it becomes the enforcement target on the grounds that this new or renewed pollution
is the "straw that breaks the .camel's back." This kind of approach has many downsides,
however. Where the stakes are so high-attainment of a permit to operate-the level of legal and
political resistance escalates. Facility lawyers seek every means to avoid facility closure by
construing regulatory authority narrowly. Efforts by the facility manager to work with the
community to address concerns and recognize community needs take a back seat to litigation
over "requirements." Regulators charged with addressing the issues become vulnerable to
politicians bemoaning the threat to jobs. Moreover, the other sources of pollution in the area rest
easy, confident that they have no responsibility for their own emissions and that the permitted
facility will bear the brunt of controversy and attention. The result can impact needed economic
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 34
l development, and it wholly misses the opportunity to engage each contributor of a community
2 burden in the process of making the community whole and healthy.
3
4 The proportional approach, in contrast, seeks to identity relative impacts using screening tools,
5 to confront each source of environmental burden with a rough sense of its accountability, to
6 educate the polluting sources about community needs and vulnerabilities, and to build working
7 relationships that lead to overall pollution reduction. Creative alliances can emerge where a
8 large source of emissions can team with smaller sources to cost-effectively reduce the
9 community's burden. These discussions are particularly fruitful where community driven, so
10 that the community members can identify the issues of highest concern and provide insight into
11 ways the polluting sources can reduce their impacts. These dialogues are the best way to
12 appreciate and respond in a holistic way to the aggregation of stressors in a community.
13
14 It is important to recognize, however, that not all contributors will be willing to come to the
15 table. Some sources may resist a collaborative problem-solving process, preferring to lie in the
16 weeds and expect other businesses to take care of the problem. Some may continue to narrowly
17 construe their regulatory obligations to protect human health. Some may go further, actively
18 causing environmental deterioration by violating even the terms of their own permits. In some
19 cases, the polluting party is an arm or agent of federal, state or local government, and
20 intergovernmental relations strain the regulatory authority's ability to mandate strict enforcement
21 of environmental controls. In these circumstances, the proportional approach again provides a
22 direction: Those who do not accept their proportional degree of accountability should be subject
23 to a proportional degree of extra enforcement to coerce accountability and pollution prevention
24 where it cannot be encouraged by other means.
25
26 In both views of the proportional response, the linchpin is community involvement and multi-
27 stakeholder consensus building. There is no "one size fits all" remedy, but instead the approach
28 must be a search for all applicable legal authorities, an engagement with the community to
29 understand and seek direction on the means to reduce cumulative impacts, and an on-going
30 expectation that all sources of environmental burden will contribute their share to its reduction or
31 elimination.
32
33 In the real world context, most communities and tribes, as well as risk assessors, will begin with
34 a description on the multiple stressors that effect a given community. There has not yet been a
35 characterization of the combined effects of these multiple stressors. Being proactive and
36 precautionary is a basic tenet of the collaborative problem-solving model. Hence, impacted
37 communities or tribes should not have to wait until a iull characterization is completed before
38 prevention/intervention activities take place. Rather, an initial screening can begin the process
39 of a range of multiple and concurrent activities that include the following: risk reduction efforts
40 to address immediate harms; initiating a dialogue among multiple stakeholders with
41 responsibility for or interest in the community's health; more targeted and in-depth cumulative
42 assessments, and subsequent risk reduction efforts. This concept also recognizes that no matter
43 how many multiple effects may exist, risks must be prioritized and risk reduction is going to take
44 place one by one.
45
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report - January 57,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Last, the NEJAC Work Group recognizes the importance of strategic planning, scoping, and
problem-formulation to operationalize the concept of proportional response. Similarly, the
Agency's Cumulative Risk Framework emphasizes the importance of the planning, scoping, and
problem-formulation phase of a cumulative risk assessment. Such a process should build on the
lessons learned from the growing number of community-based participatory research efforts. A
productive partnership with all these parties can lead to a more thorough analysis, the discovery
of problems that might otherwise be missed, and a consensus around what issues should be
prioritized for action.
Proportional response can be implemented through an iterative-deliberative model, described in
two important risk assessment reports: the National Academy of Sciences report, Understanding
Risk, and the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk report.23 Understanding Risk sets
out five factors that are crucial to launching and sustaining a deliberative/iterative dialogue:
• Getting the science right: technical experts judge the adequacy of the risk-analytic
effort;
• Getting the right science: community interests are being addressed by the
scientific work;
• Getting the right participation: get the right parties involved;
* Getting the participation right: make sure parties were adequately consulted
during the process; and
• Developing accurate, balanced and informative synthesis: ask parties how well
they understood the basis of the decision; whether they perceived bias in the
information
The Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk report emphasizes the importance of a
consensus process that links risk assessment with risk management, is iterative in nature, and
built on strong multi-stakeholder involvement.
23 Stern, Paul C. and Harvey V. Fineberg, Ed., Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic
Society, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
The Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Framework/or
Environmental Risk Assessment: Final Report (Volume 1), Washington, DC 1997.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group
Draft Report - January 31,2004
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Qualitative Analysis:
As mentioned previously, an integrated analysis of cumulative risk and impacts will require
making judgements in both a quantitative and qualitative manner. The NEJAC Work Group
wishes to note that there exists a body of literature in the area of environmental impacts analysis
and cumulative impacts analysis that may prove to be useful to such an integrated analysis. In
January 1997, the White House Council on Environmental Quality published a report entitled
"Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act"24 CEQ
provides the following eight principles for conducting cumulative effects analysis.
1. Cumulative effects are caused by the aggregate of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.
2. Cumulative effects are the total effects, including both direct and indirect, on a
given resource, ecosystem, and human community of all actions taken, no matter
who (federal, non-federal, or private) has taken the actions.
3. Cumulative effects need to be analyzed in terms of the specific resource,
ecosystem, and human community being affected.
4. It is not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an action on the universe;
the list of environmental effects must focus on those that are truly meaningful.
5. Cumulative effects on a given resource, ecosystem, and human community are
rarely aligned with political or administrative boundaries.
6. Cumulative effects may result from the accumulation of similar effects or the
synergistic interaction of different effects.
7. Cumulative effects may last for many years beyond the life of the action that
caused the effects.
8. Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be analyzed in
terms of the capacity to accommodate additional effects, based on its own time
and space parameters.
In addition, the CEQ provides the following list of primary and special methods for
implementing cumulative effects analysis.
Primary Methods:
1. Questionnaires, interviews, and panels to gather information about the wide
range of actions and effects needed for a cumulative effects analysis.
2. Checklists to identify potential cumulative effects by reviewing important
human activities and potentially affected resources.
3. Matrices to determine the cumulative effects on resources, ecosystems, and
human communities by combining individual effects from different actions.
4. Networks and system diagrams to trace the multiple, subsidiary effects of
various actions that accumulative upon resources, ecosystems, and human
communities.
24 Council on Environmental Quality, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental
Policy Act, Washington, DC: January 1997.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 37
\ 5. Modeling to quantify the cause-and-effect relationships leading to cumulative
2 effects.
3 6. Trends analysis to assess the status of resources, ecosystems, and human
4 communities over time and identify cumulative effects problems, establish
5 appropriate environmental baselines, or project future cumulative effects.
6 7. Overlay mapping and GIS to incorporate locational analysis and help set the
7 boundaries of the analysis, analyze landscape parameters, and identify areas
8 where effects will be the greatest.
9
10 Special Methods:
11 8. Carrying capacity analysis to identify thresholds (as constraints on
12 development) and provide mechanisms to monitor the incremental use of unused
13 capacity.
14 9. Ecosystem analysis to address biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability and
15 usually entails a regional perspective and holistic thinking.
16 10. Economic impact analysis to analyze the economic well-being of a local
17 community as a result of cumulative effects, and usually involves three primary
18 steps: establishing a region of influence, modeling economic effects, and
19 determining significance of effects.
20 11. Social impact analysis to address the sustainability of human communities by
21 focusing on key social variables such as population characteristics, community
22 and institutional structures, political and social resources, individual and family
23 changes, and community resources,
24
25 A full explanation of both the cumulative effects analysis principles and methods are provided in
26 Appendix D of the report.
27
28
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 38
1 Efficient Screening, Targeting, and Prioritization Methods/Tools:
2
3 The current regulatory approach for siting and operating various types of facilities or activities is
4 predicated primarily on a risk-based paradigm from a single source or a single pollutant. In
5 many areas, this approach, along with zoning areas for mixed-use, has resulted in the
6 aggregation of sources (clusters) that are within the risk threshold for individual facilities, but
7 cumulatively produce a higher exposure burden to people living in surrounding areas. This issue
8 is critical in addressing the environmental justice concerns of a community or tribe. Short-term
9 assessment tools that identify and characterize the cumulative risks and impacts in communities
10 with undisputed problems is key to putting theory into practice.
12 In light of this concern, government agencies at the federal and state levels have initiated efforts
13 to develop scientific approaches and tools (models) to evaluate multiple stressors and cumulative
14 risks and impacts. While some of these approaches and tools will take many years to develop
15 because of the complex nature of the models and limitations in the data inputs, many exist which
16 can provide sound baseline information about the multiple stressors in a community. The key
17 impediment to their wide usage is the lack of a clear operational framework within the scientific
18 community, industry, and the impacted communities and tribes as to how best to use them.
20 Recognizing this inherent delay, the NEJAC Work Group concluded that alternate simpler
21 approaches must be adopted. These approaches would identify communities that bear higher
22 pollution burdens as well as other stressors in a shorter time frame so that remedial actions can
23 be initiated. The remedial actions will be site-specific and could include a number of options.
24 Examples include the proper degree of verifiable emissions controls installation in facilities that
25 are primary/high risk drivers through incentives, strengthening enforcement programs, additional
26 siting, and permit and emission requirements for new facilities.
28 The NEJAC Work Group believes one key impediment in the effective utilization of existing
29 assessment tools is the lack of an operational framework for how to understand multiple risks
30 and impacts in environmental justice situations. For this reason, using the matrix illustrated in
31 Table 1 of this report can be an important starting point for discussion and analysis. Another
32 example of such an approach is the "Pollution Burden Matrix for Community Characterization,"
33 found in Appendix L of this report. The latter can serve as a conceptual framework for assessing
34 cumulative impacts using a suite of proxy indicators of neighborhood-scale cumulative
35 emissions, exposure, and health effects. In addition, there are many tools using similar
36 principles now in existence, including targeting and prioritization tools.25 It is safe to assume
37 that, given the complexity of all the factors involved in a comprehensive analysis of community
38 risks and burdens, there should not be a "one size fits all" tool. Moreover, each should be
39 utilized in a way that promotes proportional response, as described earlier in this report.
40
25 Such tools include the following (See Appendix F):
Environmental Load Profile, EPA Region 2;
Cumulative Risk Screening Assessment System Using GIS, EPA Region 6;
Potential Risk Indexing System, EPA Office of Research and Development;
Regional Air Impact Modeling Initiative (RAIMI), EPA Region 6
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OB CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 39
1 Unifying Fields of Public Health and Environmental Protection:
2
3 A challenge similar to that of statutory, programmatic, and regulatory fragmentation in the
4 nation's environmental protection regime is that of the bifurcation between the fields of public
5 health and environmental protection.26 For this reason, foresighted individuals and organizations
6 have begun a dialogue to create a vision of environmental health that unifies the fields of public
7 health and environmental protection. One significant event in this dialogue is a workshop
8 sponsored by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) workshop entitled "Rebuilding the Unity of Health
9 and the Environment: A New Vision of Environmental Health for the 21st Century" (June 20-21,
10 2001) The purpose of the workshop was to raise awareness, promote cornmunity-based
11 environmental health, and mold multidisciplinary partnerships to redefine and improve
12 environmental health. In many respects, such a dialogue provides yet another critical
13 underpinning for a comprehensive approach to community burdens and is integral to efforts to
14 effectively address cumulative risks and impacts.27 Other key groups involved in this dialogue
15 are the Pew Charitable Trust's support of the development of a national environmental health
16 tracking network and NIEHS's sponsorship of dialogues related to the integration of the social
17 and physical health factors in the built environment. Last, PolicyLink, a national nonprofit
18 research, communications, capacity building, and advocacy organization dedicated to addressing
19 "the continuing question of how to achieve equity in America," has undertaken a community-
20 based analysis of the physical and social factors related to health disparities.2S
21
22
26 Also highly relevant is the bifurcation of the fields of public health and urban planning. See
Greenberg, Michael, Frank Popper, Bernadette West, and Donald Kruekeberg, "Linking City Planning
and Public Health in the United States," Journal of Planning Literature 8(February)3:235-239 (1994).
27 IOM stated: "The goals of environmental health are to maintain a healthy, livable environment for
humans and other living species-an environment that promotes well being and a high quality of mental
and physical health for its inhabitants... Responsible leadership requires that policy makers, health
professionals, industry representatives, and the general public all carry an expanded and enhanced vision
of environmental health forward into the 21st century. New approaches towards building environments
that actively improve health will be required, including strategies to deal with waste, unhealthy buildings,
urban congestion, suburban sprawl, poor housing, poor nutrition, and environmentally related stress."
See Institute of Medicine, Rebuilding the Unity of Health and the Environment: A New Vision of
Environmental Health for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
See also Lee, Charles "Environmental Justice: Building a Unified Vision of Health and the Environment,"
Environmental Health Perspectives, V 110, #2, April 2002, pg. 141-144.
28 See Pew Environmental Health Commission, "America's Environmental Health Gap: Why the Country
Needs a Nationwide Health Tracking Network," September 2000. See National Institute for
Environmental Health Sciences, "Built Environment-Healthy Communities, Healthy Homes, Healthy
People," Research Triangle Park, NC, July 15-16,2002. See also PolicyLink, "Reducing Health
Disparities Through a Focus on Communities," November 2002.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 57,2004 Page 40
l Social Capital:
2
3 One concept that is highly relevant to the discussion of how to assess and address cumulative
4 risks and impacts is that of social capital, a complex concept that Harvard University sociologist
5 Robert Putnam defines as the features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and social
6 trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.29 This is a concept that
7 begins to unify many of the desired goals of a community-based, multi-stakeholder, multi-media,
8 collaborative problem-solving approach to addressing cumulative risks and impacts. These goals
9 include, among other things, a sensitivity to community concerns and stakeholder interests,
10 transparency in the process, the need for confidence in the process, trust among various parties,
11 capacity and resources, consensus building, and a common framework for problem-formulation
12 and prioritization. A central premise of social capital is that social networks have value. Social
13 capital works through multiple channels, including: flow of information, norms of reciprocity
14 (mutual aid), collective action, broader sense of identifies and solidarity. Indeed, social capital is
15 a critical component to moving environmental justice strategies from reactive modalities to
16 proactive problem-solving modalities. On the one hand, it entails the ability to identify, harness,
17 and leverage existing as well as growing new human, technical, organizational., and financial
18 capacities and resources. On the other, it entails building the norms and networks necessary to
19 navigate the complex and contentious relationships inherent in virtually all environmental justice
20 situations.
21
22
29 Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon and Sinister, 2000.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 41
i SPECIAL CONCERNS OF TRIBES
2
3 American Indian and Alaska Native tribes are sovereign governments recognized as self-
4 governing under federal law. Under its well recognized "trust responsibility" to Indian tribes,
5 the federal government has special fiduciary obligations to protect tribal resources and uphold
6 the rights of indigenous peoples to govern themselves on tribal lands. Many federal laws have
7 delegated authority to tribes in recognition of their sovereign status. The unique legal status of
8 American Indian and Alaska Native tribes creates an important requirement for governmental
9 entities and other stakeholders to understand that the federal government must consult directly
10 with tribal governments when contemplating actions that may affect tribal lands, resources,
11 members, and welfare.30
12
13 Tribes have unique concerns relative to other people of color and low-income communities
14 because they are land-based societies. Reservations and pueblos are Sovereign Nations not
15 subject to state and local environmental restrictions. Because of this unique situation, tribal
16 lands are often targeted as dumping sites for toxic chemicals, industrial by-products, and nuclear
17 waste. Tribes often face the dilemma of choosing between economic development and
18 preservation of their land base. The collision between economic development and land
19 preservation ultimately compromises the quality of life in Indian communities and results in the
20 dissolution of a healthy culture (social instability, disease, violence, demographic decrease, and
21 cultural and physical extinction).
22
23 Tribes are specifically concerned about the risk assessment process because accepted
24 methodologies do not take into account tribal law and world view. For example, a tribe may
25 comply with advisories not to eat fish because of bioaccumulation of chemical contaminants,
26 even though subsistence living has always been a way of life for the tribe and their ancestors,
27 and fish have always been a major dietary staple, as well as a key part of their ceremonies. The
28 result of complying with these type of advisories, however, contributes to a decline in the tribes'
29 collective ability to transmit American Indian culture from generation to generation. Many tribal
30 communities presently are threatened by the progressive poisoning of their land, air, water, soil,
31 animals, fish, and plants. The impact of this environmental deterioration on public health and
32 traditional Native culture must not be underestimated or ignored. Through its effects on
33 agriculture, fishing, and hunting, chemical contamination poses a serious threat not only to the
34 health of American Indians and the integrity of their environment, but also to the very
35 underpinnings of then* traditional land-based culture.
36
37 Another concern of tribes is that even if EPA assists with the assessment of potential toxicants,
38 the tribe will then have to assume legal responsibility for the contamination. Additionally, tribes
39 are concerned that nothing will be done to ensure tribal governments and community members
40 will participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making, and there will not be
41 adequate funding to help tribes understand, implement, and enforce the cumulative risks/impacts
30 See National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Guide on Consultation and Collaboration with
Indian Tribal Governments and the Public Participation of Indigenous Groups and Tribal Members in
Environmental Decision Making. November 2002.
Available at http://www.eDa.gov/compliance/environmenta1 instice/neiac.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 42
l assessment process. Tribes are strongly concerned about the economic reality that EPA, other
2 federal agencies, and industry will not provide the financial resources necessary for remediation
3 once toxic issues are identified and disclosed. Thus, Indian country will continue to bear a
4 disproportionate impact from chemical contamination and the ensuing loss of their culture and
5 tradition.
6
7 In sum, tribes are deeply concerned about the risk assessment process. The NEJAC Work Group
8 knows that cumulative risks/impacts assessment is a tool for decision-making, yet it is concerned
9 that the paradigm shift will not include tribal law, world views, and values. Cultural relativism
10 and intergenerational impacts must be incorporated in the cumulative risks/impacts assessment
11 process, because desecration of the Native American land base and resources leads not only to
12 disease, but to psychosocial stress, sociocultural injury, and cultural extinction.
13
14
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 43
i PROPOSALS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
2
3 The NEJAC Work Group has decided to frame its proposed advice and recommendations under
4 the following eight major themes:
5
6 -To institutionalize a bias for action within EPA through the widespread utilization
7 of an Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model;
8 • To fully utilize existing statutory authorities;
9 * To address and overcome programmatic and regulatory fragmentation within the
10 nation's environmental protection regime;
11 • To fully incorporate the concept of vulnerability, especially its social and cultural
12 aspects, into EPA's strategic plans and research agendas;
13 • To promote a paradigm shift to communily-based approaches, particularly
14 community-based participatory research and intervention;
15 • To incorporate social, economic, cultural, and community health factors,
16 particularly those involving vulnerability, in EPA decision-making;
17 • To develop and implement efficient screening and targeting methods/tools to
18 identify communities needing immediate intervention; and
19 • To address capacity and resource issues (human, organizational, technical, and
20 financial) within EPA and the states, within impacted communities and tribes, and
21 among all relevant stakeholders.
22
23 As such, they also form an implementation framework for Agency to address, in the short-term
24 and in the long-term, the issues of environmental justice and cumulative risks and impacts.
25 These eight themes are interrelated. While each is critically important by itself, addressing each
26 (or a few) without all of the others will not be sufficient. Hence, they need to be addressed
27 together in an integrated manner within a broad based Agency-wide framework for
28 implementation. In addition, the draft report contains more than 60 proposed action items. A
29 plausible way to organize this implementation framework could be around action items which
30 promote a change in Agency action, a change in Agency thinking, and a change in Agency
31 capacity. As a start, EPA should incorporate all relevant concepts and recommendations of
32 this report in any and all work growing out of the Agency's Framework for Cumulative Risk
33 Assessment and the development of Agency cumulative risk guidance.
34
35 The NEJAC Work Group urges the Agency to develop an implementation plan that sets short-
36 term and long-term goals, and we plan to propose recommendations regarding how this should
37 be done. We also urge that the Agency develop a set of performance measures for
38 implementation, at least for those goals which are short-term. Much of attention from now until
39 the finalization of this draft report will be focused on questions related to the development of an
40 implementation plan. For example, a major topic for discussion during the upcoming NEJAC
41 meeting on cumulative risks and impacts in New Orleans (April 13-16,2004) will be focused on
42 these questions of implementation.31
31 When reading the following proposed recommendations and action items, the NEJAC Work Group
urges readers to provide comments on how to develop a framework for phased implementation. It is
(continued...)
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 [Page Intentionally Blank]
11
31
'(...continued)
recognized that while many of the recommended action items require long term policies, research,
education, capacity-building, or institutional change, there are many things which can be accomplished in
the short-term.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative R'tsk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 45
1 TO INSTITUTIONALIZE A BIAS FOR ACTION WITHIN EPA THROUGH WIDESPREAD UTILIZATION
2 OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL.
3
4 Not only is there a clear and urgent need to address the needs of disadvantaged, underserved, and
5 environmentally overburdened communities and tribes in a timely and responsible manner, but
6 this is arguably the most effective way to ensure the maximum benefits from use of EPA's
7 valuable and limited resources. Not only it is patently unfair to ask long suffering communities
8 and tribes to wait, but such delay constitutes poor public policy because reducing the
9 environmental risks hi such communities and tribes are likely to be an area where the greatest
10 progress can be made towards ensuring environmental public health and protection. Further, the
11 sooner those risks are addressed, the greater the potential cost savings and other benefits in the
12 long-term.
13
14 Most importantly, the NEJAC Work Group would argue that there exist presently many tools
15 (legal, scientific, and programmatic) which can be brought to bear to address these
16 environmental risks in the short-term. Opportunities to make use of these tools are not only
17 abundant in the form of overburdened communities and tribes, but there exists a considerable
18 array of community-based organizations, state, local and tribal governments, business and
19 industry, public health practitioners, and federal agencies, to name a few, which seek to partner
20 together to address these issues.32 The Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving
21 Model makes it possible to integrate these tools.
22
23 Hence, there are ample opportunities to combine the EPA's Cumulative Risk Framework with a
24 community-based collaborative problem-solving model, noted previously as the key finding of
25 this report. Such a model will enable EPA and its governmental partners, impacted
26 communities, business and industry, and other relevant stakeholders to act proactively and
27 strategically to address the needs of environmentally overburdened communities and tribes.
28
29 In one sense, all of the themes (and their associated recommendations) of this report serve to
30 help institutionalize this bias for action within the Agency, both in the short-term and the long-
31 term. However, in the short-term, the NEJAC Work Group recognizes that the Agency must
32 assemble and/or develop a basic set of tools and skills to fully utilize the opportunities for
33 carrying out risk reduction in areas that most need it. This entails the development of a set of
32 It should be noted that during the past several years, attention on the part of different sectors of society,
including state and local government, and business and industry, has been significant. Recently, the
American BAR Association published a 50-state survey of State environmental justice programs. See
"Environmental Justice for All: A 50 State Survey of Legislation, Policy, and Initiatives," ed. Steve
Bonorris, American Bar Association-Hastings College of the Law (Oct. 2003); Available at
http://www .abanet.org/irr/committees/envirortmental/statestudv .doc. The National Academy of Public
Administrators (NAPA) has published reports entitled Models for Change: Efforts by Four States to
Address EnvironmentalJustice (June 2002) and Addressing Community Concerns: How Environmental
Justice Relates to Land Use Planning and Zoning (July 2003). The latter focuses on the role of local
government Finally, the EPA Office of Environmental Justice published Moving Towards Collaborative
Problem-Solving: Business and Industry Perspectives and Practices on Environmental Justice (July 2003).
The NAPA and OEJ reports are available on the OEJ website:
htto://\vww.epa.gov/comoliance/environmentaliustice.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 46
l efficient screening tools to prioritize areas of greatest need, and to develop a toolkit of practical
2 implementable actions that can be undertaken in a multi-media manner to bring about such risk
3 reduction. Such implementable actions should be directed towards those activities which present
4 the highest risks in communities (e.g., diesel emissions reduction, treatment of contaminated
5 groundwater, run-off control, pollution prevention, waste minimization, lead hazard abatement,
6 and product substitution).33
7
8 To be sure, EPA must pursue an aggressive and comprehensive research agenda on cumulative
9 risks and impacts, particularly as they involve issues of vulnerable communities and populations.
10 However, we will argue that there are many actions which EPA can take before those scientific
11 tools are fully developed. In addition, such research must entail more than basic research alone.
12 Such research also should be conducted in the context of this bias for action. It should involve
13 research on community-based prevention/intervention efforts, community-based participatory
14 research, and translational research.
15
16 Last, the NEJAC Work Group emphasizes the value of gaining and building on experience as an
17 important vehicle for positive change. Developing a strong experiential base is an important part
18 of capacity building, especially when one is dealing with a set of issues that are technically
19 complex and involve multiple stakeholders. For that reason, we are recommending that EPA
20 initiate a set of pilots in the area of community-based efforts to address multiple, aggregate and
21 cumulative risks and impacts in disadvantaged, underserved, and environmentally overburdened
22 communities and tribes. These pilots should make use of the screening methodology and
23 implementable action toolkit, as well as generate hypotheses for long-term policy and science
24 research in area of cumulative risks and impacts.
25
26 Action Items'.
27
28 • EPA should initiate a set of multi-media, risk reduction pilot projects in low-income, people
29 of color, and/or tribal communities, which will be the focus of EPA's bias for action in
30 addressing cumulative risks and impacts. There should be at least one per each EPA Region.
31 Activities should include but not be limited to community-based assessment, partnership
32 building, provision of resources, prevention/intervention risk reduction efforts and
33 application of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model. EPA also
34 should develop measures of success for these pilot projects.
35
36 • EPA should designate up to five disadvantaged, underserved, and environmentally
37 overburdened communities per each EPA Region, where various aspects related to the
38 Agency's bias for action will be integrated as part of the Agency's day-to-day activities. In
39 EPA Regions with significant tribal populations, these should include at least one tribal
40 community.
41
42
33 In the toolkit being suggested, one needs to match types of implementable actions with those activities
which are the most critical contributors to risk. Please Appendix E for EPA Community-Based Risk
Reduction/Healthy Communities Initiatives and Programs. Also see Appendix G for Implementable Risk
Reduction Actions.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 47
1 • EPA should develop and implement efficient screening, targeting, and prioritization tools to
2 identify communities in need of priority attention for pollution reduction and improvement in
3 community health; the health of environmentally overburdened people of color, low-income,
4 and tribal communities demand timely action.
5
6 • EPA should develop a toolkit for early implementable actions that can be taken to reduce
7 pollution low-income communities of color and tribes, including regulatory actions (such as
8 enforcement), incentives to voluntary action and collaborative problem-solving, and lessons
9 from case studies.
10
11 • In selecting pilot projects, EPA will include in the selection criteria the utilization of
12 community-based participatory research by pilot project candidates. EPA will consider
13 diversity in the racial, ethnic, and economic status of communities in making pilot selections.
14 Each potential pilot project should have strong community-based support, have a bias for
is action, be characterized by multiple stressors, involve collaborative problem-solving, and
16 have the potential for significant risk reduction.
17
18 • EPA should assemble and disseminate data, documentation, and other information on
19 historical projects involving multi-media, risk reduction in EJ and tribal communities.
20 Information gathered on tribal communities should be received by appropriate tribal
21 environmental officials.
22
23 • EPA should develop a revised short-term, applied research agenda based on the identified
24 needs of the designated pilot communities and input from other pilot project partners. EPA
25 should conduct focus group meetings to obtain input on this proposed research agenda, and
26 establish an advisory group to provide recommendations to EPA on suggested research
27 needs.
28
29 • EPA should work with other Federal agencies, impacted communities, and all other affected
30 stakeholders to create a collaborative problem-solving partnership to address the
31 environmental and public health issues of concern hi the pilot communities.
32
33 • EPA's FY04/05 Headquarters and Regional Environmental Justice Action Plans should be
34 revised to reflect the above activities and associated performance measures by no later than
35 September 30,2004.
36
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 48
1 TO FULLY UTILIZE EXISTING STATUTORY AUTHORITIES.
2
3 Communities and tribes with environmental justice issues are frustrated because of the past
4 failure of EPA and the public health community to account effectively for multiple and
5 cumulative risks and impacts. This is an especially important area for the Agency, and one
6 where it can make substantial improvement. The NEJAC Work Group believes that the Agency
7 has substantial discretionary authority, and some direct statutory responsibility, for addressing
8 the multiple, aggregate, and cumulative risks and impacts faced by overburdened communities.
9
10 These authorities include but are not limited to the following: Construing the nature of RCRA
11 permitting authorities, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board34 found "that when the Region has
12 a basis to believe that operation of the facility may have a disproportionate impact on a minority
13 or low-income segment of the affected community, the Region should, as a matter of policy,
14 exercise its discretion to assure early and ongoing opportunities for public involvement in the
15 permitting process.35 The Board also found that RCRA allows the Agency to take "a more
16 refined look at its health and environmental impacts assessment in light of allegations that
17 operation of the facility would have a disproportionately adverse effect on the health or
18 environment of low-income or minority populations." Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has
19 comparable discretionary authority to consider disproportionate burdens on minority and low-
20 income communities. The Corps of Engineers must conduct a broad "public interest review**
21 that includes, "among other things, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, safety, and the
22 needs and welfare of the people." The Clean Air Act's Title V operating permits are similarly
23 broad, including "such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable
24 requirements of this chapter."
25
26 The challenges to rigorous use of the broad authorities described above are considerable,
27 however. There is no one statute providing the "silver bullet" that can be applied to all sources
28 of pollution in communities with environmental justice issues. For example, although RCRA
29 and the CAA have broad discretion to do what it "necessary" to protect health and the
30 environment, the programs that turn that discretion into action are limited in terms of the sources
31 subj ect to their jurisdiction, the time frames for amending permits, and in many cases the size of
32 the sources agencies have authority to regulate. TSCA can require evaluation of cumulative
33 impacts as part of pre-manufacture notices, but this requirement is prospective and does not
34 cover existing risks. Existing risks can be addressed under TSCA's testing authority, but as a
35 practical matter this testing provision has focused on a defined universe of common and toxic
36 chemicals; chemicals added to the agenda will not be evaluated in the short term. CERCLA and
37 the Clean Air Act have "imminent and substantial endangerment" provisions, but both EPA and
34 The EPA Environmental Appeals Board is the final Agency decision-maker on administrative appeals
under all major environmental statutes that the Agency administers. It is an impartial four-member body
that is independent of all Agency components outside the immediate Office of the Administrator.
The Appeals Board sits in panels of three judges and makes decisions by majority vote.
Currently, nine experienced attorneys serve as counsel to the Board.
35 Chemical Waste Management, Inc., 6 EA.D. 66,1995 WL 395962 (1995), See
http://www.em.gov/eab/diskll/cwmn.pdf.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 49
1 the states have construed these terms to apply to serious, current emergencies that would not
2 capture impacts with long-term, cumulative impact.
3
4 Although each of the authorities cited has its limitations in terms of the activities that can be
5 regulated, and who can regulate them, this is not to say that EPA does not have broad authority
6 to address the needs of communities impacted adversely by the cumulative burdens of many
7 sources of pollution. A brief review of the December 1,2000 memorandum on "EPA Statutory
8 and Regulatory Authorities Under Which Environmental Justice Issues May be Addressed in
9 Permitting" by EPA General Counsel Gary Guzy indicates the opportunities for strengthened
10 legal authority to address cumulative impacts.36 The memorandum makes clear that there is
11 ample authority under RCRA to require analysis and response where a RCRA-regulated
12 treatment, storage or disposal facility "may have a disproportionate impact on a minority or low-
13 income segment of the affected community.*' On a permit-by-permit basis, EPA has authority to
14 review:
15
16 (a) Cumulative risks due to exposure from pollution sources in addition to the applicant
17 facility;
18 (b) Unique exposure pathways and scenarios (e.g., subsistence fishers, farming
19 communities); or
20 (c) Sensitive populations (e.g., children with levels of lead in their blood, individuals
21 with poor diets).
22
23 RCRA's corrective action authority appears to afford comparable opportunities for
24 environmental justice and cumulative impact review at RCRA corrective action facilities. Where
25 sewage treatment facilities or underground injection wells are involved, EPA's permit-by-rule
26 obligations under RCRA authorize expanded public participation-to include discussion of
27 cumulative impacts.37 Where RCRA permits are administered by the states, EPA retains the
28 obligation to review the state-administered permit program and to provide comments on permits
29 inadequately addressing sensitive population risks.38 EPA also has authority to conduct a "broad
30 public interest review" of Clean Water Act Section 404 permits impacting municipal water
31 supplies, fishery areas, wildlife or recreational areas.39 Major sources of air emissions can be
32 reviewed broadly for adverse impacts.40 The General Counsel's memorandum serves as an
33 excellent first step in articulating the specific sources of EPA authority and discretion to assure
34 that cumulative impacts are assessed and redressed. It specifies authorities under which
35 cumulative impacts can be addressed and alludes to gaps where state or local authority may need
36 to be employed to assure full redress of adverse impacts.
37
38 The mechanisms to translate this legal authority into action in permitting, enforcement and other
39 contexts has yet to be articulated, however, and this must be done both in terms of individual
40 permits proceedings and area-wide approaches where a permitted facility is but part of the
36 Guzy, Gary. "EPA Statutory and Regulatory Authorities Under Which Environmental Justice Issues
May Be Addressed in Permitting," December 1,2000.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impact Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page SO
1 problem. If EPA were merely to issue a directive under one statutory authority to "address
2 cumulative impacts," neither its program offices, the states that implement delegated programs,
3 regulated sources nor the general public would know what actions are mandated by such
4 requirement Moreover, this general directive is most unlikely to be construed in the absence of
5 specific guidance to cover the many relatively unregulated sources of pollution that add to an
6 disadvantaged and underserved community's cumulative risk.
7
8 The NEJAC Work Group has a bias for action and tangible results. As a consequence, rather
9 than resorting to an exhortation to the Agency to "maximize its use of discretion" to address
10 cumulative impacts, we have focused on a series of analytic and response steps EPA should
11 undertake in order to make specific and real progress in beginning to reduce cumulative impacts
12 in the near term.
13
14 The General Counsel's memorandum is a starting point in this process, but it is only that. More
15 is needed than a dissertation of specific legal authority. EPA also needs to draft information and
16 guidance that can be used to help communities compile inventories of all sources of cumulative
17 adverse impact, not merely those most readily addressed by current legal authority. For this
18 reason, the group also recommends a plan whereby EPA can gather and disseminate
19 comprehensive information on cumulative impacts in order to develop the information base and
20 motivation for broad action to reduce cumulative impacts over the long term. The adverse
21 impacts experienced by communities with environmental justice concerns can be remedied only
22 if all sources of impact are known and all resources for redress are employed.
23
24 Action Items'.
25
26 • EPA's Office of General Counsel should provide a memorandum explicitly identifying
27 authority to evaluate and address cumulative risks and impacts in the statutes it administers
28 and delegates. This memorandum can build upon the work begun in EPA's December 1,
29 2000 memorandum on environmental justice authorities, but it should expand its scope to
30 include all sources of authority to understand and reduce cumulative impacts. This should
31 include EPA, state and local government authorities.
32
33 • EPA's Office of General Counsel and its program offices should coordinate to provide an
34 inventory, easily accessible to communities, of the procedures by which cumulative risks and
35 impacts can be evaluated under existing authority, any circumstances in which such
36 consideration does not appear possible given current law, and the governmental entity
37 responsible for such assessment This inventory should translate the legal authorities
38 document described above into a practical guidance describing in plain English the kinds of
39 sources of potential impact, the ways in which they are regulated and the regulator in charge.
40
41 • EPA's program offices should translate the authorities articulated in the General Counsel's
42 legal opinions into guidance to the permitting authorities advising on how best to incorporate
43 cumulative risk and its reduction into facility permitting processes. Both major facility
44 permits and generic permits and permits by rule for minor facilities should be addressed.
45
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 32,2004 Page 51
l • As EPA is completing these materials, it should identify the sources of adverse cumulative
2 impact for which it has no or incomplete authority to control and for which state or local
3 regulation has provided inadequate or inconsistent control. The Agency should then issue a
4 strategic plan to cure identified deficiencies, either through regulation or statutory change.
5
6 • EPA's program offices should compile a web-based inventory of case studies of communities
7 and regulatory programs where cumulative risks and impacts have been factored into
8 decision-making. These case studies should provide practical guidance on how to use
9 existing law and procedures to identify and reduce cumulative risks and impacts.
10
11 • EPA should create incentive programs to maximize early voluntary efforts to go beyond
12 compliance to reduce cumulative impacts. Many suggestions for incentivizing pollution
13 prevention are described in the NEJAC's June 2003 report, "Advancing Environmental
14 Justice Through Pollution Prevention." A cumulative risk reduction initiative could focus on
15 extra recognition and incentive where pollution prevention efforts are undertaken in
16 disadvantaged and underserved communities burdened with adverse cumulative impacts.
17
18 • EPA's Office of Enforcement should draft guidance describing how its authorities can be
19 maximized to reduce cumulative impacts. In particular, the Office should investigate ways to
20 exercise enforcement discretion to more frequently review permits in areas of high
21 cumulative impact, and to employ cumulative risk reduction as a goal in assessing penalties
22 and authorizing Supplemental Environmental Projects.
23
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 52
1 TO ADDRESS AND OVERCOME PROGRAMMATIC AND REGULATORY FRAGMENTATION WITHIN
2 THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGIME.
3
4 Environmental protection in this country has grown by individual pieces of legislation,
5 developed to address a particular environmental media or a pressing problem like abandoned
6 toxic sites. Environmental law has not evolved from a master game plan or unifying vision. As
7 a result, the statutes have gaps in coverage and do not assure compatible controls of
8 environmental releases to all media from all sources.
9
10 EPA is both victim and perpetrator of this patchwork approach. At this relatively mature point
11 in environmental regulation, it is difficult to implement the wiser plan, which would be to create
12 a comprehensive statute covering all sources of pollution and respecting the vulnerabilities of
13 communities burdened with past pollution. A framework that properly accounts for multiple,
14 aggregate and cumulative risks and impacts, however, does provide the opportunity to both use
15 current law to its fullest to protect communities from cumulative risk, and to understand the
16 impacts from the more egregious shortfalls in current regulatory obligations.
17
18 To address the inadequacies in environmental protection created by the patchwork of existing
19 environmental laws, EPA should use the concepts contained in its Cumulative Risk Framework
20 to define all of the factors that lead to adverse impacts in the community. Key to implementing
21 such an approach is acquiring the collaborative problem-solving and community-based
22 participatory research tools and expertise to conduct planning, scoping and problem-formulation
23 in the context of a Cumulative Risk Framework. This entails involving the impacted
24 communities and tribes, as well as all relevant stakeholders, early in the process. It also entails a
25 focus on communities as the locus of analysis and implementation. Furthermore, it will require
26 multi-media initiatives in which several offices in which several EPA offices, not to mention
27 their federal, state, local, and tribal government agency counterparts, are working together in a
28 collaborative and coordinated manner.
29
30 Action Items:
31
32 • EPA should conduct a systematic examination of issues related to programmatic and
33 regulatory fragmentation, including pollution sources/environmental hazards, which
34 contribute to cumulative impacts to identify environmental protection gaps due to
35 programmatic and regulatory fragmentation, and to develop strategies to address the
36 shortfalls of such fragmentation.
37
38 • EPA should convene an advisory committee to examine issues related to programmatic and
39 regulatory fragmentation, in order to ensure that the Agency bases its examination of these
40 issues on information developed through a community-based and multi-stakeholder process.
41 This process should include persons with community-based expertise and environmental and
42 public health authorities.
43
44
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 53
1 • EPA, as a result of its review of programmatic and regulatory fragmentation, should do the
2 following:
3 a. develop an integrated and coordinated approach to unify resources and maximize
4 strategies to current environmental health assessment, monitoring and regulations;
5 b. provide recommendations for procedures to eliminate the barriers and challenges caused
6 by fragmentation problems and program processes order to reduce impacts on low-
7 income, people of color, and tribal communities;
8 c. develop enhanced, new or revised regulations and programs to provide comprehensive,
9 integrated and coordinated monitoring and compliance programs using best practice
10 strategies to protect health and promote safety; and
11 d. establish an interagency collaborative to coordinate and develop an integrated approach
12 to programs, services and regulatory monitoring.
13
14 • EPA should integrate the information obtained and mechanisms developed through its
15 examination of programmatic and regulatory fragmentation into the multi-media, risk
16 reduction pilot projects being proposed.
17
18 • EPA should take the lead hi the integrated approach to environmental health regulation and
19 monitoring along with other public health entities to assure appropriate and adequate
20 regulatory and program services that avoid fragmentation and produce barriers to the human
21 health, protection. Mechanisms adopted should be related to related to health outcomes,
22 developing a system of positive participation by involving all stakeholders and investing in
23 best practices.
24
25 • EPA should develop regulatory and programmatic strategic priorities that promote
26 compliance and reduction of cumulative risks/impacts in disadvantaged, underserved, low-
27 income, people of color and/or tribal communities.
28
29 • EPA should develop guidance for working with disadvantaged, underserved, low-income,
30 people of color, and/or tribal communities that are being severely impacted by environmental
31 situations largely unregulated by EPA programs, including mechanisms needed to address
32 these impacts.
33
34 * EPA should leverage the development and utilization of GIS tools to promote programmatic
35 integration, not only between different media offices but also between the environmental,
36 public health, planning, and community development fields.
37
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 54
1 TO FULLY INCORPORATE THE CONCEPT OF VULNERABILITY, ESPECIALLY ITS SOCIAL AND
2 CULTURAL ASPECTS, INTO EPA'S STRATEGIC PLANS AND RESEARCH AGENDAS.
3
4 As previously stated in this report, the concept of vulnerability goes to the heart of the meaning
5 of environmental justice and disproportionate impacts. Factors related to vulnerability
6 fundamentally differentiate disadvantaged, underserved, and overburdened communities from
7 healthy and sustainable communities. The concept is integral to implementation of viable
8 cumulative risk assessments. It is important to acknowledge and act on the reality that
9 disadvantaged, underserved, and overburdened communities come to the table with pre-existing
10 physical, biological, and social deficits, which can exacerbate the effects of environmental
11 pollution. It is imperative that risk assessors find ways to incorporate measures of vulnerability
12 into their analyses so that they can distinguish cumulative risk differentials where they exist
13
14 One of the major milestones represented by the EPA's Cumulative Risk Framework is its
15 acknowledgment of the concept of vulnerability as an important element of cumulative risk
16 assessment. Moreover, the Framework has defined the concept in a broad sense, to include not
17 only biologically related susceptibilities and differential exposure, but also social factors that
18 may affect the way in which contamination impacts individuals or communities.
19
20 Presently, analysis of vulnerability as part of cumulative risk assessment is a generally agreed on
21 conceptual goal, but there is littie consensus about how to go about putting this worthwhile
22 principle into practice. Scientific understanding of the complex physical, biological, and social
23 interactions that collectively contribute to vulnerability is rudimentary at best. Substantial work
24 remains to be done on the mechanisms of action that cause vulnerability and the complicated
25 interplay among them.
26
27 While the Work Group recommends a set of actions to promote the utilization, integration, and
28 development of this concept in the short-term, the NEJAC Work Group also recommends that
29 EPA view this as a critical interdisciplinary area of scientific inquiry that deserves its own
30 comprehensive research agenda. For this reason, the NEJAC Work Group believes that
31 vulnerability will require systematic development as an distinct area of inquiry. While this
32 report has provided some ideas about how to think about key elements of vulnerability, the
33 NEJAC Work Group strongly recommends that the Agency develop a plan to aggressively
34 pursue the full development of a "science of vulnerability" as a critical part of its research
35 agenda.
36
37 Incorporation of the concept of vulnerability into EPA's research agenda will require a
38 comprehensive community-based approach. This should include but not be limited to a
39 collection of the relevant questions, array of concepts, body of theory and assemblage of tools
40 that can characterize the condition of social, political, economic, and environmental
41 vulnerability., its variable distribution within a population, and its cultural and psychological
42 meaning.
43
44 A good starting place for the Agency is to review the extensive public health and social science
45 literature on "disparity and vulnerability," and elucidate relevant concepts and ideas for
46 cumulative risk assessment This review must be informed by the realization that disparity and
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Itnpacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 55
l vulnerability are interconnected, with health disparities both contributing to vulnerability and
2 being an outcome of vulnerability. A major goal of this review should be to develop and
3 enhance interagency partnerships and collaborations with NGOs and affected communities. The
4 Agency should consider linking efforts to address cumulative risks and impacts with the
5 Nation's efforts to eliminate health disparities by the year 2010.41
6
7 The NEJAC Work Group recognizes that the concepts of vulnerability and health disparities are
8 interrelated. Traditionally, health disparities references to differences in the incidence,
9 prevalence, mortality, and burden of disease among specific susceptible populations. As such,
10 some of the factors that contribute to these disparities include increased risk of disease due to
11 underlying biological or socioeconomic factors, increased exposure to environmental
12 contaminants, or reduced access to health care. The concept of vulnerability then fundamentally
13 differentiates disadvantaged, underserved, and overburdened communities and healthy and
14 sustainable communities.
15
16 Action Items:
17
18 • EPA should make it clear that although quantitative evaluation of vulnerability is precluded
19 in almost all cases by a scarcity of scientific knowledge and understanding, this is not an
20 excuse to ignore it. Vulnerability should be an integral part of cumulative risk assessment
21 even if it must be analyzed using qualitative measures.
22
23 • EPA should direct all offices whose missions relate to policy making, program
24 implementation, regulatory enforcement, and professional and community training, to
25 develop strategic plans for incorporating the concept of vulnerability into their operational
26 paradigm. One vehicle for accomplishing this is each offices' Environmental Justice Action
27 Plans.
28
29 • EPA should ensure that the concept of vulnerability be fully incorporated into its definition
30 of "disproportionately high human health or environmental effects."42
31
32 • EPA should issue explicit guidance on the meaning of vulnerability in the context of risk
33 assessment, providing unambiguous direction to risk assessors and risk managers that
34 vulnerability is defined as the combined effects of physical, biological, and social stressors
35 on communities and individuals. Emphasis should be placed on acknowledging the
36 importance of each factor individually and of the interactions between them.
37
38 • EPA should integrate measures of vulnerability, to delineate true 'Vulnerable communities"
39 into all existing and new screening, targeting, and prioritization tools being developed to
41 Healthy People 2010 is the national effort to eliminate health disparities along lines of race, ethnicity,
income, gender, and other. An effort is underway to link environmental justice and health disparity
issues. See Symposium Proceedings of "Building Healthy Environments to Eliminate Health Disparities
(May 28-29,2003)," forthcoming. One recommendation from the symposium is to conduct a
comprehensive crosswalk between the Healthy People 2010 Objectives and the EPA Strategic Goals.
42 Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations," Federal Register 59:7629, February 11,1994.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 56
1 address cumulative risks and impacts. In the short term, EPA should undertake an effort to
2 identify those measures.
3
4 • EPA should take steps, such as interagency coordination, to ensure that issues of
5 vulnerability be addressed in all multi-media risk reduction pilot projects.
6
7 * EPA should direct relevant offices to develop a long-term intramural and extramural
8 prevention/intervention research agenda that seeks to elucidate the specific factors
9 underlying the relationship between environmental hazards, vulnerability, and health
10 disparities. This research agenda should include but not be limited to:
11 a, developing comprehensive, retrospective and prospective longitudinal assessment tools
12 which disaggregate race, gender, SES, access to health care, in and around impacted
13 communities; and
14 b. developing assessment tools that measure culture-specific, culture-universal, and cultural
IS process variables, in and around impacted communities, to quantify the etiology of
16 vulnerability and health disparities.
17
18 • EPA should convene and promote the conduct of community dialogues, scientific symposia,
19 expert panels, stakeholder forums, and advisory panels to fully discuss the concept of
20 vulnerability and obtain input on how to incorporate vulnerability into its operational
21 practices and its research agenda. One specific area of interest would be the EPA's Human
22 Health Research Strategy.
23
24 * EPA should fully utilize the existing robust public health and social science literature on
25 disparities to understand vulnerability.
26
27 • EPA should proceed with significant sensitivity to people living in disadvantaged and
28 overburdened communities and take proactive steps to avoid the tendency to "blame the
29 victim" for vulnerabilities in their life circumstances.
30
31 • EPA should incorporate the concept of vulnerability into all of its environmental justice
32 initiatives, ranging from research to policy making, program implementation, regulatory
33 enforcement, and professional and community training.
34
35 • EPA should promote the incorporation of the concepts of environmental stressors,
36 vulnerability, health disparities, and the relationship between physical and social factors into
37 relevant existing and new studies, such as the National Children's Study.43
38
43 The National Children's Study is a longitudinal cohort study on environmental effects on children's
health and development This 30-year prospective study plans to follow 100,000 pairs of mothers and
children from conception to age 21.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 57
1 TO PROMOTE A PARADIGM SHIFT TO COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES, PARTICULARLY
2 COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND INTERVENTION.
3
4 In the past, risk assessment approaches, and environmental protection principles generally, were
5 geared to controlling sources of pollution through technology based regulation. It became
6 evident that these broad national regulations have left uneven results in the form of remaining
7 pockets of higher exposure and adverse impacts. Community groups have often found risk
8 assessment to be mechanical and reductionist, lacking the ability to include social, cultural, and
9 public health concerns into the analysis. To deal with this unaddressed problem, it is becoming
10 necessary to initiate a place-based and population-based approach. In other words, EPA found it
11 necessary to deal on a community by community basis. The EPA Cumulative Risk Assessment
12 Framework represents the beginnings of the Agency's response to deal with this remaining
13 challenge. Addressing this remaining challenge is an issue of environmental justice. More often
14 than not, these remaining pockets of higher exposure and adverse impacts are the ettoxic
15 hotspots" in which historically disadvantaged and underserved communities and tribes live,
16 work, worship, go to school, and play.
17
18 Because the locus of attention must now include communities and tribes as the center of
19 attention, EPA must promote a paradigm shift to place-based and community-based approaches
20 in its work. An important component of this shift is implementation of a community-based
21 participatory research methodology. This shift should build upon the lessons of and help to
22 further develop a community-based participatory research (CBPR) model. CBPR provides a
23 strong foundation for effective collaborative problem-solving initiatives. In addition, part of the
24 toolkit of implementable actions should include tool development and skills development, for
25 Agency, within communities and tribes, and within all relevant stakeholders, to implement
26 effective community-based efforts.
27
28 EPA should undertake an effort to fully document and disseminate success stories and best
29 practices in the conduct of community-based efforts, and to promote their institutionalization.
30 Key among this is the use of the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model,
31 which promotes clear problem identification, strategic planning and goal-setting. These
32 concepts are key to ensuring successful partnerships and effective implementation of the
33 planning, scoping and problem-formulation phase of a cumulative risk assessment. Also critical
34 are consensus building and dispute resolution tools and skills.
35
36 Likewise, EPA should support the use of community-based participatory research, which
37 emphasizes the full utilization of community- and tribal-driven research and action strategies in
38 communities affected by cumulative risks and impacts. Developing partnerships with
39 communities is essential to enhancing the Agency's ability to understand and address the
40 problems confronting highly impacted populations. Community and tribal members often know
41 what the problems are before the agency scientists and university researchers. In addition,
42 communities and tribes are in the best position to explain the cultural and social factors that
43 influence health and disease. Finally, chances of the ultimate acceptability of any remedy are
44 enhanced if the community is a partner from the earliest stages of decision-making.
45
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 58
1 Last, EPA should utilize a dynamic evaluation process to assess and improve the effectiveness of
2 its community-based prevention and intervention efforts. The evaluation should include an
3 assessment of whether objectives were met, the quality of the agency-community partnership,
4 community-capacity building, multi-stakeholder problem-solving partnerships, and Institutional
5 change that result in the reduction of social inequality and the increase of social assets.
6
7 Action Items:
8
9 • EPA should institutionalize a paradigm shift to community-based approaches, building upon
10 and expand the use of a community-based participatory research model.
11
12 • EPA should adopt and expand the use of a community-based participatory research and
13 intervention approach in its training, outreach, and education programs for its personnel, as
14 well as those of its various partners in communities, tribes, state and local government,
15 universities, business and industry, and others.
16
17 • EPA should formulate and implement a clear plan to utilize community-based participatory
18 research methods in each of the ten proposed multi-media/cumulative risk pilot projects.
19
20 * EPA should include a requirement for use of community-based participatory research in its
21 guidelines for and in the Agency's performance measures.
22
23 * EPA should ensure the participation of impacted communities and all relevant stakeholders
24 in the planning, scoping, and problem-formulation phase when conducting cumulative risk
25 assessments (or community-based assessments), recognizing that this phase provides a
26 strategic window of opportunity for all stakeholders to engage in constructive engagement
27 and collaborative problem-solving at the front end of the process.
28
29 • EPA should assure that capacity and resources (human, technical, organizational, and
30 financial) are adequate within EPA, impacted communities, and other stakeholders.
31
32 • EPA should provide education to state and local governments, business and industry,
33 academia, and other institutional entities about community-based participatory research and
34 ways in which they can best support its utilization by communities.
35
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Riskrtmpacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 59
1 TO INCORPORATE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH FACTORS,
2 PARTICULARLY THOSE INVOLVING VULNERABILITY, IN EPA DECISION-MAKING,
3
4 According to the EPA Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, "the goals of the
5 population-based approach were much more useful to decision makers who were dealing with
6 public health or ecological health questions rather than controlling sources of pollution." The
7 NEJAC Work Group acknowledges, as does the EPA Cumulative Risk Assessment Framework,
8 that the challenges of such population-based assessments can be daunting, even if only a few of
9 the stressors affecting a population are evaluated together. The Work Group also notes that
10 while the Agency's Framework acknowledges that a wide-ranging set of stressors may need to
11 be accounted for when one speaks of the 'Hotal risk" for a population or community being
12 evaluated, it has yet to fully define all of them.
13
14 Moreover, the Agency is particularly deficient, because of its prior technology-based regulatory
15 focus and its own institutional history, in understanding how to incorporate factors which would
16 be key to fully, precisely, and accurately characterizing the risks and impacts involved,
17 particularly social, economic, cultural, and community health factors. These would be most
18 important for communities and tribes where environmental justice issues are involved.
19
20 There exist many opportunities to effectively utilize of social, economic, cultural, and
21 community health indicators in the EPA decision-making process. For example, it is possible to
22 describe a community (at the neighborhood, city, metropolitan, county, state and reservation
23 level) by the health of its residents, including access to health care, percent uninsured, rates of
24 illness and mortality, and how people rate their own health, using health statistics routinely
25 collected by the public health infrastructure. This may often exclude reservations. Health
26 disparities between communities can be calculated so that communities most vulnerable to
27 excess illness and death can be identified and prioritized.44
28
29 Similarly, communities can be characterized and compared by many already-measured social
30 and physical factors that further add to a community's stress, vulnerability and ill health. These
31 include: percent poverty; degree of income inequality and economic isolation; percent racial and
32 ethnic minority; degree of residential segregation; percent distressed, overcrowded housing and
33 vacant land. These public health, social, economic and physical characteristics joined with
34 measurable environmental impacts, such as air toxics, proximity of hazardous waste sites,
35 exposure to pesticide use from agriculture, nearby bus depots/trash transfer stations, and others,
36 provide a fuller picture of the overall health and burden of communities. When combined, they
37 enable EPA to develop a more dimensioned framework of comparison with which to identify
38 communities most burdened and most vulnerable by the complex of factors—social, economic,
39 physical, public health, and environmental—that impact health.
40
44 For example, the City of Boston's annual Health of the Neighborhoods report is an example of city-
wide health indicators that can be utilized to identify vulnerable communities in need of early action
control strategies. The report compiles and compares mortality and morbidity data on a neighborhood-
by-neighborhood basis. Thus, it is possible to rank neighborhoods by highest to lowest incidence and
prevalence of asthma room visits and lead poisoning, and mortality rates by various cancers. An action
agenda for disease prevention and health promotion can be guided by this evidence.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 60
1 The NEJAC Work Group believes that there are two areas where EPA can make substantial
2 progress in this regard: (1) The application and integration of qualitative analysis with
3 quantitative analysis in EPA risk assessment and decision-making is a key component for
4 ensuring that social, economic, cultural and community health factors are properly considered.
5 EPA should make every effort to identify and utilize relevant experience in the use of qualitative
6 methods, including those in the fields of environmental impact assessment, cumulative impact
7 assessment, and social impact assessment (2) EPA can make efforts to strengthen its capacity to
8 conduct social science and community health analysis in an environmental justice context,
9 including the recruitment of social scientists, community health scientists, and community health
10 representatives (CHRs) and persons with community-based experience to the Agency's staff.
11
12 Action Items'.
13
14 • EPA should develop a commitment to incorporate social, economic, cultural, and community
15 health factors in the EPA decision-making process, including but not be limited to risk
16 assessments, by making every effort to identify and utilize relevant experience .
17
18 • EPA should develop the quantitative and qualitative capacity to incorporate social,
19 economic, cultural, community health factors into their research, regulatory, and grant
20 programs.
21
22 • EPA should identify and utilize relevant experience, from both inside and outside the
23 Agency, in the use of qualitative methods, including those in the fields of environmental
24 impact assessment, cumulative impact assessment, and social impact assessment
25
26 • EPA should strengthen its capacity to conduct social science and community health analysis
27 in an environmental justice context, including the recruitment of social scientists, community
28 health scientists, and community health representatives (CHRs) and persons with
29 community-based experience to the Agency's staff.
30
31 • EPA should integrate social, economic, cultural, and community health factors, particularly
32 as they relate to vulnerability and disproportionate impacts, into the Agency's environmental
33 justice training program.
34
35 • EPA should conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify and assess
36 environmental health factors relevant to income, race, and ethnicity as a first step in the
37 eventual development of usable indicators. This should be patterned on EPA's recent report
38 on environmental health measures relevant to children.45
39
40
45 See EPA, America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and
Illnesses, EPA240-R-03-001, February 2003.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 57,2004 Page 61
1 • EPA should strengthen its capacity for the above recommendations and build in a bias for
2 action by:
3 a. Recruiting community health, environmental health, and social scientists who have
4 expertise in community-based research with the goal of action and social change.
5 b. Supporting community-based organizations and researchers who can create partnerships
6 with stakeholders in this process and bring expertise in interdisciplinary work.
7 c. Undertaking a community-based pilot project in all of the regions and with tribal groups
8 which incorporates social, economic, cultural and community health factors and which
9 results in priority setting for action.
10
11
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 62
1 TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT EFFICIENT SCREENING, TARGETING, AND PRIORTTIZATION
2 METHODS/TOOLS TO IDENTIFY COMMUNITIES NEEDING IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION.
3
4 Arguably, utilizing community-based collaborative problem-solving approaches is the quickest
5 and surest way to ensure needed risk reduction in overburden communities suffering cumulative
6 risks and impacts. In order to turn this theory into practice, effective and efficient screening,
7 targeting, and prioritization methods and tools must be developed and implemented. These
8 methods and tools should serve to identify communities needing immediate intervention as well
9 as to prioritize risks and risk reduction efforts within those communities. They should be done in
10 such a way as to promote and institutionalize the bias for action that forms the underpinning of
11 this report
12
13 In the NEJAC Work Group's opinion, developing an operational framework for assessing and
14 addressing cumulative risks and impacts is key to ensuring that currently existing screening,
15 targeting, and prioritization methods and tools are most effectively utilized. Although this
16 currently may have to be qualitative in nature, such a framework can allow the Agency to
17 simultaneously bring to bear quantitative single and multi-media methods and tools as well as
18 provide a framework for a dialogue about community risk and use of qualitative methods and
19 tools. In one respect, a matrix of multiple stressors such as the one provided in Table #1 serves
20 that purpose.
21
22 In addition, much can be gained by focusing on three activities. First, the Agency should
23 inventory and review existing assessment methods and tools to ensure they are addressing the
24 concerns of cumulative risk and impact analysis, including vulnerability factors. Second, EPA
25 should provide guidance regarding minimum criteria for selection and use of a particular tool.
26 This guidance should include a uniform method to be used for screening purposes. Third, the
27 Agency should promote greater cross fertilization among developers and users of various
28 assessment tools; training of developers and users of tools regarding environmental justice,
29 multiple media, cumulative risks and impacts, and vulnerability, and others; and linkage of
30 assessment to cognizable statutory authorities.
31
32 Action Items:
33
34 • EPA should inventory and review of existing screening, targeting, and prioritization methods
35 and tools to ascertain the following: (1) strengths and weaknesses of existing tools, including
36 best features and gaps; (2) ways in which these tools can be unproved; (3) determine steps to
37 move forward development and use of these tools, including guidance regarding minimum
38 criteria for selection and use of a particular tool. In addition to methods and tools available
39 at EPA, this inventory should include other federal agencies, states, public health agencies,
40 universities, etc.
41
42 * EPA should conduct a critical review of the needs of cumulative risk/impact screening and
43 targeting to develop guidelines and best practices. EPA should use pilot projects and other
44 community-based activities to tttruth test" the accuracy and comprehensiveness of these
45 methods and tools.
46
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 63
1 • In the long-term, EPA should incorporate indicators into such screening and targeting tools
2 that allow it to address other factors of concern to cumulative risk analysis, such as social,
3 economic, and community health factors, and those related to vulnerability,
4
5 • EPA should focus on training of staff to ensure effective widespread utilization of these tools
6 and outreach and education to its stakeholders. The latter will be key in ensuring that there
7 becomes a common framework within the scientific community, regulators, the regulated
8 community, and impacted communities regarding how to most effectively use these
9 screening and targeting tools. An eventual long-term goal would be common utilization by
10 all parties of a common set of data and analytical methods.
11
12 • EPA should convene a series of multi-stakeholder seminars, workshops, and panels,
13 including those of a peer review nature, on currently existing screening, targeting, and
14 prioritization methods and tools relevant to cumulative risk and impacts. These sessions also
15 should ascertain best practices in the area and recommend coherent and consistent
16 methodology.
17
18
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 64
1 TO ADDRESS CAPACITY AND RESOURCE ISSUES (HUMAN, ORGANIZATIONAL, TECHNICAL AND
2 FINANCIAL) WITHIN EPA AND THE STATES, WITHIN IMPACTED COMMUNITIES AND TRIBES,
3 AND AMONG ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS,
4
5 In some ways, this theme is the most difficult to properly articulate because it involves all of the
6 themes heretofore mentioned and is related to the larger question of integrating environmental
7 justice within all policies, programs, and activities of EPA. In addition, capacity building and
8 resource questions must be addressed among multiple groups in order for there to be a proper
9 alignment between all the parties which need to be engaged hi a problem-solving paradigm. For
10 example, capacity building for impacted communities refers to the ability of all stakeholders to
11 travel to meetings, have staff capacity to participate, have technical capacity (e.g., computers and
12 access to phones for long distance calls) to communicate with each other, have funds to
13 participate, and have knowledge and information to participate equitably. For government or
14 business and industry, capacity building would include education around how to understand
15 issues of environmental justice, community issues and needs, and how best to engage
16 constructively on these issues. In addition, capacity building involves the development of
17 policies, methods, and tools of relevance to the particular institution, be it a government agency,
18 philanthropy, academic institution, or corporation.
19
20 If there is not balanced approach towards capacity building, the first unwanted result will be the
21 inability to impacted communities and tribes to be meaningful involved in risk assessment or
22 prevention/intervention activities. Another unwanted result will be unrealistic expectations and
23 continued frustration on the part of communities when government agencies or industry do not
24 have the tools, skills, or institutional infrastructure to work with the communities and tribes
25 where multiple and cumulative risks and impacts are clearly an issue.
26
27 There are two major ways by which the NEJAC Work Group will examine this issue. (1) One
28 way of discussing this question would be to discuss the groups for which there must be capacity
29 building around environmental justice and a Cumulative Risk Framework. This pertains to at
30 least three major areas, i.e., EPA and the states, within impacted communities and tribes, and
31 among all relevant stakeholders (e.g., industry, local governments, academia, scientific and
32 public health community). Each of these groups play a vital role in of themselves. However,
33 issues of environmental justice and cumulative risk are so complicated that it will require
34 multiple stakeholders, agencies, and disciplines. Hence, the development of partnerships is of
35 paramount important, as well the ability of the Agency to play a proactive, facilitative role in
36 helping to create and maintain such partnerships. Another key question is the development and
37 implementation of training related to environmental justice, multiple stressors, community-based
38 efforts, and incorporation of such factors in the decision-making process. (2) A second would be
39 to focus on the content of capacity building. This pertains to issues like community-based
40 participatory research, utilization of community- and tribal-based expertise and knowledge,
41 partnership building, community capacity building, consensus building and dispute resolution,
42 special concerns of communities and tribes, effective community-based risk reduction and
43 pollution prevention tools, and community-based evaluation processes. All groups need capacity
44 building. All groups need different types and varying levels of training.
45
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report - January 31,2004 Page 65
1 One cannot avoid the fact that financial resources will be needed to make the Agency's vision
2 achieving environmental justice for all people through its Cumulative Risk Framework a reality.
3 For example, EPA's budget must allow for the time and resources to initiate and maintain
4 dialogue with communities and other stakeholders to understand the complexities of
5 vulnerability and cumulative impacts. Resources are needed for EPA's researchers to compile
6 this and all other pertinent data in order to fully develop the scientific analysis to inform the
7 characterization of cumulative risks and to identify the means to reduce them. Beyond these
8 research needs, implementation of cumulative risk reduction will require dedication of resources
9 from a broad array of sources: Federal, state and local officials need to devote resources to
10 understand and address the sources of adverse impact under their control and to incentivize
11 environmental improvement when their jurisdiction is limited. Business must come to the table
12 proactively, appreciating the responsibility to go beyond mere environmental compliance where
13 cumulative impacts are adverse and call upon all to be accountable for environmental
14 improvement Communities need resources to participate with business and government in there
15 collaborative efforts to reduce adverse cumulative impacts. They need resources in the form of
16 information, training, technical support and the simple resources needed to participate hi
17 dialogue, including transportation, technical assistance, administrative support, and other things.
18
19 Last, we would like to close with the same issue that was articulated within our opening theme of
20 institutionalizing a bias for action with the Agency. This speaks to the value of gaining and
21 building on experience as an important vehicle for positive change. Developing a strong
22 experiential base is an important part of capacity building, especially when one is dealing with a
23 set of issues that are technically complex and involve multiple stakeholders. The Agency would
24 benefit greatly from a systematic effort to gain and disseminate lessons, models, tools, best
25 practices, skill sets. Again, we want to urge that EPA evaluate where there are gaps in its
26 personnel in its capacity to work effectively within an action oriented cumulative risk context
27 (e.g., social scientists and persons with community-based experience) and develop a strategic
28 plan to fill these gaps.
29
30 Action Items:
31
32 • EPA should ensure that there are adequate resources (human, technical, organizational,
33 financial) for communities to meaningfully participate in a community-based efforts to
34 address cumulative risks and impacts as part of a paradigm shift to community-based
35 approaches. EPA should ensure that its FY04/05 Headquarters and Regional Environmental
36 Justice Action Plans have adequate resource commitments to meaningfully accomplish the
37 above.
38
39 • EPA should allocate a portion of its budget, including its environmental grants programs,
40 specifically to projects enhancing the study of cumulative risk and impact and the
41 implementation of cumulative risk reduction plans.
42
43 • EPA should provide promote the use and/or support of community-based collaborative
44 problem-solving, community-based participatory research, and consensus building and
45 dispute resolution, and similar tools by industry, state and local government, and others. To
46 that end, EPA also should provide training on these tools.
-------
NEJAC Cumulative Risk/Jmpacts Work Group DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Draft Report ~ January 31,2004 Page 66
\ • EPA should promote the use of multi-stakeholder Environmental Justice Collaborative
2 Problem-Solving Model as a methodology for leveraging resources for local efforts to reduce
3 risks and achieve healthy and sustainable communities.
4
5 • EPA should promote the development by industry, state and local government, and others of
6 institutional policies and strategic plans geared around capacity building to address
7 cumulative risks/impacts and environmental justice.
8
9 • EPA should promote the use of pilots and other efforts to develop an experiential and
10 expertise base at the Agency on how to undertake community-based collaborative problem-
11 solving methods, and to determine and disseminate best practices in this area.
12
13 • EPA should develop and implement a short- and long-term plan to systematically build the
14 social science capacity at EPA, and to promote this concept among its partner agencies at the
15 federal, state, local, and tribal levels.
16
17 • EPA should make a conscientious effort to work with philanthropic institutions to ensure that
18 disadvantaged, underserved, and environmentally overburdened communities receive
19 support.
20
21 • EPA should provide extramural support to academic institutions to support community-based
22 participatory applied research, prevention/intervention efforts, and other applied research in
23 area of environmental justice and cumulative risks/impacts.
24
-------
ENSURING RISK REDUCTION
IN COMMUNITIES WITH MULTIPLE STRESSORS:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND
CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS WORK GROUP
APPENDICES
DRAFT REPORT
JANUARY 31,2004
volume 2 of 2
Produced for Purposes of Discussion at the
NEJAC Meeting
New Orleans, Louisiana
April 13 through 16,2004
Do NOT QUOTE OR CITE
-------
This DRAFT report and recommendations have been written as part of the activities
of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), a public federal
advisory committee providing independent advice and recommendations on the issue
of environmental justice to the Administrator and other officials of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This report has not been reviewed for approval by the EPA, and hence., its contents
and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and the policies of the
Agency, nor of outer agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government
-------
Table of Contents
Appendices Page No.
A: EPA CHARGE TO NEJAC ON CUMULATIVE RISKS AND IMPACTS A-l
B: COMMUNITY MULTIPLE STRESSORS MATRICES B-l
C: EXCERPTS FROM CHELSEA CREEK COMMUNITY-BASED
COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT C-l
D: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS D-l
E: EPA COMMUNITY-BASED AND PROGRAMMATIC INITIATIVES ADDRESSING
COMMUNITY MULTI-MEDIA CONCERNS E-l
F: EPA SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR ADDRESSING COMMUNITY
CONCERNS F-1
G: EXAMPLES OF AVAILABLE RISK AND POLLUTION REDUCTION
PROGRAMS AND APPROACHES G-l
H: IMPACTS OF ECONOMIC, RACIAL, AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY ON HEALTH H-l
I: CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY-BASED STUDY OF VULNERABILITY
(WEACT-COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP 1-1
J: EPA HUMAN HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY J-l
K: STATUTORY AUTHORITIES K-l
L: POLLUTION BURDEN MATRIX (PBM) L-l
M: STATE CUMULATIVE RISK ACTIVITIES M-l
N: LOCAL GOVERNMENT CUMULATIVE RISK PREVENTION/
INTERVENTION EFFORT IN PORTLAND, OREGON N-l
-------
[Page Intentionally Blarik\
-------
APPENDIX A:
EPA CHARGE TO NEJAC ON CUMULATIVE RISKS AND IMPACTS
In May 2003, the Agency will be issuing the "Cumulative Risk Assessment Framework." In that
document, the Agency described various features of a cumulative risk assessment as follows: (a) multiple
stressors; (b) consideration of how stressors act together, rather than individually; and (c) a population-
focused assessment which means that the characteristics of that population needs to be defined and
multiple stressors are assessed with regard to impact on that population, although not every individual
will see the same (or all) effects.
The Agency, therefore, is asking the NEJAC to provide advice and recommendations on the following
questions:
(1) How should the Agency proactively address the issue of using the various existing
statutory authorities and their implementing regulations relating to cumulative risks
which were identified by the Environmental Law Institute in their November 2001
research report entitled, "Opportunities for Advancing Environmental Justice: An
Analysis of U.S. EPA Statutory Authorities'*?
(2) What factors should the Agency consider when conducting a cumulative risk
assessment of vulnerable minority, indigenous, and/or low-income communities
disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks, and cumulative impacts?
These may include, but should not be limited to: (a) multiple durations, pathways,
sources, or routes of exposure; (b) multiple effects or impacts; (c) nonconventional
stressors or risk factors (e.g., lifestyles, access to health care); and (d) quantification of
risks. In addition, what short-term actions should the Agency take to ensure that it can
proactively respond to community concerns about the above-stated factors, in parallel
with Agency efforts to develop adequate scientific methodology for conducting
cumulative risk assessments?
(3) How should the Agency ensure that vulnerability of certain segments of the
population are incorporated into the cumulative risk assessment? In addition, what short-
term actions should the Agency take to ensure that it can proactively respond to
community concerns related to vulnerability, in parallel with Agency efforts to develop
adequate scientific methodology for incorporating this factor in cumulative risk
assessments?
(4) How can the Agency promote more effective participation by vulnerable minority,
indigenous, and/or low-income communities disproportionately exposed to
environmental harms and risks, and cumulative impacts to improve community health
through cumulative risk assessment, particularly during the planning, scoping, and
problem formulation phase of a cumulative risk assessment?
(5) How can the Agency partner with an affected community to more effectively use the results of
a cumulative risk assessment to develop appropriate intervention and prevention strategies,
including use of models of conducting cumulative risk assessment that promote communities and
technical experts working and reaching decisions together?
In sum, in order to ensure environmental justice for all communities and tribes, what short-term and long-
term actions should the Agency take in proactively implementing the concepts contained in its
Cumulative Risk Assessment Framework (i.e., using the concepts of cumulative risk to determine: (a)
disproportionate exposure to multiple stressors; (b) the resulting cumulative impacts; and (c) developing
appropriate intervention and prevention strategies)?
A-l
-------
-------
APPENDIX B:
COMMUNITY MULTIPLE STRESSORS MATRICES
Multiple, Aggregate, and Cumulative Risks and Impacts (Stressors) in Laredo, Texas
Demographics:
Border city with population over 180,000,97% Latino primarily Mexican American. It
is the fastest growing border community ( growing by 45% 1990-2000) and is one of the
ten (10) fastest growing metropolitan areas hi the US. Ranks at the top in commercial
and border crossings with over 60% of the nations product and goods passing through its
four (4) international bridges between Mexico and Latin American into the U.S. and
Canada. The World Trade Bridge is completely commercial with over 11,000 trucks and
trailers crossing daily. Finally it is a semi-arid mostly hot area, its primary source of
potable water is the Rio Grande (an international body of water). Poverty and
unemployment is twice the state rate and the population is younger than that of Texas in
general. 50% of the population is either uninsured or underinsured.
Social/ Cultural
Conditions:
Laredoans are resilient and have excelled as well made great strides hi economic, social,
education and health as well in developing industry to improve living standards and the
quality of life. Two major universities and one local junior college as well multiple
training services by both city and private entities have played a major role in the standard
of living and progress of the city. Yet there are still some challenges. Laredo with a
population of over 180,000, grows by another 100,000 daily by persons who work and
travel into Laredo and when it comes to health, commerce and travel, we also
incorporate an additional 700,000 persons from Nuevo Laredo Mexico. Poverty,
unemployment, young population with over 50% in school age, old housing, and lack of
infrastructure are additional factors. The population is young with a 26-year average and
with over 60% of the population hi pre-school or school age. Even though
unemployment and poverty is high it is less than other areas hi Texas because the
growing and booming industry which continues to flourish. Wal-Mart in a given day
does the highest gross selling than any other in the US. The low income and
underdeveloped area in this community and other border communities also can make
border communities more vulnerable to environmental contaminants. The cultural and
social conditions may also pose more risks since the general health status is not
optimum.
Pollution
Sources:
Untreated waste water sometimes drains into the cities' water source (international body
of water -Rio Grande) by Mexico on daily basis, two railways separate the city and add
to traffic congestion, 11,000 commercial trucks and trailers cross through one bridge on
a daily basis, illegal dumping of both household and commercial contaminants,
abundance of improperly disposed tires (100,000/year), unregulated warehouses that
store both declared and non-declared potential toxic materials, lack of potable water,
runoff and frequent contaminated water exposure.
B-l
-------
Unique Exposure
Pathways:
Water contamination through raw sewerage, potentially toxic materials through
inappropriate storage in over 2000 warehouses, spills of potential chemical and toxic
material through daily commerce and transportation of both regulated and unregulated
trucks and trailers. Two railroads that divide the city into 3 parts that sometimes impede
efficient and timely access to health and emergency facilities. Potential air contamination
because of automobile and trailer travel and commerce in a city that is the number one
international crossing area for the nation, possible agricultural exposure from pesticides
and runoff, natural occurring and manmade contamination (arsenic, mercury, lead), old
landfills, agricultural areas, old military base, underdeveloped areas (Colonias) and
exposure from natural gas companies that produce emissions. General health status may
also predispose persons to an inadequate response or the exposure impact such as an
important muni drug resistance problem for Tuberculosis. A concern for environmental
contaminant impacts on persons who may be compromised because of general health,
nutritional status, social and economic factors.
Existing Health
Problems &
Conditions:
Laredo has made great strides in public health, sanitation, health care prevention, disease
control and primary care however there are still several challenges Unincorporated rural
or semi rural subdivisions (Colonias) with substandard housing and sanitation cause a
higher incidence of many communicable diseases. Lack of access to health care and
health care facilities and being federally classified as medically underserved poses a
serious concern to adequate health care. Over half of the population lacks the appropriate
resources to seek health, preventive and medical care and is either underinsured or
uninsured. Wellness and preventive health care is lacking as well as proper nutrition for
a good immunological response. Adequate prenatal care is inaccessible for some posing
a threat to maternal and child health. Critically important health issues are both
infectious and noninfectious as well emerging diseases and environmental health
concerns. Hepatitis A and Tuberculosis in adults is higher than the state rate as well
neural tube defects, food borne infectious and vector borne (West Nile virus and dengue)
are important public health concerns as well rabies control. Chronic and emerging
diseases such as breast, cervical and stomach cancer, diabetes, obesity, substance abuse
and mental health behavior pose a current and future challenge to health care and the
health care delivery system. Hi-national issues in prevention, disease control and
environmental health pose a challenge but one that is being addressed through
cooperation and dual services. Other environmental and occupational issues are: CDC
designated high exposure area for childhood lead exposure, pesticide, household
poisoning, naturally occurring metals exposure (arsenic and mercury), air contaminants
exposure and high levels of asthma in children as well newly found former Laredo air
force base environmental contaminants.
B-2
-------
Community
Infrastructure &
Capacity/ Social
Capital:
Laredo is a major international thoroughfare for business and commerce. Over the last
five (5) years it has also become a center for highly developed technology, education and
trade and is quickly becoming a center for biomedical services and research. Several
public health issues are directly related to basic uifrastructure for sanitation, water and
waste water treatment. There are over 2000 warehouses and two railroad systems fiat
divide the city into three (3) isolated sections that further divide our community. This
division further restricts access to vital municipal, public health, emergency and medical
care services which continue to place our communiry at risk for possible contamination.
The older sections of town divided by the railroad also have an increased incidence of
lead exposure to children with 6 of the 10 cases for 2003 living in that area. In addition
the social structure of the amount of travel and commerce constantly put our community
at risk of what is stored and managed by the railroad, warehouses, trucks, trailers and
new industrial growth on both sides of the border. We have 12 major "maquiladoras"
(U.S. companies in Mexico such as Sony, General Motors, Delphi) and about 40 smaller
ones in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico; our sister city produces important amounts of industrial
waste which needs to be managed and disposed appropriately. The industry of tires
being taken to the border also poses an environmental threat. Yet these entities are
needed to help the economic development and existence of our community and many
other border communities. For Laredo our research and economical development serves
as an opportunity to improve living standards and health conditions however this cannot
be accomplished without true partnerships which is what we have been doing for years.
In addition there is a large investment in education, community training, outreach and
extended services to support better prevention and intervention and to improve the
quality of life.
Programmatic &
Regulatory
Fragmentation:
Border communities have been resilient to coordinate and partner to create a safe
environment and to promote the public health well being. However state and federal
programs and regulations many times challenge local efforts causing fragmentation of
services and enforcement. Some of the issue revolves on who has responsibility for the
action and enforcement Federal, state and local guidelines on environmental health,
hazardous materials, water and air monitoring, vector control, agricultural inspection are
some of the areas of concern as well dedicated fimding which only allows for focused
and dedicated services (at times joint inspections are a challenge because of divergent
statutory rules, regulations and enforcement); who has authority, where each entity
begins and ends their program and regulatory responsibilities and if there are human
resources for enforcement are the problems. For example the state is responsible for
radiation enforcement but only has one person for 11 counties, local authorities have not
program and enforcement capability and yet we need to address the issue if there is a
spill or exposure. Another issue is water contamination where we are dealing with state,
federal and international regulations of two countries. When any issue of contamination
on our water source (Rio Grande) occurs, multiple entities with varying rules, regulations
and enforcement need to be consulted posing a real challenge to response efficiently and
quickly to protect and safeguard health and the environment. An addition issue with
water is the rules for potable water safety. We had a cryptosporidiosis and the state
environmental agency, the private utilities that used federal standards all had a diverse
interpretation and guidelines which made our job more difficult because we couldn't
agree on one standard level to proceed to protect human health. Finally landfill issues are
also a challenge because there are different rules as to who has authority between state,
and local entities for disposal of certain items such as tires in our area, A coordinated
effort and similar rules and programs where we were working from the same rules and
enforcement would be a great assistance to local communities.
B-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX C:
EXCERPTS FROM
CHELSEA CREEK COMMUNITY-BASED COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
See: http:/Avww.epa.gov/region01/eco/uep/boston/bprogress.html for full text of report.
L Chelsea and East Boston: The need for the Chelsea Creek Comparative Risk Assessment
Both East Boston and Chelsea are low to moderate-income, diverse communities, with a large immigrant
base. Both have been disproportionately impacted by industrial development and suffer from a
disproportionately low percentage of open space and green space as compared to other communities in
the Greater Boston region. The Chelsea Creek runs between Chelsea and East Boston. The Creek is a
Designated Port Area, which requires that development along the Creek be reserved for marine industrial
uses. The designation does not generally allow for public access or recreational use of any waterfront
area; instead, the Creek is host to polluting industry, parking lots, a multi-ton salt pile, and fuel storage for
industrial and commercial enterprises. There are also numerous 2IE hazardous waste sites along the
Creek and abandoned or contaminated property. These all contribute to the negative environmental and
public health impacts of Chelsea and East Boston.
The Chelsea Creek Action Group (CCAG), local residents, and other community organizations lack easy
access to the scientific information or data that is necessary to validate their claims of environmental
pollution and public health threats; and have no access to data on the cumulative impact of the pollution
emitted by all of the industries. This data is key when advocating to local, state, and federal agencies to
address these problems. CCAG and the EPA sponsored the Chelsea Creek Community Based
Comparative Risk Assessment so the East Boston and Chelsea communities could learn more about the
environmental, public health, and social concerns they identified as community priorities and to develop
strategies to address these issues.
II. The Chelsea Creek Community Based Comparative Risk Assessment (CRA)
CCAG, the East Boston Ecumenical Community Council, and U.S. EPA Region I sponsored a two-year
community based Risk Assessment which gave residents of East Boston and Chelsea the opportunity to
identify and make recommendations for the improvement of issues of greatest concern in the following
three categories: environment, public health, and social issues. Risk Assessments typically inventory
pollution and other sources of degradation that impact the quality of life or health of a community. The
community based Comparative Risk Assessment that CCAG and the EPA sponsored was unique and
innovative because rather than following the technical protocol, residents led the process and determined
what they feel are the worst issues in those categories. Community members listed all of their concerns
and then narrowed the entire list down to six priorities (three environment concerns, two public health
concerns and one social concern): ambient air quality, water quality, open/green space, asthma and
respiratory ailments, noise, and traffic. These six areas of concern were examined in a broad context,
with attention focused on gathering and analyzing available data, and determining action steps to address
some of the problems. With the guidance of residents, a committee of technical experts assessed the
issues identified by the community and gathered existing information on each to develop a holistic look at
the Chelsea Creek area in Chelsea and East Boston. The experts analyzed the risk of exposure, potential
health impacts, and how local, state, and federal agencies and regulations could improve the
environmental and public health for Chelsea and East Boston residents.
C-l
-------
ITT. Goals of the Comparative Risk Assessment (CRA)
There were several goals of the Chelsea Creek CRA: 1) to engage local residents and provide them with a
baseline of information on potential exposures and risks from targeted environmental, public health, and
social issues in East Boston and Chelsea; 2) to serve as a tool to help residents and community
organizations understand environmental risks and use the information to prioritize action steps -
community groups in East Boston and Chelsea have worked to mitigate environmental health risks for
many years; the results of the Chelsea Creek CRA will compliment existing efforts and may also play a
role in helping to determine future actions and citizen campaigns; and 3) to engage and inform
government agencies (federal, state, and local) about the area and resource needs with the hope that these
agencies will dedicate more resources (financial, technical, and staff) to the area.
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D:
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Table 1-2. Principles of Cumulative Effects Analysis
(a) Cumulative effects are caused by the aggregate of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions.
The effects of a proposed action on a given resource, ecosystem, and human community include the present
and future effects added to the effects that have taken place in the past Such cumulative effects must also be
added to effects (past, present and future) caused by all other actions that affect the same resource.
(b) Cumulative effect are the total effect including both direct and indirect effects, on a given resource,
ecosystem and human community of all actions taken, no matter who (federal, nonfederal or private)
has taken the actions.
Individual effects from disparate activities may add up or interact to cause additional effects not apparent
when looking at the individual effects one at a time. The additional effects contribute by actions unrelated to
the proposed action must be included in the analysis of cumulative effects.
(c) Cumulative effects need to be analyzed in terms of the specific resource, ecosystem and human
community being affected.
Environmental effects are often evaluated from the perspective of the proposed action. Analyzing
cumulative effects requires focusing on the resource, ecosystem and human community that may be affected
and developing on adequate understanding of how the resources are susceptible to effects.
(d) It is not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an action on the universe; the list of
environmental effects must focus must focus on those that are truly meaningful.
For cumulative effects analysis to help the decisionmaker and to inform interested parties, it must be limited
through scoping to effects that can be evaluated meaningfully. The boundaries for evaluating cumulative
effects should be expanded to the point at which the resource is no longer affected significantly or the effects
are no longer of interest to affected parties.
(e) Cumulative effects on a given resource, ecosystem and human community are rarely aligned with
political or administrative boundaries.
Resources typically are demarcated according to agency responsibilities, county lines, graying allotments, or
other administrative boundaries. Because natural and sociocultural resources are not usually so aligned,
each political entity actually manages only a piece of the affected resource or ecosystem. Cumulative effects
analysis on natural systems must use natural ecological boundaries and analysis of human communities must
use actual sociocultural boundaries to ensure including all effects.
(f) Cumulative effects may result from the accumulation of similar effects or the synergistic interaction of
different effects.
Repeated actions may cause effects to build up through simple addition (more and cor of the same type of
effect), or the same or different action may produce effects that interact to produce cumulative effects greater
man the sum of the effects.
(g) Cumulative effects may last for many years beyond the life of the action that caused the effects.
Some actions cause damage lasting for longer than life of the action itself (e.g., acid mine drainage,
radioactive waste contamination, species extinctions). Cumulative effects analysis needs to apply the best
science and forecasting techniques to assess potential catastrophic consequences in the future.
(h) Each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community must be analyzed in terms of its capacity to
accommodate additional effects, based on its own time and space parameters.
Analysts tend to think in terms of how the resource, ecosystem, and human community will be modified
given the action's development needs. The most effective cumulative effects analysis focuses on what is
needed to ensure long-term productivity or sustainability of the resource.
D-l
-------
, • t Table 5-3. Primary and Special Methods for Analyzing Cumulative Effects
^Primary Methods
1. Questionnaires,
Interviews, and
Panels
2. Checklists
3. Matrices
4. Networks and
System Diagrams
5. Modeling
6. Trends Analysis
7. Overlay Mapping
and GTS
- - _' . Description
Questionnaires, interviews, and panels are useful for
gathering the wide range of information on multiple
actions and resources needed to address cumulative
effects. Brainstorming sessions, interviews with
knowledgeable individuals, and group consensus
building activities can help identify the important
cumulative effects issues in the region.
Checklists help identify potential cumulative effects by
providing a list of common or likely effects and
juxtaposing multiple actions and resources; potentially
dangerous for the analyst that uses them as a shortcut
to thorough scoping and conceptualization of
cumulative effects problems.
Matrices use the familiar tabular format to organize
and quantify me interactions between human activities
and resources of concern. Once even relatively
complex numerical data are obtained, matrices are
well-suited to combining the values in individual cells
of the matrix (through matrix algebra) to evaluate the
cumulative effects of multiple actions on individual
resources, ecosystems, and human communities.
Networks and system diagrams are an excellent method
for delineating the cause-and-effect relationships
resulting in cumulative effects; they allow the user to
analyze the multiple, subsidiary effects of various
actions and trace indirect effects to resources mat
accumulate from direct effects on other resources.
Modeling is a powerful technique for quantifying the
cause-and-effect relationships leading to cumulative
effects, can take the form of mathematical equations
describing equations describing cumulative processes
such as soil erosion, or may constitute an expert system
that computes the effect of various project scenarios
based on a program of logical decisions.
Trends analysis assesses the status of a resource,
ecosystem, and human community over time and
usually results hi a graphical projection of past or
future conditions. Changes in the occurrence or
intensity of stressors over the same time period can
also be determined. Trends can help the analyst
identify cumulative effects problems, establish
appropriate environmental baselines, or project future
cumulative effects.
Overlay mapping and geographic information systems
(GIS) incorporate locational information into
cumulative effects analysis and help set the boundaries
of the analysis, analyze landscape parameters, and
identify areas where effects will be the greatest Map
overlays can be based on either the accumulation of
stressors in certain areas or on the suitability of each
land unit for development
Strengths
• Flexible
• Can deal with
subjective
information
• Systemic
• Concise
• Comprehensive
presentation
• Comparison of
alternatives
• Address multiple
projects
• Facilities
conceptualization
• Address cause-
effect relationships
• Identify Indirect
relationships
• Can give
unequivocal
results
• Addresses cause-
effect relationships
• Quantification
• Can integrate time
ans space
• Addresses
accumulation over
time
• Problem
identification
• Baseline
determination
• Addresses spatial
pattern and
proximity effects
• Effective visual
presentation
• Can optimize
development
options
Weaknesses
• Cannot quantify
• Comparison of
alternatives is
subjective
• Can be inflexible
• Do not address
interactions or
cause-effect or
relationships
• Do not address
space or time
• Can be
cumbersome
• Do not address
cause-effect
relationships
• No likelihood for
secondary effects
• Problem of
comparable units
• Do not address
space or time
• Need a lot of data
• Can be expensive
• Intractable with
many interactions
• Need a lot of data
in relevant system
• Extrapolation of
system thresholds
is still largely
subjective
• Limited to effects
based on location
• Do not explicitly
address indirect
effects
• Difficult to
address magnitude
of effects
D-2
-------
, f X*' > v " ~" ' V" " ^ * ' * " r
' , Table 5-3. Primary and Special Methods for Analyzing Cumulative Effects
Primary Methods
8. Carrying Capacity
Analysis
9. Ecosystem Analysis
10. Economic
Impact Analysis
• Special Impact
Analysis
<- <- " !\ 1 f V-> c
f Description '
Carrying capacity analysis identifies thresholds (as
constraints on development) and provides mechanisms
to monitor the incremental use of unused capacity.
Carrying capacity in the ecological context is defined
as threshold of stress below which populations and
ecosystem functions can be sustained In the social
context, the carrying capacity of a region is measured
by the level of services (including ecological services)
desired by the populace.
Ecosystem analysis explicitly addresses biodiversity
and ecosystem and ecosystem sustainability . The
ecosystem approach uses natural boundaries (such as
watersheds and ecoregions) and applies new ecological
indications (such as indices of biotic integrity and
landscape pattern). Ecosystem analysis entails the
broad regional perspective and holistic thinking that
are required for successful cumulative effects analysis.
Economic impact analysis is an important component
of analyzing cumulative effects because the economic
well-being of a local community depends on many
different actions. The three primary steps in
conducting an economic impact analysis are (1)
establishing the region of influence, (2) modeling the
economic effects, and (3) determining the significance
of the effects. Economic models play an important
role in these impact assessments and range from simple
to sophisticated.
Social impact analysis addresses cumulative effects
related to the sustainability of human communities by
(1) focusing on key social variables such as population
characteristics, community and institutional structures,
political and social resources, individual and family
changes, and community resources; and (2) projecting
future effects using social analysis techniques such as
linear trend projections, population multiplier methods,
scenarios, expert testimony, and simulation modeling.
-. t Strengths
• True measure of
cumulative effects
against threshold
» Addresses effects
in system context
• Addresses time
factors
• Uses regional
scale and full
range of
components and
interactions
• Addresses space
and time
• Addresses
ecosystem
sustainability
• Addresses
economic issues
» Models provide
definitive,
quantified results
• Addresses social
issues
• Models provide
definitive,
qualified results
Weaknesses
• Rarely can
measure capacity
directly
• May be multiple
thresholds
• Requisite regional
data are often
absent
• Limited to natural
systems
• Often required
species surrogates
for system
• Data intensive
• Landscape
indicators still
under
development
» Utility and
accuracy of results
dependent on data
quality and model
assumptions
« Usually do not
address nonmarket
values
• Utility and
accuracy of results
dependent on
dataquality and
model
assumptions
• Social values are
highly variable
D-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX E:
EPA COMMUNITY-BASED AND PROGRAMMATIC INITIATIVES ADDRESSING
COMMUNITY MULTI-MEDIA CONCERNS
EXAMPLES OF EPA-SPONSORED COMMUNITY PROJECTS
ADDRESSING MULTIMEDIA CONCERNS
St Louis Communities Mobilize to Address Environmental Concerns
St Louis elected itself for cutting-edge community-based environmental management. Through sessions
sponsored by EPA Region 7, they identified a number of key environmental matters. The number one
issue, identified by nine often participants, was the need for healthy air. That was the genesis of three
cross-cutting projects. While these projects have a basis in ambient (outdoor) air quality, each project has
uniquely integrated health, ambient air, indoor air, pollution prevention, household hazardous waste,
water, lead-poisoning and other key environmental health concerns. The projects are complementary to a
holistic approach in St Louis. This results from project leadership that recognizes the assets and
challenges of their communities. They have found ways to work in this environmental justice community
through obstacles of economics and education. These are innovative leaders that realize, invigorate and
reward the community's assets to overcome complex environmental challenges. They have found local
'environmental evangelists' to spread the empowerment for local environmental stewardship. Region 7 is
proud to be one of the agents who helped make St. Louis successful in these efforts.
The St. Louis Community Air Project (CAP) is managed by the St Louis Association of Community
Organizations (an community organization that works for neighborhood development, both in its people
and housing). The CAP is a coalition of community partners — individuals, neighborhoods, businesses,
industry and government — whose motto is "Our Goal is Healthier Air for St. Louis." With EPA
assistance, this group established health benchmarks and conducted air monitoring for hazardous air
pollutants. They determined six chemicals of concern from the air monitoring effort. The CAP is
implementing an action plan that has three tiers of effort ~ personal (such as choosing appropriate
household cleaners or reducing unnecessary car usage), community(working with neighbors or industry to
gain voluntary pollution reduction efforts) and public (the traditional regulatory controls). Early on, the
CAP realized youth were underutilized resources and change agents. Emily Andrews, the CAP's
'managing partner,' developed materials that could be taken into the classroom to work with students to
help them understand how their family activities affected air quality. Inner-city students at Roosevelt
High School's Communication Career Academy developed a 13-minute performance art video entitled
The Importance of Clean Air. Over 150 copies of this video are in circulation, teaching young (and older)
people how they can improve air quality. Ms. Andrews took this video to another partner, the public
library system, to establish an education program whose outcome included a bookmark contest. Here
students illustrated what actions they believed needed to be taken to create healthier air for St Louis. The
library printed and distributed 5000 copies of the winning bookmarks. The St. Louis CAP is pioneering
new ways for people to achieve healthier air for their community.
The North Side Clean Air Project (NSCAP) has taken a different path than most to addressing air quality.
They are managed by Grace Hill Neighborhood Services, a local community organization that provides
social and health services hi severely stressed St. Louis neighborhoods. NSCAP entered this process
recognizing that their community did not have the capacity to manage a air monitoring program. They
needed to have a hard-hitting, quick results program. Doug Eller, Grace Hill's project manager, has built
a unique team that builds upon the assets of this community. Under his guidance, AmeriCorps had
developed and operates a river front trail The Trail Rangers are helping trail visitors and other
community groups understand the how human behaviors influence air quality and what actions
E-l
-------
individuals can take in their homes or in their community to gain healthier air. Residents in these
neighborhoods have some of the highest asthma rates and blood-lead levels in the nation. NSCAP is
working through local health and day-care providers to help residents reduce their environmental risks.
One very creative tools they are using is local entrepreneurship. They are creating a cottage industry mat
produces an environmentally-safe all purpose cleaner. The cleaner is sold at a price that undercuts the
local dollar store and residents will get a free refill - both on product and on environmental
education/empowerment.
The Missouri Botanical Garden has a global reputation for environmental stewardship. The charter of this
private institution includes education and program development As EPA was working with the CAP and
NSCAP, these partners realized mat accessible educational activities about airborne toxics did not exist.
The Garden undertook a charge from EPA to provide readily available materials for educators. These
materials help students of all ages understand what is in the air and how behaviors impact the air quality
and health. Increased knowledge of these issues will influence future decision-making of students and
adults, as well as remove misperceptions about the causes of air pollution. All materials are based on
research and have received national peer review. Kindergarten to grade 12modules are correlated to
national and Missouri education standards. Each module will include a teacher/leader guide, one lead
activity and three or more connecting activities. These activities may be used individually or taught
sequentially as a thematic unit. Every module emphasizes how our choices impact human health, using
multi-media aspect(connections among air, water and soil). In one lesson, someone might explore
brownfield concepts while another explores household hazardous wastes. In the very near fiiture, the
modules will be available to the public at no charge. The educational materials were developed with the
understanding that while few students go onto to be scientists or engineers, all of us need to become
responsible stewards of our environment Glenda Abney, the Garden's project manager, assembled an
outstanding team of educators who created materials that allow a student/adult to explore environmental
health concepts through dynamic, engaging reading, art and social science activities.
South Phoenix Multi-Media Toxics Reduction Project
South Phoenix has a history of mixed-use development creating a patchwork of industrial facilities,
residential housing, landfills, and commercial enterprises, representing numerous pollution sources. The
area, informally identified as south of downtown Phoenix, has a strong African-American heritage.
Today the area reflects a predominately Hispanic culture. Key community issues include risks and
exposure from chemical fires, air pollution and hazardous waste storage. Region 9's Air Division has
targeted the area to pilot a multi-media toxics reductions project
The South Phoenix Multi-Media Toxics Reduction project responds to OAR's interest in transferring the
Cleveland Air Toxics Project to other urban areas and applying the new Guidance For Local Areas to
Reduce Toxics Levels. Region 9 was selected to receive $270 K, secured from OAR and OSWER, to
implement a community-based pilot project in South Phoenix, utilizing the above referenced model
approaches. These funds have been granted to ADEQ, the lead agency for the multi-media toxics
reduction project
The project builds upon past and ongoing efforts in the area including: permit reviews for PCB facilities;
joint state/EPA RCRA compliance inspections for over 40 sites; the Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project
including a one-year air toxics monitoring effort in South Phoenix; and other projects related to pollution
prevention and TRI enforcement. South Phoenix is also considered a strategic priority for environmental
justice.
ADEQ, also has been focusing on South Phoenix as part of their South Phoenix Environmental Initiative.
The multi-media toxics reduction project represents the next logical step for Phase H of their work.
E-2
-------
In partnership with ADEQ, efforts are underway to initiate a stakeholder process which will:
1) Develop an inventory of toxics sources and set priorities for reduction planning;
2) Identify and implement early reduction activities (e.g. anti-bus idling, lead outreach);
3) Identify actions to reduce toxics (emissions and exposures) as part of community toxics reduction
plan;
4) Implement actions utilizing an array of tools (P2, EMSs, technology, compliance, regulation, etc.)
that will result hi reduced toxics emissions from air, water and waste.
ADEQ, in collaboration with the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, AZ Department of Health Services
has submitted a detail work plan, outlining the goals, objectives and strategic approaches to ensure a
comprehensive, inclusive process for toxics reduction planning.
To better coordinate EPA's activities and technical assistance, a cross-divisional group has been formed.
Representatives from Air, Waste (RCRA and P2), Superfund, Cross-Media Division, and OPPA
(Children's Health) participate on this group. EPA Headquarters is also engaged in the project with
representatives form OAR (ORIA, OTAQ, OAQPS) and OPPTS coordinating with Region 9 on monthly
conference calls.
Concurrently with this project, the JATAP has initiated a one-year air toxics monitoring pilot in the
greater South Phoenix area and will have data available in the spring of 2004.
Chelsea Creek Community-Based Comparative Risk Assessment
The Chelsea Creek Action Group (CCAG), the East Boston Ecumenical Community Council, and EPA
New England's Urban Environmental Program led a two-year effort to conduct a first of its kind
community-based comparative risk assessment to engage, inform and involve residents of East Boston
and Chelsea, MA to understand and address the greatest multi-media environmental, public health, and
social issues of concern. A grant from EPA provided $100,000 to implement the project. The Chelsea
Creek Community-Based Comparative Risk Assessment was unique and innovative because rather than
following a standard risk assessment process, residents and nonprofit groups had input and involvement
into identifying the key issues of concern and worked with technical experts to gather data, analyze
results, and identify next steps for action. A public process engaging hundreds of local residents and
volunteers surveyed community concerns and public meetings narrowed the list of concerns down to six
priorities for the project: 3 environmental concerns (ambient air quality, water quality, and open/green
space); 2 public health concerns (asthma/respiratory disease and noise); and 1 social issue (traffic). These
six issues were examined in a broad context by a Resident Advisory Committee (comprised of 10 resident
volunteers from East Boston and Chelsea) and a Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of 10
scientific and technical experts from academia, local, state, federal government, and health professionals)
with effort focused on gathering and analyzing available data, identifying greatest public health concerns
for residents, mapping available data, identifying current projects addressing the issue on a neighborhood
level, and making a set of recommendations on how to address problems and concerns identified. The
overall goals of the project included: (a) engage local residents and provide a baseline of information on
potential exposures and risks from targeted environmental, public health, and social issues in East Boston
and Chelsea, MA; (b) serve as a tool to help residents and community organizations understand
environmental risks and use the information to prioritize action steps through local nonprofit groups; and
(c) engage and inform government agencies (federal, state and local) about the area, issues, and resource
needs with the hope of securing additional investments to service community needs. Each chapter of the
Community-Based Comparative Risk Assessment yielded specific data results, but a few general themes
emerged as summary findings: (1) Data on environmental and public health issues in Chelsea and East
Boston is insufficient; (2) Even when local data exists, the quality is unacceptable; (3) Current federal,
E-3
-------
state, and local regulations do not adequately protect the health of urban residents or the quality of the
local environment; (4) Actions are needed from local, state and federal government agencies to address
data gaps, information quality, and making measurable progress on all issues; and (5) Actions are needed
from local residents to hold government agencies accountable for their roles and to make improvements
on issues. As a result of this effort, the Chelsea Creek Action Group has secured a commitment from
EPA New England to convene a multi-agency stakeholder group representing federal, state and local
government to coordinate government actions and resource investments to improve the quality of life for
residents in East Boston and Cheslea related to the Chelsea Creek.
EXAMPLES OF INNOVATIVE EPA PROGRAMMATIC INITIATIVES
TO ADDRESS MULTIMEDIA COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Urban Environmental Program
The Urban Environmental Program (UEP) was first initiated as a regional pilot program in EPA New
England in 1995, and was expanded into a full regionally-designed program by Administrator Robert
Vamey in 2002. In urban areas throughout New England, local residents are exposed to significant
environmental and public health hazards every day and these conditions create cumulative,
disproportionate, and inequitable health risks - especially high risks and sensitive populations including
children and the elderly. The mission of the UEP is to improve the environment and enhance the quality
of life for urban residents throughout New England, with a special emphasis on servicing the needs of
urban residents in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Since this is a regional program, it is
only operational hi EPA New England and there are no counterparts across the country in other EPA
regions. UEP Program Goals are to: (1) Build community capacity to assess and resolve environmental
problems; (2) Achieve measurable and sustainable improvements in urban communities; and (3) Restore
and revitalize neighborhoods for urban residents. The UEP strategy for improving environmental quality
and public health is the UEP Community Development Pyramid, which outlines a five-phase model to
develop an infrastructure and community capacity for achieving long term results. The five phases are:
(1) Understanding the problem and identifying stakeholders; (2) Building community capacity and
developing local partnerships; (3) Leveraging public resources to improve public health and the
environment; (4) Effective Partnerships; and (5) Healthy Communities. The target issues for the UEP
include: (1) Environmental Health (childhood lead poisoning, asmma, indoor air quality, children's health
and sensitive receptors/populations); (2) Urban Toxics hi Air, Water and Soil (lead, PCBs, dioxin,
mercury, petroleum, combined sewer overflows/bacteria, Cr6, particulate matter, and ozone); and (3)
Urban Development & Redevelopment (vacant lots, urban agriculture, smart growth, transportation, open
space/green space). The program strategy and goals are achieved through a package of UEP services that
are available to communities hi targeted urban areas. UEP Program Managers are dedicated staff which
serve as community liaisons and resource brokers to bring EPA New England services and resources
(technical resources, expertise, funding, etc.) to targeted urban areas. UEP Program managers are
responsible for implementing the UEP Community Development Pyramid through partnerships and
coalition-building, building community capacity and consensus, public awareness and education,
environmental revitalization, improving public health, problem-solving, facilitation, conflict-resolution,
and grant/project management The UEP also runs an annual, competitive grant program to identify and
fund eligible applicants to complete projects in target urban areas across New England. For more
information about the program, please visit our website at www.epa.gov/region01/eco/uep or read the
"Agents of Change: Making the Vision a Reality" Urban Environmental Initiative Five Year Report,
2001.
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
Many cities, towns and neighborhoods continue to express concerns about their exposure to toxic
-------
pollutants from multiple sources. While EPA's regulatory programs have significantly reduced the
overall exposure to toxic pollutants across the country, there is still more to be done to reduce risks at the
local level in communities.
CARE is a proposed multi-media effort designed to reduce toxic pollutants in communities through
community-based projects similar to those underway in Cleveland, St. Louis, and South Phoenix. As
these projects demonstrate, community-based approaches are an effective way of addressing diffuse
sources of toxic pollutants and cumulative risk by addressing issues comprehensively, and by targeting
solutions to the specific characteristics and needs of the community. CARE will encourage and support
communities' efforts to focus resources on the greatest risks and build consensus to mobilize local
resources to reduce exposures to toxic pollutants. CARE will build on the wide range of current Agency
efforts designed to address community concerns such as Diesel Retrofits., Brownfields, the National
Estuary Program, Design for Environment, Environmental Justice Revitalization Projects, Tools for
Schools, and RGI, improving their effectiveness by working to integrate them to better meet the needs of
communities
The proposed CARE program will provide competitive grants to state, tribal and local governments,
NGOs, and community organizations. Two categories of competitive grants will be awarded. In the first
category, EPA will provide smaller grants ($50-$ 100k) to communities to help them assess their toxic-
exposure problems and begin to identify potential solutions. EPA will help work with the grantees to
create environmental toxic reduction partnerships, assess the sources of exposure to toxic pollutants, and
estimate the most significant sources of human health and ecological risks in the community. The
expectation is that after completing the grant the community would have developed the capacity to select
and carry out their highest priority activities to reduce risks.
The second category of larger grants ($300-$500k) will help the communities go beyond planning and
start to reduce risks. The grants will provide seed money to implement community-based projects that
show actual risk reductions. Communities receiving these grant will have identified and will understand
the sources of exposure to toxic pollutants in the community and have the organizational capacity to
begin implementing risk reduction activities. Many of the communities that will be eligible for these
grants are already working in partnership with EPA through other place-based programs. We hope that
over time many of the communities that develop capacity with the first set of grants would become
eligible for this second set of grants.
The initiative will be managed by a central team that will provide analytic tools and models to assist
communities in identifying, prioritizing and reducing risks. It will also conduct training and hold
conferences, as needed, to educate community members and share lessons learned. Finally, the team will
collect and aggregate results provided by the specific projects and conduct program evaluations to assess
the resulting benefits and lessons learned. The Regions will have teams that work directly with the
communities to provide needed support and information.
Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Grant Program
The Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Grant Program provides financial assistance to
community-based organizations to undertake community-based efforts to proactively and strategically
address environmental justice issues through collaborative problem-solving methods. The program was
initiated in in FY2003 by the EPA Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) with a Request for Applications
from community-based organizations, of which 15 have been selected for financial assistance in the
amount of $100,000 each. Another round of 15 will be selected in FY2004.
The concepts behind this grant program were developed over the past several years through the Federal
E-5
-------
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice demonstration projects. Through these projects,
OEJ developed the concept of an environmental justice collaborative problem-solving model, which
describes community-based, multi-agency, and multi-stakeholder efforts to achieve environmental justice
and healthy, sustainable communities. The model is based upon a set of premises which includes but is
not limited to the following: (1) Seeking proactive, strategic, community-based solutions to
environmental justice issues, building on community visioning and planning processes; (2) Promoting an
asset-building approach to building community capacity and social capital, particularly for disadvantaged
and underserved communities; (3) Incorporating consensus building and dispute resolution principles and
methods, including the ''Mutual Gains Approach to Negotiations"; (4) Utilizing community-based
participatory research methodologies; (5) Establishing multi-stakeholder partnerships to leverage human,
organization, technical, and financial resources; (6) Fostering an integrated approach to addressing
environmental, health, social, and economic needs; (7) Promoting multi-agency coordination to
effectively utilize resources of all relevant federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies; and (8)
Integrating an evaluation framework and promotes replication of lessons learned and best practices.
One community-based effort which has provided much insight for the development of this model is the
the ReGenesis Revitalization Project in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The ReGenesis Project has
transformed the focus in a poor, African American community in Spartanburg from one that focused
primarily on negative environmental impacts to a vision for broad community revitalization. As of
August 2003, the project has leveraged more than $5 million in public and private sector funding.
E-6
-------
APPENDIX F:
EPA SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR
ADDRESSING COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Regional Air Impact
Modeling Initiative
(RAIMI)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6, established the
Regional Air Impact Modeling Initiative (RAIMI) to evaluate the potential
for health impacts as a result of exposure to multiple contaminants from
multiple sources, at a community level of resolution. It is a practical
approach for implementing cumulative type assessments on a localized scale.
Often when evaluating permitting and enforcement actions, EPA needs to
consider the bigger picture as opposed to the traditional source-by-source,
program-by-program approach. Such an approach has blindly focused on
selective units, often located among a "forest" of others impacting the same
receptor neighborhoods. As a result, goals of RAIMI focused on developing
the capability to conduct localized assessments in a timely enough manner so
as to actually be useful in day-to-day permitting and enforcement activities,
that would obviously support cross-program participation, and that would
provide results at a level of resolution and traceability that serve as an asset to
stakeholders needing to evaluate and implement solutions. Contact Jeff Yurk
at vurk.iefffS),epa.gov.
Cumulative Risk
Index Analysis
Region 6 has developed a multi-purpose environmental screening tool using
data from all EPA's major databases and our regional Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology. The system is used to compare human
health, ecological, and regulatory related risks. The system has also proven to
be very effective at identifying cumulative risks. Approximately 90
environmental criteria have been developed for the Region's risk screening
system. Forty-five of these criteria have been used to identify multi-media
inspection targets. The enforcement targeting application has significantly
contributed to inspection success rates of 70 to 100 percent in the past two
years.
The Comparative Cumulative Risk System has been used for more than 6,500
environmental justice (EJ) analyses in our Region, and has become a standard
for communicating EJ information. All our cumulative risk evaluations
include EJ and can include approximately 20 other related socio-economic
criteria. The system is routinely used in the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) program as a environmental screening tool evaluating possible
ecological stressors, sources of pollutants impacting human health, cultural
resource concerns, populations who are vulnerable for socio-economic
reasons (income, education, language), and regulatory compliance issues
(inspections, fines, violations). Contact Gerald Carney at
carnev.gerald@.epa.gov.
F-l
-------
Environmental Load
Profile
Through the use of geospatial software and environmental databases, EPA
Region 2 has advanced the concept of an Environmental Load Profile (ELP).
The ELP provides a representation of the environmental load (i.e. relative
burden) within a selected community. Further, it serves as a screening tool for
identifying communities that may bear disproportionate environmental loads
on a statewide level. The product serves to identify salient characteristics
(e.g., indicators of air quality, environmental well-being) that would serve as
indicators of environmental burden, and further provide the user with a
consistent basis for comparison. Specifically, the indicators of a community
are compared to statewide-derived benchmarks in deciding whether a selected
community bears more of an environmental load man the rest of the state.
Currently, the ELP consists of the following derived indicators: TRI Air
Emission; Air Toxics; and Facility Density. As additional indicators are
developed, they will be incorporated into the ELP. While the product is
useful as an initial start in identifying areas experiencing environmental
concerns, the user should note that a more detailed investigation for a
community's actual burden should, where appropriate, be conducted at the
local level. Finally, the tool further allows the user to obtain a summary
report of all the indicator values calculated for a specific community. These
summary reports open through an Internet-based browser (e.g., Netscape 6.2)
Although the ELP tool is a stand-alone product, it can be particularly useful
as it compliments the efforts/results obtained when performing an EPA
Region 2 environmental justice analysis using another Region 2 GIS
application titled, Environmental Justice Demographic Screening Tool.
Contact Roland Hemmett at faemmett.roland@,epa.gov.
Community Air
Screening How To
Manual
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics has developed a step-by-
step guide to help communities complete all of the tasks needed to understand
and improve local outdoor air quality. The Manual explains how to form a
partnership, clarify goals, develop a detailed local source inventory, use a
risk-based screening process to identify priorities, and develop options for
reducing risks from priority sources and concentrations. Communities using
the How To Manual will get the education and the consensus building
process they need to mobilize local resources for voluntary actions that can
be used to supplement statutory requirements to address community
concerns. The How To Manual is a tool designed to support the Agency's
new community-based initiatives to address toxics concerns at the local level.
The Manual can help communities address concerns about aggregate ambient
air concentrations resulting from multiple sources, both stationary and
mobile. Environmental justice communities with concerns about air quality
may find mis Manual especially helpful. The Community Air Screening
How To Manual has now completed both internal and external peer review
and will be published in the spring, 2004. Contact David Lynch at
Ivnch.davidf5),epa.gov.
F-2
-------
Risk Screening
Environmental
Indicators (RSEI)
RSEI is a screening tool mat compares toxic chemicals released to the
environment from industrial sources. RSEI allows communities to examine
rankings and trends, and set priorities for further action. Information can be
sorted in numerous ways such as by chemical, media, geographic areas, etc.
RSEI is a fast and effective tool that uses risk concepts to quickly and easily
screen large amounts of data, saving time and resources. RSEI users can
perform, in a matter of minutes or hours, a variety of screening-level
analyses. Previously, such activities would have taken days, weeks, or even
months to organize the relevant information, evaluate that information, and
perform the complex and sophisticated analyses that are necessary to provide
a risk-related perspective. RSEI is particularly useful for examining trends to
measure change, ranking and prioritizing chemicals and industry sectors for
strategic planning, conducting risk-related targeting, supporting community-
based projects, and investigating environmental justice issues. Considerable
resources can be saved by conducting preliminary analyses with the model to
identify risk-related situations of high potential concern, and which warrant
further evaluation. Contact Richard Engler at engler.richard@.eDa.gov.
Environmental
Justice Geographic
Assessment Tool
The Environmental Justice Geographic Assessment Tool is an innovative
access tool, which offers a new approach to assessing and addressing
potential allegations of environmental justice. Through an extensive
Geographic Information System (GIS) interface, this easy-to-use application
provides community-specific information that are available nationwide.
Developed jointly by the EPA Office of Environmental Information and
Office of Environmental Justice, the tool provides information relevant to any
area in the continental United States with potential or existing environmental
justice concerns. Once fully developed, the tool will provide information
necessary to conduct a robust preliminary analysis of EJ-related factors in
any area of concern, with the goal of taking action (whether programmatic or
regulatory in nature) to address any environmental justice concern that may
arise. This tool is meant to serve as a module to be incorporated at the front
end (e.g., screening) of all appropriate Agency assessments. The tools is an
online resource system that (1) allows for interactive mapping, zooming and
viewing locations of regulated facilities, environmental monitoring sites,
bodies of water, as well as land use, community demographics, streets,
schools, and hospitals; (2) obtains and catalogs information from several
sources such as EPA, USGS, U.S. Census, CDC, and NCHS; and (3)
combines environmental, social, economic, and health indicators in a profile
that provides a table of calculated statistics of the selected area of interest.
Contact Charles Lee at lee.charlesfateoa. gov.
F-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX G:
EXAMPLES OF AVAILABLE RISK AND POLLUTION REDUCTION
PROGRAMS AND APPROACHES
For Large
Community
Businesses and
Public Facilities
Identifying Pollution Prevention
Opportunities
Encourage large chemical, refining, and
manufacturing facilities to institute voluntary
pollution prevention programs. Encourage
companies to conduct audits to identify
pollution prevention opportunities. Identify
national industry sector leaders to use as
benchmarks for local companies. Organize a
community team with independent expertise to
help facilities identify pollution prevention
opportunities.
http://cfbub.epa.gov/clearinghouseA
ndex.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ass
istance/sectors/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2hom
e/resources/index.htm
For Small
Community
Businesses
Design for Environment Program
EPA partnership program working with
individual industry sectors to compare and
improve the performance and human health and
environmental risks and costs of existing and
alternative products, processes, and practices.
DfE partnership projects promote integrating
cleaner, cheaper, and smarter solutions into
everyday business practices. Partnership
programs include auto refinishing, printing and
publishing, and dry-cleaning businesses.
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/proi ects/aut
o/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/proiects/fle
xo/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/proiects/gra
vure/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/proiects/lit
ho/index.htm
http://www.epa. gov/dfe/proiects/scr
een/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/proiects/gar
ment/index.htm
Environmental Results Program
An innovative program designed to assist
businesses to improve their performance and
address environmental problems. In the
Environmental Results Program communities
and regulating agencies can combine resources
to educate businesses about their environmental
impacts and obligations, help them to certify
their compliance, and track them to evaluate
their environmental performance.
http://www.epa. gov/permits/masser
p.htm
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/inc
entives/mnovations/programresults.
html
G-l
-------
Greenbusiness Program
Organize a program like the Bay Area Green
Business Program, a partnership of community
organizations, environmental agencies,
professional associations, waste management
agencies, and utilities to work together to
recognize and assist businesses mat operate in
an environmentally friendly manner.
Businesses for the Bay
Create a voluntary organization of businesses,
like the Businesses for the Bay organization in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, committed to
helping each other implement pollution
prevention in daily operations and reduce
releases of chemical contaminants and other
wastes to your watershed.
Stationary Source Pollution Prevention Fact
sheets for Communities and Small Businesses
Multiple iact sheets on topics such as metal
operations, electroplating, autobody paint shops,
and printers, includes information designed to
help communities identify pollution prevention
and reduction opportunities for small businesses.
Designed to provide concrete assistance to help
small shops implement easy pollution
prevention measures and reduce releases of air
toxics. Fact sheets now in final production.
http://www.abag.ca. gov/bavarea/en
viro/gbus/gb.html
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/b4ba
Contact Amanda Aldridge at
AldridgeAmanda@epa.gov
For Schools
Tools for Schools
EPA voluntary, easy-to-use resource kit to help
schools identify, remedy, and prevent indoor air
quality problems in a cost effective manner.
Schools implement a range of specific
guidelines emphasizing reduced pesticide
exposure use, safe chemical storage, proper
ventilation, and more.
http://www.epa. gov/iaq/schools/
Clean School Bus USA
Brings together partners from business,
education, transportation, and public health
organizations to work to reduce pollution from
public school buses. Includes policies and
practices to eliminate unnecessary idling, retrofit
buses with newer control technologies, and
replace older buses.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/schoolbus/
For Mobile
Sources
Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program
Develop a program to retrofit older diesel
engines with modern emission control
technology. Enlist private and/or public fleets
for participation.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/
G-2
-------
Anti-Idling Campaigns
Develop education campaign and administrative
policies to discourage vehicle idling in areas
where people congregate.
Vehicle Engine and Maintenance Campaigns
Sponsor a campaign to encourage proper vehicle
and engine maintenance. Could involve a "tune
your car today: at a local garage; checklists and
parts giveaways for do-it-yourselfers, etc.
For
Community
Surface Waters
Fish Consumption Surveys and Advisories
Perform surveys to determine whether there
should be more fish/wildlife consumption
advisories. Make advisories widely available to
the public by print, radio, or television in
multiple languages with an emphasis on
subpopulations with high expected
consumption.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ri
Watershed Protection
A Watershed Protection Approach is a strategy
for effectively protecting and restoring aquatic
ecosystems and protecting human health. This
strategy has as its premise that many water
quality and ecosystem problems are best solved
at the watershed level rather than at the
individual waterbody or discharger level. Major
features of a Watershed Protection Approach
are: targeting priority problems, promoting a
high level of stakeholder involvement,
integrated solutions that make use of the
expertise and authority of multiple agencies, and
measuring success through monitoring and other
data gathering.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershe
d/index2.html
Mercury Reduction in Hospitals
Help hospitals comply with new requirements
by providing information and assistance.
Encourage hospitals to eliminate mercury
sources such as thermometers. Conduct
education programs for citizens and hospital
staff about mercury reduction.
http ://www.noharm.org/mercurv/iss
ue
Household Mercary Thermometer Exchanges
Sponsor a trade-in program that provides
citizens with new, non-toxic thermometers in
exchange for mercury thermometers to reduce
risk of mercury contamination hi homes and to
reduce the risk of water contamination and
outdoor air pollution due to improper disposal.
httn://www.noharm.org/mercurv/iss
ue
G-3
-------
National Estuary Program
The National Estuary Program is designed to
encourage local communities to take
responsibility for managing their own estuaries.
Each NEP is made up of representatives from
federal, state and local government agencies
responsible for managing the estuary's resources,
as well as members of the community — citizens,
business leaders, educators, and researchers.
These stakeholders work together to identify
problems in the estuary, develop specific actions
to address those problems, and create and
implement a formal management plan to restore
and protect the estuary.
Coastal America
Coastal America is a unique partnership of
federal agencies, state and local governments,
and private organizations. The partners work
together to protect, preserve, and restore our
nation's coasts.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries
/about2.htm
http://www.coastalamerica.gov/
For
Community
Homes
Develop a Community Campaign using
Home*A*Syst
Home*A*Syst is an environmental risk
assessment guide for the home that helps
homeowners identify risks and take actions to
protect health and the environment Organize a
community education campaign using the
Home*A*Syst program and materials.
http://www.hud.gov/ofGces/Iead/hel
pvourseHTuidex-cfm
Radon "Test and Repair" Campaigns
Enlist citizens to test their home for radon and
provide information and assistance to correct the
problem if radon levels are unacceptably high.
http://www.eDa.gov/iaQ/radon/
Home Consumer Products Education
Campaigns
Educate citizens in practices they can adopt such
as proper solvent storage, vehicle operation tips,
landscaping and yardcare options to minimize
use of pesticides and polluting equipment, use of
lower toxicity home products, etc.
G-4
-------
Low Emission Gas Can Exchanges
Emissions from portable fuel cans present a
significant source of exposure to gaseous toxics
such as benzene, especially if the can is stored
inside a dwelling or attached garage. Encourage
citizens to exchange their old-style containers
for new ones meeting higher standards.
htto ://www.arb.ca. gov/msprog/spill
con/gascanfs/gascanfs.htm
Campaign for a Lead Safe America
Protect community children with an education
and testing program to reduce exposure to lead
in homes and soil.
httD://www.hud.gov/ofrices/lead/ou
treach/communitvoutreach.cfjn#lea
dsafehome
Lead in Drinking Water Campaigns
Approximately 20% of human exposure to lead
is attributable to lead in drinking water. Provide
education about ways to reduce exposure to lead
in drinking water.
http^/www.epagov/OGWDW/Pubs
/lead! .html
National Asthma Public Education and
Prevention Campaigns
Conduct an education campaign in schools and
homes to reduce asthma and to increase the
asthma awareness and asthma triggers.
http://www.epa. gov/asthma/
Integrated Pest Management Programs
Integrated pest management (IPM) uses habitat
modification, biological controls, and chemical
controls. IPM protects people from noxious
pests and toxic pesticides. Conduct a
community Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Education Campaign.
http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/
http://www.epa. gov/pesticides/
Household Hazardous Waste Collections
Exposure to hazardous household materials can
be significantly reduced by collecting old and
unused products and disposing of them properly.
Conduct a neighborhood drive to collect
pesticides, coolants, lubricants, solvents, and
other hazardous products, some of which are
now banned due to their toxicity.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/hhw.htm
Smoke Free Homes and Cars Campaigns
Making homes and cars smoke-free are an easy
and proven ways to protect nonsmokers from
secondhand smoke exposure. Conduct a smoke-
free campaign using existing materials,
including television, radio, and print PSAs,
smoke-free home brochures, and the toll-free
pledge number, and other materials.
http://www.epa. gov/smokefree/inde
x.html
G-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX H:
IMPACTS OF ECONOMIC, RACIAL, AND
SOCIAL INEQUALITY ON HEALTH
The following was prepared by H. Patricia Hynes and Russ Lopez (Boston University School of Public
Health) in December 2003.
ECONOMIC
Poverty results in greater illness, injury and mortality. The stresses and health impacts of being poor,
which are particularly suffered by pregnant women, infants, children and the elderly, are well documented
in public health literature.
Economic disparities or the degree of economic inequality has significant impact on health, and may be
more significant that absolute poverty, according to the studies assembled by Richard Wilkinson in
Unhealthy Societies. The reasons given for why increases in income inequality result in increased health
disparities are three-fold:
1. Growing inequality results in increased poverty. A major study of industrialized
countries found strong correlation between income inequality and rates of child poverty,
with the United States being highest in both.
2. Greater inequality is associated with a shift of resources (through tax rates and tax
breaks) from the poor to the better off, resulting in fewer social services and benefits for
the poor. The consequence is that the poor get poorer and sicker.
3. A seeming counterintuitive finding in a number of studies is that societies that have higher
economic inequality also have higher mortality rates among the wealthy classes as well as
among the poor. For example, the degree of income inequality among U.S. states is the
best predictor of mortality rate, a better predictor than absolute poverty. Homicide rates
correlate with economic inequality in U.S. states.
4. Economically unequal societies and communities have weaker social cohesion, a
precursor to increased illness and death. They are more vulnerable by way of being
less prepared and less able to recover from crises.
If we don't understand this, we concentrate on poverty and don't look at the power structure. The
economist and Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen argues that, historically, growth has not resulted in better
health for the poor. Reducing disparities has.
Economic Isolation: Associated with growing inequality is an increasing isolation of the poor. The
phenomenon of communities opposing multi-family housing and affordable housing joined with
suburbanization and the growth of gated communities have combined to place poorer people further away
from the non-poor. This allows a concentration of risk and reinforces the consequences of poverty
outlined above. Furthermore, some sociologists such as Douglas Massey theorize that the isolation of the
poor allows the non-poor to ignore the problems of poverty or even to deny the existence of the poor.
Neighborhoods with high percentages of poor people have higher levels of Infant mortality, increased risk
of avoidable deaths associated with crime and violence, and a greater chance that they will bear a
disproportionate burden of the environmental costs of contemporary society. (See also Diez-Roux)
H-l
-------
RACE
Race, independent of poverty, is also a determinant in health. Racial disparities in health exist throughout
the United States and have been measured (or can be) for the following illnesses and health indicators:
lead poisoning, asthma prevalence and emergency room visits, life expectancy, and specific diseases.
Racial segregation is also implicated hi higher rates of illness, greater exposure to toxic substances,
poorer services and fewer resources. More highly segregated African Americans tend to live in higher
poverty census tracts with lower quality of medical care, more discriminatory care, and greater social
inequality all of which are associated with higher stress and higher blood pressure (Polednak). A study of
1990 exposures found that Afiican Americans were breaming air with higher total modeled ah- toxics
concentrations than Whites in every large metropolitan area in the United States; moreover, the more
highly segregated the area, the higher the air toxics levels (Lopez). In an update using 2000 data, this
relationship between segregation and air toxics exposure was found to extend to Hispanics and Asians as
well as Blacks, and to describe a pattern of disproportionate exposure by race and ethnicity hi
metropolitan areas regardless of size.
Some public health studies on the health status of minority groups, such as Multicultural Health: The
Health Status of Minority Groups hi Connecticut have been conducted and others are in progress. They
are important for revealing health disparities within local populations and can be combined with census
data and measures of vulnerability such as income inequality and racial segregation to reveal those
communities most vulnerable by factors of injury, illness and death; poverty; minority status; segregation
and isolation.
SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND HEALTH DISPARITIES
There is a rich literature on the social determinants of health that makes a compelling case for me role of
social factors in significantly affecting the health of a community. These social factors include poverty,
unemployment, poor nutrition, housing and transportation, deprivation in early childhood, lack of control
over one's life, and poor social relations. Researchers in the field have concluded that health disparities
within populations are most commonly caused by environmental factors, where environment includes the
social (e.g., gender, income, race, status in work/unemployment and status in society, etc.); built (e.g.,
housing, proximity to locally undesirable land uses) and physical (e.g., proximity to pollution).
Examples of findings from studies collected and undertaken, in some cases, by Marmot and Wilkinson
include the following. The longer the time that people live in poverty and in isolated, disadvantaged
circumstances (such as highly segregated and marginalized communities), the more likely they are to have
a range of health problems, particularly heart disease. Life expectancy is lower for people who are
poorer, lower in the workplace hierarchy, less educated, suffer more stress, have less control over then-
lives, and experience discrimination such as racism. Health, they conclude, follows a social gradient; and
policy initiatives to improve health and healthful living conditions must strive to reduce the burden of
inequality.
CONCLUSION
Linking these public health and social science findings to the science of vulnerability, we conclude that
people and communities which are disproportionately exposed to and burdened with a host of social,
environmental, and health inequalities, including poverty, discrimination by race and ethnicity,
unemployment, toxic exposures, and health disparities are excessively exposed (in the present and past),
more susceptible to future exposures, less prepared to ward off the health consequences, and less able to
recover from the debilitating effects. The greater and longer duration of the burdens, the more
H-2
-------
vulnerable—by every aspect of vulnerability—are individuals and communities to a host of diseases and
lower life expectancy.
DATA SOURCES
The census provides data on income levels, race, gender and ethnicity, housing, and food security at all
geographic areas of interest (very local to regional and national levels). Federal, state and local public
health agencies collect health data on a regular basis through numerous surveys, registries, such as the
cancer registry, through birth and death certificates, and through surveillance programs, such as state lead
programs and emerging asthma programs. We acknowledge the shortcomings of the census and public
health data, particularly for Native Americans, immigrant, homeless and very poor people. Local pilot
projects and studies, undertaken by trusted community organizations in partnership with the EPA and
public health regional offices, may be a better source of this information.
Indices
Income inequality is measured by the GINI Index on a scale of 0 to 100. This measure of economic
inequality is available at different geographic levels from country to state and metropolitan areas, using
standard databases such as the census and UN economic data. It is possible to incorporate the GINI Index
into a screening tool at the national level to identify states and metropolitan areas most unequal by income
and to join this score with others such as racial dissimilarity (discussed in next section) in order to
identify vulnerable metropolitan areas (that is, vulnerable by weakened ability to cope with and recover
from crises, such as pollution, natural disasters, loss of services, etc.)
Racial segregation is measured by the Dissimilarity Index on a scale of 0 to 100. The DI can be
described as the proportion of a group that would have to move in order to achieve complete integration.
There is an extensive literature on the Dissimilarity Index and it has been calculated, at least for African
Americans, since the 19th Century hi some large metropolitan areas. Used usually to characterize
residential segregation, it is also used to describe school segregation. (See Massey and Denton)
Application for a Screening Tool for Cumulative Risk
Methods involving color coding or qualitative ranking (high, medium, low) from scores could be used in
a screening process to identify the communities within EPA regions most burdened by low income and
extreme income inequality, racism, racial segregation. The EPA databases on ah- pollution and hazardous
waste and national and regional public health data would be combined with the social indicators of
inequality to capture the communities within regions with the highest cumulative risk.
Alternatively, these indices could be combined into an overall measure of disparity in a methodology that
uses mean values and standard deviations from the mean and that allows differences in scale to be
accommodated. The scores would be joined with EPA data and public health data to identify areas of
highest overall risk.
SOURCES
Ana Diez-Roux. Invited Commentary: Places, People, and Health. American Journal of
Epidemiology. March 15,2002 . Volume 155, Number 6, Pages 516-9.
Russell Lopez. Segregation and Black/White Differences to Air Toxics in 1990. Environmental Health
Perspectives. April 2002.VoIume 110 Supplement 2, Pages 289-295.
H-3
-------
Douglas Massey. The Age of Extremes: Concentrated Affluence and Poverty in the Twenty-First
Century. Demography. Population Association of America, November 1996. Volume 33, Number 4,
Pages 395-412
Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the
Underclass. 1993. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.
Multicultural Health: The Health Status of Minority Groups in Connecticut 1999. Connecticut
Department of Public Health. Prepared by Margaret Hynes et al.
Anthony Polednak. Segregation, Discrimination and Mortality in U.S. Blacks. Ethnicity and Disease.
Winter/Spring 1996. Volume 6, Pages 99-105.
Richard Wilkinson. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. 1996. Routledge. London.
Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot, Eds.. Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts. 2003.
World Health Organization.
H-4
-------
APPENDIX I:
CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY-BASED STUDY OF VUUMERABIIJTY
(WEACT-COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP)
The following discussion was prepared by Darryl Hood (Meharry Medical College) and extracted, in
part, from an article entitled, "The Challenge of Preventing Environmentally Related Disease in Young
Children: Community-Based Research in New York City" The authors are Frederica P. Perera, Susan
M. niman, Patrick L. Kinney, Robin M Whyatt, Elizabeth A. Kelvin, David Evans, Afindy Fultilove, Jean
Ford, Rachel L. Mtter, Han H. Meyer, and Virginia A. Rauh of Columbia Center for Children's
Environmental Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; and Peggy Shepard,
West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.
The Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) studied the health effects of
exposure to several common urban air pollutants in a cohort of over 500 African-American and
Dominican (originally from the Dominican Republic) mothers and children residing in three low-income
neighborhoods in New York City: Washington Heights, Harlem, and the South Bronx. The center's
mission is to identify prenatal and postnatal exposures that increase children's risk for asthma and other
respiratory disorders, neurocognitive and behavioral disorders, and cancer risk, so that the most harmful
exposures can be reduced or eliminated.
Molecular epidemic logic methods were used to study the correlation between levels of exposure effects
found in personal and indoor/outdoor air monitoring samples, biologic samples (i.e., maternal blood and
urine, umbilical cord blood, meconium, and children's blood at 2 years of age), neurodevelopmental
assessment results, and questionnaire responses. Psychosocial stressors and nutritional deficits were
measured as potential effect modifiers. This comprehensive data collection, repeated at regular time
intervals from in utero through 3 years of age, afforded CCCEH researchers the ability to determine
prenatal and postnatal levels of exposure that may increase children's risk of the outcomes under study.
The center measured exposure to a range of air contaminants that are common in Washington Heights,
Harlem, and the South Bronx: particulate matter < 2.5 um in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), diesel exhaust particulate (DEP), nitrogen oxide, nonpersistent pesticides
(NPPs), home allergens (dust mite, mouse, cockroach), environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and lead and
other metals such as mercury. These two Northern Manhattan neighborhoods and the South Bronx are
located in a densely populated metropolitan region that has in recent years exceeded the annual PM10
(particulate matter < 10 vim in aerodynamic diameter) standard of 50 iig/m3. In addition, these lower-
income neighborhoods contain substantial local sources of combustion-generated pollution. Infants and
young children in urban areas also spend a large part of time indoors where irritating and allergenic
substances (i.e., gaseous and particulate emissions from gas stoves, space heaters, cigarettes, pest
populations, and NPPs) may increase susceptibility to allergic sensitization, respiratory symptoms, and
eventually, the development of asthma.
Their study described the unique susceptibility of the fetus and infant as well as additional contributing
risk factors, including environmental exposures and disease rates in the three neighborhoods from which
the study cohort was derived and the CCCEETs innovative research methods and preliminary results. They
also described a community education campaign called "Healthy Home Healthy Child," which involved a
partnership of 10 community-based direct service health and environmental advocacy organizations
whose health educators informed neighborhood residents about how to protect themselves from
unnecessary risk.
1-1
-------
Special Vulnerability of the Fetus and Infant
There is mounting evidence that the fetus and infant are significantly more sensitive to a variety of
environmental toxicants than adults because of differential exposure, (See Figure 1) physiologic
immaturity, and a longer lifetime over which disease initiated in early life can develop. For example,
experimental and human data indicate that the fetus and young child are especially vulnerable to the toxic
effects of ETS, PAHs, particulate matter, nitrosamines, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
metals, and radiation (1-5)
Genetic damage/potential cancer risk.
Several studies suggest mat the fetus clears toxicants less efficiently than the adult and may be more
vulnerable to genetic damage and the resultant risk of cancer. For example, given experimental evidence
that the amount of PAH crossing the placenta and reaching the fetus is less than one-tenth of the dose to
the mother (10,11), the levels of PAH-DNA adducts measured in rodent fetal tissue are higher than
expected (12,13). Similarly, their research in Poland has shown mat PAH-DNA adduct levels in the
white blood cells of newborns actually exceeded those in paired maternal samples, despite the estimated
10-fold lower dose of the parent compound to the fetus (13,14). In addition, plasma cotinine and
aromatic DNA adduct levels in the Polish newborns were higher than in paired maternal samples,
suggesting reduced ability of the fetus to clear cigarette smoke constituents (13,14). Increased adducts in
the fetus relative to the adult could result from lower levels of phase n (detoxification) enzymes and
decreased DNA repair efficiency in the fetus (3,14-16).
Respiratory disease
With respect to respiratory disease, there are critical windows in both prenatal and postnatal development
during which exposure to irritants and other toxicants can modify the formation and maturation of the
lung. The complete development of the human lung occurs through the sixth to eighth years of life (17).
There is recent evidence from the CCCEH study of pregnant women and children that in utero
sensitization to specific allergens can occur independent of maternal sensitization, possibly putting the
child at higher risk of asthma (18). Children have been identified as a sensitive population to particulate
matter, especially in those with respiratory symptoms (19).
Neurologic development
The exquisitely sensitive process of development of the human central nervous system has been reviewed
by Faustman (20). This process involves the production of 100 billion nerve cells and 1 trillion glial
cells, which then must follow a precise stepwise choreography involving migration, synaptogenesis,
selective cell loss, and myelination (20). A mistake at any one step can have permanent consequences.
Experimental studies of prenatal and neonatal exposure to chlorpyrifos have reported neurochemical and
behavioral effects as well as selected brain cell loss (21,22). The behavioral and morphologic effects of
developmental toxicants are highly dependent on the timing as well as on the dose and duration of
exposure. This is illustrated by both rodent and human studies showing that the effect of irradiation on
brain malformation is heightened during a window of susceptibility of fetal development (20).
Susceptibility Factors in Addition to Young Age
The enhanced susceptibility of the fetus and newborn is likely to be compounded by cofactors including
nutritional deficits, genes, and social stressors.
1-2
-------
Nutrition. Deficits in antioxidants have been strongly implicated in asthma. These micronutrients can
moderate the effect of oxidants on lung function, reducing oxidative stress and resultant tissue damage
and airway inflammation (23-25). With respect to growth and development and cancer, antioxidants
remove free radicals and oxidant intermediates, thereby inhibiting chemical-DNA binding that has been
associated with decreased weight, length, and head circumference at birth (9) and also with cancer (26).
In addition, essential fatty acid status contributes to observed variations in cognitive and motor function
and to low birth weight and reduced head circumference (27-29). Nutritional deficits are associated with
poverty, although there is interindividual variation in nutritional status within socioeconomically
disadvantaged populations.
Genetics. Genetic susceptibility can take the form of common polymorphisms that affect the toxicity to
the individual. For example, there are two genes that can increase an individual's vulnerability to
organophosphates (OPs) such as chlorpyrifos by reducing the reservoir of functioning protective enzymes
(30). The first gene has a prevalence of 4% and results in a poorly functioning form of the enzyme
acetycholinesterase; the second gene results in a relatively inactive form of the enzyme, paraoxonase
(prevalence of 30-38%) (20,30). Other examples of gene-environment interactions involve the gene
coding for the -ALA enzyme that affects lead metabolism and storage (30), and the P450 and glutathione-
S-transferase genes that play a role in activation and detoxification of PAH and influence PAH-DNA
damage (30). Genetic susceptibility may vary by race and ethnicity.
Individual- and community-level psychosocial stressors
The notion that community-level conditions can produce profound effects on host susceptibility to disease
is derived from the long-standing existence of strong social class gradients in health (31). Recent studies
have shown that women who live in violent, crime-ridden, physically decayed neighborhoods are more
likely to experience pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes, after adjusting for a range of
individual level sociodemographic attributes and health behaviors (32,33). Other studies have suggested
that the stresses of racism and community segregation are associated with lower birth weight (34,35).
Several studies have shown that the effects of individual poverty on birth outcomes are exacerbated by
residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood (36).
Disproportionate Exposure in Minority Populations
Children in the United States suffer from unacceptably high rates of developmental disorders, asthma, and
cancer (30,37-42). Rates of asthma and behavioral disorders have increased in the past decades (30).
Although improved detection and reporting have contributed, environmental factors are known or
suspected to play a role. The rates of these diseases are disproportionately high in underserved, minority
populations such as those in New York City where CCCEH is located. African Americans and Latinos in
Northern Manhattan and the South Bronx represent high risk groups for asthma, adverse birth outcomes,
impaired development, and some types of cancer (43,44)
Washington Heights, a low-income community in northern Manhattan, has a large Latino population.
According to 1990 census data (45), the median household income hi 1989 was $22,175, with 29.4% of
the population living below the poverty level (46). Two-thirds (66.9%) of residents were Latino, with
65.2% being Dominican. Central Harlem is also a low-income minority community that was 91.9%
African American in 1990 (45). The median household income in 1989 was $13,861, and 38.9% of the
population lived below the poverty level. The South Bronx is another low-income minority community
made up largely of Latinos (57.2%) and African Americans (31.4%). The median household income in
1989 was $12,088, and 45.8% of the population lived below the poverty level.
1-3
-------
PM2.5, diesel exhaust particulate, and PAHs.
Harlem, Washington Heights, and the South Bronx are at the center of a large sprawling metropolitan
region that in recent years has been out of compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for particulate matter, exceeding the annual PM10 standard of 50 g./m3 (47). The regional influx of
polluted air is augmented by substantial local sources of combustion-generated pollution. Ambient
PM2.5, DEEP, and PAH levels result from region-wide pollution emissions upwind of New York City, as
well as from local sources such as diesel bus depots, waste incinerators, industrial operations, and a
network of commuter highways.
Foremost among the local combustion sources are the cars, trucks, and buses using the highways and the
commercial truck and bus routes that surround and interlace Harlem and Washington Heights. Two of the
major north/south avenues passing through the center of these communities—Broadway and Amsterdam
Avenues—are the principal truck routes for moving goods in and out of Manhattan. In addition, diesel bus
depots, waste incinerators, and a multitude of small industrial operations release substantial amounts of
airborne particulate and gaseous pollutants in these areas. Diesel engines emit 30-100 times more
particles than are emitted by gasoline engines that have contemporary emission-control devices (48).
Sources of diesel particulate located in northern Manhattan include six Metropolitan Transit Authority
bus garages, each one housing from 200 to 400 diesel buses, a large marine transfer station, and a
commercial bus terminal.
The South Bronx is similarly congested, with local pollution point sources such as a sewage waste
treatment plant, traffic from seven bridges feeding into the area, as well as excess trucks and buses
passing through regularly en route to the Harlem River Yards, bus depots, Hunts Point Terminal Food
Distribution Center, and the New York Post printing plant Commerce from the Hunts Point Market alone
brings roughly 7,000 diesel trucks and tractor-trailer trucks into the neighborhood daily (49). The
majority of the borough's waste facilities and transfer stations located in the South Bronx process 21% of
the city's commercial waste and pelletize 70% of the city's sewage sludge (49). The South Bronx is
located beneath the takeoff and landing corridors of LaGuardia Airport and a mile from two power plants,
which are the second and fourth dirtiest hi New York State (50). Residents are justifiably concerned about
the potential health impacts of the many ambient pollution sources on children growing up in these
communities.
The impact of diesel bus and truck traffic (DEEP) on the spatial variability of fine elemental carbon
particle concentrations in Harlem was demonstrated in a community-based pilot study conducted by
CCCEH scientists along with high school interns from West Harlem Environmental Action (WE ACT),
the center's lead community partner (51). Over a 5-day period, researchers wearing backpacks containing
personal ambient air monitors that collected information on fine particle (PM2.5) and elemental carbon
concentrations in the air they breathed counted trucks, buses, cars, and pedestrians at four intersections in
Harlem between 1000 and 1800 hr. This study showed that reflectance measurement of the "blackness" of
the particulate sample on the filter is highly correlated with elemental carbon concentration ® = 0.95) and
may be used as a surrogate for diesel exposure (51). Results also showed that diesel traffic density varied
widely at the four locations, with 8-hr PM2.5 concentrations ranging from 22 to 69 ug/m3. For
comparison, the annual fine particle standard proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in 1998 is 15 ug/m3 (52).
Environmental tobacco smoke. Recent research indicates that ETS exposure is more prevalent among
African Americans and Hispanics than whites (53-55). In addition, mere is evidence that minorities are
more susceptible to the chemicals in tobacco smoke. Higher levels of cotinine and a tobacco-specific
carcinogenic nitrosamine have been reported in black smokers than in white smokers, after controlling for
self-reported amount of smoking (55-57). In a recent study, African-American children had 2-fold higher
1-4
-------
cotinine levels than white children as a result of exposure to 1 cigarette/day (58). Similarly, after
adjusting for cigarette dose, cotinine levels in pregnant women were higher in African Americans than in
whites, while the rate of decrease in infant birth weight per nanogram of maternal cotinine was similar in
the two groups (59). These findings point to the possibility mat cigarette smoking may have a more
deleterious effect on fetal development among African Americans than among whites (59).
Pest allergens. Goldstein et al. (60) reported levels of airborne cockroach allergen in Harlem apartments
that were orders of magnitude higher than those seen in previous studies in New Orleans, Louisiana, and
Rochester, Minnesota. Sarpong et al. (61) found that African-American race was a predictor of higher
allergen exposures. As will be discussed below, 85% of the homes of pregnant women studied by the
CCCEH had detectable cockroach allergen levels.
Poorer Health Outcomes in Northern Manhattan and the South Bronx
The context for our research is the high rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, asthma, and cancer in
children in the United States (30). Although improved detection and reporting have contributed to marked
increases in some of these disorders over the past decade, environmental factors are known or suspected
to affect these increases. The rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, asthma, and cancer in children are
disproportionately high in the underserved, minority populations of Washington Heights, Harlem, and the
South Bronx (43,44,48).
Asthma. Pediatric asthma is a serious and growing public health problem in the United States (62). New
York City is one of four metropolitan areas in the country with the highest annual increase in asthma
mortality (34). Asthma rates vary markedly within New York City. Five of the seven New York City zip
code areas with the highest asthma hospitalization rates are located in Harlem (42). In the South Bronx in
1994, prevalence of asthma among children < 17 years of age was 17.9% in Hispanics, 11.6% among
non-Hispanic blacks, and 8.2% among whites (41). A recent study of pediatric asthma rates suggested that
material and behavioral characteristics associated with poverty, such as parental smoking, air pollution,
housing conditions, and allergens, may contribute to the disparities (63). Early life wheezing, especially
in the presence of atopy and sensitization to environmental allergens, appears to be a good predictor of
persistent wheezing and asthma (64-66).
Impairment of fetal growth and child development. Low birth weight is the second leading predictor
of infant mortality in the United States as well as a major cause of delayed development (67,68) and a risk
factor for childhood asthma (26). As a whole, the largely minority population in our three target
communities is at elevated risk for low birth weight and subsequent cognitive delay compared to other
U.S. populations, but here, too, rates vary. In 1997, the incidence of low birth weight was 13.5% in
central Harlem, 10.5% in the South Bronx, and 7.7% in Washington Heights, compared to 7.1% in whites
in New York City (69). Children are also at elevated risk of subsequent cognitive delay compared to other
populations: 68% of elementary school children in Washington Heights and 74% in central Harlem are
reading below grade level, compared with 46% city-wide (38).
Cancer and other outcomes. Nationally, African Americans continue to exceed white Americans in
deaths from diseases with known or suspected environmental components, including cancer (70,71).
Early life exposures may be important determinants of risk. It has been estimated that for genotoxic
carcinogens, as much as one-half of total lifetime cancer risk may be accrued before the age of 6 years
(72).
1-5
-------
Community Outreach
The CCCEH was modeled on the premise that the challenge of prevention requires an interdisciplinary,
community-based research strategy to identify preventable risk factors and act upon mat information. It
incorporates bom molecular epidemiology and multilevel analyses (84,85). Molecular epidemiology
using biomarkers is a relatively new and useful tool in defining environment-susceptibility relationships,
when used in conjunction with reliable monitoring and epidemiologic methodologies to provide
individual estimates of exposure, dose, biologic response and susceptibility to pollutants (86-93). The
center's research also follows the paradigm of the Chinese box described by Susser and Susser (85) in that
it aims to integrate multiple levels of organization (individual/molecular and community/ecoiogic) in
design, analysis, and interpretation, nesting the individual level analysis within the overarching
environment of the community.
Within the center's study area of northern Manhattan and the South Bronx, there is considerable variation
in exposure, susceptibility factors, and risk belying the stereotype of a uniformly disadvantage^
population. This allows the Center to study dose-response relationships as well as community impacts on
individual outcomes. They anticipated that this multilevel approach would provide a more complete
understanding of the complexity of the disease process, permitting the development of a variety of
independent and complementary approaches to intervention at the individual and macro levels. These
interventions might include education regarding lifestyle changes, regulations to control involuntary
exposure to toxic pollutants, and even broader social policy changes.
The center has an active group of advisors on its Community Advisory Board (CAB). WE ACT is the
center's lead community partner and has advocated for improved environmental conditions in Harlem for
over a decade. Directors of nine additional health service and environmental advocacy organizations that
are well-established in Washington Heights, Harlem, and the South Bronx also serve on the CAB:
Alianza Dominicana, Best Beginnings, Community Association of Progressive Dominicans, E.C JLO. for
Sustainable Development, Harlem Dowling West Side, Heart of Harlem, Northern Manhattan Perinatal
Partnership, St. Mary's Episcopal Church, and The South Bronx Clean Air Coalition. For several years,
these organizations have provided direct health services to community residents, advocated for improved
care as well as better access to care, and worked steadily toward improving environmental conditions in
these communities.
In collaboration with its CAB, the center developed a community education campaign called "Healthy
Home Healthy Child." The campaign worked to increase local residents' awareness of environmental
health threats and preventive techniques to reduce pollution exposure to themselves, their families, and, in
particular, their children. Focus groups were established with residents of Washington Heights, Harlem,
and the South Bronx to help identify environmental issues that were of special concern to these
communities. Additionally, 555 young mothers were surveyed in public places to gauge awareness of
environmental hazards. The center's scientists combined their knowledge of current research findings with
community concerns to target seven environmental hazards—air pollution, cigarette smoke, nutrition,
pesticides, lead poisoning, drugs and alcohol, and garbage management—in the "Healthy Home Healthy
Child" campaign.
Written materials on each topic were developed in collaboration with WE ACT to ensure that the
literature incorporated local cultural values and were at an appropriate reading level for the community.
The materials aim to educate community parents about sources of environmental hazards, their health
consequences, and how to take steps to prevent or at least diminish everyone's exposure to toxic
pollutants. The literature is distributed at health fairs, various community events, and through the 10
CAB organizations' regular activities. A WE ACT health educator delivers presentations to parents at day
care centers, distributing campaign materials throughout Washington Heights and West Harlem. The
1-6
-------
CCCEH is currently collaborating with the full CAB to train health educators on staff at each
organization to deliver presentations on the seven environmental health topics. The effort will expand the
reach of the campaign into more neighborhoods, including those in the South Bronx, and improve its
sustainability.
The center and CAB have also hosted community events including an environmental health feu- attended
by over 300 study cohort mothers and children as well as local residents, and a large national conference
called "The Health of Our Children in the Urban Environment: A Dialogue among Scientists, Community
Leaders and Policymakers" held 27 March 2000. At this conference, David Satcher, U.S. Surgeon
General, and Kenneth Olden (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle
Park, NC) addressed an audience of 500 local residents and professionals in environmental health-related
fields about the need for exactly the kind of research combined with community outreach that the center
is conducting. CAB members participated in the panel discussions addressing the intersection of scientific
research with community health and public policy.
The CAB is invaluable for its counsel and is a necessary stepping stone toward building a larger
communication network within local neighborhoods and changing perceptions that have previously
inhibited a better and more substantial working relationship between community members and scientific
researchers. The center's partnership with its CAB helps to dissolve some of the barriers to better health
care and at-home prevention practices by opening lines of communication with community leaders who
may have had no former relationship with the university. With that contact, multiple opportunities arise
for education of local residents who have established relationships with these community-based
organizations on which they depend for health services and advocacy. Ultimately, a larger segment of the
community is reached in the dissemination of important health findings and preventive methods for
reducing risk.
Conclusion
The health of a society can be judged by the health of its children. As a society we can and must do better
in preventing harm to this vulnerable group. This will entail the early identification of preventable risks
and the prompt translation of this knowledge into protective policies and interventions. There is a need to
better understand the interactions between multiple exposures and susceptibility factors that may
disproportionately affect children, particularly those in certain social and ethnic groups, putting them at
greater risk from toxic pollutants.
Clearly, the CCCEH has been working to understand the health risks from early life exposures to
environmental contaminants in combination with susceptibility factors and is attempting to address these
threats through education, policy-relevant research, and the timely dissemination of research results.
1-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX J:
EPA HUMAN HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY
For Immediate Release
November 3,2003
EPA Announces Human Health Research Strategy to Address Needs for Science
Contact: Suzanne Ackerman, 202-564-7819
Dr. Paul Oilman, EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development and EPA Science
Advisor, announced today me release of a long-term plan for research to further the Agency's mission to
protect public health. The Human Health Research Strategy identifies and prioritizes the research that
will be conducted over the next five to 10 years to improve the scientific foundation for EPA's human
health risk assessments and to evaluate risk management decisions.
The plan provides a strategic approach to address research needs in several recent initiatives by
the EPA's Office of Research and Development: computational toxicology, children's health, aging,
asthma and the cumulative risk of exposure to multiple environmental contaminants.
"This plan provides a roadmap for EPA scientists to follow over the next decade to improve the
science needed by decision makers to protect the public health and environment," said Oilman.
"Explorers into unknown territory use global positioning systems or GPS to keep them on course. This
strategy will be our guide to exploring the unknowns in environmental science," he said.
The plan focuses on improving the integration of environmental science disciplines at EPA and
improving the links in the various fields of science to understand how we are exposed to environmental
contaminants, what dose is needed to obtain an adverse health effect and what health effects occur from
exposure.
"Building stronger connections between, exposure, dose, and effect research, will improve our
ability to make sound human health risk assessments," Oilman said.
The Human Health Research Strategy emphasizes the need for EPA to partner with other local,
state, Tribal and federal organizations, public health organizations, and industry to conduct human health
research.
The Human Health Research Strategy is posted on EPA's Web page at
http://www.epa.gov/ord/htin/researchstrategies.htm. A limited number of print copies are available from
EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). To obtain copies, please
contact NSCEP at 1-800-490-9198 and reference EPA document number 600/R-02/050.
J-l
-------
&EPA
FACT SHEET: Human Health
Research Strategy
A Focus on EPA's Research
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect public health and safeguard the
environment. Risk assessment is an integral part of this mission in that it identifies and characterizes
environmentally related human health problems. The Human Health Research Strategy presents a conceptual
framework for future human health research by EPA's Office of Research Development (ORD) over the next
5-10 years. This research strategy outlines ORD's core research effort to provide broader, more fundamental
information that will improve understanding or problem-driven human health risk issues encountered by
EPA's Program and Regional Offices. ORD's human health program will address two strategic directions,
including research to improve the scientific foundation of human health risk assessment and research to
enable evaluation of public health, outcomes from risk management decisions. An important consideration in
the development of this strategy was to ensure that EPA human health research supplements and expands on
other federal agency efforts.
BACKGROUND: Human health risk assessment provides a qualitative and quantitative characterization of
the relationship between environmental exposures and effects observed in exposed individuals.
1,
2.
3,
4.
Four-Step Process for Risk Assessment
Hazard identification,
Dose-response assessment,
Exposure assessment, and
Risk characterization.
Risk assessment is also the primary scientific input to
the risk management process, which involves the
recognition of a potential new risk and development,
selection, and implementation of EPA actions to
address the risk. Based on input from Regional and
Program Office risk assessors and ORD scientists,
future human health research in ORD will focus on
ways to improve the scientific foundation of human
health risk assessment, including approaches to
harmonizing the use of mechanistic data in human health risk assessments, predicting the effects of aggregate
and cumulative exposure, and protecting susceptible subpopulations such as children, older adults, and those
with preexisting disease or genetic predispositions for different responsiveness to environmental pollutants.
Future ORD research on human health will also address the increasing need to estimate public health benefits
of EPA regulatory decisions and rule making.
SUMMARY: Research to improve human health risk assessment is based on the assumption that major
uncertainties in risk assessment can be reduced by understanding and elucidating the fundamental
determinants of exposure and dose and the basic biological changes that follow exposure to pollutants leading
to a toxic response.
ORD's human health research program, as detailed in the
Strategy, will address disparate approaches for the risk
assessment of cancer and noncancer health effects. This
research will lead to a common set of principles and
guidelines for drawing inferences about risk based on
mechanistic information. ORD's research on
aggregate/cumulative risk will address me fact that human
are exposed to mixtures of pollutants from multiple
J-2
Objectives of Human Health Risk
Assessment Research
Harmonizing human health risk
assessments
Predicting aggregate/cumulative
risk
Protecting subpopulations.
-------
sources. This program will develop the scientific support for decisions concerning exposure to a pollutant
by multiple routes of exposure or to multiple pollutants having a similar mode or mechanism of action.
ORD's research on susceptible subpopulations (i.e., children, older adults, genetically predisposed, or
those with preexisting health problems) will focus on developing a scientific understanding of the
biological basis for differing responsiveness of subpopulations within the general populations, including
factors associated with their differential exposures.
Focus of Human Health Risk Assessment
Research
• Identifying, discovering, or developing
the most effective methods and models;
• Determining how models can be
integrated into a decision making
framework to assess impact of risk
management actions on public health;
• Developing a framework for accurately
quantifying changes in public health.
The Strategy specifically addresses research needs
in several recent initiatives by the EPA/ORD:
computational toxicology, children's health, aging,
asthma and the cumulative risk of exposure to
multiple environmental contaminants.ORD will
also provide the scientific understanding and tools
to EPA and others in evaluating the effectiveness
of public health outcomes resulting from risk
management decisions.
EPA/ORD has prepared the Human Health
Research Strategy to strengthen the scientific
foundation of EPA's risk assessments and risk
management decisions. ORD research strategy
documents provide a framework of needs and
priorities to guide its programs over the next five to ten years. They form the basis for more detailed plans,
such as the 2003 ORD Hitman Health Research Multi-Year Plan, which describes anticipated goals and
performance measures over a 5-10 year period. Each Laboratory and Center within ORD is also
responsible for developing its own approach to linking specific projects and tasks to the 2003 ORD Hitman
Health Multi-Year Plan and the themes described in the Human Health Research Strategy.
DOCUMENT AVAiLABlLITY: The primary method for document availability will be via ORD's Web
site at http:/Avww.epa.gov/ORD . A limited number of paper copies and
CD-ROMs are available from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP).
To obtain copies, please contact NSCEP by telephone (1-800-490-9198 or 513-489-8190), by facsimile
(513-489-8695), or by mail (P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419). Please provide your name
and mailing address and the title and EPA number of the document requested (Human Health Research
Strategy, EPA 600/R-02/050).
CONTACT: Hugh Tilson, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC; 919-541-4607; Fax: 919-541-
1440; email: tilson.hugh@epa.gov
J-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX K:
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
EPA administers our national federal environmental protection regime and the statutes that underlie it.
This chapter examines ways in which the Agency can proactively use existing statutory authorities and
their implementing regulations to address cumulative risks and impacts. Useful background information
in addressing mis question has been identified by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) in its November
2001 research report, "Opportunities for Advancing Environmental Justice: An Analysis of U.S. EPA
Statutory Authorities." To adequately address cumulative risks and impacts, one must also identify the
authorities available to state and local public health officials that can be used to assessing cumulative risks
and reducing or eliminating cumulative impacts. This chapter reviews the ELI report and summarizes
state and local authorities that are responsive to these questions. There is an immediate need to determine
how to maximize the use of these legal tools to help impacted and overburdened communities and tribes
in their quest to improve the health and welfare of their members. Presently, EPA and state and local
government utilizes only a handful of the authorities available to it.
Together, EPA and state and local agencies can effectively marshal the combination of these legal
authorities to protect and improve health outcomes. An agency-wide unified strategy is needed so that the
federal, state and local governments proactively apply legal tools. This coordination can lead to
environmentally protective decisions that integrate the status of community and tribal health with the
impacts of the totality of the environmental burdens affecting communities.
OVERVIEW OF THE ELI REPORT
The ELI report identifies statutory authorities for furthering environmental justice goals in EPA's
regulatory programs. It reviews in detail ten federal statues (and their regulatory programs):
• The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or the Clean Water Act or CWA
• The Clean Air Act, or the CAA
• The Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Recovery Act, or CERCA or
Superfund
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA
• The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA
The Safe Prinking Water Act, or the SDWA
• The Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, and
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA
These statutes were chosen because, according the report, taken together they encompass most of EPA's
mandate to protect public health and the environment by controlling pollution and regulating the
manufacture, use and disposal of specific substances.
To begin its analysis, the ELI report points out that the laws provide the Agency with considerable
discretion to address environmental justice concerns, which include cumulative risks and impacts, even if
not directed to do so in specific statutory language. This capacity is based in EPA's general discretionary
authority to interpret and implement the statutes that contain broad admonitions to "protect human health
and the environment" Inherent in this language is the obligation to assure that environmental justice
K-l
-------
communities receive protection of health and the environment equivalent to communities with fewer
sources of pollution and/or fewer vulnerabilities to adverse impact. Although agencies are granted
considerable leeway by courts in choosing how to exercise their inherent authorities, this leeway has been
challenged recently, and many agencies are becoming more cautious and less aggressive construing their
statutes. This highlights the need for clear, workable approaches to cumulative risks and impacts that can
withstand challenge in court.
The ELI report notes three overarching sources that support implementation of environmental justice
throughout federal programs. According to the report, NEPA speaks broadly to the goals of
environmental justice through its policy objectives, which emphasize assuring health and welfare for all
Americans. NEPA's statutory language obligates EPA to administer all of its programs in accordance
with national environmental policy, through environmental impact assessment or other means. NEPA
specifically refers to the need to consider cumulative effects, including "the interrelated cultural, social,
occupational, historical, or economic factors that may amplify the natural and physical environmental
effects of the proposed action. NEPA's implementing agency the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) has issued guidance specifying the consideration of environmental justice under NEPA and
providing a focus for the response to adverse cumulative impacts. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, while
only touched upon in the ELI report, is a second source of legal authority to mandate environmental
justice. EPA's current draft guidance to the states on implementing Title VI discusses a place-based,
cumulative approach to reducing adverse impacts in environmental justice communities. That fledgling
initiative on addressing cumulative risks and impacts could be much expanded. Finally, Executive Order
12898 requires that environmental justice be considered in the federal government's regulatory processes.
The order states that each federal agency must make environmental justice part of its mission "by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income
populations." Explicit in this analysis should be evaluation of the way in which each major rulemaking
evaluates and addresses the need to avoid adverse cumulative risks and impacts in environmental justice
communities.
In its analysis of various statutory authorities, the ELI report first analyzes EPA's authorities by fimction,
discussing standard setting and rule making; permitting; program delegation; enforcement; information
gathering; financial assistance; and public participation. The report next provides a statute-by-statute
review of the authorities potentially useful for environmental justice. This NEJAC Working Group report
reviews ELI's functional analysis as important background for its recommendations and conclusions to
the NEJAC.
ELI's FUNCTIONAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES
Standard Setting and Role-Making
Generally, EPA's statutory authorities grant broad rule making powers so that ft can promulgate
regulations that are necessary to carry out its statutory mandates. The various environmental statutes
contain at least four categories of standards; (1) technology based standards; (2) design and practice
standards; (3) harm based standards; and (4) standards for regulating substances.
Items (1) and (2), technology based standards and design and practice standards, are keyed to the control
measures available or achievable to control pollution, or to a specific method of managing waste. The
relationship between these types of standards and cumulative risk and impacts is particularly challenging
where the standards are premised on eliminating exposure to toxics to the extent feasible or practicable.
Relying as they do on cost and the limits of technology, the standards rarely consider cumulative risk (as
contrasted with a harm-based standard, where control requirements vary based on risk regardless of cost
K-2
-------
or particular technologies). Nevertheless, cumulative risks and impacts can be utilized in these types of
standard setting to protect highly burdened and impacted communities. For example, under the Clean
Water Act, EPA has the authority to take cumulative and synergistic effects into consideration when
listing pollutants, and setting effluent guideline limitations, thus overriding cost considerations to secure
adequate health protection. Under the CAA's toxics program and in setting Maximum Contaminant
levels under the SDWA, EPA can make discretionary judgments to incorporate cumulative risk and
impact information. Even hi the cases of uniform design requirements (like installation of a double liner
or purchase of a certain kind of tank), EPA can use its discretion in evaluating the total of permitting
conditions at an entire facility to increase protection where demanded by cumulative risks and impacts.
According to the ELI report, harm based standards "establish the allowable concentrations of pollution in
the environment necessary to protect public health and environmental quality with an 'ample' or
'adequate' margin of safety." In most cases, harm based standards are based upon an assessment of risks.
Therefore, an evaluation of cumulative risks and impacts is directly relevant to establishing harm-based
standards. Regulation under the CAA is perhaps the clearest example of how harm based standards can
be enhanced by cumulative risks and impacts information and application of the Framework. The
Agency's program for its primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are set at a level
necessary to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. This language has been interpreted
to mean that EPA must protect not only the average healthy individual, but also sensitive people - those
with conditions that render them especially susceptible to air pollutants. This language provides a strong
invitation to apply the cumulative risk principles embodied in the Framework to protect overburdened and
highly impacted communities and tribes.
Standards for regulating substances, such as the ability to add to the number of substances it regulates, or
change the reportable quantity of a substance, also provides the agency with considerable discretion to
address cumulative risks and impacts. As EPA proceeds to consider new hazardous waste or hazardous
substances listings or new chemicals for testing, its procedures should include evaluation of the potential
for adverse cumulative impacts. In determining its research agenda for chemicals, EPA could consider
the constituents whose occurrence most contributes to cumulative risk, and could elevate those
constituents in its study agenda,
Permitting
The ELI report notes that permits and permitting procedures are at the core of EPA's powers under most
major pollution control statutes. As noted at many NEJAC meetings, permitting has long been a focus of
environmental justice debates. The report also points out that much of the discussion of EPA's permitting
authority centers on two related questions. First, can the Agency deny a permit on environmental justice
grounds? Second, can the Agency place conditions on a permit that specifically address environmental
justice concerns?
For facility siting, EPA often has little chance to weigh in. Most siting decisions are local, land use
planning or zoning issues. Still, there are areas where the Agency has authority to address siting issues,
such as wetlands and coastal zones. For example, under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA
has considerable ability to consider and address disproportionate impacts and cumulative risk and
impacts. Similarly, under NEPA (which applies to major federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the environment) the Environmental Impact Statement process allows the Agency opportunities
for dealing with the disproportionate impacts.
In the realm of operating permits, EPA can exercise even more substantial discretion when administering
these programs. EPA's grant of authority often takes the form of general provisions that give the Agency
discretion to decide what measures are necessary or appropriate to protect public health and the
K-3
-------
environment These provisions are found in RCRA, the CAA (Title V operating permits) and the Clean
Water Act (section 402(aXl)), among others.
The ELI analysis of operating permit authority indicates that there are substantial opportunities to
consider cumulative risks and impacts to protect overburdened and highly impacted communities and
tribes. The information generated in a cumulative risk analysis, as described in the Framework, could be
incorporated into the permitting process.
Program Delegation
Federal environmental laws provide for delegation of programs for permitting, monitoring and
enforcement to state and tribal government. Delegation serves two purposes. First, it recognizes the
important role that states and tribes play in environmental protection regimes. Second, it provides for
national standards to be developed and implemented. There is a deliberate tension in this process. In
delegated programs, states or tribes have primary responsibility to implement the purposes of federal
environmental laws, but EPA has the ultimate oversight.
Program delegation offers several opportunities for considering cumulative risks and impacts. During the
program delegation process, EPA can consider environmental justice issues, including cumulative
impacts. This analysis can extend to the states' or tribes' ability to carry out the delegated program.
After a program is delegated, EPA has the power to exercise oversight, although this is often politically
difficult. Thus, EPA could review or disapprove certain program decisions based on failure to consider
adequately cumulative risks and impacts. Last, EPA has the authority to revoke delegated authority if the
program is not appropriately implemented. This is an action of last resort, however, and is not usually
invoked. Nevertheless, the authority to revoke can be persuasive to ensure the cumulative risks and
impacts are considered
Enforcement
The ELI report observes that EPA has the obligation to assure compliance with environmental standards,
whether through enforcement activities such as issuing an administrative order, seeking an administrative
fine, revoking or withholding a permit, bringing a court action, or pursuing criminal charges. In selecting
which actions to pursue, EPA has discretion to consider a variety of factors, including the consequences
for public health. It is within the Agency's discretion to give priority to actions mat penalize or halt
conduct that has a disproportionate impact on environmental justice communities. The Framework could
be useful in identifying the hazards faced by these communities and help shape the actions that could be
brought.
There are several points along the continuum of the enforcement process where EPA can act to promote
environmental justice. First, in case selection, EPA could use the "imminent and substantial
endangermenf provisions (contained in several environmental statutes) to prioritize cases based on
cumulative risks and impacts. It is also possible, according to ELI, for EPA to initiate enforcement
actions based primarily on environmental justice considerations. Risks to a sensitive or overburdened
population could establish the necessary proof for a substantial endangerment argument Under the
enforcement provisions of some statutes, such as section 504 of the Clean Water Act, EPA can consider
combined effects. Statutory authority to consider combined sources and effects gives the Agency
flexibility hi evaluating cases for enforcement EPA could decide to place a greater priority on bringing
enforcement actions based on cumulative impacts or risks. However, because proof of substantial
endangerment is generally more difficult to obtain than proof needed for a simple violation of a standard,
this approach may have limited utility.
K-4
-------
Second, in case resolution, EPA often has authority to shape penalties to the nature and severity of the
harms at issue, the economic gain by the violator and other circumstances. EPA's broad authority to
tailor penalties to the individual fects of any case could mean that cumulative risks and impacts are used
in penalty calculations or in shaping the terms of the remedy. An approach to calculating penalties that
recognizes cumulative risks and impacts could also have a deterrence effect on other potential violators.
The vast majority of enforcement actions are resolved via settlement, which creates opportunities for
crafting creative remedies. The Agency has developed a policy that promotes the incorporation of
environmental projects, called supplemental environmental project or SEPs, into settlement activities.
This policy encourages SEPs in communities where environmental justice concerns have been raised in
the course of enforcement. The Agency could use this policy, and the inherent flexibility of its
enforcement authority, to reach settlements that can address health issues associated with overburdened
and impacted communities and tribes. SEPs provide the opportunity to look holistically at the impacted
community and to bring resources to bear on the harms the community identifies as most in need of
remedy.
Third, in criminal cases, environmental justice considerations could influence sentencing following a
conviction. Sentencing guidelines generally call for a factual evaluation of the particular harm, and harms
to the health of overburdened and highly impacted communities may be an enhancing factor in
calculating punishment.
Finally, citizen suits can be an effective way to protect overburdened and highly impacted communities
and tribes, as well as develop and bolster legal theories of cumulative risks and impacts. Congress (and
many state legislatures) has added provisions to many environmental laws that allow private citizens to
act as "attorneys general" in bringing actions against violators.
Information Gathering
EPA has authority to undertake a wide variety of information gathering activities. This authority has
been given to EPA so that it can meet the technical and scientific challenges that are inherent in
environmental decision-making. EPA could use these authorities to assist in addressing environmental
justice issues and begin to answer the questions that highly impacted communities and tribes have been
asking.
In research, the Agency could take several actions that would assist in decoding the links between public
health and cumulative risks and impacts. First, EPA could seek to improve the scientific knowledge base
in this field by shaping its research agenda around cumulative risks and impacts. Specific statutory
language in the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to research air pollution issues particularly relevant to
communities of color and low-income communities, such as cumulative risks. Second, under certain
statutes (such as the CAA) the Agency can impose research requirements on regulated entities. This
authority provides another opportunity to foster research on cumulative risks and impacts. Finally,
federal environmental law could be used to support efforts to involve communities in Agency research
activities.
EPA's monitoring programs can also be a source of information that has direct use for the study of
cumulative risks and impacts. EPA has extensive authority to require monitoring by regulated facilities
and the Agency also has authority under certain statutes to carry out its own monitoring. These
authorities could be of utility to communities wishing to learn more about the emissions that confront
them.
K-5
-------
Reporting by facilities is another source of information that could be useful to highly impacted and
overburdened communities. These reporting requirements often afford EPA discretion, so the Agency
could design their nature and scope to be relevant to cumulative risks and impacts.
Financial Assistance
EPA awards hundreds of millions of dollars each year in grants, contracts and assistance agreements.
Awards to States and tribes account for the bulk of these funds, but non-governmental entities also
receive support. EPA can further environmental justice goals by targeting funding to highly impacted and
overburdened communities, and the groups that are working with them. EPA could make environmental
justice considerations a part of the award decision for grant making, or design a series of proposal
requests specifically for issues such as cumulative risks and impacts. The ELI report points out that
federal financial assistance is the mechanism that triggers federal civil rights legislation, which requires
that financial assistance recipients serve and protect people equally without regard to race, color or
national origin.
EPA could also consider tying the award of funds to state and tribal entities with environmental justice
principles by establishing grant conditions mat adequately address environmental justice concerns. The
Agency also has the ability to assist communities to participate in regulatory decision-making by making
awards to community groups to participate in regulatory actions. Where these grants are made, EPA
could make a condition of receipt consideration of cumulative risk analysis or reduction, as appropriate.
Public Participation
According to the ELI report, all of the major environmental statutes provide discretionary authority and,
in many cases, explicitly require EPA to involve the public when implementing statutoiy mandates. EPA
has considerable authority to involve overburdened and highly impacted communities and tribes in its
activities. Above all, EPA has general discretionary authority under most of its statutes to involve
affected communities early in decision-making. This authority could greatly benefit the Framework,
which calls for an active citizenry and community responsiveness.
Several environmental statutes, such as Superfund and the Clean Water Act, emphasize public
participation. EPA has developed regulatory programs for citizen involvement across all programs, and
most Agency initiatives attempt to expand public participation requirements into true public involvement.
EPA is required to engage in cenotice and comment" prior to taking certain actions, and it is during this
period that the most common form of public participation takes place. New initiatives expand notice and
comment to include informal public meetings, facilitated on-going interaction with the public, and better
responsiveness to public input EPA could use all of these forums as an opportunity to explicitly solicit
information about cumulative risks and impacts.
Several statutes, such as the SDWA, establish mechanisms (such as Advisory Councils) for involving the
public in a more direct manner than notice and comment EPA could actively solicit participation from
highly impacted and overburdened communities for these advisory bodies as a way to enhance
opportunities to raise environmental justice issues. In addition, EPA hosts a number of databases and
information clearinghouses that could be sources for data about cumulative risks and impacts. Finally,
several statutes, including EPCRA, allow for citizen petitions.
OTHER AUTHORITIES
In addition to federal environmental laws, there are other federal statutes that could be useful to
communities and tribes seeking to evaluate cumulative risks and impacts, and reduce or eliminate the
K-6
-------
health effects linked to mem. A thorough review of these laws is beyond the scope of this report and the
charge to the Working Group. Because they could be useful to environmental justice communities, they,
are summarized here.
The Federal Public Health Service Act
The federal Public Health Service (PHS) Act is the major authority supporting activities of the
Department of Health and Human Services, including activities at CDC, FDA, and NIH. The focus of the
PHS Act is the coordination of state and federal health policy. The PHS Act contains provisions relating
to generating and upholding international agreements, policies and programs; conducting medical and
biomedical research; sponsoring programs for disease prevention and control, and administration of
health research; providing resources and expertise to states in planning and direction of health-related
services; and enforcing laws to ensure drug safety, protect against impure foods, faulty medical
equipment and radiation-producing products.
The PHS Act differs from environmental laws in several ways. It is an organic act, while environmental
laws are media-specific. It contains no citizen suit provisions and few, if any opportunities for public
participation and citizen involvement in decision-making. Finally, it is focused on information gathering,
technical support to states and tribes, and dissemination of information and research. Despite these
differences, the federal agencies and departments that practice public health and carry out biomedical
research under the PHS Act could be powerful and effective allies for EPA as it seeks to improve health
outcomes in tribes and communities that are highly impacted by environmental pollution.
State Health Laws
State public health laws can also be a tool for helping communities and tribes that are heavily impacted
and overburdened. State authorities can potentially be very powerful and flexible because States have
plenary power to regulate the environment and public health, as well as delegated programs from the
federal government. In addition, state tort law claims (e.g., negligence, strict liability) can be used to seek
redress for environmental harms that fall outside the scope of the regulatory arena.
K-7
-------
REFERENCES TO CUMULATIVE RISKS/IMPACTS
Opportunities to Advance Environmental Justice:
An Analysis of VSEPA Statutory Authorities
Environmental Law Institute
Introduction
Defining activities
which further EJ
goals
Identifyingfitlfy the impacts of agency actions and decisions on communities of color and
low-income communities. One prominent issue in the national dialogue on environmental
justice has been the need for EPA to consider adequately the environmental and health
impacts of its decisions on communities that are already heavily burdened by polluting
facilities and activities. Incinerators, waste and wastewater treatment facilities, transfer
stations., refineries and factories are often disproportionately represented hi these
communities. As Richard Lazarus and Stephanie Tai have noted: "One of the major lessons
of environmental justice is that EPA's past failure to account for aggregation of risks and
cumulative impacts has caused EPA's existing standards to fail to protect human health and
the environment in certain communities." Richard Lazarus & Stephanie Tai, Integrating
EnvironmentalJustice intoEPA Permitting Authority, 26 ECOLOGY L.Q. 617,642 (1999).
Measuring the cumulative and synergistic impacts of multiple sources - and not simply the
effects of individual pollutants or individual facilities - involves a host of technological and
scientific complexities. A central goal of environmental justice has been to focus regulatory
action on preventing and addressing these impacts. (Introduction/Defining Activities Which
Further Environmental Justice Goals, p. iii)
Chapter 2:
Standard Setting
EPA can use its discretionary power to address impacts on communities of color and low-
income communities at any of these stages. For example, pollutant listings could take into
account cumulative and synergistic effects, impacts on sensitive populations, and other
relevant concerns. Clean Water Act effluent limitation guidelines can be revised to address
environmental justice considerations if EPA deems those considerations "appropriate," a term
that confers substantial discretion. The agency also can establish more stringent effluent
limitations pursuant to "any" state or federal law or regulation, which presumably includes
NEPA and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Environmental justice impacts also might be
taken into account in decisions to grant or deny variances from technology-based standards.
[Chapter 2, p.S]
Chapter 2:
Standard Setting
Standards for
regulating
substances
Finally, EPA has considerable discretion to regulate certain chemical substances under its
pollution control authorities, even where the substances are not expressly designated in the
statutes. As noted above, the agency may bring additional pollutants under the technology-
based performance standards of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act Similar authority
for EPA to add to the number of substances it regulates is found in RCRA, which contains an
expansive definition of "hazardous waste" and allows EPA to consider numerous factors hi
determining whether the definition is met, 42 U.S.C. §§6903(5), 6921. Inaddition,
CERCLA provides die agency with authority to designate as hazardous any substances mat
"may present substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment" 42
U.S.C. 9602 (a). Each of these provisions afford discretion for the agency to consider
cumulative and synergistic effects, impacts on sensitive populations, and other
environmental justice issues when designating substances for regulation. [Chapter 2, p. 11]
K-8
-------
Chapter3:
Permitting and
other Approvals
Much of the discussion of EPA's permitting authority centers on two related questions: (1)
whether the agency may deny a permit on environmental justice grounds; and (2) whether it
may place conditions on a permit that specifically address issues of concern to low-income
communities and communities of color. Lazarus & Tai at 619. Arguments for taking such
actions are based on the full range of environmental justice issues, including
disproportionate impacts, cumulative or synergistic impacts, effects on sensitive
populations, unique exposure pathways, and cultural and socio-economic
considerations. Along with outright denial of permits or bans on particular substances or
practices, the conditions that have been proposed as falling within EPA's authority include
site-specific mitigation measures, heightened monitoring requirements, advanced pollution
prevention and best management practices, specialized control technology, enhanced public
participation procedures, information disclosure, and community inspections. NEJAC
Permitting Report at 24-30. [p. 13]
Chapter 3:
Permitting and
Other Approvals
Cumulative
impacts and siting
considerations
Statutory
authorities....
P-15
Siting of industrial facilities and other potentially polluting activities raises important
environmental justice questions. To the extent that claims of disproportionate impact rest
upon the concentration of sources within a geographic area or their proximity to sensitive
populations, siting decisions become crucial to ensuring that no single community bears more
than its fair share of the impacts. Since most land-use and zoning decisions are made at the
state and local levels, EPA has comparatively little opportunity to weigh in on siting issues
generally. However, the agency has considerable authority over a number of important issues
carved out by the federal environmental statutes. Specifically, the agency has authority to
address siting decisions that involve: (1) geographic areas where the federal government has
specialized jurisdiction, such as wetlands and coastal zones; (2) concentrations of pollutants,
such as non-attainment areas under the Clean Air Act; (3) heavily regulated facilities, such as
waste disposal sites and incinerators; and (4) the federal government's own activities that
impact the environment. Within these realms, EPA has broad discretion and numerous
opportunities to consider and address environmental justice issues in siting decisions. Its
authority to do so often is based on language that requires an "assessment" of the health or
environmental impacts - which may include cumulative impacts - of siting an activity or
facility, or an analysis of "alternatives" to a proposed project, which may include alternative
sites or forgoing the project entirely, [p. 15]
Chapter 3:
Permitting and
Other Approvals
Through a detailed public notice-and-comment procedure, the Corps and EPA must consider
whether a project has "practicable alternatives" that would have less adverse ecological
impact; whether it would threaten water quality or endangered species, or cause "significant
degradation" to drinking water supplies and fish and wildlife habitat; whether the proponent
has taken all "appropriate and practical steps" to minimize and mitigate impacts at the
proposed site; and whether the project would contribute unacceptably to cumulative impacts
in the surrounding area. 40 C.F.R. §§230.10,230.11. This Section 404 process provides
ample opportunity for considering and addressing disproportionate impacts and other
environmental justice issues, as well as a public forum in which the affected communities can
express their concerns. Hill&Targat27-36. Similar requirements govern EPA's and the
Corps' determination of ocean dumping sites under the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act. OGC 2000 Memorandum at 9-10. [p. 16]
K-9
-------
Chapter 3:
Permitting and
Other Approvals
RCRA's omnibus provision has its counterparts in Clean Air Act Section 504(a), which
provides that Title V operating permits "shall include... such other conditions as are
necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of this chapter," 42 U.S.C. §
7661c(a); in Clean Water Act Section 402(aXl), which hi certain circumstances allows EPA
to impose on discharge permits "such conditions as the Administrator determines are
necessary to carry out the provisions of [the Act]," 33 U.S.C. § 1342(aXl); and in Safe
Drinking Water Act regulations, which authorize underground injection permit conditions
"necessary to prevent die migration of fluids into underground sources of drinking water," 40
C.F.R. § 144.52(aX9); Envotech, 6 EA.D. at 281. Though similarly worded, each of these
broad provisions must be interpreted in light of their respective statutory goals and
framework, which are analyzed in the individual chapters. But as a general matter, the
statutes' common mandate for protecting human health and the environment, read with the
discretion afforded by me Chemical Waste Management and Envotech decisions, gives EPA
ample authority to consider in the permitting process cumulative impacts, sensitive
populations, unique exposure pathways, and other environmental justice concerns
where the agency is the permitting authority, [p. 18]
Chapter 3:
Permitting and
Other Approvals
In order to make these determinations, EPA is authorized to collect substantial amounts of
data from the parties proposing to manufacture or use a chemical substance or pesticide.
FIFRA applicants must supply detailed information about the pesticide's chemical makeup
and effects, and can be required to supplement this information even after registration
through an EPA-inm'ated "data call-in." 7 U.S.C. § 136a(cX2)(B). TSCA pre-manufecture
notices must be accompanied by any test data the party knows about or could reasonably
ascertain. 15 U.S.C. § 2604(dXl). Under either statute, EPA could consider the need to
include data on a substance's persistence in the environment and its cumulative and
synergistic impacts, as well as demographic and other information useful for determining its
impacts on low-income communities and communities of color. See Memorandum from
Howard F. Corcoran, U.S. EPA Office of General Counsel, Environmental Justice Law
Survey (Feb. 25,1994) [hereinafter "OGC 1994 Memorandum"], [p. 19-20]
Chapter 5:
Enforcement
These directives to federal agencies apply to EPA as it decides which enforcement cases to
pursue, and what relief to seek in those that it pursues. For example, the NEPA language
requiring agencies to take "presently unquantified environmental amenities and values" into
consideration provides a basis for the agency to fully examine the cumulative impacts of
emissions on low-income communities and communities of color when prioritizing inspection
and enforcement decisions. Similarly, the admonition to employ not only environmental
sciences but also the social sciences in decision-making gives EPA a clear basis to examine
the effect of existing emissions on members of identifiable groups and sub-populations, not
just average healthy individuals. Going even further, EPA could consider the impact of
emissions on the continuing integrity and vitality of these very groups, whose ability to
survive as sustainable ethnic or cultural communities may be jeopardized by discharges that
threaten then- subsistence or the health of men* members to such an extent that group identity
and cohesion is lost. EPA can include all these factors as it decides the most effective use of
its enforcement powers, [p. 28]
K-10
-------
Chapter 5:
Enforcement
Another central issue is the cumulative or synergistic effects of exposure to a number of
emissions from numerous facilities. EPA has authority to consider these cumulative effects
in enforcement. As discussed above, Section 504 of the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to
take action "upon receipt of evidence mat a pollution source or combination of sources is
presenting an imminent and substantial endangennent to public health or welfere." 33 U.S.C.
§ 1364 (emphasis added); similarly, CAA Section 303 provides that EPA may bring suit to
immediately restrain any person causing or contribitting to pollution that presents an
imminent or substantial endangennent. 42 U.S.C. § 7603. This statutory authority to consider
combined sources provides EPA with considerable flexibility in evaluating cases for
enforcement action. For example, there may be only one or two facilities that are out of
compliance but whose emissions, when added to those of complying facilities, may create
conditions of endangennent. EPA could place a greater priority on bringing enforcement
actions against the violators than would exist in the absence of cumulative impacts. EPA
also could consider bringing action against a larger group of dischargers whose aggregate
impact on ambient conditions endangers public health, even though no single facility exceeds
regulatory standards. In such cases, EPA might seek a remedy that imposes requirements
more restrictive than the standards that obtain in the absence of cumulative effects, [p. 31]
Chapter 5:
Enforcement
Citizens suits
Citizen suits can be an effective vehicle for community participation, as well as for
developing substantive legal theories of cumulative harm and protection of sensitive
populations that are important for addressing environmental justice issues. In addition,
community control of the legal action helps ensure that enforcement decisions, as well as
settlement decisions, will be reviewed fully by those presumed to be best able to reflect the
community's goals and expectations. On the other hand, technical requirements and the need
for expert witnesses may prove difficult challenges, and legal fees for long and hard-fought
cases can be steep. EPA could support citizen suits by developing a program to provide
assistance for those suits that are designed to advance issues of concern to low-income
communities and communities of color. For example, EPA can support access to records and
documents, access to its inspectors and experts and other litigation support, or even direct
financial support of citizen plaintiffs. In appropriate cases, the agency can provide significant
direct assistance by choosing to intervene in citizen suits using the authority provided in its
statutes, [p. 37-38]
Chapter 6:
Information
Gathering
The need for research into health and environmental issues of concern to people of color and
low-income communities has long been a focus of the national dialogue on environmental
justice. Discussion about research to promote environmental justice issues has centered on
both the substance of the research and the manner of conducting the research. It is widely
believed that a greater understanding is needed of how to gauge the health effects of pollution
on overburdened communities: cumulative and synergistic effects of pollutants, as well
their effects on people who may be particularly sensitive because of underlying medical
conditions such as asthma, or socio-economic conditions such as limited access to health
care, poor nutrition, etc. In addition, research into medical conditions that are more prevalent
in communities of color, such as asthma or lead poisoning, can also further efforts to ensure
environmental protection for those communities. The process for conducting research from
the development of research projects to the research itself and the evaluation of the results
has also been the subject of much discussion. Communities of color and low-income
communities, which historically have had limited input into the regulatory decision-making
process, have similarly been excluded from decisions about scientific and technical research
priorities. See generally, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL,
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH MODEL DISCUSSION (Meeting
Report, May 2000). [p. 39-40]
K-ll
-------
Chapter 6:
Information
Gathering
EPA also has authority to require regulated entities to undertake research. Perhaps the most
prominent example is the chemical testing program under the Toxic Substances Control Act
15 U.S.C. § 2603. EPA can take environmental justice concerns into account in determining
which existing chemicals will be subject to testing by chemical manufacturers and processors.
hi addition, TSCA Section 4
-------
phases of the EIS process, from scoping through the development of alternatives and
mitigation measures. Council on Environmental Quality, Considering Cumulative Effects
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (January 1997), available at
http://ceq.eh.doe.govAiepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htmOast visited Nov. 13,2001). The guidance
states the general principle that "additional effects contributed by actions unrelated to the
proposed action must be included in the analysis of cumulative effects." Id. at Table 1-2.
The guidance also a lists a number of examples of cumulative effects issues mat could arise
in a proposed activity, including: social, economic or cultural effects on low-income
communities or communities of color resulting from ongoing development; long-term
containment or disposal of hazardous wastes; and air emissions resulting in degradation of
regional air quality. Id. at Table 2-1.
EPA's guidance underlines the importance of considering cumulative impacts, stating that
"analysts need to place special emphasis on other sources of environmental stress within the
region," including the number and concentration of permitted and non-permitted sources of
pollution, the presence of toxic pollutants with high exposure potential, and other factors.
EPA EJ Guidance at 2.2.2.
Social and Economic Impacts. Social and economic impacts also are included in the CEQ
regulatory definition of effects. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8- While the regulations state that
economic or social effects alone are not intended to require an EIS, when an EIS is prepared
and "economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then
the [EIS] will discuss all of mese effects on the human environment." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.14.
This provision, in conjunction with the requirements to consider cumulative and indirect
impacts, creates an opportunity for the EIS to consider a broad range of impacts on
overburdened communities, provided those impacts are related to a proposed change in the
physical environment. See generally Mandelker at 8.07[6] (discussion of case law addressing
consideration of cumulative impacts). As a result of NEPA's broad public participation
provisions, this analysis can be fully informed by the comments of the affected communities.
The EPA environmental justice guidance discusses the possible need to use cultural or social
impact assessments as tools for analyzing specific socio-economic impacts to communities
that share a common cultural or spiritual environment EPA EJ Guidance at 5.3. To assess
accurately the potential disproportionately high and adverse effects to communities of color
and low-income communities and account for mese effects, the guidance notes that EIS
analysts may be required to move beyond standard socio-economic modeling and consider
such issues as subsistence living, treaty-protected resources, cultural use of natural resources,
sacred sites, dependence on public transportation, community cohesion, and a relatively
unskilled labor base. Id. [p. 82-83]
Chapter 10:
Federal Clean
Water Control
Act
Technology-Based
Standards
Sections 301,303,
304
Section 304 requires EPA to promulgate regulations that contain detailed guidelines for the
agency's adoption or revision of effluent limitations under Section 301, and to specify the
factors that will be used in determining the BPT, BAT, and BCT standards for different
categories of point sources. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b). The guidelines must be reviewed annually,
with public review and comment. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(m). In addition to technical issues and
cost, the relevant considerations incorporated into the guidelines may include "such other
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate." 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(l)(B), (2)(B), &
(4)(B). EPA thus could use mis broad authority to consider environmental justice issues as a
factor when setting appropriate levels of technology-based standards. In particular, where
such standards allow or require some consideration of the costs and benefits of a particular
technology, this analysis could give weight to the benefits to heavily impacted communities
or sensitive populations.
The Act allows for variances from technology-based standards under certain conditions. In
issuing such variances, EPA also could take environmental justice factors into account For
example, Section 301(g) allows the agency to modify the BAT requirements for certain
K-13
-------
"nonconventional" pollutants, such as ammonia, chlorine, and iron, as long as the lower BPT
standard is still met and
such modification will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of that water
quality which shall assure protection of public water supplies, and the protection and
propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and.. .such
modification will not result in the discharge of pollutants in quantities which may
reasonably be anticipated to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment because of bioaccumulation, persistency in the environment, acute
toxicity, chronic toxicity (including carcinogenicity, mutagenicity or teratogenicity),
or synergistic propensities.
33U.S.C.§ 1311(gX2XC). In addition, Section 301(h) allows the agency to modify the
secondary treatment requirement for municipal waste treatment plants mat discharge into
marine waters if "me discharge of pollutants in accordance with such modified requirements
will not interfere, alone or in combination -with pollutants from other sources, with the
attainment or maintenance of that water qualify which assures protection of public water
supplies and the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife." 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(hX2) (emphasis added).
The Act thus directs EPA to consider carefully the public health and ecosystem risks prior to
granting any such variances, including issues such as bioaccumulation, synergistic effects,
and cumulative impacts, [p. 89-90]
Chapter 10:
Federal Clean
Water Control
Act
hi addition, Section 303(cX2) requires states to include all EPA-listed toxic pollutants in then-
review of impaired water bodies, and to develop "specific numerical criteria" for these
pollutants where then1 presence "could reasonably be expected to interfere with those
designated uses adopted by the State, as necessary to support such designated uses." 33
U.S.C. § 1313(cX2)(B). Absent such numerical criteria, the states must adopt criteria based
on biological monitoring or assessment methods. Id. This section effectively requires toxic
pollutants to be included in the TMDL calculations being made under Section 303(d), above.
Thus, an EPA decision to expand the toxics listings also would indirectly affect the
stringency of water quality standards and TMDLs being developed at the state level. In
addition, the option to use biological criteria enables methods like whole effluent testing,
which has been called "the only [method] to date that even attempts to measure the
cumulative effects of what is actually being discharged" Houck article at 10558. This in
turn could yield empirical data and standards that are more specifically tailored to heavily
burdened communities, [p. 94]
Chapter 10:
Federal Clean
Water Control
Act
Section 404(a) of the Act authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to "issue permits, after
notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
the navigable waters at specified disposal sites." 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a). In considering a
permit application, the Corps first must conduct a "public interest review" that is "based on
an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest." 33 C.F.R. 320.4(a)(l) (emphasis added). The
review consists of a case-by- case balancing of a long list of factors, which includes
"conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic
properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, fioodplain values, land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership
and, hi general, the needs and welfare of me people." Id. [p. 98]
K-14
-------
Chapter 10:
Federal Clean
Water Control
Act
Several of these factors touch on environmental justice concerns. For example, the definition
of "historic properties" expressly includes "Indian religious or cultural sites," 33 C.F.R. §
320.4(e), and it has been suggested that the general "needs and welfare of the people" factor
allows ample room for considering disproportionate impacts or other environmental justice
issues. Hill & Targ at 36. In addition, the express requirement mat cumulative impacts be
considered could be especially important for communities whose watersheds are already
severely impacted by dredge-and-fill projects or other kinds of activity, [p. 98-99]
Chapter 10:
Federal Clean
Water Control
Act
Here again, each of these factors could be read to include health and environmental issues
relevant to low-income communities and communities of color. For example, the
requirement that alternatives be considered could lead to consideration of other possible sites
that are not already over-burdened or that already enjoy more environmental benefits.
"Significant degradation" is specifically defined in terms of human health concerns, including
exposure through the food chain. In addition, the minimization requirement appears to give
broad authority to attach permit conditions or to require the permittee to take action to
address a wide variety of adverse impacts. Cumulative impacts are specifically addressed in
40 C.F.R. § 230.1 l(g), which requires such impacts to be "documented and considered during
the decision-making process concerning the evaluation of individual permit applications, the
issuance of a General permit, and monitoring and enforcement of existing permits." [p. 99]
Chapter 11:
Clean Air Act
CAA Section 117(b) states that EPA shall, "to the maximum extent practicable within the
time provided, consult with appropriate advisory committees, independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies" prior to issuing air quality criteria, hazardous air pollutant
lists, standards, or regulations. 42 U.S.C. §7417(b). Section 117(a) states that "committee
members shall include, but not be limited to, persons who are knowledgeable concerning air
quality from the standpoint of health, welfare, economics or technology." 42 U.S.C. §
7416(a). This requirement to include persons who are knowledgeable about public health can
be interpreted as authority to appoint committee members from low-income communities and
communities of color with first-hand knowledge of health impacts, or others who have public
health backgrounds specifically focused on cumulative impacts, synergistic effects, and other
environmental justice issues. [Advisory Committees, p. 106-107]
Chapter 11:
Clean Air Act
Section lll(j) allows any person proposing to own or operate a new source to request an
EPA waiver from the new source performance standards with respect to any air pollutant, to
encourage the use of an innovative technological system or systems of continuous emission
reduction, 42U.S.C. § 7411QX1XA). A waiver will be granted if EPA determines mat the
owner or operator of the proposed source has demonstrated that "the proposed system will
not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety in its
operation, function, or malfunction." 42 U.S.C. § 741 l(j)(lXA)(iii). In addition to the
reference to public health and welfare, which allows consideration of a broad range of
impacts on low-income communities and communities of color, the provision states that the
proposed system must not "contribute to" unreasonable risk to public health and welfare.
This language could allow EPA to consider cumulative impacts when addressing the health
risks to a community. See Lazarus & Tai at 634. [p. 110]
Chapter 11:
Clean Air Act
Solid Waste
Incineration
Section 129 requires EPA to establish performance standards under Section 111 for each
category of solid waste incineration unit 42 U.S.C. § 7429(a)(l). Section 129(aX3) states
that such standards shall be based on "methods and technologies for removal or destruction of
pollutants before, during, or after combustion, and shall incorporate for new units siting
requirements that minimize, on a site specific basis, to the maximum extent practicable,
potential risks to public health and the environment." 42 U.S.C. § 7429(a)(3) (emphasis
added). This provision gives EPA authority to establish a range of siting requirements
designed to ensure that potential health risks to low-income communities and communities of
color from solid waste incinerator air emissions are minimized, including consideration of
cumulative impacts and meaningful community participation procedures. See Lazarus & Tai
at 632. [Solid Waste Incineration, p. 111]
K-15
-------
Chapter 11:
Clean Air Act
Section HO(aX2)(B) requires "each implementation plan submitted by a state" to "provide
for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality." 42 U.S.C. §
110(aX2XB). Likewise, Section 110(a)(2)(F) allows EPA to require SIPs to include "the
installation, maintenance, replacement, and implementation of other necessary steps, by
owners of operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources," 42 U.S.C.
§ 110(aX2XF), and Section 110(aX2XK) requires SIPs to provide for air quality modeling.
42 U.S.C. § 7410(aX2XK). Each of these monitoring and modeling requirements could be
adjusted to consider cumulative exposures, sensitive populations, and other issues of concern
to communities of color and low-income communities. [State Implementation Plans, p. 127]
Chapter 11:
Clean Air Act
Under Section 105, EPA may make grants to state air pollution control agencies for the
prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7405.
The section requires the agency
[b]efore approving any planning grant.. .to receive assurances that the [air control
agency receiving the grant] has the capability of developing a comprehensive air
quality plan for the air quality control region, which plan shall include (when
appropriate) a recommended system of alerts to avert and reduce the risk of
situations in which there may be imminent and serious danger to the public health or
welfare from air pollutants and the various aspects relevant to the establishment of
air quality standards for such air quality control region, including the concentration
of industries, other commercial establishments, populations and naturally occurring
factors which shall affect such standards.
42 U.S.C. § 7405(aX3). EPA could use this provision to condition grant assistance on
consideration of cumulative impacts in the planning process for establishing air quality
standards, and on considering demographic factors in developing the recommended system of
alerts, [p. 129-130]
Chapter 12:
RCRA
Section 3001 instructs EPA to identify hazardous wastes subject to Subtitle C by using two
different methods: (1) according to its hazardous characteristics, or (2) by listing particular
hazardous wastes. A solid waste is classified as a hazardous waste and regulated under
Subtitle C if it either exhibits one of the defined hazardous characteristics or it is listed as a
hazardous waste, unless it is categorically exempted under the RCRA regulations. 42 U.S.C.
§ 6921. In promulgating its criteria for hazardous characteristics and listed wastes, EPA is
directed to take into account factors such as toxicity, persistence, degradability in nature,
potential for accumulation in tissue, flammability, corrosiveness, and other hazardous
characteristics. 42 U.S.C. §6921(a).
This determination raises environmental justice issues, as it requires EPA to determine the
waste's health impact on humans - which inevitably involves a determination of which
population or sub-population of humans to base the standard upon. For example, in
determining a waste's "toxicity" or "potential for accumulation in tissue," EPA must
determine whether its "standard" human subject would be taken from the general population,
a sensitive population, or a population that faces disproportionate exposure to the waste or
cumulative exposures to it and other kinds of wastes. By including these types of factors in
its determination, EPA can further environmental justice in its identification of hazardous
wastes and their inclusion in the more restrictive Subtitle C regime, [p. 133-134]
Chapter 12:
RCRA
Section 3002(b) requires generators to certify that they have "a program in place to reduce
the volume or quantity and toxicity" of their wastes. Generators also must certify mat the
proposed method of treatment, storage, or disposal '"minimizes the present and future threat to
human health and me environment" 42 U.S.C. § 6922(b). This health-based language
supports consideration of environmental justice concerns; for example, the process of
certifying proposed methods of treatment, storage, or disposal could include an examination
of the surrounding community to account for possible cumulative risks and synergistic
effects, [p. 134]
K-16
-------
Chapter 12:
RCRA
Such information about exposure pathways and cumulative risks are precisely the kind of
data environmental justice advocates often seek. Under the Section 3019 provisions, EPA
has authority to generate this information, at least with respect to land disposal facilities, hi
addition, Section 3019(c) provides that "[a]ny member of the public may submit evidence of
releases or of exposure to hazardous constituents from such a facility, or as to the risks or
health effects associated with such releases or exposure." 42 U.S.C. § 6939a(c). This section
provides an important opportunity for public participation in the health assessment process.
[Land Disposal Permits, p. 139-140]
Chapter 13:
CERCLA
These general provisions grant EPA considerable authority to respond to releases and
threatened releases of hazardous substances. Given the broad statutory language,
environmental justice concerns, such as cumulative risk and vulnerability of sensitive
populations, could presumably be taken into account by EPA in defining "imminent and
substantial danger" and determining whether to use its response authority. The statute also
provides that EPA actions may be taken to protect "welfare," in addition to public health and
the environment. This may provide a basis for EPA to consider non-health impacts, such as
social, cultural, and economic impacts, that might be of particular concern to communities of
color and low-income communities, [p. 151]
Chapter 13:
CERCLA
EPA has rarely used these exceptions to the limitations on its removal and remedial authority.
EPA could, however, rely on this section to address hazardous substance releases in low-
income communities and communities of color that may otherwise go unaddressed. This may
include releases from products, such as asbestos or lead paint, that are part of the structure of
buildings. They may also include releases into public or private drinking water supplies due
to deterioration of the system through ordinary use, particularly in communities with limited
financial resources for maintaining buildings and water systems. In addition, such releases
may pose particular public health threats in many low-income communities and communities
of color because of factors such as sensitive populations and cumulative risks. Furthermore,
because many low-income communities and communities of color have limited resources, it
may be likely mat there are no other authorities with capability to respond to the releases, jp.
151]
Chapter 13:
CERCLA
Section 106(c) requires EPA to establish guidelines for using the imminent hazard,
enforcement, and emergency response authorities granted under Section 106 of CERCLA,
which provides the authority for EPA to issue cleanup orders and to request that the Justice
Department assist it in securing necessary relief in court. 42 U.S.C. § 9606(c). Among the
issues that must be addressed by the guidelines are: the enforcement of standards and permits,
the gathering of information, and the imminent hazard and emergency powers authorized in
other statutes administered by EPA. Id. This section provides broad, general authority that
arguably would allow EPA to take environmental justice considerations into account in
developing or amending guidelines for using its emergency response and enforcement
authorities. [Abatement Actions, p. 151]
Chapter 13:
CERCLA
Section 102(a) provides broad authority to EPA to promulgate and revise, as appropriate, the
regulations that designate those hazardous substances that, when released into the
environment, "may present substantial danger to me public health or welfare or the
environment." 42 U.S.C. § 9602 (a). EPA must also promulgate regulations establishing
what quantity of release of any hazardous substance must be reported. Id. Section 103(a)
establishes the actual duty to report releases.
This section provides general authority that arguably could allow EPA to take into account
environmental justice considerations in designating hazardous substances and their reportable
quantities. For example, EPA could consider, as appropriate, cumulative exposure scenarios,
sensitive populations, and consumption patterns in setting or revising threshold reporting
quantities in its regulations. See 40 C.F.R. Part 302. [p. 158]
K-17
-------
Chapter 13:
CERCLA
This provision could possibly be used to require EPA to meet its statutory obligation to
evaluate facilities in communities of color and low-income communities, if such evaluations
have not been completed within the appropriate time frames. This section does not address
the factors that EPA should take into account in determining priorities among assessments or
determining whether evaluations are warranted on the basis of site inspections or preliminary
assessments. Because the statute is silent on these points and Section 105(a) gives EPA
broad general authority to determine methods for investigating and evaluating facilities, it is
arguable that EPA could consider environmental justice concerns, such as the cumulative
exposures suffered by a particular community, in determining whether a site should be
evaluated. In addition, the statute provides considerable discretion to EPA to develop the
criteria used in site evaluations. As discussed above, the criteria for evaluations and for
determining priorities among releases for inclusion on the NPL must be based, in part, on
"relative risk or danger to the public health or welfare or the environment," taking into
account to the extent possible the "population at risk" and several other considerations set out
in the statute, as well as "other appropriate factors." 42 U.S.C. § 9605(aX8XA)- [Assessment
and Listing of Facilities, p. 160]
Chapter 13:
CERCLA
Section 121 (c) provides that if EPA selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant remaining at a site, EPA must review the remedial action
no less often than every five years after the initiation of the remedial action to assure that
human health and the environment are being protected. 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c). In addition, if
EPA determines after the five-year review that cleanup action is appropriate, EPA must take
or require such action. Id.
This is an important statutory provision for purposes of protecting communities of color and
low-income communities. EPA's failure to conduct five-year reviews in a timely manner has
been well-documented. See, e.g., KATHERINE PROBST, SUPERFUND'S FUTURE: WHAT WILL IT
COST, A REPORT TO CONGRESS 63 (2001). EPA has taken steps to meet its five-year review
obligations, but it remains to be seen whether it can adequately address the back log and keep
up with current demands. Meeting the five-year review requirements is particularly
important for communities of color to the extent that EPA is more likely to select containment
remedies for sites in those communities than in white communities. See Ferris at 673. In
addition, remedies that allow contaminants to remain onsite may pose a greater risk to
communities of color and low-income communities than other communities because of
cumulative exposures, consumption patterns, and the presence of sensitive populations.
Low-income communities may also have limited resources for taking steps to ensure that
EPA meets its review obligations. Thus, this provision could be used to protect these
communities from risks posed by contaminants that remain after site cleanups are completed.
[Remedy Action, p. 164]
Chapter 13:
CERCLA
CERCLA contains a variety of enforcement authorities and penally provisions. The
following is a brief outline of the key provisions. Because they are generic provisions, no
analysis is provided and the same considerations with respect to environmental justice would
apply to these provisions, as apply to most penalty provisions in environmental laws. For
example, EPA enforcement authorities should be applied consistently and aggressively in all
situations in which private parties or federal facilities fail to comply with administrative
orders. This may be particularly important with respect to Superfund sites, given the research
that indicates mat EPA has tended to enforce more aggressively in white communities. See
Lavelle & Coyle. hi addition, CERCLA and other statutes' enforcement provisions which
allow for punitive damages or fines in excess of general caps could be implemented in a
manner that takes into account the special harm that noncompliance can cause to members of
communities of color and low-income communities because of cumulative exposures and
consumption patterns. Similarly, statutory provisions that allow for consideration of the
"gravity" of the violation or allow for consideration of other "factors as justice may require"
may allow EPA to include environmental justice considerations in bringing enforcement
actions. For a fuller discussion of statutory enforcement authorities for advancing
environmental justice, see Chapter 5. [Enforcement, p. 167-168]
K-18
-------
Chapter 14:
FKFRA,
In establishing tolerances or exemptions pursuant to Section 408(b) of the FFDCA, EPA
must consider nine specific factors, "among other relevant factors." 21 U.S.C. §
346a(b)(2)(D). As discussed below, some of these factors are of particular importance from
an environmental justice perspective.
One important factor that EPA must consider is "available information concerning the dietary
consumption patterns of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of consumers)." 21
U.S.C. § 346a(bX2)(DXiv). Thus, the agency can examine the extent to which dietary
consumption patterns in communities of color and low-income communities differ from
patterns in the general population. For example, some low-income or Native American
communities rely on subsistence fishing and hunting, and the animals they consume can
contain unsafe levels of pesticide residue as a result of runoff and drift. Low-income
communities may also have less adequate diets and lower levels of health generally, which
could combine to increase susceptibility to the harmful effects of pesticides. Similarly,
agricultural worker communities often consume fresh fruits and vegetables that contain
higher levels of pesticide residue than fruits and vegetables mat take longer to reach the table.
Another factor that EPA must consider is "available information concerning the aggregate
exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of consumers) to the
pesticide chemical residue and to other related substances, including dietary exposure under
the tolerance and all other tolerances in effect for the pesticide chemical residue, and
exposure from other non-occupational sources." 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(D)(vi). Thus, EPA
can consider whether communities of color and low-income communities are exposed to
more pesticides from more sources than other communities.
Additionally, EPA is directed to consider "available information concerning the variability of
the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers." 21 U.S.C. §
346a(bX2)(DXvii). This factor gives the agency a means of determining whether members of
low-income communities or communities of color may be particularly sensitive to the effects
of pesticides. Taken together, these three statutory factors are significant because they refer
expressly to the need to consider "major identifiable subgroups of consumers." A
fundamental concern about pesticide risk assessment has been that it fails to capture the
disproportionate risks borne by population subgroups - particularly communities of color and
low-income communities - that suffer higher exposure levels and may have increased
susceptibility to health risks. See Scott Bauer, The Food Quality Protection Act of1996:
Replacing Old Impracticalities -with New Uncertainties in Pesticide Regulation, 75 N.C. L.
Rev. 1398 note at 1405-06 (1997).
The FQPA has focused attention on major identifiable subgroups, thereby giving EPA a clear
means of examining how pesticide residues impact communities of color and low-income
communities. In feet, hi 1998 the Natural Resources Defense Council and others filed a
petition with the agency to designate ferm children as a "major identifiable subgroup and
population at special risk" to be protected under the FQPA pursuant to these three factors.
Petition for a Directive that the Agency Designate Farm Children as a Major Identifiable
Subgroup and Population at Special Risk to Be Protected Under the Food Quality Protection
Act 4, In the Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council, et al, Petition to the
Administrator (Oct. 1998), available at http://ecologic-ipm.com/farmkidsPDF (last visited
Nov. 14,2001).
Other factors to be weighed in connection with tolerance setting are also important to
environmental justice. EPA is required to consider "available information concerning the
cumulative effects of such residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity." 21U.S.C. §346a(b)(2)(DXv). This provision is a directive to consider how similar
chemicals - which may be present in pesticide residues as well as "other substances" - work
together to create harmful effects. Here again, because communities of color and low-income
communities are more likely than the general population to face multiple exposures from
K-19
-------
multiple toxic substances, the issue of cumulative effects from common mechanisms of
toxicity is highly relevant
Finally, it is important to note that the factors listed in the statute represent only a starting
point, as EPA may also consider "other relevant factors." 21 U.S.C. § 346a(bX2)(D). This
provides an opportunity for the agency to obtain and review any other demographic and
geographical data that might assist in the identification and delineation of specific affected
communities. Other fectors might also include morbidity in communities of color and low-
income communities, as well as susceptibility of such communities to harm from particular
toxins. Taken together, all of these factors provide a set of tools not only for obtaining and
examining, but also for acting on this information in establishing pesticide residue tolerances
and exemptions, [p. 187-188]
Chapter 14:
FIFRA,FFDCA,
FGPA
Section 408(b) of the FFDCA requires that in the process of establishing a tolerance or
exemption for a pesticide residue, EPA must assess the risk of the residue based on certain
categories of available information involving infants and children. The agency must
consider
"available information about consumption patterns among infants and children that are
likely to result in disproportionately high consumption of foods containing or bearing
such residue among infants and children in comparison to the general population;''
• "available information concerning the special susceptibility of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residues, including neurological differences between infants and
children and adults, and effects of in utero exposure to pesticide chemicals;" and
• "available information concerning the cumulative effects on infants and children of such
residues and other substances mat have a common mechanism of toxichy." [p. 188-189]
Chapter 15:
SDWA
Thus, MCLGs set contaminant levels that protect against all known or anticipated health
effects with an adequate margin of safety, while the MCLs included in primary drinking
water regulations establish contaminant levels mat factor in technological and financial
considerations. These SDWA standard setting provisions give EPA authority to act in two
important ways. Fust, the agency can identify any drinking water contaminants that may
adversely affect the health of communities of color and low-income communities and ensure
mat MCLs and MCLGs are adopted to reduce those risks. Second, EPA can ensure that
MCLGs reflect health risks that may be of particular concern to cornmunities of color and
low-income communities, due to cumulative impacts of pollutants, or due to the effects of
drinking water pollutants on sensitive populations. [Maximum contaminant load, p. 203]
Chapter 15:
SDWA
The standard set out in the Act and the regulations provides EPA with broad authority to
adopt regulations designed to ensure that state programs do not allow underground injection
that may result in adverse effects on human health in communities of color and low-income
communities. For example, the regulations could include provisions aimed at addressing
situations in which underground injection wells might contribute to cumulative health effects
from multiple sources of hazardous substances. [Deep Injection Wells, p. 210]
Chapter 16:
TSCA
EPA can promote environmental justice by considering fully the potential risks to affected
communities from the proposed activity involving PCBs before granting any exemptions to
the TSCA prohibitions. For example, EPA could consider whether the activity presents
unreasonable risks due to unique exposure pathways, such as fish consumption, or due to the
cumulative and synergistic effects of numerous sources of chemical exposure in the affected
communities. [PCBs, p. 228]
K-20
-------
Chapter 16:
TSCA
In determining whether to require testing, TSCA directs EPA to consider whether
"manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use or disposal of a chemical substance
or mixture, or.. .any combination of sack activities" may present unreasonable health risks.
15 U.S.C. § 2603(aXl) (emphasis added). In determining whether a chemical may pose an
unreasonable risk, EPA can promote environmental justice by considering fully the potential
health and environmental risks to communities of color and low-income communities - for
example, by considering whether unique exposure pathways exist, whether multiple sources
of exposure may produce cumulative and synergistic effects, or whether sensitive
populations are exposed.
Section 4(b) establishes the requirements for promulgating test rules once EPA has made the
necessary findings under Section 4(a). Section 4(b)(2) sets out the types of health and
environmental effects for which EPA may prescribe standards on developing test data. The
Act specifically includes "cumulative or synergistic effects, and any other effect which may
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" 15 U.S.C. §
2603(bX2XA). The law thus gives EPA explicit authority to require testing to obtain
information on the types of health effects that are of particular concern to heavily impacted
communities, [p. 234]
Chapter 17:
EPCRA
This statutory authority provides considerable opportunity for EPA to incorporate
environmental justice concerns in guidance for state and local entities responsible for
emergency planning and response. For example, guidance documents could assist localities
in determining whether low-income communities and communities of color may require
special medical attention in the event of a chemical release, because of cumulative
exposures, consumption patterns, or sensitive populations. Guidance documents could also
provide suggestions as to how to include and recruit representatives from low-income
communities and communities of color on emergency planning teams. [National Response
Team Emergency Guidance, p. 239]
Chapter 17:
EPCRA
Section 311(b) provides that EPA may establish threshold quantities for hazardous
chemicals, below which no facility is subject to the material safety data sheet reporting
requirements of Section 311. The threshold quantities may, in EPA's discretion, be based on
classes of chemicals or categories of facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 11021(b). Section 312(b)
provides that EPA may also establish threshold quantities for hazardous chemicals, below
which no facility is subject to the emergency and hazardous chemical inventory form
reporting requirements of Section 312. 42 U.S.C. § 11022(b). Under both provisions, the
threshold quantities may, in EPA's discretion, be based on classes of chemicals or categories
of facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 11021(b), 11022(b). These general provisions provide substantial
discretion to EPA and, therefore, presumably could be used by EPA to consider
environmental justice concerns, such as cumulative exposures, in establishing threshold
quantities for hazardous chemicals under two key- reporting requirements in the Act
[Hazardous Chemicals Threshold Quantity Regulations, p. 241]
Chapter 17:
EPCRA
Section 313(f) provides that EPA may establish a threshold amount for purposes of reporting
toxic chemicals that is different from the amount established in the statute. 42 U.S.C. §
11023(f). The revised threshold must obtain reporting of a substantial majority of total
releases of the chemical at all facilities subject to the reporting requirement. The statute
provides that the amounts established may be based on classes of chemicals or categories of
facilities. Id.
These provisions grant EPA substantial authority to shape the toxic chemical release
reporting program. Environmental justice considerations could be taken into account by EPA
in using this authority. EPA has used this authority in recent years to add chemicals to the
list of chemicals that are subject to release reporting and to amend the SIC code list that
determines which faculties must report See, e.g., 62 Fed. Reg. 23834 (May 1,1997)
(addition of industry sectors, including metal mining, coal mining, and electric utilities); 59
Fed. Reg. 61432 (November 30,1994) (addition of 286 chemicals to reporting list). EPA
K-21
-------
could consider whether any additional changes to the chemical and SIC code lists would be
appropriate, in an effort to forward environmental justice goals. Such additions could be
based on, for example, epidemiological studies of low-income communities and communities
of color. EPA could also apply the toxic chemical release reporting requirements to the
owners and operators of particular facilities that use toxic chemicals covered under Section
313, if such facilities pose risks to low-income communities and communities of color. EPA
could also use its authority to make additional amendments to threshold reporting amounts.
See, e.g., 66 Fed. Reg. 4499 (January 13,2001) (loweringreporting thresholds for lead and
lead compounds because they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals), codified
at 40 C-F.R, Part 372. [p. 241]
Chapter 17:
EPCRA
Section 313(e) provides that any person may petition EPA to add or delete a chemical from
the list of chemicals subject to die toxic chemical release form reporting requirements. 42
U.S.C. § 11023(e). The petition must be based on the same criteria that the statute directs
EPA to use in making deletions and additions to me list 42 U.S.C. § 11023(e),(d)(2).
Within 180 days after receipt of a petition, EPA must either initiate a rule-making to add or
delete the chemical from the list or publish an explanation of why the petition is denied. 42
U.S.C. §11023(e).
This is a general tool mat has been used by industry and environmental groups. It could be
used specifically to promote environmental justice, because it authorizes petitions to EPA to
list chemicals mat may present particular threats to low-income communities and
communities of color, due to cumulative exposures, sensitive populations, or consumption
patterns, [p. 243]
K-22
-------
APPENDIX L:
POLLUTION BURDEN MATRIX (PBM)
Introduction
The current regulatory approach for siting and operating various types of facilities or activities is
predominantly based on a risk-based paradigm from a single source or a single pollutant. In many urban
areas, mis approach along with zoning areas for mixed-use has resulted in the aggregation of sources
(clusters) that are within the risk threshold for individual facilities, but cumulatively produce a higher
exposure burden to people living in surrounding areas. This issue is critical in addressing the EJ concerns
of a community.
In the current approach, emissions in a given area get weighted against their toxicity potential, but fail to
consider the EJ concerns expressed by a community. These concerns include (but not limited to) the
number of sources, density of sources, proximity of sources, demographics consideration, or emissions on
a per capita basis for comparative purposes.
In light of this concern, USEPA and agencies like CARB and SCAQMD have initiated efforts to develop
scientific approaches and tools (models) to evaluate cumulative impacts. The availability of these models
for implementation is expected to take many years because of the complex nature of the models and
limitations in the data inputs as well as the need to develop consensus among scientific community,
industry and community.
Recognizing this inherent delay, the sub-group of the NEJAC concluded that an alternate simpler
approach must be adopted in a shorter time frame for identifying communities that bear higher pollution
burden and where remedial actions can be initiated. The remedial actions will be site specific and could
include a number of options. Examples include proper degree of verifiable emissions controls installation
in facilities that are primary/high risk drivers through incentives, strengthening enforcement programs,
additional siting, permit and emission requirements for new facilities, etc.
The "Pollution Burden Matrix" proposed for community characterization is a conceptual framework for
assessing cumulative impacts using a suite of proxy indicators of neighborhood-scale cumulative
emissions, exposure and health effects. The example provided utilizes 20 indices and each is assigned a
qualitative value of high, medium, or low to develop a composite "burden level" for a community.
Instead, a numerical scale of 1 -5 can be applied and the suite of indicators may be increased or decreased
depending on the data availability. This matrix approach can be used to identify the communities having
the highest burden levels and be given priority for all remedial actions that can be taken.
The PBM serves as a framework for developing a screening tool, which would rely primarily on analyses
of existing or readily available sources of data, to identify the most burdened census tracts within a
specified region. Optimally, data would be geocoded so that geographic analyses concerning potential
problem areas of pollution source over-concentration and/or proximity to sensitive receptors within
census tracts can be identified.
L-l
-------
Geographical Unit and Demographic Data
Census tracts are chosen as the geographic unit of analysis owing to the availability of demographic
data on race and socioeconomic status for the entire country. For each census tract, the following
demographic information would be needed:
Total Population and categorical statistics: The severity of the pollution burden is partly a
function of population — comparatively speaking, a problem is worse if a large number of people
are affected than if only a few people are affected. More detailed information (e.g., % minority,
% at or below poverty) is needed to tease out potential differences in environmental burden levels
by race and class.
Total area of the census tract (km2): This information is needed to calculate densities of pollution-
generating facilities and population. Collectively, a high facility density in a densely populated
census tract could be a preliminary indication of the potential for problems due to the over-
concentration of pollution sources or proximity of pollution sources to sensitive receptors. As the
quality of data on pollution sources could vary significantly among census tracts, the census tracts
with the highest facility densities could serve as a starting point for where to target more detailed
data gathering or mitigation efforts.
Housing Statistics: Measures of median or average age and cost of housing in a community
provide insight on the lead exposure (lead-based paint use in older homes), housing density, and
income status. Housing age and density may also be indicators of potential problems with pests
(insect and animal), molds, and indoor air quality.
Key Databases
As available, the following pollution source, emissions, exposure, health effects, and/or amenity
data should be compiled to calculate the various indices in the PBM:
Inventory of Pollution Sources: For a multi-media assessment, as complete an inventory of air,
water, and soil pollution sources is needed. For air, state or local air pollution control agencies
may already maintain inventories of major sources (e.g., refineries, cement plants) for SIP-related
activities. For water, sources that could potentially affect surface and groundwaier quality would
need to be identified (e.g., USEPA Toxic Release Inventory, National Water Quality Database).
Depending on the principal land-uses hi the region (rural vs. urban), sources of soil contamination
could include brownfields, chemical applications to agricultural lands, military installations, and
toxic storage and disposal facilities (Note: Super-fund sites are considered separately ~ see
below).
Inventory of Major Roadways and Traffic: Major roadways serve as significant line sources for
criteria and toxic air pollutants, and potentially significant sources from which contaminated
runoff water could be delivered to sensitive aquatic, terrestrial, or human receptors. Where
possible, information on traffic density and fleet composition (i.e., passenger cars vs. heavy-duty
diesel trucks) would help to refine estimates of line source air emissions, aad the source strength
of roadways for water/soil contamination due to the build-up of vehicle-associated contaminants
(e.g., tire and lubricant residues).
Inventory of Sensitive Receptors: An accounting of all the residences, schools, hospitals, elder-
care facilities, etc. is needed to assess potential problems due to source proximity and availability
of services. Using a GIS, measurements could then be made to determine an average index of
L-2
-------
source proximity to homes, schools, and hospitals, inter alia. A measure of hospital density (e.g.,
number per km2, number per 1,000 people) could serve as a measure of the availability of health
services in a census tract.
Acreage of Parks and Green Belts: The total "green-space" provides a measure of ecological
amenities in urban census tracts. While tin's is not an indicator of pollution burden, it sheds light
on the distribution of benefits within the region. This measure may not have utility for rural
census tracts that may have tourism- or agriculture-based economies, where green-space would be
a predominant land-use.
Ambient Concentrations of Criteria/Toxic Air Pollutants and Water Contaminants: For air quality
related pollution problems, monitoring networks are operated to assess compliance with state
and/or federal ambient air quality standards. These data, where available would be used to
calculate population-weighted measures of air pollution exposure using peak values or daytime
average levels, as appropriate. Drinking water quality data may be obtained from local agencies
and/or from national water quality assessments conducted by USEPA.
Presence/Number of Superfund Sites: The existence of a Superfund in a community would, in
itself, constitute a major pollution burden. The presence and number of Superfund sites provides
an indication of a localized soil pollution problem that could also affect local water supplies and
air quality, depending on the contaminant chemistry.
Measures of Health Effects: In addition to the incidence of cancer, a number of other non-cancer
health responses should be examined to capture the range of efiects that occur in the community
(e.g., asthma, nose bleeds). While admissions data from hospitals could be used, consideration
should also be given data from community-based organizations that document the extent of
pollution-associated health problems where they live.
Other OOL-Reducing Entities: In addition to pollution-generating facilities, mere are other
activities and entities that reduce the quality of life in communities. These include rendering
plants, recycling facilities, landfills, dairies, etc., that are not regulated with respect to emissions
to air, water, or soil, but there presence often reduces the overall environmental quality in a
community.
Indices of the Pollution Burden Matrix (PBM)
An analysis of the demographic data is first conducted to verify population and area information,
to identify which census tracts are populated by low-income communities of color, and to determine if
health risks from lead paint are an issue. As selected indices in the PBM are population- or area-
weighted, it is important that there is a high level of certainty in these data.
The following of 15-items, for which other census tract-appropriate measures could be
substituted, could be used in a PBM to identify the census tracts with the highest pollution burdens in a
region. For each item below, the top 25% of values would be considered as having "high" burdens, the
middle 50% would be "medium," and the bottom 25% have "low" burdens.
L-3
-------
No.
1
2
3
4-6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Item
Total criteria air pollutant
emissions (TCE)
Total toxic air contaminants
emissions (TTE)
Population-weighted air emission
burden (P WTE)
Facility density — High, Medium,
and Low Emitting Sources. (FD-
L, FD-M, FD-S)
Total Length of Major Roadways
(TLR)
Number of Superfund sites (NSS)
Total release of toxic chemicals
from Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) facilities
Presence/number of QOL-reducing
entities (QOL)
Acreage of Parks/Greenbelts
(APG)
Total cancer risk (TCR)
Incidence of asthma (IOA)
Drinking water quality (D WQ)
Number of leaking underground
fuel storage tanks (LUST)
Rationale
Total emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources,
which may be available from state and local agencies or national
data compiled by USEPA (tons/day).
As above, except for toxic air contaminants (TAG) (tons/day)
For criteria pollutants, TACs, or both. Total emissions are
multiplied by census tract population (people-tons/day); the
comparative severity of a pollution problem is greater in relation
to the number of people affected.
After surveying the types of facilities in the region, divide them
into three categories based on their emission rates - high,
medium, and low. Facility densities (#/km2) would be
calculated for each facility size class.
A measure of the total length major roadways (e.g., freeways,
main thoroughfares with traffic densities above a selected level)
as an indicator of community fragmentation and ancillary
mobile source impacts (km).
The presence of one or more Superfund sites, in itself,
constitutes a severe pollution burden, both directly and
indirectly.
Although this has overlap with item 2, the TRI database is
readily accessible database, and this may also capture releases to
media other than air.
This is a catch-all category to inventory the presence and
number of facilities that may not be subject to SOT, water, or soil-
specific regulations. They would include landfills, dairies,
rendering plants, etc.
Serves as measure of the distribution of a valued amenity. In
this case, census tracts with the most park acreage would be
ranked low, and those with the least ranked high.
Allows for comparing the cancer risks among census tracts with
similar amounts of total TAG emissions; considers the cancer-
causing potential of the TACs in ambient air.
Asthma, or some other respiratory effect, provides a measure of
non-cancer health effects most associated with poor air quality.
County-level data are compiled for maximum contaminant level
exceedances in drinking water sources at the point of entering
drinking water supplies.
In urban areas, leaking underground fuel storage tanks can be a
significant point source for groundwater contamination.
L-4
-------
Identification of Census Tracts with High, Medium, and Low Burdens
Depending on data availability at the census tract level, a PBM for the region is question is
developed based on the sources of pollution that are most likely to have an impact. There is no right or
wrong number of indices to consider in the PBM, and use the maximum number of indices is likely to
provide for the most robust analysis to be performed. An example of a PBM could be used in shown in
the following table, based on the indices identified in the previous section. To calculate a total score,
multiply each SSH" by 5, "M" by 3, and "L" by 1, then sum the column (e.g., site 3 = [(6 x 5) + (11 x 3)] =
63).
Conceptual Comparison of Eight Areas in a Region
Index*
TCE
TTE
PWTE
FD-L
FD-M
FD-S
TLR
NSS
TRI
QOL
APG
TCR
IOA
DWG
LUST
%P
%M
Total
Rank
BL
1
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
85
1
High
2
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
H
M
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
67
2
High
3
M
M
M
M
H
M
H
H
M
H
M
M
M
H
M
M
H
63
3
Med
Areas of Comparison
4
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
57
4
Med
5
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
43
5
Med
6
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
M
L
M
M
L
41
6
Med
7
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
33
7
Low
8
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
17
8
Low
(*) %P = percent of census tract at or below the poverty level, %M = percent of the census tract that is
African-American, Hispanic, or Asian
In this example, sites 1 and 2 have the highest relative burdens in the region, and initial efforts to
investigate/mitigate existing EJ problems should begin with those sites. Over time, changes to the list of
indices selected for use in the PBM could be made based on verification of or the inability to verify
problems on the ground.
L-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX M:
STATE CUMULATIVE RISK ACTIVniES
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Staff Report on Cumulative Risk Activities
July 2003
Introduction
In 2001, HB 2912 (77th Texas Legislature) Section 1.12 amended Subchapter D, Chapter 5, Water Code
by adding Section 5.130 Consideration of Cumulative Risk which states, The Commission shall:
(1) develop and implement policies, by specific environmental media, to protect the public from
cumulative risks in areas of concentrated operations; and
(2) give priority to monitoring and enforcement in areas in which regulated facilities are
concentrated.
On November 8,2002, staff presented a status report at a Commissioners' Work Session regarding the
implementation of the cumulative risk provisions of House Bill 2912. As a follow up to those discussions,
staff was asked by the Commissioners to develop information on the following areas of interest:
Existing agency regulatory and planning efforts to protect the public from cumulative risks and
current agency activities regarding the prioritization of monitoring and enforcement activities in
areas where regulated facilities are concentrated.
* Characteristics of the geographic features and programmatic situations that have prompted the
agency to consider cumulative risk concerns or to establish monitoring or enforcement activities
in areas where regulated facilities are concentrated. Factors may include facility or population
densities, quantities of pollutant releases, programmatic criteria (Permitting, TMDLs, etc.), or
other elements relating to agency regulatory requirements.
Findings
This report provides the information requested by the Commission at the November 8,2002 meeting and
illustrates ways that agency programs have applied the general concepts of "cumulative risk" and "areas
of concentrated operations" in operational activities. Based on this information, the TCEQ can
demonstrate that it currently conducts a significant number of activities that provide protection to the
public from cumulative risk, especially in areas of concentrated operations, and that its monitoring and
enforcement efforts consider concentrations of regulated facilities in areas where problems have been
identified. The agency continually evaluates and considers opportunities to enhance its operations and
policies to address cumulative risk, within its legislative authority and its technical and fiscal means.
Methodology and Format
Specific definitions of cumulative risk and related terms have not been developed or adopted by the
TCEQ. Since this report could facilitate discussions regarding those definitions, a very broad net was cast
in preparing a response to this request. To be as inclusive as possible, the Strategic Environmental
Analysis (SEA) Group requested agency subject matter experts (SME's) to provide descriptions of all
activities that they would interpret as addressing the assessment, control, reduction, or prevention of the
combined effects of multiple sources, multiple pollutants, multiple exposure pathways, or similar
circumstances; or as influencing the prioritization or implementation of activities based on the
M-l
-------
concentration of regulated facilities or operations. Staff responses were extensive and, in many cases,
included detailed descriptions of program procedures and requirements. Examples ranged from activities
that explicitly address cumulative risk in rules or guidance documents to those that, while not specifically
designed to address cumulative risk, tangentially affect multiple facilities or pollutants.
The information compiled in this effort, as well as some additional information obtained during earlier
work wirn SME's on mis issue, has been summarized in the following tables. Part 1, beginning on page
7, consists of a series of tables, segregated by environmental media, that describe the current activities of
the agency that address cumulative risk in some manner. Tables are further divided to distinguish
between those activities with a direct objective to address the combined effects of pollutants and/or
sources and those activities which more indirectly influence, support, or enhance cumulative risk
protection. Part 2, beginning on page 27, consists of tables which describe how agency activities consider
the impacts of concentrations of facilities in planning and regulatory efforts and in the prioritization of
monitoring and enforcement efforts. The report includes the full gamut of responses, and while the
information has been summarized, it does not attempt to screen any of the activities identified by staff.
Observations
Concerning Part 1:
Many air and water quality strategies address cumulative risk by focusing on the improvement and
protection of ambient conditions regardless of the number of pollutants or sources that may be
contributing to potential environmental degradation. Standards are established to achieve specified hearth
or environmental goals; monitoring, modeling, and other assessments are conducted to evaluate
environmental conditions and the extent of source impacts; and control measures are implemented to
reduce or prevent overall contributing pollutant releases in affected geographic areas. For example, State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) for criteria air pollutants, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for
impaired water bodies, and applicable permitting evaluations and control requirements are developed and
implemented to ensure that overall air and water quality standards are attained. The Source Water
Assessment and Protection (SWAP) Program also considers the potential combined impacts of the type
and number of pollutant sources in a contributing zone in determining the susceptibility of a drinking
water system to contamination.
Many agency programs utilize monitoring data and/or direct measurements of pollutants in regulatory
decisionmaking and risk assessment. Monitoring data (e.g., community air monitoring) can address
cumulative exposures by reflecting impacts from all contributing local sources.
Assessment and remediation activities at properties affected by waste contamination also directly address
cumulative risk through an assessment of the extent of the contamination, the establishment of human
health and environmental levels that are protective of identified cumulative risk, and ensuring that
contaminants are remediated to these protective levels. For affected properties remediated under the
1999 Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP), exposures from all relevant pathways (air, soil,
groundwater and surface water) are considered to determine protective contaminant concentrations. Most
of the remediation programs fall within the purview of TRRP. In general, the activities that consider
cumulative risk are based on a single property and do not consider the risk from multiple properties that
are in close proximity to one another.
The cumulative effects of specific types of pollutants and sources of contaminants on environmental
conditions are also addressed indirectly by programs that conduct and coordinate activities to support
other assessment, planning, or control functions; provide compliance assistance and enforcement; educate
the public regarding relative risks; seek public input in the form of public meetings, hearings, or comment
periods; or encourage voluntary actions to reduce contaminant releases. While their primary purpose is
M-2
-------
not necessarily to assess or reduce cumulative risk, these activities result in the better understanding of
overall conditions, information about the eifects of multiple pollutants and sources, and/or the reduction
or prevention of cumulative impacts of separate sources on environmental quality. Important health-
related information and guidance are often used to support or supplement other assessments to
characterize or reduce cumulative impacts.
Concerning Part 2:
Following the identification of an actual or potential problem, program areas often implement activities to
address the impacts of a concentration of facilities or the impact of adjacent facilities. For example,
pollutant source impacts are systematically evaluated hi air quality nonattainment areas or in watersheds
and affected impaired water bodies subject to a TMDL. In waste permitting activities, the statutory
requirements for land use compatibility determine if other related types of facilities or waste management
needs will affect permit approvals. While a dense number of waste management facilities and related
generators may potentially lead to an increase in total emissions, priority may be given to processing
applications for permits in areas where a high volume of waste is generated and/or management/disposal
needs exists. Training, technical assistance, and grants are also targeted in areas, businesses, and
industrial sectors associated with environmental problems.
Similarly, once areas in which problems exist are clearly identified, the TCEQ targets areas in which
regulated facilities are concentrated for monitoring, investigation, or enforcement. Prioritization is given
to locating and operating fixed and mobile monitoring stations that can characterize and quantify the
impacts of suspected pollutant sources to support planning and compliance efforts. Source investigations,
enforcement, and compliance assistance activities are also often focused on specific types and
concentrations of facilities, especially close to populated areas. Remediation programs focus on the clean
up of identified contaminated properties, rather than on the locations or concentrations of facilities.
M-3
-------
PARTI:
DESCRIPTIONS OF CURRENT CUMULATIVE RISK ACTIVITIES
Descriptions of Current Cumulative Risk Activities
Air Quality
Assessments of cumulative risk for air quality are addressed within the agency's air permitting,
monitoring and planning program functions. Within these programs, subject matter experts (SME's)
identified a number of existing program policies, practices, guidance or actions that address cumulative
risk to some degree. The technical elements used to evaluate cumulative risk include the use of air
dispersion modeling, air monitoring, and tools to characterize risk. These technical elements are also used
as an integral part of the planning and development of control strategies to reduce cumulative air
emissions and improve air quality.
Direct Approaches
There are several programs that directly assess the cumulative impact of air emissions and conduct
planning and regulatory activities to implement controls that improve overall air quality. Air permitting,
monitoring, and planning activities directly assess and reduce cumulative risk for criteria pollutants (such
as ozone and participate matter) by addressing the effects of all contributing sources to meet health-based
ambient air quality standards. Cumulative risk for specific non-criteria pollutants, including many air
toxics, may also be addressed in limited circumstances where ambient monitoring indicates localized
health concerns. These activities are often associated with other indirect approaches, such as air
dispersion modeling and the use of effect screening levels (ESLs), to offer added protection to the public
from cumulative risk.
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Air dispersion modeling is used in the
technical review of air permit
applications for criteria air pollutants
The application of air dispersion modeling for air permit
applications of criteria pollutants considers cumulative risk by
evaluating single pollutants from one or more sources.
• Air emissions used in the air dispersion model are from
the facility to be permitted and all other on- and off-
property air emissions of the same pollutant from
stationary point and areas sources.
• A background concentration representing other sources
that were not modeled, such as biogenic and mobile
sources are added to the modeled concentration.
Representative ambient air monitoring is
used to supplement modeling in the
effects evaluation of some air permits.
Rather than considering just the concentration predicted to
result from site-wide emissions sources, ambient air
monitoring reflects existing concentrations of pollutants,
regardless of their origin. Modeling may be used in
conjunction with existing monitoring to assure that the
proposed additional emissions would be acceptable.
The Air Pollutant Watch List is used in
the technical review of New Source
Review permit applications
Cities and counties are placed on the Air Pollutant Watch List
based on elevated concentrations of specific pollutants
detected at fixed and mobile monitoring sites. The list serves
to alert staff of areas within the state that have - or are
predicted to have - concentrations of pollutants that justify the
potential scrutiny and restriction of new emissions given
existing cumulative air quality.
M-4
-------
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Fixed monitoring efforts provide
information that is used to assist in air
quality planning, exposure assessment
and enforcement.
Fixed ambient monitoring, which includes continuous and
noncontinuous sampling of criteria and non-criteria
pollutants, is concentrated in areas suspected to be most
severely affected by emissions from clusters of industrial
point sources or from the combined emissions from point,
mobile, and areas sources. Fixed monitors generally provide
the most representative information on community exposure.
Monitoring sites may include several air pollution
instruments, allowing a cumulative ambient exposure
assessment across different compounds.
Each site operates for a number of years, or even decades,
allowing for the assessment cumulative ambient exposure
over time.
A network of instruments in most urban areas relay data
in near-real time for continuously monitored species.
Other species are monitored on a semi-continuous or
periodic basis. All of the data allows for cumulative
ambient exposure assessment. In addition, the data are
used in some cases, such as for ozone, to contour the
likely concentrations over a large geographic area.
Mobile monitoring efforts provide
ambient air quality data in close
proximity to pollution sources of
interest.
Mobile monitoring is targeted in areas where there are many
sources of a compound or compounds to identify contributing
facilities and to use real-time information to focus regulatory
activities where needed to reduce cumulative exposures.
Mobile monitors provide the most representative information
on source-specific pollutant concentrations and characterize
short-term community exposure.
• Results represent measurements of a compound from a
wide variety of potential sources and/or ambient air
measurements for multiple compounds.
• Results also represent an aggregate concentration of a
compound from all upwind sources (mobile, point and
non-point) and are used to identify contributions of
specific industrial sources to background levels.
Health effects evaluations of results
from fixed and mobile air monitoring are
conducted.
TCEQ evaluates the results of ambient monitoring data
depicting cumulative exposures and identifies concentrations
of pollutants which pose air quality concerns and warrant
further regulatory efforts. The compounds thus identified
may be added to the Air Pollutant Watch List to trigger
consideration of whether additions of a pollutant are
appropriate given existing cumulative air quality.
M-5
-------
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Field Operations Division conducts
targeted activities to support agency air
programs.
Based on decisions and/or data, regional staff conduct
targeted compliance investigations of regulated entities,
review permit decisions, prioritize monitoring efforts, and
initiate appropriate enforcement. This information is used to
provide technical assistance, outreach and education. Most
investigations are directed to meet TCEQ's obligations to the
EPA and/or to respond to complaints, although there are
special initiatives that are implemented to address areas of
particular concern. These initiatives, which may be statewide
or regional, usually address cumulative risk of a particular
category of emission source or activity.
Air Quality Planning: Areas of the state
that exceed the federal National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
designated as "nonattainment," and the
TCEQ is required to develop State
Implementation Plans. These regionally
specific planning efforts are designed to
identify source emissions and implement
control strategies to reduce emissions
needed to achieve and maintain
attainment
Ambient air quality, emissions, meteorological conditions,
atmospheric chemistry, and other factors are used to
characterize or predict emissions of all sources (point, area
and mobile) that contribute to combined air quality impacts.
Extensive research efforts have been conducted in the
Houston area (Texas 2000 Study) to help planners better
understand the complex interactions of pollutants on ozone
formation, transport, and effects.
Control strategies are developed based on the results of these
assessment activities. These control strategies are designed to
address cumulative risk by assessing and implementing
controls on the large number and type of sources mat emit
complex mixtures of compounds that contribute to
exceedances of the NAAQS.
Indirect Approaches
The TCEQ uses a number of indirect approaches to characterize air emissions and assess exposure
through the air permitting and planning process and to determine the potential adverse effects that may be
associated with exposure to specific concentrations of an air pollutant These activities often support or
supplement other air quality assessments used to evaluate or reduce cumulative risk.
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Air quality planning is conducted in near
nonattainment areas
In areas where air quality is close to exceeding the NAAQS,
the EPA, TCEQ, and local communities enter into voluntary
agreements to implement strategies to prevent further
degradation of air quality in those areas. Voluntary air
planning activities include identifying, inventorying, and
monitoring current pollution levels and identifying and
quantifying potential pollution reduction through voluntary
controls.
Voluntary planning activities indirectly address cumulative
risk by assessing and preventing the combination and
interaction of chemicals that may contribute to the
degradation of air quality.
M-6
-------
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Air dispersion modeling of air pollutants
not subject to state and federal standards
is used in the technical review of air
permit applications. The scope of the air
dispersion modeling and effects
evaluation is determined according to
the Modeling and Effects Review
Applicability Guidance on a project-by-
project basis.
Air dispersion modeling evaluates emissions from relevant
sources to predict the resulting maximum ground level
concentration (GLC^ of individual constituents. This
modeling typically considers worst-case emissions scenarios
resulting in conservative estimates of concentrations that
would not be expected to occur under normal operations.
Generally only emissions from the applicant's property are
evaluated except when the applicant has entered into a single
property line agreement with another applicant, in which case
all emissions from the combined properties are evaluated. If
predicted concentrations exceed the effects screening levels
(ESLs), additional analysis is conducted that considers
frequency and potential exposure, with consideration given to
existing concentrations of the same pollutant in the area. The
air permitting process indirectly considers cumulative risk by
assuming that increased emissions resulting in ground-level
concentrations that are less than a specified fraction of the
ESL do not significantly contribute to cumulative exposures.
Application of Effects Screening Levels
are used in the health effects evaluation
of air permit applications
ESLs are used in air permit reviews to address the effects of
all compounds for which there are no federal or state
standards. Their use indirectly serves to help protect the
public from cumulative risk in several ways.
• ESLs are set to be protective of public health and welfare,
and the environment by incorporating a significant margin
of conservatism below the lowest observed effects levels
to account for exposures to even the most sensitive
members of the population.
• ESLs address both short- and long-term exposures, and
endpoints in addition to health, such as odor, vegetative
damage, and corrosion of materials.
• Given the practice in air permitting of evaluating worst-
case emission scenarios, and the margin of safety integral
to ESLs, application of ESLs serve to limit cumulative
concentrations of pollutants in communities. This is
supported by the vast majority of community air
monitoring which does not indicate air toxics at levels of
concern.
Descriptions of Current Cumulative Risk Activities
Surface Water Quality
Municipal, commercial, and industrial facilities commonly discharge treated wastewater and other
pollutants into streams, lakes, estuaries, and other Water bodies. Runoff into surface waters can also carry
other accumulated contaminants from general human activities, such as urban development, agriculture,
and mining. Surface water quality strategies address the cumulative effects of the combined releases from
all of these point and nonpoint sources as necessary to ensure the normal use of those water bodies. Most
pollution control programs of TCEQ address impacts on human health, but perhaps unique among the
various environmental media, the water quality standards also address impacts on aquatic life.
M-7
-------
Direct Approaches
Cumulative risks are addressed directly through establishing and ensuring the attainment of surface water
quality (SWQ) standards to protect human and aquatic life uses, regardless of the type or number of
pollutants or sources. Ambient and special purpose monitoring is conducted to support periodic
assessments of water quality and to identify water bodies that do not meet these standards or exhibit other
concerns. Extensive planning processes, permitting procedures, and control programs are in place to
implement efforts to improve water quality and to prevent significant degradation. While many of the
standards and related assessment criteria are for single pollutants, the combined effects of some pollutants
that may reduce dissolved oxygen, increase total toxicity, or otherwise impair the use of a water body are
also considered.
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Site-specific SWQ standards are
adopted for all classified water bodies
and presumed standards for all others.
Standards establish acceptable water quality conditions for
designated uses regardless of the type or number of sources.
Toxic pollutant standards consider multiple pathway exposure
from drinking water and fish consumption, weighted toxicity
for certain similar compounds, and total effluent toxicity effects
of pollutants on aquatic life.
Bacterial standards are surrogates for exposure to a variety of
waterborne pathogens.
Five-Part Integrated SWQ Assessment
determines water bodies not meeting
applicable SWQ standards.
Assessment identifies adverse impacts on ambient water quality
from one or more sources of pollutant discharges.
Additional loadings of pollutants are restricted in waters listed
as impaired.
SWQ Monitoring coordinates
monitoring of numerous parameters at
sites across Texas.
Monitoring results determine the total pollutant levels hi water
bodies regardless of the type (point, nonpoint, natural) or
number of sources.
Source Water Assessment and
Protection (SWAP) Program
determines the susceptibility of public
drinking water systems to
contamination.
Assessment identifies the type, number, and proximity of
pollutant sources to ground and surface waters used by public
water systems. The assessments includes a ranking of the
potential risks from any of 227 contaminants.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
analyses determine the maximum
pollutant loadings that are acceptable
for a water body to meet SWQ
standards.
Assessments evaluate the amount of a specific pollutant from
all applicable point, nonpoint (including aerial deposition) and
background sources.
Ecological and human health responses to total pollutant levels
are predicted and allocations are established to reduce or
prevent risks within a margin of safety.
TMDL implementation involves
regulatory and voluntary measures to
reduce pollutants in impaired water
bodies
Implementation protects people and aquatic life from the
cumulative effects of multiple sources of contaminants, the
combination of certain pollutants (causing low dissolved
oxygen or high bacterial levels), and the potential effects of
future growth. Prioritized monitoring is conducted to
determine the effects of concentrated facilities or evaluate the
effectiveness of actions.
M-8
-------
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Water Quality Permitting establishes
effluent limits and other conditions to
protect SWQ standards.
For oxygen demanding materials and dissolved salts, ambient
levels and existing pollutant loadings are evaluated in
determining permit requirements. Background levels of other
pollutants are considered negligible.
Certain facilities are required to satisfy ''total toxicity" or
(twhole effluent toxicity" requirements to avoid adverse effects
of multiple pollutants.
Additional nutrient discharge limits may be required where
cumulative ecological impacts are of concern.
Effluent limits are set to prevent further impacts that would
contribute to existing impairments.
Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (TPDES) Pretreatment
Program establishes local limits on
affected Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) to prevent violations
of SWQ standards.
Pretreatment requirements reduce the cumulative effects of
multiple industrial wastewater sources that discharge into the
same POTWs.
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO) Program conducts
annual investigations at facilities in
certain areas of the state.
Dairy Outreach Program Areas have been designated to address
the potential cumulative effects of the large numbers of CAFOs
near Stephenville and Tyler.
Indirect Approaches
The cumulative effects of specific types of pollutants and sources of contaminants on surface water
quality are also addressed indirectly by programs that conduct and coordinate activities to support other
water quality functions or to provide compliance assistance and enforcement While their primary
purpose is not necessarily to assess or reduce cumulative risk, their activities result in a better
understanding of the overall water quality conditions, information about the effects of multiple pollutants
and sources, and/or the reduction or prevention of cumulative impacts on water quality.
Activity Description
Field Operations Division conducts
routine and special purpose SWQ
monitoring.
Clean Rivers Program coordinates SWQ
monitoring, assessment, and public
outreach efforts.
The TCEQ provides Section 401
certification of U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) dredge and fill
permit applications.
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Monitoring supports the priorities established for assessment
and control activities, regardless of the type (point, nonpoint,
natural) or number of sources.
Clean Rivers partners provide 60 percent of water quality
monitoring data in Texas and supports other efforts to identify
and target the immediate risks in associated river basins.
Interagency coordination between TCEQ, USAGE, and others
results in improved mitigation of the adverse SWQ impacts
caused by the loss of wetlands and other water body
modifications.
M-9
-------
Activity Description
On-Site Sewage Facility (OSSF)
Program ensures that OSSFs (such as
septic systems) satisfy design and
operational requirements.
Sludge Beneficial Use Program reduces
runoff from participating properties into
adjacent waterways.
Public Drinking Water Program ensures
that certain facilities are inspected
annually to reduce public risk to
bacterial contamination.
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Authorized Agents manage local efforts to ensure that
systems to do not individually or cumulatively pollute ground
or surface water.
A proposed project has been submitted for Section 319
funding to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of this
program to reduce overall pollution in specific river basins.
Hie program targets additional attention on public water
systems that use surface water sources or certain groundwater
sources that are more susceptible to widespread bacterial
contamination.
Description of Current Cumulative Risk Activities
Groundwater/Drinkmg Water/Water Supply
Programs and staff with regulatory or assessment activities with regard to protecting groundwater and
drinking water from contamination include Field Operations programs for the Edwards Aquifer and for
evaluation of susceptible public water systems, the Public Drinking Water Section, the Groundwater
Planning and Assessment Team, and the Groundwater Protection Team, Water Quality Assessment
Section. In general most activities depend on pollutant reduction, regulatory compliance, and educational
efforts to reduce contaminant exposure risks, but are not focused on assessing cumulative risk. Since
water supply programs do not assess or regulate contaminants, cumulative risk activities are not
considered applicable.
Direct Approaches
Many of the groundwater and drinking water programs use drinking water Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) or standards derived from MCLs, such as Protective Contaminant Levels (PCLs), some of
which include consideration of cumulative risk. For non-carcinogens, drinking water standards are
adjusted to incorporate contributions from other sources of exposure, such as dietary intake. The Source
Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) Program summarizes the contribution of multiple sources of
the same contaminant in order to assign high, medium, and low susceptibility ratings.
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
The SWAP Program determines the
susceptibility of public drinking water
sources to 227 contaminants. Multiple
sources of the same contaminant results
in higher susceptibility ratings for the
contaminant
The public is protected from cumulative risks through SWAP
susceptibility reports which are provided to public water
system operators and summarized in Consumer Confidence
Reports.
M-10
-------
Public drinking water standards are
promulgated by the federal government
and adopted by the state to protect
consumers.
Where appropriate, drinking water standards are adjusted to
consider other, non-drinking water exposures. Also, for
certain classes of contaminants (including xylenes,
trihalomethanes, radionuclides, and dioxins), additive
exposures are addressed by applying an MCL based on class
totals.
Promulgated groundwater cleanup
standards (e.g. PCLs, MCLs) protect
current and future use of the resource.
Groundwater cleanup levels may incorporate adjustments for
other non-drinking water contributions to the total exposure
and also include consideration for additive exposure from
certain contaminants.
Indirect Approaches
Program areas have suggested that activities which reduce overall pollution and contaminant exposure or
educate public water systems and consumers have the net result of reducing cumulative risk.
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
The Texas Pesticide Management Plan
developed by the Texas Groundwater
Protection Committee (GPC) includes
multi-agency policies and responses to
protect groundwater from contamination
by pesticides. The Interagency Pesticide
Database compiles groundwater
monitoring results for pesticides.
Groundwater users can determine drinking water threats in
their geographical area from information collected by these
efforts.
Groundwater monitoring and
contamination reports (including the
groundwater portion of the Clean Water
Act 305(b) report) educates state
agencies and the public on groundwater
contamination issues. Educational
efforts are directed at landowners to plug
abandoned wells.
The publications and educational efforts provide groundwater
users with information to evaluate public health concerns for
groundwater in their geographical area.
Monitoring and compliance activities are
conducted by TCEQ to protect public
drinking water, specifically including
compliance with MCLs, residual
disinfectant levels, action levels, and
treatment techniques.
Public drinking water program activities are risk assessment
and management programs designed to protect the public
from the cumulative risk of contaminants by controlling
hazard level or duration.
Regulating activities over the Edwards
Aquifer includes assessment of sensitive
features, application of best management
practices, and controls of certain
developmental activities.
Reducing pollutants from areas of concentrated development
associated with sensitive recharge features protects the public
from cumulative risks.
M-ll
-------
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
The impact on groundwater is assessed
during permitting of certain land-based
wastewater storage and irrigation
activities (e.g concentrated animal
feeding operations). If a potential for
groundwater contamination exists,
monitoring requirements or a change in
facility operations are included in the
permit
Special provisions in a land disposal permit are protective of
groundwater resources.
The Field Operations Division inspects
susceptible public water systems to
ensure compliance with regulations.
Technical and managerial assistance is
provided to these systems to optimize
operations.
Compliance with state regulations protects the public from
cumulative risks.
Descriptions of Current Cumulative Risk Activities
Waste Management
Numerous programs within the agency regulate waste management and the assessment, monitoring, and
cleanup of properties affected by contamination. These programs protect the public from cumulative risk
by considering the cumulative risks of multiple contaminants from a single source, as well as the
cumulative risks of multiple releases if the contaminants cannot be separately identified or remediated.
Some of these programs consider all releases present at a property (or properties), regardless of source,
but generally do not consider the risk from multiple properties with separate and distinct releases that are
in close proximity to one another. The hazardous waste combustion strategy is an exception because it
qualitatively considers the impacts of other potential sources in establishing control requirements. Most
remediation programs fall within the purview of the 1999 Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP).
Some remediation activities may be grandfathered, and there are certain exclusions to TRRP in various
programs. In these cases, program-specific rules or the older 1993 Risk Reduction Rule, which also
include certain cumulative risk provisions, may apply. The following information focuses on Ihe current
TRRP rules.
Direct Approaches
Numerous activities related to the assessment and remediation of properties affected by waste
contamination directly address cumulative risk through an assessment of the extent of the contamination,
the establishment of human health and environmental levels mat are protective, and ensuring that
contaminants are remediated to these protective levels. For affected properties remediated under the
TRRP, exposures from all relevant pathways (air, soil, groundwater and surface water) are considered to
determine protective contaminant concentrations.
M-12
-------
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Multi-pathway risk assessments are
performed in the review of certain
Hazardous Waste Combustion Emissions
permits.
Combustion risk assessments of deposition and inhalation
exposures may be conducted on a case-by-case basis for
certain commercial waste management facilities. Previous
multi-pathway assessments of hazardous waste combustion
units and other on-property stationary sources in hazardous
waste service have demonstrated that, in most cases,
emissions have not contributed to significant increases in risk.
These assessments sum risk/hazards across relevant
pollutants and use health-based criteria, which are set an
order of magnitude lower than other regulatory programs, to
establish emission control requirements .
Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP)-
1999 rule which specifies the
assessment, monitoring, and cleanup that
applies to closures of contaminated
properties and waste management units
that are regulated by the TCEQ. There
are exclusions to TRRP in various
programs. Some remediation activities
are grandfathered, in which case
program-specific rules or an older 1993
Risk Reduction Rule may apply.
Individual impacts are evaluated for the chemicals of concern
identified at the contaminated property. The TRRP rules
require an evaluation of cumulative risk whenever ten or
more specific carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic chemicals of
concern are present in an affected area. The cumulative
effects of all contaminants present at a property for which
closure is sought are considered when certain screening
criteria are exceeded. A cumulative risk evaluation which
includes off-property contaminants is not required under the
TRRP rule. Current procedures require assessing the extent
of the contamination, establishing protective human health
and environmentally protective levels, and ensuring that
contaminants are remediated to levels that are individually
and cumulatively protective of human health. Within the
affected property, exposure from all relevant pathways (air,
soil, surface water and groundwater) is considered to
determine protective contaminant concentrations.
Measurements of contaminant concentrations in various
media are often used to determine the need for remedial
action. Certain program requirements may result hi the
cleanup of contamination migrating onto a property being
remediated from an off-property source. In addition, the
identification of off-property sources of contamination may
prompt separate investigations) and remediation action(s).
Superfund Site Discovery and
Assessment identifies and ranks
properties for remediation under state
and federal Superfund programs.
Assessments are conducted and the relative priority for action
on Superfund sites is investigated by preparing a Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) score. The presence of a single
pollutant from multiple sources, or the presence of multiple
contaminants and their corresponding concentrations and
toxicities are reflected in the hazard ranking score. The
cumulative risk of pollutants introduced through multiple
exposure pathways are considered by evaluating every
complete, or reasonably anticipated to be complete, exposure
pathway and assigning weight to those pathways in the HRS.
M-13
-------
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Superfund Cleanup oversees the
remediation and cleanup of federal and
state Superfund sites in Texas.
Cumulative risks associated with the introduction of
contaminants from multiple exposure pathways are addressed
at all federal Superfund sites via a baseline risk assessment
required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan. A baseline risk assessment
requires an evaluation of multiple exposure pathways
operating upon a receptor simultaneously.
Most of the state Superfund sites are currently being
remediated using TRRP and are subject to the cumulative risk
provisions of that rule. Some of the older state Superfund
sites were grandfathered from TRRP, and are being
remediated under a 1993 Risk Reduction Rule. However, a
baseline risk assessment and cumulative risk evaluation are
still required.
Industrial Solid Waste and Municipal
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program
oversees the cleanup of soil and
groundwater contamination from
industrial and municipal hazardous and
industrial non-hazardous wastes.
The TRRP rules require an evaluation of cumulative risk
whenever ten or more specific carcinogenic or non-
carcinogenic chemicals of concern are present in an affected
area. This criterion is occasionally exceeded at industrial
and hazardous waste properties.
Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank (LPST)
Remediation oversees the cleanup of
LPSTs, including environmental
assessments, corrective action plans,
remediation, and requests for closure.
Cumulative risk resulting from the release of multiple
contaminants from one or more sources, or from pollutant
introduction across multiple exposure pathways, is evaluated
when LPST contaminant levels exceed Plan A Risk-Based
Assessment (RBA) levels. However, the vast majority of
properties with LPSTs do not exceed this criteria. If a Plan B
RBA is performed, cumulative risk is evaluated whenever
more than one contaminant is present ThePST cleanup
program is scheduled to come under TRRP effective
September 1,2003.
Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP)
provides administrative, technical, and
legal incentives to encourage the cleanup
of contaminated properties in Texas.
The VCP process requires an investigation of all
contaminants in all media present at a property. The
cumulative effects of all contaminants present at a property
for which a certificate of completion will be issued are
considered when certain threshold levels are exceeded. This
includes all contaminants of concern released at a property as
well as those contaminants which have migrated onto a
property from an off-property source. The VCP utilizes the
TRRP rules which require an evaluation of cumulative risk
whenever ten or more specific carcinogenic or non-
carcinogenic chemicals of concern are present in an affected
area This criteria is occasionally exceeded at VCP waste
properties. ^^^^
M-14
-------
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Spill Prevention and Control Program
provides oversight of remediation of
contamination resulting from spills and
emergencies.
Response actions required as a result of spills can be
remediated in accordance with the TRRP rules (see 30 TAC
327.5) and associated cumulative risk provisions.
Responsible parties can choose to use TRRP for spill
response remediations mat are expected to take less than six
months, but TRRP is required to be used if a spill response
will take longer man six months to remediate.
Licensing of Commercial Low-Level
Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal
Facilities and Decommissioning and
oversight of 18 non-commercial buried
LLRW waste sites, and closure of these
sites
Assessment of cumulative risk is evaluated using the
RESRAD risk assessment model. The model uses
groundwater, soil and soil vapor data to conduct a dose
assessment from nine exposure pathways (direct exposure,
inhalation of particulate and radon, ingestion of plant foods,
meat, milk, aquatic foods, water and soil). The model focuses
on the assessment of radiological risk from multiple
radionuclides, but does not consider additional risk from other
nonradiological constituents. However, a separate evaluation
may occur under the TRRP for nonradiological
contamination. These activities are protective of human health
and the environment by providing radiation dose limits to
members of the public.
Indirect Approaches
The waste management activities that provide indirect approaches to assess or reduce cumulative risk
include programs that conduct and coordinate activities to support municipal and hazardous waste
management functions or that provide compliance assistance and enforcement. These indirect activities
result in the better understanding of overall conditions, information about the effects of multiple
pollutants and sources, and/or tiie reduction or prevention of cumulative impacts of similar sources.
Activity Description
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
Groundwater Monitoring of the
uppermost aquifer and Corrective
Action at landfills is established during
permitting.
Enables the TCEQ to focus attention on facilities that appear to
be impacting groundwater and ensure that corrective action is
performed where needed to prevent the migration of
contaminants beyond a facility point of compliance.
Hazardous Waste Permitting and
Underground Injection Control
Permitting include risk-based
considerations.
The techniques intrinsic in permits include risk-based
considerations, such as prevention of releases, waste analysis,
review of engineering and operational controls at facilities,
inspections, and closure in accordance with the TRRP.
Hazardous Waste Permitting reviews
consider specific criteria in
determining the acceptability of a
property.
These regulations preclude properties with certain features
from being permitted to store, process and/or dispose of
hazardous waste. Demonstrations must show that features of
the property have no negative impact on the protectiveness of
the facility with respect to human health and the environment.
M-15
-------
Activity Description
Municipal Solid Waste Permitting Plan
Reviews consider the design,
construction, operation, and closure of
a municipal solid waste treatment or
disposal facility
Regional Solid Waste Planning
provides coordination and funding to
address local waste management needs.
Landfill Gas (Memane) Monitoring is
conducted at all Type I and some Type
IV municipal landfills
How It Addresses Cumulative Risk
These activities must be conducted in accordance with
standards intended to control and minimize the impact of these
facilities on human health and the environment.
Solid Waste Management Plans are developed by regional
planning groups every four years. The Regional Solid Waste
Grants Program provides funding for the development and
implementation of regional plans to ensure adequate landfill
capacity and to provide grant funds for citizen recycling, reuse,
source reduction actions, as well as illegal dumping
enforcement and cleanup programs.
Enables the TCEQ to focus attention on facilities where landfill
gas migration beyond the permit boundary is occurring, and
ensure that an appropriate remediation plan is implemented.
M-16
-------
PART 2:
CHARACTERIZATION f>F TTSTT OF GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES
BY AGENCY PROGRAMS
(In Areas Where Regulated Facilities Are Concentrated)
The cumulative risk statute focuses on both monitoring and enforcement in areas where regulated
fecilities are concentrated as well as activities to protect the public in areas of concentrated operations.
Program area responses were keyed to identifying the influence of facilities and geographic features on
policies and activities of the TCEQ.
Use in Assessment. Reduction and Prevention Activities
Following the identification of an actual or potential problem, program areas often implement activities to
address the impacts of a concentration of facilities or the impact of adjacent facilities. This type of
approach is most obvious in air and water quality assessment and control activities. On the other hand, a
new waste management facility or expansion may be given greater consideration if its location is in a
concentrated industrialized area where existing land use is already compatible and/or where waste
management demands are greatest.
Air Quality _____
Activity Description
How Geographic Features Are Used
Air quality monitoring results are
used to define compliance of criteria
pollutants under the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
Geographic areas with air quality monitoring results which
exceed the NAAQS are designated as being in nonattainment.
Designation can include either a complete county or a part of
a county.
Emissions inventories and air quality
modeling are emphasized in areas
which exceed the NAAQS.
Major stationary sources, primarily in urban nonattaimnent
areas, are required to submit periodic reports of actual
emissions. Area and mobile source emissions are estimated
based on population or other factors.
Air permits and other control
strategies are more stringent in areas
which exceed the NAAQS.
Major stationary sources in urban nonattainment areas must
control emissions and must offset new permitted emissions.
Certain area sources (gasoline stations, dry cleaners, etc.) and
mobile source activities (construction equipment) which are
concentrated in urban areas must also implement controls.
Air permits are used to control
emissions of individual point sources
of air toxic pollutants.
Air permits may be adjusted based upon the geographical
location and specific pollutants identified in the Air Pollution
Watch List. The list is based upon monitored data and
population exposure potential.
M-17
-------
Water Quality
Activity Description
How Geographic Features Are Used
Permits are issued for discharges of
treated wastewater to surface waters
in the state.
Wastewater permits to a segment may be restricted based
upon the permitted load from other discharges and the
remaining assimilative capacity of the water body for
pollutants of concern.
Control strategies for non-point
sources may limit pollutants in
certain water bodies in order to meet
water quality standards.
Nonpoint source activities in a watershed of a water body that
is either impaired or likely to become impaired may be
restricted or controlled through best management practices if
the pollutant loads exceed the critical load mass of the water
body.
The Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Program determines the
waste load from all point and
nonpoint pollutant sources in an
affected watershed.
Point source discharges and nonpoint source activities
contributing to an impairment of water quality are evaluated
to assess their associated impacts and to determine the
appropriate type and level of control measures.
The Source Water Assessment and
Protection (SWAP) Program
performs a systematic assessment of
potential contaminant sources within
watersheds and well contributing
areas which serve as drinking water
sources.
Contaminant risk will include, when appropriate, defining a
threat (or susceptibility) based solely on a concentration of
facilities near to a water source and in the absence of specific
contamination concerns.
Waste Management
Activity Description
How Geographic Features Are Used
Waste facility permits require a legal
determination of land use
compatibility.
In industrial and hazardous waste permitting, consideration is
given of other waste generating facilities in the area. In other
programs, land use compatibility refers only to technical
considerations at the proposed property.
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
operations restrict contaminant
disposal to geological formations
separated from useable groundwater
Properly designed and operated UIC operations prevent
exposure of the environment to contaminants.
Waste management permits and siting
in relation to other types of facilities
has both positive and negative
consequences.
While a dense number of waste management facilities and
related client generators may potentially lead to an increase in
total emissions, priority may be given to the processing of
permits in areas where a high volume of wastes are generated
and/or a need exists for management/disposal capacity or a
certain technology. In addition to land use compatibility,
transportation system burden, regional need, and emergency
response capabilities influence siting decisions.
M-18
-------
Multimedia
Activity Description
How Geographic Features Are Used
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) reviews are conducted on
certain proposed construction projects
and other major federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment.
Reviews consider existing environmental conditions, such as
air quality nonattainment or water quality impairments, in
evaluating the potential impacts of a proposed project or
action and in determining the appropriate level of controls
needed to satisfy NEPA requirements.
Small Business and Environmental
Assistance Division provides training
and technical assistance to the
regulated community and local
government
Training, technical assistance, and grants are targeted to areas,
businesses, and industrial sectors associated with
environmental problems (nonattainment areas, impaired
streams).
Use in Prioritizing Monitoring and Enforcement
Most agency targeting strategies are based upon responding to information which indicates that an actual
or potential problem exists (monitoring data, complaints, incidents, investigation results). Once the areas
in which problems exist are clearly identified, the TCEQ targets areas in which regulated facilities are
concentrated for monitoring, investigation, or enforcement The choice of where sampling stations are
located and the number of monitors may be influenced by a concentration of facilities, among other
factors.
Activity Description
How Geographic Features Are Used
The Compliance Planning Process
establishes an integrated program of
monitoring, investigations,
enforcement, and outreach.
Strategies are identified to implement core compliance
activities and to address high priority, statewide and regional
issues. Efforts are often targeted at specific types of activities
in specific locations to address significant or persistent
problems.
National Air Monitoring Stations are
located to assess attainment of criteria
pollutant standards.
A fixed monitoring network is located and maintained in
major urban areas to meet specific objectives of
photochemical modeling and compliance with NAAQS,
including the assessment of air quality downwind of areas of
concentrated facilities or other operations (roadways,
commercial centers, etc.).
Monitoring station placement in the
Community Air Toxic Monitoring
Network is designed to evaluate
exposure risk to air toxics.
Initial guidance on the placement of air toxic monitoring
stations and current planning activities by TCEQ staff
considers risks from exposure to air toxics in communities
close to industrial point sources.
Mobile air monitoring is prioritized
and deployed to areas based upon
information that an actual or potential
air quality problem exists.
The majority of mobile monitoring assignments are for areas
where a concentration of industrial facilities occurs, and
usually in close proximity to a large population base.
M-19
-------
Activity Description
How Geographic Features Are Used
The Field Operations Division
conducts investigations in response to
specific incidents, special initiatives,
or in support of other agency
programs.
Investigations include responding to incidents of visible
emissions or flaring, evaluating specific industry-related
requirements (e.g. cooling tower inspections in refineries and
chemical production facilities), areas of close
industry/population interface (e.g. autobody shops ) and
support to SIP emission reduction activities in nonattainment
areas. Results of investigations are used, among other factors,
to assess areas for concentrated enforcement
TCEQ program staff and other
partners periodically evaluate the
siting and operation of surface water
quality monitoring stations.
The coordinated surface water monitoring guidance provides
for an increase in the number of sampling stations in a water
body to evaluate the impact of a concentration of regulated
facilities or other pollutant activities.
The TMDL program responds to
surface water impairments by
defining additional monitoring and
data collection requirements.
In cases where a concentration of facilities is suspected to
contribute to the impairment in a segment, subsequent
monitoring is established to define the impacts of these
facilities and to adjust enforcement schemes.
Groundwater sampling for pesticide
contamination is defined by the Joint
Groundwater Protection Committee
(GPC) as a part of the State Pesticide
Management Plan.
Areas of known impact (e.g. detections in public water
systems) and high pesticide use are the primary criteria for
monitoring site selection. See also the indirect approaches
described for the GPC hi Part One of this report (page 17).
The Galveston Bay Estuary Program
conducts monitoring primarily to
assess ecosystem health.
Occasionally monitoring activities are altered to support other
TCEQ programs (e.g. TMDL) in which evaluation of impacts
from a concentration of facilities is a desired objective.
Groundwater and landfill gas
monitoring and assessment is
required by the Waste Permits
Division at landfills and other waste
disposal units.
Groundwater monitoring wells are sited at landfills and other
waste disposal units to ensure detection of contamination in
the uppermost aquifer, while landfill gas monitoring is
required for certain types of landfills. Municipal Solid Waste
facilities are sited in accordance with local restrictions, airport
safety, floodplains, wetlands, fault areas, and unstable areas.
The Remediation Division oversees
clean-up of soil and groundwater
contamination from industrial and
municipal hazardous and industrial
non-hazardous facilities.
Monitoring or enforcement at properties being cleaned up is
not based upon where regulated facilities are concentrated. If
such prioritization takes place, it is a function of actual or
perceived risk at the property.
M-20
-------
Remediation Activities
Remediation programs focus on the cleanup of identified contaminated properties, rather than on the
locations or concentrations of facilities. Generally all contamination within the property boundaries of
the affected property, as well as any contamination which originates on the property and migrates off-
property, is required to be cleaned up. Contamination found to be migrating onto the property being
remediated from other nearby or adjacent properties, depending upon individual program requirements,
may be considered in identifying appropriate responsible parties or may prompt separate investigations)
and remediation action(s).
M-21
-------
-------
APPENDIX N:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CUMULATIVE RISK PREVENTION/
INTERVENTION EFFORT IN PORTLAND, OREGON
In late 2003, the Protocol for Assessing Community Excellence in Environmental Health (PACE-EH)
formed a community health assessment team to identify environmental health concerns by performing
pilot assessments in five neighborhoods of inner North and Northeast Portland, in Multnomah
County, Oregon. Coalition members had identified a number of sites as ideal candidates for assessment.
The five neighborhoods, Humboldt, Vernon, Eliot, King, and Boise, were prioritized as a result of
community input from and documentation of significant environmental health issues by concerned
members of the Coalition and community residents living in those neighborhoods. The environmental
health issues identified by the residents included poor indoor air quality, exposure to lead-based paint,
unsafe grounds, and mold and mildew. Upon completion of the assessment, the community coalition will
develop and implement a community action plan to address the most significant issues.
Multnomah County PACE-EH is a growing coalition of individuals, community organizations, and local
health officials who are committed to improving environmental health and environmental justice in its
communities. Under the project, communities can learn more about environmental health and
environmental justice, and create action plans based on their needs and values. Through the network,
people can become part of the processes of decision making and determining the environmental health of
their communities.
The following article discusses the work of the Multnomah County PACE-EH Project. For more
information about the Multnomah County PACE-EH Coalition, including copies of its newsletters, visit
the organization's website at http://www.oace-eh.org.
N-l
-------
-------
Pursuing Environmental Health
Through Community Assessment
Latrida Tilhnan
.Local health data indicate that environmental
degradation results in adverse health conse-
quences in Multnomah County, Oregon.
Breathing contaminated air can exacerbate
asthma conditions—the incidence of asthma
among children in the Portland public schools
exceeds the national average. Exposure to lead-
based paints can cause learning disabilities in
young children—70% of homes in Portland
neighborhoods had composite lead dust levels
that exceed federal standards. Consuming
drinking water with high levels of volatile
organic
PACE EH helps local health agencies: ^
11 , ' v ""A , ' - J ' '' f* V^'S. ' *„
*- Be more responsive Ip, cofomunity environmental health
concerns,/-. " *»• : •.-' ' ',' '" a j£ ..<
* Gain1 visibility in the community as iteaderslh environmert-
mfalftea%r " A:.' O.^-* '" V?i ^
* Work for environmental justice with disenfranchised ,
,- communities v/'" f? " "" ^- f° ''** *
/' environmentat health ordinances '" .^ ,£ ,. *_,, *"
•Have a health department staff that is comfortable being,
^engaged with Communities ^ \^\ - ^ -, •> I
• Become tnpreeffecfive in engaging community members"
H din environmental health issue identification and problem '^
. ™ » . t *•«& , "* f i. ' *• *\ i
.solving-'^ V ; ..;/,, ;• • \ /^ ' v ,
* Educate mmu^n^ies^^ieliniponanc^ vf science-^, ]•_ *
' based decision irfalang -f s; '*" -*$ *„",*/ "'
* Provide state and national policy ^makers wr^t cqmmunfty: t
driven "ffndings that could be used id s|iape?enviPonraen-"J
tal health policies and resource allocation 'p ;t v "
• \ — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
** ^ * » _ * ^ i* *•*
compounds
(VOCs) can
cause
cancer—
several ground
water wells in
Northeast
Portland are
contaminated
by VOCs.
Contact with
contaminated
surface waters
can cause a
variety of
different
illnesses—
each year
millions of
gallons of
"• ' untreated
wastewater are
diverted directly into the Willamette River,
which runs through Portland and is used by
local residents for swimming, fishing, and other
recreation.
These kinds of environmental and health
concerns disproportionately affect minority and
low-income populations. Polluting industries
and businesses tend to be located in communi-
ties with many low-income residents, who often
lack the means to move to a community free
from contamination. Low-income residents are
often affected by multiple environmental and
health concerns that accumulate over years and
generations. Additionally, many low-income
residents don't have the economic, legal, or
political resources to address their health
disparities and environmental health issues.
Despite the fact that health consequences of
environmental conditions are real, the
Multnomah County Health Department
(MCHD), in Portland, Oregon, has not
developed the internal capacity or the public
mandate to deal with environmental justice
problems. Environmental health services, which
have been sustained historically in the local
health department, reflect a traditional public
health approach to controlling communicable
diseases: fee-based public health services related
to inspections of restaurants, swimming pools,
and care facilities, vector control, and food safety
policies and education. MCHD has tried to
develop, with varying degrees of success, new
environmental health programs to address
childhood lead poisoning and brownfields
(industrial or commercial property that is
abandoned or under-used and often environ-
mentally contaminated). However, the depart-
ment has been unable to integrate these pro-
grams into the existing environmental health
practice model.
MCHD s capacity to address environmental
health issues has been hampered by its lack of a
systematic way to assess the environmental health
of Multnomah County. A climate of mistrust
among community members stemming from the
perception that the department was unwilling to
sustain environmental health programming has
also compounded the departments problems.
The Protocol for Assessing
Community Excellence
In order to develop a systematic approach to
assessing the county's environmental health and
respond to community concerns, Lila Wickham,
the director of the Environmental Health
Division, decided to try the Protocol for Assess-
ing Community Excellence in Environmental
Health (PACE-EH).
PACE-EH was developed in 1995 by the
National Association of County and City Health
Officials (NACCHO) to help local health
officials accurately identify environmental health
issues at the community level; discover, collect,
6 Northwest Pubhe Health * Spring/Summer 20£
-------
and analyze meaningful environmental health
data; and identify populations at disproportion-
ate risk of environmental exposure and adverse
health outcomes.
PACE-EH offers a way to integrate data-
driven assessments of environmental health
concerns with the values and perceptions of
communities. It promotes leadership among
environmental health advocates, involves the
community in planning and decision making,
and addresses issues of environmental justice. A
complete PACE-EH assessment includes 13
interrelated tasks from project planning and
assessment team recruitment to environmental
health issue identification, indicator develop-
ment, and action plan development (see box for
complete tisfy, The tasks walk the participants
through planning and assessment and into
action in a nonlinear, iterative, and dynamic
process.
The initial MCHD planning team included
representatives from various divisions in the
Health Department Environmental Health,
Planning and Development (the unit responsible
for public health data analysis, qualitative and
quantitative research, and grant writing), and the
director's office, which focuses on community
involvement in public health program develop-
ment. Initial community partners included
Portland State University, School of Community
Health and the Environmental Justice Action
Group, an advocacy group for people of color
living in North and Northeast Portland who are
affected significantly by environmental health
issues (see sidebar on page 8 for more information
on the Environmental Justice Action Group).
Managing the tensions of
community process
The team's first step was to establish a shared
philosophical underpinning of environmental
justice, with an explicit value placed on develop-
ing relationships of trust and understanding the
strengths and assets that each individual and
organization brought to the team. Meetings and
processes were structured to encourage relation-
ship building, leadership development, and
sharing and nurturing of the skills, resources,
and capacities that contribute to a successful
PACE-EH process.
From the beginning of the PACE-EH
project, participants have had to learn to work
differently. For MCHD staff, this project has
required working across organizational work
units, which often represent different profes-
sional communities. The team approach is
different from the hierarchical organizational
structure in work units and requires an apprecia-
tion of diversity, in this case professional as well
as cultural diversity. Frequent conversations
about roles and responsibilities have been
necessary as the process unfolded.
The role community members play in the
PACE-EH process also differs from past
government-led efforts. The strength of the
PACE-EH process rests on the degree to which
community members become advocates for
environmental health with policy makers as well
as with their friends and neighbors. "The voices
of the community resonate more strongly with
elected officials and other sources of funding
than would the solitary voice of a government
bureaucrat," says Wickham, who believes that
organized community engagement is crucial for
advancing a sustainable environmental health
policy agenda.
Strong community participation will result
in community-driven change.
Professionals can detach from *, _ ~
environmental health threats at
the end of the work day and
may experience environmental
health as subject matter—a
luxury community people
living in environmentally
compromised situations don't
have.
Another source of tension
is that the PACE-EH process
requires working with commu-
nity partners before the vision,
roles, and responsibilities for
the PACE-EH project are fully
developed. This meant
providing sufficient structure
so that community partners
knew where they could
contribute, with enough
flexibility that their participa-
tion would be meaningful and ' l
they could assume shared
ownership of the project
A very interesting tension that has emerged
is a result of the multiple roles of government
employees—do we participate in a community
process only as staff? Are we not also commu-
nity members? Should the health department
have a vote in the process? Is it appropriate for
us to take a leadership role or is it more
appropriate to encourage leadership among the
community members that we are working with?
Many involved in the PACE-EH process,
county and community members alike, have
suggested that the appropriate answer to each of
these questions is yes. Public health professionals
i 3 Tasks of PACE-EH
V ">,""-,-.'«,
1, Detennine community capacity
2S Def3ne:and characterize the community
3. Assernbfeacc^nunity-based-mviron-
raental health assessment team.
4.,-, Define the goals objectives, and scope of
-the'assessment - ' J «,"*,:•*"-'•; -~
5. jC^erateaBstof^mmumty-speciflc
environmental health issues " ,
6. ^naly^theissueswi^asy^ansframeT
work' :. , -_ t ," , ' '
7. -Develop' locally appropriatef indicators
8. Select standards against which local status
can be compared _ ' '
&. Create issue profiles
l{L-.Rank the,issues - . -
11-, Set priorities for action,
12. Develop an action plan
,13. ^Evaluate progress: anoVplan for the "future
-------
Environmental Justice
Action Group l^
• *• * "" \ i j *" ", * s
* ± ^ j,
"A community; that educates and speaks- out |br,3tsetf F
,,of North and ^oE&easC^cI-^ *
*•
'foeaBhThazardsfaee^ '
. envapmaental jdstice^healitii, ^nd safe^Jeri Sund^i^Jhe,'
^executive dfrector, anqL.o0;er EJ^^-^ctivfctsliaye.spent the> f ^
• ^pastrseV^y4ars-eAicatingc6iiiniun|tyresjdsits^^K^^ *<*
s^a^djocal power brokers abx>uC?nviroJnmentalJ- ^ l\£
^ communities ctfcojojj. - ^ -., 5 4 | ' " " V**^
BJAG has ftact several^^uficant ^ac^ories in Its brief
'history. fHealffi# Atbina," a report produced by^FAGancl
f the Oregon Enwonniental Counci^. mapped many f " . *•
environmental Jieatth threats1 present jn the. AibHia''neighr" *
b6^hood,in North and NorfheastPprtE8Bd,tioine to many
V people of coloE a^Y^B'as^Wrincoine'femiHest 'RieTeport '
K *^ ''f " *l*L* ** *• a -, r -\ V , '
"* ^shos^edthatoS percent o^aB'toxtgremJ^onsreport^d ixt , ,: ' '
', ' 19&5 in^fultnomahrQppn^y originated, in-Jhe Al
adntiniste^d by
organizer 'ttainees;*
disproportionate asfimiartates in. fhe c
T ap study co^u^edM'^armership>v
-tfeyversity confirmed that asthmarates'in Isl
Northeast Portland are 1 "^percent, almost 4hree* times as -
, ^— P ^ * * ^
^«atas;tiie,ipi1y:rateof 5 percent and double tihe^iatipnal
~
? .
SundvalJ. ancf EJ^G^ecently leveraged ^eirTiubfic . " t
heatthdaiaan^communilyoiganik^sirafe^esj^^eat^ •' (
. jplans to expand^e^ mtecstate leeway thatran^tbrougb " ^
'
ino^ased exposure5 to air poUutioiitaJso -educated policy \*
^ieir decisions. °As a ' »vv
r unanimously; to develop a cdkmnunity enhancemen$|vnd '.
torcn^escmieredessastblcaldecsfoiiB'Ife
^ *i- •
Thai commtmi^members and-polMg^maJtfers a^ee are * '
Tnore aware^and p^a^Wabx)Ut«ra^nentaljusficie=is>a ,
testimony jo the enVti^e^^^Ec
' ' "
have a responsibility to continue to ask questions about
our appropriate participation, to listen to a multiplicity of
answers, and to balance multiple identities. In doing this,
we can help develop community processes in which all
participants are encouraged to lead and not dominate, to
speak out and to listen, and to fully commit to both the
success of the process and the development of the
participants.
How the county health department should do its
work was only one of the questions. The larger question
that the PACE-EH process has moved the broader
community toward is "What kind of network needs to be
in place, including community organizations, govern-
ment bodies, and citizen advocacy groups, to ensure that
a broad environmental health agenda gets attended to by
citizens, elected officials, government bureaucrats,
business leaders, and private foundations?" Not only will
the county health department have to work differently,
community organizations and citizens groups will have to
start interacting more effectively with each other and with
local government. To the extent that the PACE-EH
project can develop a common environmental health
agenda and a mutuality of support among its members,
there will be a strong multisectoral environmental health
agenda and potential for creating a holistic system to
manage environmental health threats.
Moving from theory to practice
The Multnomah County PACE-EH Coalition has
spent the majority of its first year working on tasks 1, 3,
and 5 of the PACE-EH process.
Task 1: Determine community capacity. To build
relationships across the multiple sectors of the commu-
nity, the health department hired two community
connectors. The work of the community connectors is to
reach out to the various sectors of the environmental
health community in the area and engage them in the
PACE-EH process. The leadership of the community
connectors in the PACE-EH process has been central to
the effectiveness of the project.
The community connectors have informed represen-
tatives of government, community organizations,
environmental health organizations, physicians groups,
neighborhood associations, faith communities, social
services, and schools about the PACE-EH process. The
initial focus of outreach and community capacity
assessment was on participants who have a county-wide
or community-wide perspective. The community
connectors will refocus their outreach and capacity
assessment activities when the team has determined a
specific community of focus for the assessment.
Hiring the community connectors also sent a clear
message from the senior leadership of the health depart-
ment to the PACE-EH staff and the community that the
health department was serious about its commitment to
expanding its role in environmental health and to doing
so as an active partner with a broad array of community
partners. That the commitment happened during a
S Northwesi Public Health * Spring/Summer 2C
-------
period of budget cutting and tight fiscal controls
underscored the value Multnomah County
Health Department placed on community
mobilization as an effective strategy in promot-
ing the health of the community.
Task 3: Assemble a community-based
environmental health assessment team. Over
the past year, there have been several community
meetings to work out many of the issues raised
by community members about the structure and
function of the PACE-EH process—and a strong
environmental health coalition has evolved. In
this evolution, several community members have
emerged as leaders and committed advocates for
the PACE-EH process.
The coalition operates through several
committees. The steering committee is respon-
sible for the functioning of the overall coalition,
including fund-raising, developing a shared
environmental health agenda, ensuring diversity
and leadership development for coalition
members, and implementation of the recom-
mendations that emerge from the assessment.
The membership committee is responsible
for ensuring diverse representation among the
coalition body and on the committees. It will
broaden and deepen current community
outreach strategies, orient new members to
environmental health and the coalition, and
ensure that coalition and committee meetings
are welcoming to limited English-speaking
individuals and participants with children.
The assessment committee is responsible for
facilitating the actual work of the PACE-EH
assessment. The committee will also work with
die coalition to analyze the data, identify themes,
and set benchmarks and community standards.
MCHD staff and coalition members are
exploring ways to ensure the long-term viability
of the PACE-EH coalition and Multnomah
County's capacity for attracting more funding to
support environmental health, community
organizing, and environmental justice. The
coalition expects community-based organizations
to take more ownership and leadership of the
grant-writing and fund-raising process.
Immediate next steps
Task 2s Define the community to be
assessed. To define the community for assess-
ment, the members of the assessment team will
use criteria of multiple environmental risk
factors in low-income communities of color. The
research team is analyzing existing data in a
geographic information format to identity where
these factors overlap. If this method produces
clear options for assessment, a second step of
investigating the interest and current efforts of
the selected community to participate in PACE-
EH will follow.
Task 4: Define the goals, objectives, and
scope of the assessment. In this task die actual
assessment methods will be determined. Given
the variety of experience of community mem-
bers on the assessment team, methods could
include community surveys, analysis of existing
data, mapping environmental health risk factors,
or testing environmental hazards. The environ-
mental justice underpinning of the PACE-EH
process suggests that whatever the methodology,
the community will be involved in the design,
implementation, and analysis phases of the
research process.
Task 5: Generate a list of community-
specific environmental health issues. This task
was initiated early on through a brainstorming
process in a community meeting that brought
together community-based organizations and
environmental agencies. The coalition will
revisit the list through a more systematic
assessment process once it has selected a
community for the formal PACE-EH assess-
ment
The Multnomah County Health Depart-
ment elected to use the PACE-EH process in
order to build a strong environmental health
mandate for the Department and the general
community. The focus of the first year has been
to develop strong relationships with environ-
mental health advocates in the community. In
doing so, an environmental health coalition has
developed with a commitment to evolving from
a community-focused, health department-driven
process into a more community-driven, health
department-supported process. The coalition
expects to complete the first round of commu-
nity assessments by the end of 2003, with
priorities and strategies for action finalized by
the summer of 2004. Many members have
expressed their belief diat the PACE-EH process
will continue beyond the first assessment, and as
other communities express interest in environ-
mental health, the coalition will be poised to
help them assess their environmental issues and
mobilize for action. $&
Resource
PACE-EH EH: A Tool for Community Environmen-
tal Health Assessment. National Association of
County and City Health Officials, www.naccho.org/
project78.cfin
Author
Latritia TiUman, MPH, is special projects manager in
the Office of the Director at the Multnomah County
Health Department in Portland, Oregon.
Environmental
Justice is the fair
treatment and
meaningful
involvement of all
people regardless of
race, color, national
origin, or income
with respect to the
development,
implementation,
and enforcement of
environmental laws,
regulations, and
policies.
-------
-------
------- |