v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(2201 A)
EPA 300-R-00-003
October 2000
www.epa.gov
Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ)
Summary of the Meeting of the
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council
A FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Hilton Crystal City at National Airport
Arlington, Virginia
November 30 through December 2,1999
-------
This report and recommendations has been writ en as a part of the actiy|ttes of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (HE-JAG), a public advisory corrttnlittee providing extramural
policy information and advice to the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The Council is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of matters related
to the Environmental Justice program; frtis: report hasfribt been review^ for Approval by the EPA
and, hence, the cpntf nteof this repjDrtjndJBcommendatiq^^^^^^ regresent the views
and'poilcles'of'the '§P'SJ hbr ofother agiincTBs'in.riie gxecu||g^irgj^ii^:||^-|gg:|rg^ government,' nor '
mentCTi'of frade.
cpns|jtute:: a, i
ndation for use.
-------
PREFACE
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a federal advisory committee that was
established by charter on September 30,1993, to provide independent advice, consultation, and
recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters related
to environmental justice. The NEJAC is made up of 25 members, and one DFO, who serve on a parent council
that has six subcommittees. Along with the NEJAC members who fill subcommittee posts, an additional 39
individuals serve on the various subcommittees. To date, NEJAC has held fourteen meetings in the following
locations:
• Washington, D.C., May 20, 1994
• Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 3 through 5,1994
• Herndon, Virginia, .October 25 through 27, 1994
• Atlanta, Georgia, January 17 and 18, 1995
Arlington, Virginia, July 25 and 26,1995
• Washington, D.C., December 12 through 14, 1995
• Detroit, Michigan, May 29 through 31,1996
• Baltimore, Maryland, December 10 through 12, 1996
• Wabeno, Wisconsin, May 13 through 15, 1997
• Durham, North Carolina, December 8 through 10, 1997
• Arlington, Virginia, February 23 through 24, 1998 (Special Business Meeting)
• Oakland, California, May 31 through June 2, 1998
• Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 7 through 10, 1998
• Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
The NEJAC also has held other meetings which include:
• Public Dialogues on Urban Revitalization and Brownfields: Envisioning Healthy and Sustainable
Communities held in Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Detroit, Michigan;
Oakland, California; and Atlanta, Georgia in the Summer 1995 -
• Relocation Roundtable, Pensacola, Florida, May 2 through 4, 1996
• Environmental Justice Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Roundtable, San Antonio, Texas,
October 17 through 19, 1996 .
• Environmental Justice Enforcement Roundtable, Durham, North Carolina, December 11 through
13,1997
• International Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S./Mexico Border, San Diego,
California, August 19 through 21, 1999.
As a federal advisory committee, the NEJAC is bound by all requirements of the Federal Advisory.Committee
Act (FACA) of October 6, 1972. Those requirements include:
• Members must be selected and appointed by EPA
• Members must attend and participate fully in meetings of NEJAC
• Meetings must be open to the public, except as specified by the Administrator
• All meetings must be announced in the.Federal Register'
• Public participation must be allowed at all public meetings
-------
The public must be provided access to materials distributed during the meeting
• Meeting minutes must be kept and made available to the public
• A designated federal official (DFO) must be present at all meetings of the NEJAC (and its
subcommittees)
• NEJAC must provide independent judgment that is not influenced by special interest groups
Each subcommittee, formed to deal with a specific topic and to facilitate the conduct of the business of NEJAC,
has a DFO and is bound by the requirements of FACA. Subcommittees of the NEJAC meet independently of
the full NEJAC and present their findings to the NEJAC for review. Subcommittees cannot make
recommendations independently to EPA. In addition to the six subcommittees, the NEJAC has established a
Protocol Committee, the members of which are the chair of NEJAC and the chairs of each subcommittee.
Members of the NEJAC are presented in the table on the following page. A Ijst of the members of each of the
six subcommittees are presented in the appropriate chapters of the report.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
(1999)
Designated Federal Official:
Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director for Policy and
Interagency Liason, EPA Office of Environmental
Justice
Members
Mr. Don Aragon
Ms. Rose Marie Augustine
Ms. Leslie Ann Beckoff Cormier
Ms. Sue Briggum
Mr. Dwayne Beavers
Mr. Luke Cole
Mr. Fernando Cuevas, Sr.
Ms. Rosa Franklin
Mr. Amoldo Garcia
Dr. Michel GelObter
Mr. Tom Goldtooth
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelley
Chair:
Mr. Haywood Turrentine
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis
Mr. David Moore
Dr. Marinelle Payton
Mr. Gerald Prout
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos
Ms, Peggy Shepard
Ms. Jane Stahl
Mr. Gerald Torres
Mr. Damon Whitehead
Ms. Margaret Williams
Mr. Tseming Yang
EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) maintains transcripts, summary reports, and other material
distributed during the meetings. Those documents are available to the public upon request.
Comments or questions can be directed to OEJ through the Internet. OEJ's Internet E-mail address is:
environmental-justice-epa@.epa.gov
Executive Summaries of the reports of the NEJAC meetings are available in English and Spanish on the
Internet at the NEJAC's World Wide Web home page:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/nejacfmdex.html> (click on the publications icon)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
PREFACE /
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
CHAPTER ONE: SUMMARY OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 REMARKS 1-2
2.1 Remarks of the Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 1-2
2.2 Remarks of the Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Environmental Justice , 1-2
2.3 Remarks of the Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 Office of
Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice 1-3
2.4 Remarks of the Associate Director, White House Council on Environmental Quality .. 1-4
3.0 PANELS ON PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 1-5
3.1 Overview of Environmental Justice and the Permitting Process 1-5
3.2 Case Studies in Environmental Justice and Permitting 1-8
3.2.1 Case Study of Los Angeles, California 1-8
3.2.2 Case Study of Chester, Pennsylvania 1-9
3.3 Facilitated Dialogue on the Permitting Process 1-10
3.4 Panel Presentations by Senior Managers of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 1-12
3.4.1 Presentation by the Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 1-13
3.4.2 Presentation by the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation 1-13
3.4.3 Presentation by the Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Water 1-14
3.4.4 Presentation by the Associate Director, Environmental Services Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 1-15
3.4.5 Question-and-Answer Session 1-15
3.5 Panel Presentations on the Permitting Process 1-18
3.5.1 Panel 1: Addressing Real Life Dilemmas of Environmental Justice in
Permitting: How Do We Respond to the Legacy of Land Use Impacts? 1-18
3.5.2 Panel 2: The Current State of Environmental Justice and Permitting:
What Are Its Limitations? 1-21
3.5.3 PanelS: Opportunities for Improvement: What Factors Should the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Consider to Help Ensure
Environmental Justice in Permitting? 1-23
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES RELATED TO PERMITTING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 1-26
in
-------
Section Page
5.0 REPORTS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES 1-29
5.1 Air and Water Subcommittee .• • • • 1-29
5.2 Enforcement Subcommittee 1-30
5.3 Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee 1-32
5.4 International Subcommittee 1-32
5.5 Health and Research Subcommittee 1-33
5.6 Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee 1-34
6.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES 1-35
6.1 Approval of the Model Plan for Public Participation 1-35
6.2 Emergency Resolution on Environmental Justice Issues Related to Louisiana 1-35
6.3 Retiring Members of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council 1-35
7.0 CLOSING REMARKS 1-36
7.1 Remarks of the Retiring Members of the Executive Council 1-36
7.2 Closing Remarks of the Chair of the Executive Council 1-36
7.3 Closing Remarks of the Designated Federal Official of the Executive Council 1-37
8.0 SUMMARY OF APPROVED RESOLUTIONS 1-37
IV
-------
Section
CHAPTER TWO: SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.0 FOCUSED PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HELD ON NOVEMBER 30, 1999 2-1
2.1 Nona Harris, Mqssville Environmental Action Now, Inc., Mossville, Louisiana
(Written Statement) 2-2
2.2 James B. MacDonald, Pittsburg Unified School District, Pittsburg, California 2-2
2.3 Dagmar M. Darjean, Mossville Environmental Action Now, Inc., Mossville, Louisiana . 2-3
2.4 Barbara Warren, Consumer Policy Institute of the Consumers Union, Yonkers,
New York 2-4
2.5 Elizabeth Crowe, Chemical Weapons Working Group, Berea, Kentucky 2-5
2.6 Mildred McClain, People of Color and Disenfranchised Communities Environmental
Health Network, Savannah, Georgia 2-6
2.7 Jeffrey Ruch, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER),
Washington, D.C. : 2-7
2.8 Rebecca Davidson, Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma, Anadarko, Oklahoma ... 2-8
2.9 Clifford Roberts, St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment,
Convent, Louisiana ; 2-8
2.10 Juanita Stewart, North Baton Rouge Environmental Association, Alsen, Louisiana ... 2-9
2.11 Kathryn Mutz, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado 2-9
2.12 Damu Imara Smith, GreenPeace, Washington, D.C. 2-9
3.0 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HELD ON DECEMBER 1, 1999 . 2-10
3.1 Pamela Bingham, Bingham Consulting Services, Silver Spring, Maryland
(Written Statement) -.. .* 2-10
3.2 Mary Anne Holman, Private Citizen, Orange, Texas (Written Statement) 2-11
3.3 Marcus Jimison, Land Loss Prevention Project, Durham, North Carolina
(Written Statement) 2-11
3.4 Kenneth and Doris Bradshaw, Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee, Concerned
Citizens Committee, Memphis, Tennessee 2-11
3.5 Barbara Warren, Consumer Policy Institute of the Consumers Union,
Yonkers, New York 2-12
3.6 Mildred McClain, Executive Director, Citizens for Environmental Justice,
Savannah, Georgia 2-12
3.7 Michael J. Lythcott, The Lythcott Company, Marlboro, New Jersey 2-12
3.8 Virinder Singh, Renewable Energy Policy Project, Washington, D.C 2-13
3.9 Gloria Roberts, St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment,
Convent, Louisiana , 2-14
3.10 Veronica Eady, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, State of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts '. 2-14
3.11 Dagmar Darjean, Mossville Environmental Action Now, Inc. (M.E.A.N.),
Mossville, Louisiana 2-15
3.12 Damu Imara Smith, GreenPeace, Washington, D.C. 2-15
. 3.13 Juanita Stewart, North Baton Rouge Environmental Association, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana and Margie Richards, Concerned Citizens of Norco, Norco, Louisiana .... 2-16
3.14 Delbert Dubois, Private Citizen, Charleston, South Carolina 2-16
3.15 Michelle Xenox, Shundahai Network, Las Vegas, Nevada 2:17
3.16 Reverend Zack Lyde, Director, Save the People, Brunswick, Georgia 2-17
3.17 Carolyn Jones-Grey, Frederick Douglass Community Improvement Council,
Washington, D.C 2-17
3.18 Jim MacDonald, Trustee, Pittsburg Unified School District, Pittsburg, California 2-18
3.19 Pierre Hollingsworth, Atlantic City National Association for Advancement of Colored
People, Atlantic City, New Jersey 2-18
-------
Section
CHAPTER THREE: MEETING OF THE AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Page
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
INTRODUCTION 3-1
REMARKS : 3-1
ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE . 3-1
3.1 Updates on the Activities of the Work Groups of the Air and Water Subcommittee ... 3-1
3.1.1 Work Group on Cumulative Permitting 3-1
3.1.2 Work Group on Fish Consumption 3-4
3.1.3 Urban Air Toxics Working Group 3-4
3.2 Mission Statement of the Subcommittee 3-5
PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS . 3-5
4.1 Presentations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air
and Radiation 3-5
4.1.1 Discussion of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Draft Economic
Incentive Program Guidance 3-5
4.1.2 Update on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and
Radiation's Activities Related to Urban Air Toxics .'.• 3-7
4.1.3 Update on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Rule for
Tier 21 Gasoline Sulfur 3-9
4.2 Presentations by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 3-9
4.2.1 Presentation on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed
Rule for Total Maximum Daily Loads 3-9
4.2.2 Presentation on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 3-11
4.3
Presentations on Public Utilities : .3-11
5.0
RESOLUTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS 3-13
VI
-------
Section
CHAPTER FOUR: MEETING OF THE ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4-1
2.0 PRESENTATIONS 4-1
2.1 Presentation by James Hamilton, Duke University, On Research Entitled
"Exercising Property Rights to Pollute: Do Cancer Risks and Politics Affect Plant
Emission Reductions?" 4-1
2.2 Presentation by Manuel Pastor, University of California, on Research Entitled
"Which Came First? Hazardous Sites or Minority Move-In? - Evidence from
Los Angeles County" 4-3
2.3 Presentation by Ann Goode, Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Civil Rights 4-5
2.4 Joint Session of the Enforcement and Air and Water Subcommittees 4-7
3.0 DIALOGUE SESSIONS 4-7
3.1 Dialogue With Professor Yale Rabin, Author of "Expulsive Zoning:
The Inequitable Legacy of Euclid" and Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology 4-8
3.2 Dialogue With the Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and the Director,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Regulatory Enforcement 4-8
4.0 RESOLUTIONS 4-10
vii
-------
Section
CHAPTER FIVE: MEETING OF THE HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ,. 5-1
2.0 REMARKS 5-1
3.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE RELATED TO COMMUNITY-DIRECTED
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT . 5-1
3.1 Background of the Decision Tree Framework for Community-Directed
Environmental Health Assessment 5-2
3.2 Discussion of the Framework for Community-Directed Environmental
Health Assessment 5-2
3.3 Environmental Justice as a Component of Environmental Decision-Making 5-3
3.4 Report from the Working Group on Community Environmental Health
Assessment of the Health and Research Subcommittee 5-4
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 5-5
4.1 Activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research
and Development 5-5
4.2 Activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics 5-6
4.3 Presentations by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 5-7
4.3.1 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Approach to
Conducting Community Environmental Health Assessments 5-7
4.3.2 The Link Between Birth Defects, Toxic Waste, Drinking Water, and
Economic Burden 5-7
4.4 Presentation on the Environmental Justice Standard of the City of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5-8
4.5 Presentation on Disproportionate Effects 5-9
4.6 Presentation on Chemical Accident Prevention: New Initiatives 5-11
4.7 Presentation on Chemicals In Your Community: What Does It Mean? 5-11
5.0
SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS 5-12
VIII
-------
Section
CHAPTER SIX: .MEETING OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 6-1
2.0 REMARKS 6-1
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 6-1
3.1 Update on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Core Water Quality
Standards for Indian Tribes 6-1
3.2 presentation on Issues Related to the Clean Air Act 6-3
3,3 Presentation on Persistent Organic Pollutants 6-4
4.0 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 6-5
5.0 ACTION ITEMS 6-7
IX
-------
Section Page
CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY OF THE INTERN A TIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 7-1
2.0 REMARKS 7-1
3.0 UPDATE ON THE ROUNDTABLE ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ON THE
U.S./MEXICO BORDER 7-1
3.1 Updates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 7-2
3.2 Community Responses Related to the Roundtable Meeting 7-4
3.3 Update on Specific Recommendations Related to the Roundtable Meeting 7-4
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 7-7
4.1 Update on Activities Related to South Africa 7-7
4.1.1 Update on the Thor Chemical Site ; 7-7
4.1.2 Updates on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Initiatives
Related to South Africa 7-7
4.1.3 Update on Responses to Recommendations by the Subcommittee's
South Africa Working Group 7-7
4.1.4 South Africa Study Tour .7-8
4.2 Presentation on the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples 7-8
5.0
RESOLUTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS . . 7-8
-------
Section
CHAPTER EIGHT: MEETING OF THE WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 8-1
2.0 REMARKS 8-1
3.0 UPDATES ON THE WORK GROUPS OF THE WASTE AND FACILITY
SITING SUBCOMMITTEE 8-2
3.1 Waste Transfer Stations Work Group 8-2
3.2 Brownfields Work Group 8-3
3.3 Recycling Superfund Sites Work Group 8-4
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS 8-4
4.1 Issues Related to Redevelopment of Brownfields Properties — 8-4
4.1.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Pilots and National
Partnership 8-4
4.1.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Brownfields Prevention Initiative .. 8-5
4.1.3 Minority Worker Training Program of the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences 8-6
4.2 Issues Related to the Superfund Program 8-6
4.2.1 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative 8-6
4.2.2 Status Report on Policy on Relocation Under Superfund 8-8
4.3 Update on Environmental Justice Activities Related to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act ; 8-8
4.3.1 Update on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Solid Waste 8-8
4.3.2 Review and Discussion of the Draft Brochure on Social Aspects of Siting
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Facilities 8-10
4.4 Update on Calcasieu Parrish, Louisiana by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6 8-10
5.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DIALOGUE 8-10
5.1 Concerned Citizens of Iberville Parish, Louisiana 8-10
5.2 Westside Homeowners Protective Association 8-11
6.0 RESOLUTION AND ACTION ITEMS 8-11
APPENDICES
A Full Text of Approved Resolution
B List of Members of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
C List of Participants
D Written Public Comments
XI
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This executive summary provides highlights of the
fourteenth meeting of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), held November
30 through December 2,1999 at the Hilton Crystal
City at National Airport in Arlington, Virginia. Each
of the six subcommittees met for a full day on
December 1, 1999. The NEJAC hosted on
November 30 a public comment period which
focused on issues related to environmental justice
and the issuance of environmental permits. The
NEJAC also hosted on December 1 a second public
comment period for general environmental justice
issues. Approximately 400 persons attended the
meetings and the public comment periods.
The NEJAC is a Federal advisory committee that
was established by charter on September 30,1993
to provide independent advice, consultation, and
recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters
related to environmental justice. Mr. Haywood
Turrentine, Laborers' District Council Education and
Training Trust Fund (an affiliate of the Laborers'
International Union of North America), serves as the
chair of the Executive Council. Mr. Charles Lee,
Associate Director for ,Policy and Interagency
Liaison, EPA Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ),
serves as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) for
the Executive Council. Exhibit ES-1 lists the chair
and DFO of the executive council, as well as the
persons who chair the six subcommittees of the
NEJAC and the EPA staff appointed to serve as the
DFOs for the subcommittees.
Exhibit ES-1
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
CHAIRS AND DESIGNATED Federal
OFFICIALS (DFO)
Executive Council:
Mr. Haywood Turrentine, Chair
Mr. Charles Lee, DFO
Air and Water Subcommittee:
Dr. Michel Gelobter, Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, co-DFO
Enforcement Subcommittee:
Mr. Luke Cole, Chair
Ms. Shirley Pate, DFO
Health and Research Subcommittee:
Dr. Marinelle Payton, Chair
Mr. Lawrence Martin, co-DFO
Mr/Chen Wen, co-DFO
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee:
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Chair .
Mr. Daniel Gogal, Acting DFO
Mr. Anthony Hanson, Alternate DFO
International Subcommittee:
Mr. Afnoldo Garcia, Chair
Ms. Wendy Graham, DFO
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee:
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Chair
Mr. Kent Benjamin, DFO
OEJ maintains transcripts and summary reports of
the proceedings of the NEJAC meetings. Those
documents are available to the public upon request.
The public also has access to the executive
summaries of reports of previous meetings, as well
as other publications of the NEJAC, through the
World Wide Web at (click on the publications icon). The summaries are available in both English- and
Spanish-language versions.
REMARKS
Ms. Carol Browner, Administrator, EPA, extended her appreciation to representatives of EPA and members
of the NEJAC who have been working on addressing issues related to environmental justice at the agency.
She stated that addressing environmental justice is not an easy task and one that is not becoming easier to
address as new evidence is identified that minority and low-income communities do bear a disproportionate
"brunt of [the impacts of] our modern technological society." She emphasized the need for the members"of
the NEJAC to stay focused on the topic of this meeting. Ms. Browner expressed her belief that when decision-
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
ES-1
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
makers truly engage a local community, up front and in an informed and meaningful manner, the quality of
the decision that the agency or other regulatory entity is able to make is dramatically improved compared to
a decision that is made without the engagement of the community. She continued by saying that the
challenge that lays before EPA is how to involve a local community in an effective, open, honest, and informed
manner. • .
Ms. Browner concluded her remarks by stating that the agency needs to take a "real look" at the regulatory
decisions made as well as the guidance and framework that EPA issues to state and local governments to
ensure that principles related to environmental justice are being integrated into the decision-making process
for issuing permits.
Mr. Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),
expressed the agency's continuous appreciation to the members of the NEJAC for their invaluable assistance
in providing EPA advice and counsel on issues related to environmental justice. Mr. Herman then noted the
change in format for this and future meetings of the NEJAC. He explained that each NEJAC meeting now
will focus on a single issue and its relationship to environmental justice. Announcing that this meeting of the
NEJAC would focus on permitting, Mr. Herman stated that through panel discussions, members of the
NEJAC, EPA, and other meeting participants will examine aspects of permitting related to various authorities
and opportunities where the agency can ensure that environmental justice is integrated into the decision-
making process for issuing permits. Mr. Herman concluded his remarks by noting that numerous assistant
administrators and other senior-level managers of EPA will be in attendance at this meeting.
Mr. Barry Hill, Director, EPA OEJ, began his remarks by stating that environmental justice is "something that
belongs to everyone" in that every American citizen is entitled to clean air, water, and land based on the United
States' protective environmental laws. He continued by defining environmental justice, and explaining that
the concept:
> Acknowledges that environmental justice is a basic right of all Americans to live and work in
environmentally protected surroundings.
>• Recognizes that environmental justice is not only an environmental issue, but a public health issue.
> Recognizes that environmental justice is forward-looking and goal-oriented because the concept seeks
to include affected communities in the decision-making processes.
> Indicates that environmental justice is inclusive. . ' .
Mr. Hill then stated that based on these premises the definition of environmental justice is compatible with the
mission of EPA to protect human health and to safeguard the environment.
Continuing his remarks, Mr. Hill pointed out that environmental justice is at a critical stage from the point of
view of environmental law and public policy. He then proceeded to provide historical examples of
environmental justice, starting with the issuance in 1987 of a report by the United Church of Christ on race
and environmental contamination to present day legal cases to highlight the various stages of environmental
justice as a legal concept.
Mr. Hill concluded his remarks by stating that for this meeting OEJ has asked the NEJAC to provide advice
and recommendations on how best to integrate environmental justice into the decision-making process related
to permitting so that the concept can be applied as measurable, rationalized, and routine standards of
evaluation.
Ms. Samantha Fairchild, Director, Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice, EPA
Region 3, emphasized that environmental justice continues to be a major area of concern at EPA Region 3
and that the regional office has taken steps to improve communication among all affected stakeholders. For
example, she explained that EPA Region 3 is developing partnerships with state environmental agencies in
the five-state region to provide assistance during the decision-making process related to permits. This effort
ES-2
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
includes establishing consistent meetings with states to discuss potential environmental justice issues before
those issues become legal problems, she said. Ms. Fairchild also noted that EPA Region 3 has participated
in Pennsylvania's Environmental Equity Work Group to define and identify criteria for environmental justice
communities.
Continuing her remarks, Ms. Fairchild also noted that the regional office has been involved in several studies
to investigate public health issues in environmental justice areas with heavy industry as well as conducted a
study in a southwest Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area that is heavily concentrated with auto body and paint
shops. She explained that the information collected from these studies will assist the state of Pennsylvania
and Region 3 meet the needs of its citizens. Ms. Fairchild concluded her remarks by stating that the NEJAC
is a valuable tool to grapple with the many complex problems facing communities related to environmental
justice.
Mr. Bradley Campbell, White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), reported on the second
environmental justice listening session held in New York, New York in March 1999 that continued to bring
together various Federal agencies and community members to discuss issues related to environmental
justice. Mr. Campbell explained that the purpose of the listening sessions was to ensure the environmental
justice principles that have been integrated into EPA's policies and programs also are being implemented in
other Federal agencies actions that affect local communities. As a result of the listening session, he noted,
several Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), agreed to reopen public
comment periods to review permits related to, transportation decisions for New York City. In addition, the
Healthcare Financing Administration agreed to help local New York communities to gain better access to
medical care for asthma related health problems.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
The NEJAC hosted public comment periods on November 30 and December 1,1999. More than 30 people
participated in the two public comment periods. Significant concerns expressed during the public comment
periods included:
*• Several commenters continued to express concern about the "unfair process" under which permits are
issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).
+ Many commenters expressed concern about the "unrealistic" time frame by which to review and provide
comments on proposed permits during the decision-making process. Many commenters recommended
that EPA revise the time line related to issuing a permit to provide for earlier notification of a proposed
permit, as well as provide documents in easier to understand language.
+ Several commenters expressed concern about the lack of options available for recourse once a permit
has been issued and a facility has begun operations.
*• Several commenters recommended that the NEJAC address environmental justice issues at Federal
facilities.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
£5-3
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
PANELS ON PERMITTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The NEJAC, in its continuing efforts to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator on areas related
to environmental justice, focused its fourteenth meeting on a specific policy issue - permitting and
environmental justice. On Tuesday, November 30,1999, the members of the NEJAC listened to a series of
panels comprised of various stakeholders that were designed to provide insight into the issues and concerns
raised with respect to environmental justice in the permitting process.
Mr. Richard Lazarus, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center and former member of the
Enforcement Subcommittee of the NEJAC, provided background information on the historical development
of integrating concerns related to environmental justice into the permitting process. Mr. Lazarus explained
that "environmental justice permitting" refers to the consideration of concerns related to environmental justice
in the context of an environmental permitting authority's decision to grant, deny, or condition a permit at a
facility, the operation of which has adverse or potentially adverse environmental effects on the community.
Ms. Zulene Mayfield, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, presented an overview on the
challenges her community has faced related to state environmental agencies and the permitting process. Ms.
Mayfield emphasized the necessity for local and state agencies to allow local affected communities to
participate earlier and more often in the decision-making process. Mr. Carlos Porras, Communities for a
Better Environment, provided information on several communities near Los Angeles, California facing
environmental justice issues related to air quality and permitting. Mr. Porras explained that there are several
challenges EPA needs to address related to permitting that included collecting more reliable data.
The panel presentations included (Exhibit ES-2 provides the names of the panelists)
*.. ""
>• Facilitated Dialogue — Mr. Kojo Nnamdi of
National Public Radio, facilitated a dialogue
among representatives of communities; industry;
tribes; and state, local, and Federal governments
to identify issues and concerns related to
environmental justice and permitting. (Exhibit
ES-3 shows Mr. Nnamdi facilitating.) The
primary issue identified by all stakeholder groups
was that the public should become involved in
the permitting process as early and as often as
possible. Several members of the panel
expressed concern that members of the public
believe that public outreach related to permitting
is superficial, citing the fact that although a
regulation may take two years to develop, the
public only receives 30 days in which to review ES-3: Mr. Kojo Nnamdi facilitating a dialogue session
and provide comment. on issues related to environmental justice and the
permitting process.
»• EPA Panel — Senior managers from EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Office of
Water (OW), and Region 3 provided information on their program's efforts to incorporate environmental
justice into the permitting processes. Each of the headquarter program offices announced to the
members of the NEJAC various commitments to increase public involvement and revise the permitting
processes to integrate environmental justice into them.
ES-4
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
Exhibit ES-2
PANEL PRESENTATIONS ON PERMITTING RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Overview: '
Introduction: Richard Lazarus, Georgetown University Law Center (Washington, D.C.)
Community Case Studies: Zulene Mayfield, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living
(Chester, Pennsylvania)
Carlos Porras, Communities for a Better Environment (Los Angeles,
California)
Facilitated Dialogue: •
Community:
Community:
Industry/Business:
Tribal/Indigenous:
State Government:
Local Government:
Federal Government:
EPA Panel: -
Margie Richard, Concerned Citizen of Norco (Norco, Louisiana)
Zack Lyde, Director, Save the People (Brunswick, Georgia)
Michael Steinberg, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius (Wellington, D.C.)
Bill Swaney, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (Pablo, Montana)
Alissa Harris, State of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)
Matt Ward, National Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals (Washington, D.C.)
William Harnett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (Washington, D.C.)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Office of Air and Radiation:
Office of Water:
Region 3:
Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator (AA)
Robert Brenner, Acting Deputy AA
Dana Minerva, Deputy AA
John Armstead, Associate Director, Environmental
Services Division
Panel 1: Addressing Real Life Dilemmas of Environmental Justice in Permitting: How Do We Respond to
the Legacy of Land Use Impacts? : ; ;
Academia: Yale Rabin, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industry/Business:
Community:
Local Government:
(Cambridge, Massachusetts)
Michael Gerrard, Arnold & Porter (New York, New York)
Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition (San Diego, California)
Sarah Liles, City of Detroit (Detroit, Michigan)
Panel 2: The Current State of Environmental Justice and Permitting:
What Are Its Limitations?
Industry/Business:
Community:
State Government:
Federal Government:
Jerry Martin, Dow Chemical (Midland, Michigan)
Larry Charles, Organized Northeasterners and Clay Hill and North End,
Inc. (Hartford, Connecticut)
Andrea Kreiner, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (Dover, Delaware) '
Steve Heare, EPA Office of Solid Waste
Panel 3: Opportunities for Improvement: What Factors Should EPAConsider to Help Ensure
Environmental Justice in Permitting? • . ;
Academia: Eileen Gauna, Southwestern University Law School, (Los Angeles,
California)
Robert Shinn, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(Trenton, New Jersey)
Nathalie Walker, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund (New Orleans,
Louisiana)
Stuart Harris, Confederated Tribes of Umatilla (Pendleton, Oregon)
State Government:
Community:
Tribal/Indigenous:
Arlington, Virginia, November, 30 through December 2, 1999
ES-5
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
> Panel 1: Addressing Real Life Dilemmas of Environmental Justice in Permitting: How Do We Respond
to the Legacy of Land Use Impacts?— Representatives from academia, industry, community, and local
government discussed the dilemmas for the permitting process related to the historical development of
land use and zoning requirements. Several members of the panel recommended that EPA involve
stakeholders of local government earlier in the development of guidance and policy to help prepare local
governments to implement new regulations.
>• Panel 2: The Current State of Environmental Justice and Permitting: What Are Its Limitations?—This
multi stakeholder panel identified areas of concern and gaps related to integrating environmental justice
into the permitting process. A primary concern expressed by several members of the panel focused on
the need for local, state, and Federal government agencies to diversify their staff to better understand the
needs and concerns of their constituents.
> Panel 3: Opportunities for Improvement: What Factors Should EPA Consider to Help Ensure
Environmental Justice in Permitting? — Members of the multi stakeholder panel provided
recommendations to EPA on how to improve efforts to integrate concerns related to environmental justice
into the permitting process. Several key recommendations included:
- Create an air emissions credits trading review board to evaluate the disparate effects the trading of
air emissions credits may have on an affected community.
— Provide additional resources to improve data from geographical information systems to more
accurately identify demographics and other cultural considerations.
COMMON THEMES
During the meetings of the Executive Council and its subcommittees, the members of the NEJAC discussed
a wide range of issues related to environmental justice. Specific concerns of and commitments made by the
NEJAC include:
>• Cbntinued concern about the "crisis" environmental contamination conditions under which certain
residents of Louisiana live.
*• Concern about the lack of public participation in the decision-making process related to issuing permits.
> Recommendation that EPA develop a process by which the agency can step in to "fill the regulatory gap",
left when EPA is not the primary authority.
Members of the NEJAC recommended that the EPA Administrator assume an active role in discussions with
LDEQ about the environmental contamination and the issuance of permits in that state. In addition, the
Executive Council also approved a resolution that requested that the EPA Administrator recommend that the
Inspector General of EPA conduct an audit of the LDEQ to ensure that the state agency is in compliance with
applicable environmental laws. •
Members of the NEJAC, as well as members of the various panels, agreed that local communities need to
be included often and as early as possible in the decision-making process related to issuing permits. The
Executive Council agreed to create a special work group to develop a report to provide advice on how EPA
can integrate concerns related to environmental justice into the permitting process in a manner that would be
beneficial to all stakeholders. Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields
Redevelopment and chair of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC, agreed to chair the
work group.
Several members of the NEJAC expressed concern about several cases, such as waste transfer stations, in
which a "regulatory gap" is created because EPA is not the primary authority and the local or state agency is
not responding to concerns of its constituents. The members recommended that EPA develop a process by
which the agency can step in to "fill" such a gap.
ES-6
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
SUMMARIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
MEETINGS
Summarized below are the deliberations of the members of the six subcommittees of the NEJAC during their
meetings.
Air and Water Subcommittee
The Air and Water Subcommittee reviewed the activities of its three work groups on cumulative permitting,
urban air toxics, and fish consumption, and proposed a new work group of the subcommittee which would
focus on public utilities. Updates from the current work groups included:
>• The Work Group on Cumulative Permitting proposed a list of issues for EPA to consider related to public
participation and permitting.
* The Work Group on Urban Air Toxics discussed and offered comment to EPA OAR on the agency's
urban air toxic strategy.
*• The Work Group on Fish Consumption focused its efforts on subsistence fish consumption, specifically
related to cultural practices of native communities; fish monitoring; the necessity for fish advisories; and
reducing human exposure to contaminants in fish.
The subcommittee also hosted a joint session with the Enforcement Subcommittee of the NEJAC that focused
on OAR's economic incentives program (EIP), Tier ll/gasoline sulfur rule, and OW's proposed rule on
standards for total maximum daily load (TMDL).
Enforcement Subcommittee
The members of the Enforcement Subcommittee heard three presentations on environmental justice and the
decision-making process related to permitting. The members of the subcommittee also participated in a
discussion about the proposed budget cuts for OECA. In addition, Ms. Ann Goode, Director, EPA Office of
Civil Rights (OCR), provided the subcommittee with an update on activities at OCR and the progress on
processing administrative complaints filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).
In addition, the members of the subcommittee discussed at length three pending resolutions that had been
forwarded by mail ballot vote to the Executive Council of the NEJAC for approval. The pending resolutions
addressed state-issued variances from the Clean Air Act permit requirements, EPA's proposed guidance on
EIP, and the economic benefit to industry of noncompliance with environmental laws. The members of the
subcommittee also began discussions on a proposed resolution on concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFO).
Health and Research Subcommittee
Members of the Health and Research Subcommittee heard presentations by the following individuals:
> Dr. Dorothy Patton, EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), presented information on the
responsibilities of ORD, including the office's activities and new directions for the future.
* Dr. William Sanders, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), provided an
update on EPA's proposed lead rule, EPA's community-right-know program, and the agency's community
assistance technical team. -
* Dr. Henry Falk, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR), discussed his agency's
approach to conducting environmental health assessments.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
ES-7
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
' > Dr. Jerome Baiter, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, provided information on a model used by
the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to evaluate and support an administrative complaint filed under Title
VI.
Members of the subcommittee also agreed to develop resolutions on 1) guidelines for community-based
research ethics and 2) to request that EPA and other Federal agencies explore opportunities to fund
environmental health research topics identified by communities.
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Members of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee continued to discuss the development of a consultation
and collaboration guidance to provide assistance to Federal and other agencies on how to participate in
meaningful consultation with tribal governments and tribal communities. The subcommittee agreed to
distribute the draft guidance to all Federally recognized tribes for review and comment. In addition, the
subcommittee agreed to forward by March 2000 a copy of the guidance to the members of the Executive
Council for approval.
Members of the subcommittee also discussed and developed a strategic plan for the subcommittee for the
next two years. Several goals express in the strategic plan include identifying key environmental justice
issues, particularly related to permitting, in Indian Country and provide training to members of the NEJAC on
environmental justice issues related to indigenous peoples. .
In addition, members of the subcommittee discussed EPA's proposed core standards for water quality for
Indian Country, the air permitting program related to tribes, and the recent trade negotiations related to
persistent organic pollutants (POP).
International Subcommittee
Members of the International Subcommittee reviewed more than iOO recommendations that were generated
from the Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S./Mexico Border meeting held in August 1999 in San
Diego, California. The members established priorities among the recommendations and decided to focus on:
»• Creation of a binational community-based commission that would monitor and assist in the development
of environmental policies that would affect the border region.
»• Cleanup two contaminated sites, Metales y Derivados near Tijuana, Mexico and the Condado Prestos in
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
»• Conduct of a site assessment of the Matamoros Tamaulipas site in Mexico.
Members of the subcommittee also participated in discussions with Mr. Alan Hecht, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA Office of International Activities (OIA); Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6; and Dr. Clarice Gaylord, Special Assistant to the Regional Administrator, San Diego Border Liaison
Office, EPA Region 9.
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Members of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee discussed issues related to environmental justice
and the administration of the Superfund program by EPA. The members of the subcommittee recommended
that communities be protected as EPA continues to delegate authority to tribes and states under Superfund.
• Members of the Waste Transfer Station Work Group of the subcommittee presented its report of
recommendations on criteria for siting waste transfer stations, a planning process to assure a more equitable
distribution of waste transfer facilities among communities, and a more deliberative approach to evaluate how
many of these types of facilities are necessary. The members of the work group noted that, in the absence
ES-8
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
of a Federal baseline for waste transfer stations, there exists an enormous variability in operating practices
among such facilities.
In response to continued concerns expressed during earlier public comment periods of the NEJAC, members
of the subcommittee agreed to participate in quarterly conference calls convened by EPA Region 6 to address
environmental justice issues related to Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Also, members of the subcommittee
agreed to address differences between presentations made by staff of EPA related to the relocation of
community members of Pensacola, Florida and those comments offered by affected community members
during the December 1,1999 public comment period.
SUMMARY OF APPROVED RESOLUTIONS
This section summarizes resolutions that were discussed by the subcommittees and approved by the
Executive Council of the NEJAC during the meeting. Appendix A provides the full text of each resolution that
was approved by the Executive Council. ,
> The NEJAC recommends that EPA request that Puerto Rico Commonwealth revise its State
Implementation Plan to comply with the .1 Ibs/MBTU Federal emission limitation of particulate matter and
the appropriate sulfur dioxide emission limitation for the entire island including the non-attainment area.
-
* The NEJAC recommends that EPA request that the U.S. Department of State and the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) comply with the provisions expressed in Executive Order 12898 on
environmental justice and Executive Order 13141 related to environmental reviews of trade agreements.
*• The NEJAC recommends that EPA communicate to the U.S. Secretary of State that the United States
supports the adoption of the current draft declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples before the
United Nations.
>• The NEJAC requests that EPA Region 2 facilitate a meeting between the Westside Homeowners
Protective Association, the Venice Park Civic Association, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
South Jersey Transportation Authority, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to
address the issues of exposure of community residents from contaminated soil, long-term air quality
issues, and the potential adverse effects to the community residents after the construction of the Atlantic
City/Brigantine Connector tunnel project.
>• The NEJAC recommends that the EPA Administrator request that the Inspector General of EPA conduct
a full audit of the state of Louisiana's permitting programs with particular attention to the violations of
EPA's public participation regulations, the public participation guidelines of the NEJAC, and the provisions
of the U.S. Constitution.
*• The NEJAC recommends that EPA amend the agency's proposed EIP regulations to include
considerations and requirements related to environmental justice.
* The NEJAC recommends .that EPA's policies on determining appropriate penalties for noncompliance
require that these penalties reflect the economic benefit of noncompliance enjoyed by violating facilities.
*• The NEJAC recommends that EPA adopt a national policy which prohibits Federal recognition of
variances issued by states to the permitting requirements under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30.through December 2,1999
ES-9
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the NEJAC is scheduled for May 23 through 26,2000 in Atlanta, Georgia at the Omni at
CNN Center. Planned activities will include two opportunities for the public to offer comments. Exhibit ES-4
identifies the dates and locations of future meetings as well as the issues the NEJAC plans to address. For
further information about this pending meeting visit NEJAC's home page on the Internet at:
httptfvww.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/nejac/conf_ne.htmlor call EPA's toll-free environmental justice hotline at 1 -
800-962-6215.
Exhibit ES-4
FUTURE MEETINGS OF
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Date
May 23-26,2000
December 2000
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Washington, D.C.
Issue
Community Health
Interagency Environmental
Justice Implementation
ES-10
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
November 30 through December 2,1999
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
^A ^ £.
\ — ^r'
Charles Lee Haywood Turrentine
Office of Environmental Justice Chair
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
-------
-------
CHAPTER ONE
SUMMARY OF THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The fourteenth meeting of the Executive Council of
the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) took place November 30 through
December 2,1999, in Arlington, Virginia. Mr.
Haywood Turrentine, Laborers' District Council of
Education and Training Trust Fund (an affiliate of
the Laborers International Union of North
America), continues to serve as chair of the
Executive Council. Mr. Charles Lee, Associate
Director for Policy and Interagency Liaison, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Environmental Justice (OEJ), serves as the newly
appointed Designated Federal Official (DFO) for
the Executive Council. Exhibit 1-1 presents a list
of Executive Council members who were present
and identifies those members who were unable to
attend. Approximately 400 people attended the
meeting.
On December 1,1999 each member of the
Executive Council participated in the deliberations
of one of the six subcommittees of the NEJAC.
Chapters three through eight of this meeting
summary describe those deliberations. In addition,
the Executive Council hosted two public comment
periods, a Focused Public Comment Period, on the
evening of November 30,1999 and a General
Environments/Justice Issues Public Comment
Period on the evening of December 1,1999.
Approximately 31 people offered comments during
those sessions. Chapter Two presents a summary
of the public comments offered.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Executive Council, is organized
in eight sections and four appendices, including
this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, presents
summaries of the remarks offered by various
speakers. Section 3.0, Panels on Permitting and
Environmental Justice, provides a summary of the
series of panels of various stakeholders. The
panelists made presentations that were designed
to provide insight into the issues and concerns
raised with respect to environmental justice in the
permitting process. Section 4.0,
Recommendations of the Subcommittees Related
to Permitting and Environmental Justice, describes
the recommendations discussed by the
subcommittees for integrating concerns related to
environmental justice into the decision-making
Exhibit 1-1
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
November 30 through December 2,1999
Mr. Haywood Turrentine, Chair
Mr. Charles Lee, DFO
Mr. Don Aragon
Ms. Rose Marie Augustine
Mr. Dwayne Beavers
Ms. Sue Briggum
Mr. Luke Cole
Ms. Leslie Cormier
Mr. Fernando Cuevas
Ms. Rosa Franklin**
Mr. Arnoldo Garcia
Dr. Michel Gelobter
Mr. Brad Hamilton*
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelley
Ms. Anabelle Jaramillo
Ms. Vemice Miller-Travis
Dr. Marinelle Payton
Mr. Gerald Prout**
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos
Ms. JaneStahl
Ms. Peggy Shepard
Mr. Gerald Torres*
Ms. Margaret Williams
Mr. Tseming Yang**
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. Tom Goldtooth
Mr. David Moore
Mr. Damon Whitehead
*Mr. Brad Hamilton substituted for Mr. Tom
Goldtooth, who was unable to attend the meeting.
**Attended November 30,1999 only
* Attended December 2,1999 only
process for issuing permits. Section 5.0, Reports
of the Subcommittees, summarizes reports
submitted to the Executive Council about the
deliberations of each of the six subcommittees
during their meetings on December 1,1999.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-1
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Section 6.0, Administrative Issues, presents a
summary of the discussions of the Executive
Council about matters related to the NEJAC.
Section 7.0', Closing Remarks, presents the
closing remarks of the chair of the Executive
Council of the NEJAC and other members of the
NEJAC. Section 8.0, Resolutions, provides a
summary of the resolutions approved by the
Executive Council. Appendix A presents the full
text of each resolution that was approved by the
Executive Council. Appendix B presents a list of
the members of the NEJAC. Appendix C provides
a list of participants in the meeting. Appendix D
provides copies of the written public comment
statements submitted to the NEJAC.
2.0 REMARKS
This section summarizes the remarks of the
Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA);
the Director of EPA OEJ; the Director of the Office
of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental
Justice, EPA Region 3; and the Associate Director,
White House Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ).
2.1 Remarks of the Assistant Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Mr. Steve Herman, Assistant Administrator, EPA
OECA, thanked all the members of the NEJAC for
their continuous hard work, which, he noted, is of
invaluable assistance to EPA. He particularly
expressed his appreciation to Mr. Turrentine for
Mr. Turrentine's long service to and leadership of
the NEJAC and for the wisdom he has brought to
the position of chair of the Executive Council of the
NEJAC. Mr. Herman then noted the change in
format for the current and future meetings of the
NEJAC. He explained that each meeting of the
NEJAC will focus on a single issue and its
relationship to environmental justice. Announcing
that the current meeting of the NEJAC would focus
on permitting, Mr. Herman stated that, through
panel discussions, members of the NEJAC, staff of
EPA, and other participants in the meeting were to
examine aspects of issuing permits related to
various authorities and opportunities for the
Agency to ensure that environmental justice is
integrated into the decision-making process. Mr.
Herman concluded his remarks by noting that
numerous assistant administrators and other
senior-level managers of EPA were to be in
attendance at the meeting.
2.2 Remarks of the Director, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Environmental Justice
Mr. Barry Hill, Director, EPA OEJ, began his
remarks by stressing that environmental justice
"belongs to everyone" because every American
citizen is entitled to clean air, water, and land
under the protective environmental laws of the
United States. He explained that environmental
justice is a goal to be achieved and that
environmental justice is not a preferential
treatment program for minority and low-income
communities. Mr. Hill also emphasized that
environmental justice should not be viewed as a
set-aside program or an affirmative action
program. Continuing, he defined environmental
justice, and explained that the concept is based on
four premises:
• Acknowledges that environmental justice is a
basic right of all Americans - the right to live
and work in environmentally protected
surroundings.
• Recognizes that environmental justice is not
only an environmental issue, but also a public
health issue.
• Recognizes that environmental justice is
forward-looking and goal-oriented, since the
concept seeks to include affected communities
in decision-making processes because those
communities for the most part have not had a
full and fair opportunity to participate in those
decisions.
, • Indicates that environmental justice is inclusive
and that it includes the concept of economic
prejudices, as well as racial prejudices.
Mr. Hill then stated that, on the basis of those
premises, the definition of environmental justice is
compatible with the mission of EPA to protect
human health and to safeguard the environment.
He then pointed out that EPA's Strategic Plan,
issued in 1997, states the Agency's purpose, to
ensure that "all Americans are protected from
significant risk to human health and the
environment where they live, learn, and work."
That statement, he declared, is the essence of
environmental justice. Continuing his discussion
of the Agency's Strategic Plan and environmental
justice, Mr. Hill noted that the plan also states that
the Agency has the responsibility to ensure "that all
Federal laws protecting human health and the
environment are enforced fairly and effectively."
That is environmental justice, as well, he
1-2
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
-------
National EnvironmentalJustice Advisory Council
Executive Council
observed. In addition, Mr. Hill noted that EPA's
Strategic Plan states that all segments of society -
communities, individuals, business, tribes, and
state and local governments - have access to
accurate information sufficient to effectively
participate in managing health and environmental
risk. That, too, is environmental justice, he pointed"
out.
Continuing, Mr. Hill observed that environmental
justice is at a "mature" stage of development, from
the point of view of environmental law and policy.
To highlight the various stages of development of
environmental justice as a legal concept, he
provided historical examples of environmental
justice efforts, beginning with the issuance in 1987
of a report by the United Church of Christ on race
and environmental contamination and continuing
through current legal cases.
Mr. Hill concluded his remarks by stating that, for
the current meeting, OEJ had asked that the
NEJAC provide advice and recommendations on
how best to integrate concerns related to
environmental justice into the decision-making
process related to issuing permits, so that the
concept can be applied as a measurable and
routine standard of evaluation.
2.3 Remarks of the Director, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 3
Office of Enforcement, Compliance and
EnvironmentalJustice
Ms. Samantha Fairchild, Director, EPA Region 3
Office of Enforcement Compliance and
Environmental Justice, apologized on behalf of Mr.
Michael McCabe, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 3 and Mr. Thomas Voltaggio, Deputy
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3, for their
inability to be present at the meeting. She also
concurred with Mr. Herman and Mr. Hill that
environmental justice is a major concern of EPA
and that EPA Region 3 had taken steps to improve
communication among the region's stakeholders
and provide information, consultation, and
outreach to any and all groups in need of EPA's
assistance. Ms. Fairchild also noted that EPA
Region 3 actively participates in public outreach
programs, along with the states located in the
region. Ms. Fairchild acknowledged that states
often are on the "front lines" of issues related to
environmental justice and enforcement and that
states have the lead authority for issuing permits,
as well.
Ms. Fairchild then explained that EPA Region 3
had instituted regular meetings with state partners
located in the region to discuss environmental
justice issues before they emerge as complex
problems. Other activities with state partners, she
stated, included participation of the regional office
in the state of Pennsylvania's Environmental Equity
Work Group. Ms. Fairchild explained that, at the
meetings of the work group, EPA, the state of
Pennsylvania, and various stakeholders
participated in difficult discussions about the need
to define what makes up an environmental justice
community.
Continuing her remarks, Ms. Fairchild also noted
that the region had been involved actively in
several studies designed to investigate public
health problems in areas that are affected by
environmental justice concer.-s and that are highly
industrialized. One study was conducted in
southwest Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where a
large number of auto body and paint shops are
located, she said. Another study EPA Region 3
conducted, she continued, involved the heavily
industrialized area of Chester, Pennsylvania. Ms.
Fairchild noted that the results of the studies did
not show a cause-and-effect relationship between
the siting of facilities and public health concerns;
however, she noted, that was not the goal of the
studies. The goal of the studies, she explained,
was to help EPA better understand the health
concerns of citizens who live in communities
affected by industry. She said that the studies also
helped the state of Pennsylvania better understand
the needs of its citizens.
As Mr. Hill had noted, Ms. Fairchild explained, the
meeting of the NEJAC was to begin a series of
issue-specific meetings with the current meeting
focusing on concerns related to issuing permits.
She reminded the members of the NEJAC that, at
previous meetings, EPA and the members of the
Executive Council had heard frustration expressed
by many communities about how to influence the
decision-making process related to issuing
permits. Ms. Fairchild stated that what often
surprises such communities are the limits to the
authority that the Federal government has to
require actions of those .seeking permits. In
addition, she explained further, members of
communities often express concern about issues
that do not fall within permit requirements, such as
increases in noise, traffic, and odor.
Ms. Fairchild then acknowledged that leaders are
emerging from communities in Pennsylvania and
other areas located in EPA Region 3. Those
leaders also are coming forward to help define
issues and seek solutions. In addition, she noted,
communities are becoming increasingly effective in
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
1-3
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
participating in the permitting process stating that
EPA's role had changed from reviewing the
permits to providing information to communities
and explaining the permit process to facilitate more
effective participation of communities in decision
making.
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Fairchild expressed
her belief that meetings of the NEJAC provide the
best opportunity for all stakeholders to come
together, share collective expertise, and attempt to
arrive at solutions.
2.4 Remarks of the Associate Director, White
House Council on Environmental Quality
Mr. Bradley Campbell, Associate Director, White
House CEQ, began his remarks by expressing his
appreciation to Dr. Michel Gelobter, Graduate
Department of Public Administration, Rutgers
University and chair of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, and Ms. Peggy Shepard, Executive
Director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc.
and member of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, for their support at the second
environmental justice listening session sponsored
by CEQ and OEJ in March 1999, in New York City.
Mr. Campbell explained that one of the challenges
of addressing environmental justice concerns on
an interagency basis had been translating some of
the principles and policies articulated at the
headquarters, Washington D.C., level and well
integrated within the programs at EPA, for other
agencies, as well as broadening the application of
those principles to state and local governments.
He called the attention of the members of the
Executive Council to the community meeting held
in July 1998, in Los Angeles, California. Using the
model that was created in Los Angeles (a model
that focused on the specific problems of the
community and on bringing together a wide range
of high-level Federal officials) continued Mr.
Campbell, CEQ had reproduced the experiment in
New York City, focusing particularly on the
communities of Brooklyn, Harlem, and the Bronx.
Continuing his remarks, Mr. Campbell stated that
the first step in organizing such a community
meeting was to convene a group of community
leaders who faced environmental justice issues
and to empower those leaders to develop the
agenda for the meeting. He also noted that a
broad range of senior-level managers from various
Federal agencies participated in the meeting,
along with three members of Congress
representing districts of New York City. Mr.
Campbell stated that he believed the meeting was
successful because:
• Specific goal-oriented commitments that can
be undertaken by Federal agencies to address
environmental justice issues related to the
communities of Brooklyn, Harlem, and the
Bronx were identified.
• Issues for which the role of Federal authorities
might be limited to highlight such issues for
state and local governments who have direct
influence to resolve the issues that were
identified.
Reiterating his belief that the meeting had been
successful, Mr. Campbell recited the philosophy of
the regional administrator of EPA Region 9 on
environmental justice: (1) giving communities a
voice in environmental decisions that affect them;
(2) ensuring that minority and low-income
communities assume a "rightful" place in agency
priorities; (3) giving greater attention than in the
past to the siting of facilities and their particular
effects on minority and low-income communities;
and (4) considering disproportionate and
cumulative exposures to environmental risks. Mr.
Campbell then stated that he believed the meeting
encompassed those four principles through the
commitments that the Federal agencies made to
ensuring that affected communities have a voice in
decision-making processes.
Mr. Campbell also noted that environmental justice
issues related to waste transfer stations (WTS)
were among the immediate and important issues
raised at the meeting. He explained that, although
it was among the most important issues raised at
the meeting, the issue of WTSs also was one on
which the least progress had been made.
However, Mr. Campbell assured the members of
the NEJAC, a process had been developed for
bringing attention to WTSs. Mr. Campbell also
expressed his gratitude for the constructive role
that the city of New York played at the meeting and
for the effort to give greater priority to such issues.
In the area of cumulative exposure, in particular air
quality problems, Mr. Campbell stated that the
EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) had made
commitments to conducting additional air
monitoring.
Mr. Campbell then explained that the model for
community meetings that was developed was
effective in engaging the community and bringing
high-level Federal attention to environmental
justice; however, he continued, use of the model
creates some frustrations - for example, it is
resource-intensive for the agencies and
communities involved. He also noted that the
model works best if the community is well
1-4
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
organized and the issues have been identified
clearly. Therefore, Mr. Campbell stated, CEQ was
to review lessons learned to help develop the
ability to replicate the positive aspects of the model
in a less resource-intensive manner and in
communities that are not well organized.
3.0 PANELS ON PERMITTING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
In its continuing efforts to provide independent
advice to the EPA Administrator in areas related to
environmental justice, the NEJAC focused its
fourteenth meeting on a specific policy issue ~
permitting and environmental justice. Oh Tuesday,
November 30,1999, the members of the NEJAC
received a series of presentations from panels
made up of various stakeholders. The
presentations were designed to provide insight into
the issues raised and concerns expressed with
respect to environmental justice in the permitting
process. Exhibit 1-2 identifies the various panels
and the individuals who participated in the
discussions.
Mr. Lee began the panel presentations by
reminding the members of the NEJAC of the
purpose of the current meeting of the NEJAC. He
explained that the issue that the NEJAC had been
asked to consider and provide recommendations
on was, "To secure protection from environmental
degradation for all citizens, what factors should be
considered by Federal permitting authorities, as
well as state and local agencies with delegated
permitting responsibilities, in the decision-making
process prior to allowing a new pollution
generating facility to operate in a minority and/or
low-income community that may already have a
number of such facilities?" Mr. Lee then stated
that, to prepare for the meeting, the report
Environmental Justice and the Permitting Process:
A Report on Stakeholder Views, had been
developed to provide a context for the discussions.
The report, he continued, was based on interviews
with approximately 20 people representing various
stakeholder groups, including senior EPA officials,
as well as other officials at EPA who are
responsible for issuing permits.
In addition, Mr. Lee stated, OEJ worked with
various program offices at EPA that have primary
responsibility for issuing permits: OAR, the Office
of Water (OW), and the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER). He explained
that senior managers of each of those offices were
to provide their perspectives on environmental
justice and the issuing of permits, as well as make
commitments with regard to how best to address
the issue. Continuing, Mr. Lee explained that OEJ
also designed the meeting around a series of
panels addressing different aspects of the issue.
To ensure that a "robust" policy dialogue takes
place, each panel he said, would be made up of
experts and various stakeholders.
The following sections provide summaries of each
of the various panel presentations on
environmental justice and the permitting process.
3.1 Overview of Environmental Justice and the
Permitting Process
Mr. Richard Lazarus, Professor of Law,
Georgetown University Law Center and former
member of the Enforcement Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, provided background information about
the historical development of the integration of
concerns related to environmental justice into the
permitting process. As a preface to his remarks,
Professor Lazarus noted that no law professor can
claim to be a true expert in the area of
environmental justice; however, he stated, he is an
expert in environmental law. He explained that his
appreciation of environmental justice is not based
on first-hand experience, but on his understanding
of environmental law and the compelling testimony
of those who live in communities where
environmental injustices are long standing. For
those communities, Professor Lazarus explained,
environmental justice is not a mere abstract policy
concern; it is a concept under which those
communities defend themselves against a daily
assault on their land, health, and livelihoods, and
on their children's lives. Professor Lazarus stated
that his remarks on permitting issues related to
environmental justice would have three parts:
• Place issues related to permitting into a
broader historical context, such as what is
meant by "environmental justice permitting
authority," when and how the issue had been
raised before the NEJAC to date, and why the
issue is so controversial.
• Describe sources of statutory authority
available to EPA to promote environmental
justice through the exercise of permitting
authorities or its oversight of state- or tribal-
delegated environmental permitting authorities
delegated to states or tribes.
• Identify common concerns most frequently
heard from those troubled by any effort to
more systematically integrate environmental
justice concerns into EPA's permitting
decisions, such as concerns that EPA
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-5
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 1-2
PANEL PRESENTATIONS ON PERMITTING RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Overview:
Introduction:
Community Case Studies:
Facilitated Dialogue:
Community:
Community:
Industry/Business:
Tribal/Indigenous:
State Government:
Local Government:
Federal Government:
EPA Panel:
Richard Lazarus, Georgetown University Law Center (Washington, D.C.)
Zulene Mayfield, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (Chester,
Pennsylvania)
Carlos Porras, Communities for a Better Environment (Los Angeles,
California)
Margie Richard, Concerned Citizens of Norco (Norco, Louisiana)
Zack Lyde, Director, Save the People (Brunswick, Georgia)
Michael Steinberg, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius (Washington, D.C.)
Bill Swaney, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (Pablo, Montana)
Alissa Harris, State of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)
Matt Ward, National Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals (Washington, D.C.)
William Harnett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (Washington, D.C.)
Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator (AA)
Robert Brenner, Acting Deputy AA
Dana Minerva, Deputy AA
John Armstead, Associate Director, Environmental Services
Division
Panel 1: Addressing Real Life Dilemmas of Environmentaljustice in Permitting: How Do We Respond to the
Legacy of.Land Use Impacts? j
Academia: Yale Rabin, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Office of Air and Radiation:
Office of Water:
Region 3:
Industry/Business:
Community:
Local Government:
(Cambridge, Massachusetts)
Michael Gerrard, Arnold & Porter (New York, New York)
Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition (San Diego, California)
Sarah Liles, City of Detroit (Detroit, Michigan)
Panel 2: The Current State of Environmentaljustice and Permitting:
Wliat Are Its Limitations? __
Industry/Business:
Community:
State Government:
Federal Government:
Jerry Martin, Dow Chemical (Midland, Michigan)
Larry Charles, Organized Northeasterners and Clay Hill and North End, Inc.
(Hartford, Connecticut)
Andrea Kreiner, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (Dover, Delaware)
Steve Heare, EPA Office of Solid Waste
Panel 3: Opportunities for Improvement: What Factors Should EPA Consider to Help Ensure Environmental
Justice in Permitting?
Academia:
State Government:
Community:
Tribal/Indigenous:
Eileen Gauna, Southwestern University Law School, (Los Angeles, California)
Robert Shinn, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Trenton,
New Jersey)
Nathalie Walker, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Stuart Harris, Confederated Tribes of Umatilla (Pendleton, Oregon)
1-6
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
unwittingly will hurt the communities that the
Agency is seeking to help by "stifling" needed
economic development or by discouraging the
replacement of older, dirtier facilities with
newer and cleaner ones.
Continuing, Professor Lazarus explained that
"environmental justice permitting" refers to the
consideration of environmental justice concerns in
the context of an environmental permitting
authority's decision to grant, delay, or attach
conditions to a permit, the operation of which has
adverse or potentially adverse environmental
effects on the community. Professor Lazarus then
noted that his discussion would focus on
community participation, risk aggregation, and "risk
disproportionality" as the three concerns related to
environmental justice that dominate most cases.
He stated that concerns related to community
participation arise from the experience of
communities that historically have lacked the
resources necessary to monitor polluting facilities
in their neighborhoods for possible violations and
to persuade government officials* to take necessary
action. He also stated that risk aggregation is
related to the extent to which a permitting authority
can take into account in its permitting decisions the
cumulative environmental risks a community
faces.
Professor Lazarus further explained that risks that
may seem acceptable in isolation may be seen as
presenting unacceptably high risks when the
broader social context, including associated health
and environmental risks, is accounted for in a total
aggregation. Describing the third concern, risk
disproportionality, Professor Lazarus noted that,
while it often is accompanied by unduly high risk
aggregation, such disproportionality also may raise
a distinct policy concern. If risk disproportionality
raises a concern, he continued, a permit condition
to redress such disproportionalities in risk
distribution will provide an additional basis for the
integration of environmental justice concerns in
permitting decisions.
Professor Lazarus then placed the permitting issue
in a broader historical context, citing meetings of
the NEJAC in 1995 and 1996 during which the
members of the NEJAC first began to consider
formally whether EPA might integrate
environmental justice effectively into the Agency's
permitting decisions. He identified three reasons
the members of the NEJAC pursued the issue:
• Staff of EPA believed that existing statutory
authority precluded the Agency's consideration
of concerns related to environmental justice in
its permitting decisions. In addition, staff of
EPA communicated to the NEJAC that the
Agency was "powerless" to act, even if
"legitimate" environmental justice concerns
were identified because such concerns were
believed to be outside the scope of the
Agency's authority.
• By 1995, provisions of various environmental
laws related to permitting were reaching a
stage of implementation at which permitting
provisions were becoming dominant. Further,
the requirement for periodic renewal of permits
provided opportunities to take into
consideration environmental justice concerns
that previously had been neglected.
• The results of the congressional elections of
1994 eliminated, as a practical matter, any
possible amendment of existing Federal
statutory authorities to allow environmental
laws that address environmental justice
concerns.
Professor Lazarus stated that, in response to
those factors, the Enforcement Subcommittee of
the NEJAC, under leadership of Ms. Deeohn
Ferris, reexamined existing Federal statutory and
regulatory permitting authorities to determine how
to integrate environmental justice concerns into
permitting decisions. At the December 1996
meeting of the NEJAC in Baltimore, Maryland, the
Executive Council of the NEJAC approved the
submittal of a resolution to the EPA Administrator
that supported EPA's further consideration of the
issue and requested that the Agency take further
action to more systematically use its existing
authorities to address environmental justice
concerns through its permitting decisions.
However, he pointed out, EPA headquarters had
made little, if any, systematic effort to develop a
coherent set of guidelines to promote such
"environmental justice permitting practices."
Professor Lazarus then suggested that one
possible reason for lack of action by EPA
headquarters may be the potential that such
integrated efforts might run afoul of such ongoing
Agency permitting initiatives as streamlining the
permitting process. Therefore, Professor Lazarus
explained, any new procedures or guidelines may
be viewed as "adding layers to the process."
Continuing his overview of environmental justice
and the issuing of permits, Professor Lazarus
expressed his belief that the greatest challenge
EPA faces is not the absence of statutory
authorities to ensure that environmental justice
concerns are integrated into the decision-making
process for permits, but development of the
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
1-7
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
"internal political will" required to face difficult
issues and controversies that will arise as the
Agenpy exercises the authority it already
possesses. Existing authorities are far from
comprehensive, he noted, but that is not a reason
to delay taking needed action based on the
authorities already in hand. Professor Lazarus
explained that the vast majority of the Agency's
existing environmental justice permitting
authorities do not involve matters that EPA is
required to do as a matter of law; instead, they are
steps the Agency is authorized to take at its
discretion. He then emphasized that the exercise
of such authority on behalf of communities that
have environmental justice concerns is the true
test of the Agency's courage and its creativity.
EPA's current Administrator, Ms. Carol Browner,
he stated, has exhibited such moral courage and
creativity by fighting for more environmentally
protective national ambient air quality standards, ,
as well as invoking authorities under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) to expand EPA's jurisdiction to
address water qyijity problems. Professor
Lazarus then asfd whether EPA will display
similar moral cJurage in exercising its existing
authority on bmalf of environmental justice. He
then identified 5PA regional offices that he
characterized as leaders in developing guidelines
for environmental justice within the permitting
process:
• EPA Region 5 has developed and
implemented a series of procedures applicable
to the permit process that are designed to
enhance public participation.
• EPA Region 9 Air Division has developed an
environmental justice strategy that allows
enhanced community involvement in
permitting decisions and that promotes the
development permits that address community
concerns more effectively.
Professor Lazarus then stated that some
individuals, in both EPA and the regulated
community, have expressed concern that fuller
integration of environmental justice concerns in
permitting decisions will do more harm than good
to communities that have environmental justice
concerns because the attachment of conditions to
permits or denial of permits may disproportionately
impede the economic development those
communities need. In addition, proponents of that
view warn that any focus on permitting may well
have the reverse effect of delaying the
replacement of older, dirtier facilities with newer
and cleaner facilities that would be subject to more
stringent permit requirements. Professor Lazarus
then expressed belief, however, that neither of
those concerns should erect barriers to the
development of a comprehensive program for the
fuller integration of environmental justice concerns
into permitting decisions through the exercise of
existing authorities.
3.2 Case Studies in Environmental Justice and
Permitting
During the focused meeting, two community
representatives presented examples of issues
raised by in communities that have environmental
justice concerns that the policy issue seeks to
address.
3.2.1 Case Study of Los Angeles, California
Mr. Carlos Porras, Communities for a Better
Environment and member of the Health and
Research Subcommittee, explained that he had
been working to address environmental justice
issues along the Alameda, California Corridor, a
commercial transportation corridor that connects
the central business district of Los Angeles and the
southern California area to seaports. He noted
that a strategy had been developed to address
problems of environmental justice in southeast Los
Angeles, California, through documentation of
research and the use of such research as a tool to
empower the community to improve health
standards. He also said that the research had
been funded by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Science (NIEHS), in
collaboration with respurces from the University of
California, Los Angeles, School of Public Health;
the Center for Occupational Environmental Health;
the Labor Occupation Safety and Health Divisions;
and the University of Southern California,
Environmental Health Science Center. Mr. Porras
explained that, bringing in additional resources to
address environmental justice problems helps to
alleviate institutional barriers related to using
science and working within the legal system that
affect communities.
Mr. Porras informed the NEJAC that his
organization had published a report, Holding Our
Breath, that documents the research conducted.
The organization used geographical information
system (GIS) mapping to visually document the
findings of the research and identified sites in
EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data base to
determine what part of Los Angeles County is
affected by the heaviest pollution from permitted
facilities. The next step, Mr. Porras explained, was
to examine in greater detail one particular part of
1-8
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Los Angeles County. Because resources were
limited, the research focused on eight cities in the
center of the county and the northern portion of the
Alameda Corridor. He noted that the purpose of
the research was to compile and critique existing
data to identify gaps so that issues related to
analysis of cumulative exposure could be
addressed and to provide the information to the
communities that were affected.
Continuing his discussion of the research, Mr.
Porras presented to the members of the NEJAC
demographic information from the eight cities
about the percentage of noncitizens of voting age.
He explained that the average is approximately
two and a half times the average for Los Angeles
County as a whole; that is, 85 to 98 percent of the
communities are recent Latino immigrants, he
noted. The researchers then took the approach of
using data from TRI data bases - those for acutely
hazardous material handlers; toxic storage and
disposal facilities; Superfund sites; and information
under California Law AB2588, a toxic "hot spot"
law that requires notification and health risk
assessments. The findings of the assessment
revealed that, because of their distribution, those
high-risk facilities had a significant effect on that
region and the communities in it. As a next step in
conducting the research, Mr. Porras noted, the
researchers performed a closer assessment of
one community in Huntington Park, which is on the
eastern border of the city of Los Angeles. He
explained that community in Huntington Park is
bordered on three sides by the industrial city of
Vernon, commonly referred to by residents as
"Asthma Town." Mr. Porras explained that a
physical inventory was conducted by members of
the community who went door-to-door to document
conditions there. He then stated that 70 percent of
the facilities in the area were not reporting
information about releases to any regulatory
agency.
He said that an attempt was made to address the
issue of cumulative exposure by conducting a case
study using an EPA-approved protocol for risk
assessment. Mr. Porras noted that the results of
the study showed that the hazard index for
respiratory outcome was 73 times higher than what
is considered safe.
Mr. Porras then emphasized that such research
should be funded more broadly throughout the
country. He strongly recommended that EPA
encourage other agencies, such as the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDCP) to continue to empower communities with
the funding required to conduct such research, so
that the communities will be able to expose issues
of environmental injustice. Concluding his -.
remarks, Mr. Porras stated that, while it is
important to review EPA's practices and policies
related to permitting, communities also must
consider the challenges that state and local
governments face and how communities can help
their government move forward to expose issues
of environmental justice.
3.2.2 Case Study of Chester, Pennsylvania
Ms. Zulene Mayfield, Chair, Chester Residents
Concerned for Quality Living (CRGQL) and
member of the Enforcement Subcommittee,
presented a case study of residents of Chester,
Pennsylvania. Exhibit 1-3 presents an overview of
Chester, Pennsylvania. Noting Chester's historical
value, Ms. Mayfield explained that, in 1682,
William Penn, gave Chester its name. Ms.
Mayfield then explained that, in 1991, she had
purchased a home in Chester that was to be
located across the street from the site where the
new resource recovery facility was to be built. She
also explained that the local newspaper and the
spokesman for the facility stated that the new
facility would bring jobs and much-needed revenue
into the city, calling the facility a "trash to energy
plant." However, in reality, the facility that opened
during the summer of 1992 proved to be the
country's fourth largest incinerator, she continued.
At that time, the community realized it had not
been told the truth; residents watched as truck
after truck drove through Chester. Older people-
began to complain that they could no longer sit on
their porches because of the foul odors from the
trucks carrying trash, she said.
Exhibit 1-3
CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA
Chester is located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Delaware county presently consists of over 67 square
miles and is divided into 49 municipalities and had a
population of 547,000 with 11.2 percent of the
population African-American and 86 percent white.
Chester roughly is about 4.8 miles in length and at the
last census count in 1990, the population was 42,000
with 63.8 percent African-American and 33.5 percent
white. Chester geographically is located about two
hours from Washington, D.C. and New York, New
York. It is about 17 miles south of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and 5 miles north of Wilmington,
Delaware.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-9
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
In October 1992, Ms. Mayfield continued, a group
of residents demanded a meeting with the mayor
of Chester; the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (PADER), the agency
responsible for issuing the permit for the
incinerator; and officials of the facility so that
residents could voice their complaints and
concerns about the facility. Ms. Mayfield stated
that representatives of PADER had responded to
the concerns voiced by informing the community
that the facility was in compliance with permit
restrictions and that the state did not have
jurisdiction over increases in noise, dust, truck
traffic, or odors caused by the operation of the
facility. She then explained that, at that time,
members of the community had been unfamiliar
with particulate matter or dioxins; therefore, she
noted the community dealt with problems residents
could understand and identify readily, such as
smells, noise, and heavy truck traffic.
Dissatisfied with the results of the meeting, said
Ms. Mayfield, the community formed CRCQL.
Continuing, Ms. Mayfield noted that the next event
occurred in November 1992, when Thermal Pure
applied for a permit to construct an autoclave for
chemotherapeutic and medical waste. The
autoclave, she explained, was to be located 200
feet from the incinerator and approximately 40 feet
from the nearest house. In December 1992, Ms.
Mayfield stated, the residents of Chester
conducted their first protest in front of the
incinerator to stop trucks from dropping off waste.
In response, PADER decided to hold a public
participation forum and established the Solid
Waste Advisory Council (SWAC), which consisted
of representatives of industry, the county, the local
government, and the community. She noted that
bimonthly meetings of the SWAC were held, and
members of CRCQL took issues to the table. The
members of the community, she said, believed
that, through the way the meetings were
conducted, the representatives of PADER and
industry had collaborated against the community,
taking the position that they would not come to a
conclusion on any item the community brought to
the table. Members of the community at first had
attended the meetings in a spirit of optimism, but,
after eight months, she pointed out, they left such
meetings demoralized.
In addition to a number of refineries a short
distance away, scrapyard stations "sprouted up"
along the route to the incinerator route, Ms.
Mayfield continued. In 1993, PADER issued a
permit allowing Thermal Pure to autoclave 288
tons per day of medical waste, she said. Ms.
Mayfield also pointed out that, at the same time, a
nearby waste treatment facility increased its
processing capacity from 44 milljon gallons of
sewage sludge to 66 million gallons per day.
PADER and EPA informed the residents of
Chester that neither agency could stop the
proliferation of waste facilities in Chester. Ms.
Mayfield stated that CRCQL had been successful
in its request that EPA conduct an 180-day risk
assessment study; however, permits were being
issued to new facilities while the study was being
performed, she noted. The results of the study
indicated that residents of Chester likely have a
higher-than-average risk of developing cancer and
noncancer adverse health effects because of
environmental risk factors. She then cautioned
against the siting of any new sources of air
emissions in Chester. Concluding her remarks,
Ms. Mayfield explained that CRCQL does not
oppose the revitalization of Chester; however, she
declared, the residents of Chester believe
revitalization can be accomplished without the
unnecessary burdens the waste facilities impose
upon the community.
3.3 Facilitated Dialogue on the Permitting
Process
A facilitated dialogue was held among
representatives of stakeholder groups -
community; industry; and Federal, tribal, state, and
local governments - to provide insight related to
the issues and concerns raised with respect to
environmental justice in the decision-making
process for issuing permits. The facilitated
dialogue helped draw out the full range of issues.
The panel was facilitated by Mr. Kojo Nnamdi,
Host, "Public Interest," National Public Radio
(NPR) and "Evening Exchange," Howard
University.
Mr. Nnamdi requested that each panelist present
his or her view about what could be done to
improve the permitting process in such a way that
it would be more inclusive and, if at all possible,
mutually beneficial to both industry and
communities. Ms. Margie Richard, President,
Concerned Citizens of Norco, began the dialogue
by requesting that EPA examine the process by
which permits are issued in the state of Louisiana.
In addition, she stated, the permitting process is
conducted in a manner that excludes community
members. She declared that communities must
be included effectively in the permitting process,
particularly in an area of the state that already is
known as Cancer Alley. Mr. Nnamdi asked what
happens when a permit is granted through a
decision-making process that lacks public
participation and objections are raised about the
1-10
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
pollutants that the particular industry would emit.
Ms. Richard responded that communities are
"pushed aside" and criticized.
Expressing his opinion about the permitting
process, Reverend Zack Lyde, Director, Save the
People, Inc., requested that the authority of the
state of Georgia to issue permits be rescinded and
that all state agencies that have such authority be
reviewed to ensure that each is upholding Federal
environmental laws. When Mr. Nnamdi asked
what conditions in Brunswick, Georgia, had caused
Reverend Lyde to reach such a conclusion,
Reverend Lyde stated that a recent investigation
conducted by the Enforcement Division of EPA
Region 4 had revealed numerous problems at an
existing plant. He added that the Federal and
state governments were "not on the same page."
Mr. Nnamdi then asked how the permitting process
would operate if the community were to be
included in that process. Reverend Lyde
responded that only a process in which the
community is included would be a fair one. He
added that, under the definition of environmental
justice, fairness is not possible unless the
community is involved in the process. Continuing
with his questions to Reverend Lyde, Mr. Nnamdi
asked whether the Reverend believed that a
process that involved community representatives;
industry representatives; EPA; and state and local
agencies sitting at a table would be a basis for a
fair process. It would be so, responded Reverend
Lyde; however, he noted that it would be
necessary to exercise care in selecting community
representatives because, he said, "industry has
begun to organize communities, as well." Mr.
Nnamdi asked Ms. Richard her views about
involving the community in the permitting process,
taking into account that the industry would lobby
and that communities may not speak with one
voice. In response, Ms. Richard noted that the
community as a whole, not a segment that has
been divided by industry, would provide the most
effective representation.
Mr. Bill Swaney, Environmental Division Manager,
Confederated Salish and Kootnai Tribes,-then
offered his perspective, explaining that the Salish
and Kootnai tribes were the thirteenth tribe in the
United States to be granted authority by EPA to
establish water quality standards. Mr. Swaney
said that, for various reasons, involving his
community in the decision-making process had
been a tremendous challenge. First, Mr. Swaney
explained, his home state, Montana, has fewer
people than most major cities. Small, isolated
rural communities dot his reservation,
encompassing more than 1.2 million acres. He
said that the Montana community also has an
inherent mistrust of government processes and
that residents do not understand the rules and
laws, which he characterized as heavily influenced
by industry. Mr. Swaney explained further that
industry has "political clout" and that many factors
make it difficult for community members to believe
they have a meaningful voice in the decision-
making process.
Continuing, Mr. Swaney stated that he believes it is
incumbent upon him and others who are
responsible for issuing permits to identify
meaningful ways to involve the public as early as
possible in the process and to provide people with
information in plain, simple language. He also
requested a change in the time frame allowed for a
community to review a proposed permit because,
he stated, it is unfair to allow a community only 30
days to review a proposal that likely took two years
to develop. Mr. Nnamdi then asked whether Mr.
Swaney thought that the geographical
circumstances in Montana posed a unique
challenge to the effort to ensure meaningful public
participation. In response, Mr. Swaney observed
that the challenges were similar to those faced by
communities in other geographically isolated areas
and noted that his community's advantage in the
permitting process was that any member of the
tribe has immediate access to the decision
makers.
Responding to a comment about involving
communities in the permitting process, Ms. Alisa
Harris, Environmental Equity Coordinator, Office of
Chief Counsel, State of Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection, explained that the
state of Pennsylvania had learned that there
cannot be a permitting process without community
involvement. With regard to the question of the
stage at which the community should become
involved in the permitting process, Ms. Harris said
that the community should be involved as early
and as often as possible; however, she noted,
there are different interpretations of the meaning of
that concept. The state of Pennsylvania, she
continued, now reaches out to citizens as much as
possible early in the process to inform citizens
about applications for permits the state may be
receiving and to identify members of the
community whom the state should consult and the
format in which information should be presented.
Ms. Harris noted that the practices she described
are recent achievements and that the state has
learned from prior situations that, when
communities are not involved, the result will be "a
mess."
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-11
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Nnamdi then asked Mr. Michael Steinberg,
Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, whether he believed
that the permitting process allowed communities
and industries to identify some mutual interest. In
response, Mr. Steinberg noted that the permitting
process by itself will not be the solution to the wide
range of concerns that come under the rubric of
environmental justice and cautioned at the outset
against unrealistic expectations about what can be
accomplished through the permit process. Mr.
Steinberg stated that the difficult question to
address is how to "marry up" the technical
qualifications of the facility with environmental
justice concerns to arrive at permitting decisions
that make sense and that serve the public interest.
He explained that one thing regulators and industry
should and can do is to use the broadcast media,
particularly television, to better inform
communities.
Mr. Nnamdi asked Mr. Matthew Ward, Spiegel and
McDiarmid, who serves as counsel for the National
Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals, to express his views on the
permitting process and how local governments and
communities can come together as a part of the
permitting process. Mr. Ward noted that local
governments are situated uniquely to help address
some of the concerns that had been raised during
the meeting. He explained that local governments
also were uniquely situated to make the permitting
process more inclusive for citizens and to bring
together concerns about sustainable community
economic development with environmental and
public health concerns because the local
government is the unit of government closest to
the people. Mr. Ward stated that local
governments should be provided with resources
and capacity to make information available to the
community in a more effective manner, an
increasing number of localities are developing that
capacity. He stated further that EPA's Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative is a good
example of a Federal government program that
facilitates localities' role in addressing the issues of
increasing community participation and revitalizing
communities. Mr. Ward reemphasized that, if
resources are placed at the local level and
capacity is developed at that level, local
governments can do more'to involve citizens at the
beginning of the permitting process.
Reverend Lyde observed that his local government
is too close to industry and that the city's Chamber
of Commerce wants to ensure that the people's
voice is not heard. The only success .his
community had realized, the Reverend stated, had
been with the Federal government in citing
facilities for violations. He also emphasized that, if
the involvement of the community in the permitting
process occurred earlier than is generally the case,
new Superfund sites could be prevented. Ms.
Richard agreed with Reverend Lyde, commenting
that, if local governments involved the community
earlier in the process, resources would be saved
and could be used to benefit the community.
Mr. Nnamdi then turned to Mr. William Harnett,
Acting Director, Information Transfer and Program
Integration Division, EPA OAR at Research
Triangle Park, asking what EPA can do to bring a
level of uniformity and inclusion of communities to
the permitting process. In response, Mr. Harnett
said that the Federal government could take a
number of actions to involve the community more
effectively in the permitting process. He stated
that he did not believe that the answers elude
anyone in terms of what is required, that is, early
involvement in the decision-making process.
Reemphasizing Mr. Swaney's suggestions that
clarity must be brought to the permitting process
so that the public will understand it and be able to
participate meaningfully, Mr. Harnett suggested
that a solution to that challenge is to make
available information from credible sources that
the local community can trust. In response to Mr.
Nnamdi's question, whether EPA could bring
pressure to bear on state and local governments to
ensure that their processes are inclusive at earlier
stages, Mr. Harnett noted that EPA could bring
pressure on state and local governments for public
participation in the permitting process; however, he
pointed out, when in the process the participation
should take place is not defined easily.
Concluding the dialogue, Mr. Nnamdi summarized
the key points that were brought out during the
discussion. He stated that there was some
agreement that local communities should be
included often and early in the permitting process;
the question that remains, he said, is how such '
inclusion is to be implemented.
3.4 Panel Presentations by Senior Managers of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This section provides a summary of perspectives
offered by senior managers from three EPA
permitting offices and Region 3. Each senior
manager provided an overview of the effort of the
respective office of that manager to address
environmental justice in the permitting process.
The session began with remarks presented by the
EPA Administrator. Ms. Browner thanked Mr.
Herman and Mr. Hill and their staff who had made
the meeting possible. She also expressed her
appreciation to Mr. Turrentine and the other
1-12
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National EnvironmentalJustice Advisory Council
Executive Council
members of the NEJAC for the time and energy
they were devoting to the issue of integrating
environmental justice concerns into the permitting
process. She stated that addressing
environmental justice is not an easy task and that it
is not becoming easier to address, as new
evidence comes to light that minority and low-
income communities do bear a disproportionate
"brunt of [the impacts of] our modern technological
society." Ms. Browner emphasized the necessity
that members of the NEJAC remain focused on
the topic of the meeting. Ms. Browner expressed
her belief that, when decision makers truly engage
a local community up front and in an informed and
meaningful manner, the quality of the decision that
the Agency or other regulatory entity is able to
make is improved dramatically, compared with the
quality of a decision that is made lacking the
engagement of the community. The challenge that
lies before EPA, she continued, is how to involve a
local community in an effective, open, honest, and
informed manner.
Ms. Browner concluded her remarks by stating that
the Agency should take a "real look" at the
regulatory decisions made, as wellas the guidance
and framework that EPA issues to state and local
governments to ensure that principles related to
environmental justice are being integrated into the
decision-making process for issuing permits.
3.4.1 Presentation by the Assistant
Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator,
EPA OSWER, identified reforms that EPA can
make in the permitting process under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the major program authority of OSWER
for permitting hazardous and solid waste facilities.
The reforms that would address environmental
justice considerations and permits issued under
RCRA include:
• Conduct a demographic and public
participation study of the communities located
near the 1,712 high-priority cleanup sites
under.RCRA to identify the makeup of those
communities and to determine whether EPA is
being equitable and fair in terms of how EPA
addresses the concerns of populations living
near those facilities.
• Determine how the approximately 2,500
facilities regulated under RCRA address
environmental justice issues.
• Develop demographic profiles of areas in the
vicinity of hazardous waste facilities for
OSWER's Government Performance Results
Act (GPRA) Safe Waste Management
baseline, which could be analyzed to
determine which of those areas may be
affected by environmental justice concerns.
• Issue the RCRA Social Siting Criteria Brochure
that is being prepared by EPA Permits and
State Programs Division (PSPD). The social
siting criteria would be applicable to new
. facilities and modifications of existing facilities
regulated under RCRA.
• Issue the Best Management Practices for
Waste Transfer Stations Brochure that would
help to improve the operations of WTSs
nationwide. EPA also is developing a
companion booklet to inform the public about
WTSs and their role in the management of
solid waste.
In conclusion, Mr. Fields stated that OSWER
intends to work with the NEJAC on the five
initiatives to better address concerns of
environmental justice related to the permitting
process under RCRA. He noted further that
OSWER will continue to be open to new ideas and
opportunities to implement more initiatives to
address concerns related to environmental justice.
3.4.2 Presentation by the Acting Deputy
Assistant Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Mr. Robert Brenner, Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA OAR, remarked that EPA had
made great strides in reducing air pollution and
improving public health over the past few years.
He explained that since, Ms. Browner joined the
Agency, EPA had had an opportunity to
promulgate rules to implement the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA). Mr. Brenner then
informed the members of the NEJAG that EPA had
conducted a study that measured success in
implementing the CAAA. The results, he
explained, show that, every year, EPA has been
able to put in place regulations that will prevent
more than 20,000 premature deaths; more than
40,000 cases of acute bronchitis; some 1.7 million
asthma attacks; and more than 60,000 hospital
admissions and emergency room visits.
Mr. Brenner stated that, through technology-based
standards, EPA has reduced the generation of
toxics by major industrial sources by more than a
million tons. The standards, he explained, are
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
1-13
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
aimed directly at urban areas. Over the next year,
he continued, OAR would focus on improving the
permitting process, reducing diesel emissions, and
addressing emissions caused by utilities. In terms
of improving the permitting process, Mr. Brenner
explained, OAR was working on approaches that
will allow sources to make changes at a facility
more quickly and with a greater degree of
regulatory certainty, while also providing more
meaningful public participation.
Continuing his presentation, Mr. Brenner
expressed OAR's belief that cap permits will prove
to be an effective method of accomplishing the
goal of improving the permitting process. He
explained that a facility would become subject to a
pollution cap following a permit process that
includes meaningful public participation and that
sources would be able to make changes to reflect
market needs, but those sources must offset any
emission increases with reductions elsewhere at
the facility. For changes at a facility that are not
subject to a cap, he continued, OAR is working on
an approach that also would ensure public
participation in the case of an environmentally
significant change. He then reinforced Mr.
Hamett's commitment to providing education,
training, and outreach to ensure that communities
are aware of opportunities for public participation
and understand how they can participate
effectively in the decision-making process.
Continuing his discussion of the reduction of levels
of toxics generated, Mr. Brenner stated that, using
data from 1990, EPA had identified high levels of
certain toxics in many areas of the country. Early
in 2000, he announced, OAR was to update those
data to provide a better picture of levels of air
toxics nationwide. For example, Mr. Brenner
continued, OAR believes emissions from diesel
engines are among the most crucial remaining
risks. EPA, he said, was developing a set of
regulations to reduce those pollutants. In the area
of utilities, Mr. Brenner noted many coal-fired
utilities had been "grandfathered" or exempted
from new air requirements under the CAAA under
the assumption that those utilities would not
continue to operate. Unfortunately, Mr. Brenner
pointed out, the utilities continue to operate and
continue to be a major source of many pollutants,
including mercury emissions.
Mr. Brenner then explained how the priorities fit
into the commitments OAR was making to ensure
that concerns related to environmental justice are
integrated into the permitting process. The first
commitment Mr. Brenner identified is that to the
development of educational and outreach
materials for operating permits under Title V of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and to conduct training
workshops to educate the public about how to
review, understand, and comment on operating
permits that are proposed in their communities.
OAR expected to hold at least five weekend
workshops for the public during fiscal year (FY)
2000, added Mr. Brenner.
Mr. Brenner then discussed the commitment to the
development of the New Source Review (NSR)
program for use in Indian country to fill statutory
gaps in environmental and public health programs
in those areas. The rulemaking would be applied
to Indian country, where tribes do not yet have or
choose not to develop and implement comparable
programs in their tribal implementation plans and
do not assume delegation of those rules, he said.
Currently, OAR proposed to promulgate the rule in
February 2001, he noted.
To reduce diesel emissions, Mr. Brenner
continued, OAR was working with EPA OSWER in
that office's effort to include in its Best
Management Practices Manual for Waste Transfer
Stations a section on reducing diesel emissions
associated with those facilities. He stated that
OAR believed the effort would encourage the
adoption of practices designed to reduce
emissions through the retrofit of diesel trucks and
their operation in inner cities.
In terms of reducing toxics and addressing
"grandfathered plants," Mr. Brenner voiced OAR's
commitment to working with the Air and'Water
Subcommittee of the NEJAC to review the issue of
"cumulative permitting." Mr. Brenner pointed out
that EPA had learned that diesel emissions and
emissions from grandfathered generating facilities
are major contributors to pollution.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Brenner stated that
the priorities and commitments he had discussed
are based on information the Agency had gathered
through existing programs and information OAR
has received from public stakeholders.
3.4.3 Presentation, by the Deputy Assistant
Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Water
Ms. Dana Minerva, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
EPA Office of Water (OW) provided an overview of
OW's efforts to address concerns related to
environmental justice in the permitting process.
Discussing the contamination of fish, Ms. Minerva
noted that, in 1998, states and tribes issued more
than 2,500 fish advisories warning people to
eliminate or limit consumption of certain fish from
local water bodies. She explained that the effects
1-14
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental 'Justice Advisory Council
Exeeut/ve Council
of fish contamination differ for various groups
because some people consume a more than
average amount of fish from their local lakes or
rivers. Ms. Minerva stated that OW addresses fish
contamination in the following two ways:
• Eliminate the toxic pollutants that are
contaminating fish and causing health
problems by developing water quality
standards that will serve as a basis for issuing
permits by:
- Changing the scientific methodology by
which EPA and states establish water
quality standards to take into account the
amount of fish from particular water bodies
consumed by people, as well as
considering the concentration of chemicals
in the food chain.
- Reviewing EPA's "mixing zone" policy and
considering the elimination of mixing
zones throughout the nation for toxics that
are concentrated in the, food chain, thereby
preventing further contamination.
- Adopting core water quality standards for
Indian country under the authority of the
CWA to ensure that waters located in
Indian country are protected.
• Ensure that fish consumption advisories are
' published in various languages. OW also is
developing a brochure for pediatricians and
other health care professionals to provide
them with information about the dangers
posed by consumption of contaminated fish.
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Minerva stated that
she was looking forward to working with the Air
and Water Subcommittee to address the issues
she had reviewed.
3.4.4 Presentation by the Associate Director,
Environmental Services Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Mr. John Armstead, Associate Director,
Environmental Services Division, EPA Region 3,
offered the perspective of an EPA regional office
on the permitting process. He explained that EPA
Region 3 faces three challenges related to the
issuance of permits: public participation, regional
oversight of state permitting programs, and the
Agency's efforts to streamline and improve the
permitting process. Mr. Armstead then described
some of the activities of EPA Region 3 and other
regional offices intended to engage communities
earlier in the permitting process:
• Develop tools to increase understanding of the
demographics of areas in the vicinity of
facilities to more effectively communicate the
goals and objectives of the decision-making
process, in conjunction with states.
• Increase face-to-face communication with the
public to ensure that there is an understanding
of all the concerns of all parties involved.
• Ensure that EPA's community coordinators
work closely with technical staff to help the
coordinators better understand issues raised
by communities and issues affecting the
permitting process, as well as the needs and
concerns of the owners of the facility.
Continuing, Mr. Armstead assured the members of
the NEJAC that EPA Region 3 actively engages
communities at all levels from before a permit
application is submitted through the conclusion of
the process. He explained that the role of the
states is to work with EPA and to share the tools
that the Agency has developed to help the states
share resources. He stated further that, as EPA
continues to improve its services, especially in the
environmental permitting area, the Agency must
ensure that all communities continue to have a
voice in the process; therefore, said Mr. Armstead,
the involvement of the NEJAC in the efforts of EPA
and the states to improve the process of issuing
permits will ensure that community concerns are at
the "front and center" of the decision-making
process.
3.4.5 Question-and-Answer Session
Ms. Browner then opened the floor to questions
and comments from members of the Executive
Council related to the presentations by the senior.
managers of EPA. Mr. Turrentine requested that
Ms. Minerva comment on other activities related to
environmental justice OW is conducting. In
response, Ms. Minerva stated that OW is engaged
in a number of activities. She noted that EPA had
sought to include provisions in the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SOWA) that will protect sensitive
populations. She also noted that OW had not
received many administrative complaints under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI)
related to water permits. Adding to Ms. Minerva's
comments, Ms. Browner emphasized that it was
important that Congress had included in the
reauthorization of the SDWA the specific
requirement that sensitive populations and the
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
1-15
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
cumulative effects of contamination on those
populations be considered carefully. Ms. Browner
explained that the provision is "not without
challenges." Cumulative effects, she continued, is
an area in which "the science is just emerging."
Mr. Don Aragon, Executive Director, Wind River
Environmental Quality Commission, Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes and member of the
Health and Research Subcommittee, commented
that since states and the Federal government are
not "on the same page," the ways in which
regulations are implemented have a direct effect
on communities. Mr. Aragon explained that, when
EPA does allow tribes to develop water quality
standards, the tribes come under attack by the
states over the issue of jurisdiction. He stated that
he appreciated the fact that EPA was considering
developing core water quality standards for all
tribes, noting his belief that the development of
such standards will save tribes millions of dollars in
litigation costs. Those monies, Mr. Aragon
observed, then could be used to clean up the
environment. He then requested that tribes not be
excluded from the process of developing
regulations for WTSs. Tribes, as well as
communities in New York City, have best practice
needs, he pointed out. Mr. Aragon explained that
solid waste in particular is a serious problem for
tribes in isolated rural areas and encouraged EPA
to involve tribes in the development of EPA's Best
Practices Manual. Ms. Browner agreed to Mr.
Aragon's request, stating that EPA would certainly
involve tribes and would welcome their comments
on the manual.
Ms. Margaret Williams, President, Citizens Against
Toxic Exposure and member of the Health and
Research Subcommittee, expressed her belief that
government should do a better job of identifying
communities at risk. She explained that it had
been her experience that, when meetings are held
that involve members of a community, the
community members who are invited to participate
are representatives of the city council, universities,
industry, and the local chamber of commerce.
Such groups do not accurately represent the
community, she said. Continuing, Ms. Williams
stressed that those members of a community who
will be affected by facilities should be involved at
the very beginning of any decision-making
process. Many of the facilities, she explained,
promise to improve the quality of life for people if
the permits are issued. Permitting of a facility may
represent an improvement for the people the
facilities identify as community, but that is not the
case for those who will be affected adversely if
exposed to contamination caused by the facility,
Ms. Williams asserted.
Ms. Sue Briggum, Director, Government Affairs,
Waste Management, Inc. and member of the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, noted
that, as part of the grant application process under
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative, an applicant must include a strategy for
involving the community and providing
opportunities to participate. She asked Mr. Fields
whether that requirement would be a useful model
for the permitting process. Mr. Fields agreed with
Ms. Briggum that the requirement she had
identified would be a useful example. Mr. Fields
then noted that, because of the requirement that
communities be involved up front, OSWER had
received no administrative complaints under Title
VI related to brownfields projects. He stated that,
through EPA's Cross-Agency Workgroup on Public
Participation in Permitting, a guidance was to be
developed that would incorporate considerations of
environmental justice into the permitting process.
In doing so, he stated, the Agency will draw upon
many elements of public involvement developed
under the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative. Exhibit 1-4 describes EPA's cross-
agency work group.
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos, Community Leader,
Community of Catano Against Pollution and
member of the Air and Water Subcommittee,
commended EPA for its efforts to incorporate the
principles of environmental justice into the
Agency's procedures. She recommended that
EPA revise the time line for publication of public
notices related to hearings on proposed permit
applications. Usually, she observed, EPA engages
in lengthy discussions with industry about a
proposed permit, at that same time, she said, the
community should be involved, as well. Ms.
Ramos also recommended that language used to
develop permits should be standardized and
encouraged EPA call upon the services of
academia to provide technical assistance to
communities. She then asked the EPA panelists
whether they could identify any opportunities to
incorporate her suggestions into the pqrmitting
process.
Responding to Ms. Ramos' comments, Mr.
Brenner stated that EPA would like to find ways
that take advantage of the desire for new
development to encourage cleanup in
overburdened areas. He stated that EPA
proposes to achieve that end by acknowledging
that new facilities and modifications of existing
facilities tend to be much cleaner than existing
1-16
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Exhibit 1-4
CROSS-AGENCY WORK GROUP ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PERMITTING
Improved public participation is one area that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering as a
cross-agency commitment (involving several program offices) in the area of environmental justice and permitting.
As proposed in the Second Generation of Environmental Permitting Action Plan, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) is leading an Agency work group in improving public participation in all the
permitting programs of the Agency. The proposed objectives are:
• The first product is a draft Reference Guide for Public Participation Activities in the Permitting Process, which is
undergoing extensive review by the media offices. When complete, the guide will be a baseline of information
for the public, permitted facilities, and the regulating agency (EPA or states). It describes the current permitting
process and the opportunities for public participation in all permitting programs. The primary audience is
program implementors (usually states) that can use the guide as a tool kit of resources and best practices in public
involvement. The public and industry would be a secondary audience that would benefit from use of the
document as, an educational resource.
• The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) developed a Model Plan for Public Participation.
Promoting the awareness and use of the model plan in permitting work will be a major element of the effort of the
cross-agency work group.
• The work group will examine opportunities for regulatory changes in permitting programs that will be part of the
Agency's work and where stakeholders identify regulatory barriers to meaningful participation. The approach
taken by the work group recognizes the limitations of pursuing a regulatory change only; the work group will
identify methods of broadly publicizing the use of the documents in policy and guidance delivery mechanisms.
• The work group developed a draft work plan that includes plans for piloting-testing the reference guide and any
companion guidance, soliciting stakeholders' to help design the tool kit for state program implementors and
making any necessary rule changes to accommodate implementation of the guidelines.
sources. He explained that the real cause of much
of the risk in overburdened areas tends to be
posed by existing facilities or area sources —
mobile sources, small businesses, and other
facilities that are not yet subject to regulation.
Further, some communities, he continued, are
finding that the smaller and mobile, sources make
up 90 percent of the toxic risk to them.
One option for resolving the issue, Mr. Brenner
stated, is that EPA develop guidance that would
encourage areas to reduce toxic loadings by
working with states, businesses, and communities
to develop a list of initiatives that would bring about
near-term reductions in the amounts of pollutants
generated. The initiatives, he suggested could
include use of cleaner fuels; retrofitting of buses
and garbage trucks that use diesel fuels; and
retrofitting of pollution control equipment at existing
plants.
Mr. Luke Cole, General Counsel, Center on Race,
Poverty and the Environment, California Rural
Legal Assistance Foundation and chair of the
Enforcement Subcommittee, expressed concern
that the initiatives of OW described by Ms. Minerva
are insufficient. Mr. Cole acknowledged that fish
standards are important; however, he said there
also are environmental justice concerns related to
regulations governing total maximum daily
loadings (TMDL), concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFO), and safe drinking water. Mr.
Cole then commented that there is a "disconnect"
between the language and the intention of issuing
permits for hazardous and solid waste facilities
regulated under RCRA. Turning his attention to
the air program, Mr. Cole expressed his opinion
that there is a fundamental disconnect between
the goals OAR is trying to accomplish. He
explained that, while OAR had developed new
efficiency measures, such as the Economic
Incentive Program (EIP), the office also purports to
embrace environmental justice. The two efforts
are in conflict because what may be efficient is not
always just, Mr. Cole pointed out. He explained
further that, although the Agency can design the
"Cadillac" of permitting programs, if EPA also
implements trading programs for air emissions, it
obliterates the permitting program. Trading of air
emissions is, in essence, a permitting program that
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-17
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
allows a facility, without any public knowledge or
involvement, to trade all the requirements imposed
by the permit, he continued. Responding to Mr.
Cole's comment, Mr. Brenner expressed his belief
that solutions can be developed that are both
equitable and efficient. Also responding to Mr.
Cole's comments about OW, Ms. Minerva
explained that EPA is developing regulations
related to TMDLs and that, jointly with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA had
developed a strategy to address contamination
caused by CAFOs.
Dr. Marinelle Payton, Harvard School of Public
Health and chair of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, asked Mr. Brenner what
methodology OAR plans to use to measure
cumulative exposures and risks and how the data
that are collected will affect the permitting process.
Mr. Brenner explained that OAR had implemented
extensive programs for monitoring fine particulate
matter throughout the country and that the process
would be monitored by the National Academy of
Sciences.
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Partnership for
Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment and chair
of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee,
stated that the most salient point that Professor
Lazarus had raised in his presentation was the
issue of "political will." Ms. Miller-Travis
speculated about how senior managers, who
understand the principles of environmental justice,
will ensure that staff working in those programs,
particularly in the regional offices, also understand
those principles and operate from the same
perspective as management. Ms. Miller-Travis
stated that she was referring specifically to staff
responsible for writing and issuing permits. She
expressed concern that those individuals were not
participating in the present discussions. The
NEJAC, she said, should identify a mechanism for
involving such individuals in the dialogue. If senior
managers and the members of the NEJAC do not
include those individuals who write the permits,
she observed, the number of administrative
complaints filed under Title VI will increase. Mr.
Fields explained that implementation of the new
ideas and commitments expressed during the
meeting would be a "new horizon." He stated that,
as EPA works with the NEJAC over the coming
months to improve the permitting process, the next
horizon would be the development of a national
focus that would ensure that procedures and rules
are implemented consistently, particularly in the
field.
Also responding to the concerns expressed by Ms.
Miller-Travis, Mr. Armstead stated that awareness
of the principles of environmental justice is
beginning to arise in the regions. He added that
the EPA regional offices are making efforts to work
with states and provide them with tools for use in
addressing issues related to environmental justice.
Mr. Armstead acknowledged that, unfortunately,
progress is "trickling down" to the field. A more
concerted effort on the part of the Agency is
needed to ensure that concerns are addressed, he
said. Ms. Miller-Travis asked whether the
message is trickling down uniformly or ad-hoc,
because, she said, some regions are not showing
the "political will" to address the issues. Mr.
Armstead stated that the regional offices do
receive clear guidance from headquarters;
however, 50 state agencies also are involved in
the process, he pointed out.
3.5 Panel Presentations on the Permitting
Process
This section provides an overview of the three
panel discussions that were held to address
various aspects of the permitting process.
3.5.1 Panel 1: Addressing Real Life
Dilemmas of Environmental Justice in
Permitting: How Do We Respond to the
Legacy of Land Use Impacts?
Mr. Lee initiated the first panel discussion, on the
relationship of land use and permitting, by
explaining that land use is very much at the heart
of many environmental justice issues. Therefore,
Mr. Lee explained, the problem that the NEJAC
had asked this panel to address is how land use
decisions have affected the permitting process.
Exhibit 1-5 presents the problem statement that
Panel 1 addressed.
Professor Yale Rabin, Professor Emeritus,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Yale
Rabin Planning Consultant, provided an historical
perspective for a wide range of existing
environmental injustices. He explained that,
although racially discriminatory actions by local
governments have been discontinued, the
consequences of such actions taken in the past
remain. Professor Rabin explained that those
consequences include environmental degradation
resulting from past intrusions of industries or other
incompatible land uses into low-income or minority
neighborhoods that occurred under local zoning
ordinances. Professor Rabin also explained that
his discussion would focus on "African-American
neighborhoods" because his research had
1-18
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Exhibit 1-5
PANEL 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Some have argued that the siting of pollution--
generating facilities and other locally undesirable land
uses (LULU) in minority and/or low-income
communities fall under the purview of local land use
decision-makers. It is argued that siting these
facilities, therefore, is beyond the scope of federal or
state regulatory agencies. Others argue that land use
patterns often are racially biased due to historical
reasons and, that failure to recognize and reform these
patterns would forever burden minority and/or low-
income communities with disproportionate effects.
This panel will address the dilemma for the
permitting process created by these two perspectives.
The panel also will explore whether there are
appropriate and practicable remedies under existing
EPA statutes.
addressed the effects of local governmental
actions on such communities.
Professor Rabin then noted that the first relevant
local government actions were those that restricted
the areas in which African-Americans were
permitted to live; those areas, he said, usually
were deemed unfit for habitation by white people.
Severe overcrowding often resulted because the
growth of the African-American population had to
be accommodated within the rigidly controlled
boundaries of those neighborhoods. Continuing,
Professor Rabin explained that when
municipalities, mainly but not exclusively in the
south, adopted comprehensive zoning during the
1920s and 1930s, the municipalities zoned existing
African-American residential areas commercial or
industrial. Because of the subsequent intrusion of
residentially incompatible but permitted uses,
Professor Rabin noted, displacement of residents
or "expulsive zoning," often resulted. He explained
further that African-American residents who
remained found themselves living adjacent to a
junk yard, an incinerator, or a factory.
Professor Rabin then identified several other public
actions that, in his opinion, have relevance to the
process he had described. He explained that
southern municipalities permitted the construction
of housing in African-American neighborhoods that
violated the town's adopted building codes;
therefore, "slum" living conditions were created
before residents moved in. Many such
neighborhoods have been cleared; however,
many, particularly in the south, remain and
continue to provide the only housing available to
low-income African-American families, continued
Professor Rabin:
Those living conditions have improved, he noted,
only under two sets of circumstances: under court
order and in cases in which the governance of a
town has been assumed by a African-American
majority. However, Professor Rabin stated, in both
cases improvements were made only when
outside funding was available. Concluding his
remarks, Professor Rabin stated that a remedy for
deplorable environmental conditions resulting
directly from racial discriminatory local government
policies can be sought only in the courts, at the
cost of enormous effort and expense, and, even
then, cannot always be obtained.
Mr. Michael Gerrard, Arnold & Porter, New York,
New York, recommended actions that EPA, and
state and local governments that have authority
under delegated programs, should take to consider
the legacy of racially biased land use patterns in
their permitting decisions:
• Become more assertive in exercising
regulatory authority over "grandfathered"
facilities. Many old facilities would not be
approved under modern standards but operate
under grandfathered status. Old polluting
facilities can be shut down without being
subject to a successful takings challenge,
i where there is documented technical evidence
that the facility is causing an adverse effect.
• During the review of proposed new facilities,
consider whether the applicant could replace
older, more polluting facilities.
• When making permit decisions, undertake
comprehensive environmental impact reviews.
Federal decisions ordinarily are subject to the
requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA); however, permitting
decisions at EPA are not subject to those
requirements because of the "Functional
Equivalence Doctrine" which provides that the
fact that EPA "thinks about environmental
issues all day" constitutes the equivalent of an
impact statement. The processes outlined
under NEPA provide the best mechanisms for
ensuring the availability of a wide-range of
needs and alternatives. Voluntarily subjecting
more EPA permit decisions to the processes
of NEPA and applying the guidelines
developed by CEQ for incorporating concerns
related to environmental justice into the NEPA
process would address the problem.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-19
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Allow facilities that have been invited "into
town" by the community to complete the
permitting process more quickly. For
companies buying real estate for new facilities,
the three most important factors are location,
speed, and the predictability of the permitting
process.
Mr. Gerrard also noted two actions related to the
permitting process that EPA should refrain from
taking:
• Attempt to make local land use decisions,
which is the opposite of community decision
making. EPA should regulate pollution from
existing or proposed facilities that could
endanger human health or the environment,
but the Agency should not expand its
jurisdiction to regulate nontoxic locally
undesirable land uses (LULU).
• Impose vague or constantly shifting
requirements upon the permitting process.
Mr. Gerrard then observed that correcting
historical land use patterns does not mean keeping
out bad new facilities; it means bringing in good
new facilities that can provide jobs without creating
"environmental insults." He noted that, at one
time, companies may have perceived that a
minority community can be trampled upon easily;
however, many companies now understand that
there are new legal tools available only to minority
communities to assist them in keeping out
unwanted facilities.
Ms. Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition
(EHC), informed the NEJAC that EHC had been
working for almost 20 years in the communities of
Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Sherman Heights,
and National City, California, to address issues
related to toxics and had found that those issues
are intimately related to land use. For years, Ms.
Forbis noted, when people discussed the
environmental racism that had led to the
contamination of those communities, industry and
local governments claim that industry was there
first and as property values fell, people of color had
moved in. Therefore, EHC conducted an historical
analysis, using maps prepared in 1921 by
insurance companies that document every
structure, she said. Ms. Forbis explained that,
before 1926, the areas she identified were
predominantly residential and very well isolated
from any industrial area. However, she continued,
in 1926, the city of San Diego adopted a
community plan that slated the area for industrial
development and relocated the fishing industry
from a white community to the area.
Ms. Forbis also stated that EHC had discovered
evidence of racial restrictions in the covenants and
deeds for areas outside of the community. Ms.
Forbis pointed out that, when analyzed together -
community planning, zoning, and racially restrictive
covenants, a very systematic pattern emerges of
land use and environmental justice. Ms. Forbis
then outlined the next steps that her organization
was to take in working to correct the past abuses
arising from zoning decisions. One step, she
explained, is to integrate environmental justice
concerns into community and zoning efforts.
Unless existing land use patterns change,
communities will not benefit under current
regulation, she said.
Ms. Sarah Lile, Director of Environmental Affairs,
Department of Environmental Affairs, City of
Detroit, Michigan, stated that there is no economic
development without environmental justice. She
also stated that healthy industries wish to locate in
healthy communities. Ms. Lile then discussed in
detail the role of local governments in the fight for
environmental justice. She acknowledged that
localities have left the responsibility for establishing
standards to the state and Federal governments;
however, she pointed out, "the landscape is
changing," and the responsibilities of communities
also are changing.
Local governments have been left with land use
issues, she explained, and have dealt with those
issues according to zoning codes. Over the years,
the courts have cut back on the ability of local
governments to use zoning as a means of
prohibiting certain types of businesses, she
continued. Ms. Lile also stated that, as we enter
the era of property rights and due process, it will
become more difficult for localities to use zoning
laws to protect environmental quality. Concluding
her remarks, Ms. Lile stated that the effects of
Federal and state regulations fall to the level of
local government. She strongly encouraged the
establishment of new partnerships among Federal
and state agencies and community groups to
empower local governments to act quickly, swiftly,
and fairly to ensure environmental justice and
environmental quality in communities.
Ms. Miller-Travis expressed her appreciation to
Professor Rabin for his three decades of tracking
land use decisions and the effects of such
decisions on communities. Ms. Miller-Travis
declared that many people of color live in areas
affected by environmental justice issues because
1-20
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
they were designated to live in those places until
the past 10 years. In some cases, she continued,
restrictive zoning still exists. She then explained
that the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of
the NEJAC was to undertake how EPA can
provide guidance to local and state governments
about how to take action on those land use
determinations that would cause environmental
justice concerns. The subcommittee, Ms. Miller-
Travis also explained, plans to accomplish that
task through facilitated dialogues with a number of
stakeholders. She then asked Ms. Lite and Mr.
Gerrard whether they believed such an initiative
would be worthwhile and whether each would like
to participate in the effort. Ms. Lile recommended
that local governments should be engaged more
often and earlier in the process of policy and
decision making to ensure that they provide
comments on the effects that policies and
guidance would have on local governments. Ms.
Lile also noted that she would be more than willing
to participate in such a dialogue. Mr. Gerrard also
agreed to participate in the dialogue.
Mr. Cole asked Ms. Forbis what issues given the
land use that is encountered at the local level,
state and Federal governments could be required
to consider during the permitting process. Ms.
Forbis noted that Federal and state governments
should look more closely at the cumulative effects
of current conditions, consider pollution prevention
opportunities, and choose methods that compel
industries go beyond compliance with regulatory
requirements.
3.5.2 Panel 2: The Current State of
Environmental Justice and Permitting:
What Are Its Limitations?
Mr. Lee explained that Panel 2 would discuss the
current status of environmental justice and
permitting. Exhibit 1-6 presents the problem
statement that the members of the panel
addressed.
Mr. Jerry Martin, The Dow Chemical Company,
shared his experience with the permitting process
for a facility owned proposed by Shintech
Corporation to be located in Plaquemine,
Louisiana. First, he explained that Shintech had
been a major customer of Dow in Freeport, Texas
for more than 25 years. Since Shintech's effort to
build an integrated facility in St. James Parish,
Louisiana was failing because of strong community
opposition, Shintech had approached Dow about a
scaled-down facility to be built in Plaquemine and
to establish a relationship with Dow similar to that
the two companies shared in Freeport.
Exhibit 1-6
PANEL 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Federal and state permitting authorities typically do
not take into consideration the demographic :
composition of communities affected by proposed
pollution-generating facilities. Moreover, regulators
frequently do not consider such local factors as
quality of life, and aesthetic, historic, cultural,
economic, and social impacts or issues such as the
adequacy of public participation and community ,
acceptance. Although permitting programs are
required to consider ecological and health effects,
reports indicate the evaluations frequently are not
oriented toward the issues that minority or low-
income communities consider important. The panel
will seek to identify issues in the area of the real life
constraints that confront various stakeholders.
Mr. Martin then acknowledged that in St. James
Parish, some actions had not been carried out
well, and lessons had been learned on the part of
Shintech. Therefore, Mr. Martin stated, when Dow
and Shintech began discussions, all parties
wanted to ensure that all the lessons learned from
the experience in St. James Parish would be
incorporated into the permitting process for the
facility proposed for Plaquemine. He then
explained that the two most significant principles
agreed upon by Shintech and Dow were (1) cancel
the permitting process for a facility in St. James
Parish and (2) begin early public involvement for
the facility to be located in Plaquemine before the
application for the permit was submitted.
Continuing his presentation, Mr. Martin described
in detail the public involvement process that Dow
and Shintech established for the Plaquemine
facility. Mr. Martin explained that, because both
companies viewed public participation as essential,
they hired a neutral mediator to facilitate dialogue
and conduct a series of meetings. He also noted
that NEJAC's Model Plan for Public Participation
served as the basis for the planning and conduct.
of the meetings.
Mr. Martin stated his belief that both companies
made a significant effort to interact with members
of the community who had environmental justice
concerns. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Martin
stated that Shintech and Dow would be judged by
how well they fulfill the commitments made to the
community during the permitting process.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-21
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Larry Charles, Organized Northeasterners and
Clay Hill and North End, Inc. (O.N.E./C.H.A.N.E.),
began his discussion by explaining that urban
America today is made up of communities that are
"majority minority" populations of African-
Americans, Puerto Ricans, and other people of
color. Mr. Charles then described the filing of an
administrative complaint under Title VI as a
disempowering process for communities. Mr.
Charles further noted several lessons learned - for
example, he noted, each party must acknowledge
that each has different interests and each must be
earnest in accommodating those separate
interests.
Mr. Charles then described a model created for
Hartford, Connecticut that could be applied to other
communities in addressing permitting processes
for existing facilities. The components of the
model, he continued, include:
• Oppose an existing permit using the "stick" of
Title VI, and focus on the polluting effect of the
facility.
• Perform a level of testing that satisfies the
community and has a goal of zero emissions.
• To ensure the safe operation of the facility
keep ongoing control of testing and monitoring
in the hands of the community.
• Ensure the implementation of all latest
technology for safe operation of the facility.
• Ensure that the interests of the community
balance with the interest of the operator of the
facility.
Mr. Charles emphasized that the notion that
integrating principles of environmental justice into
decisions impedes urban revitalization is "one of
the biggest lies ever told." He stated that the
bringing together of stakeholders of equal standing
is one of the greatest contributions that this
process had made. Concluding his remarks, he
stated that as the strength of mechanisms under
Title VI erodes, it would be important to make the
environmental justice movement a political issue .
again, rather than a process.
Ms. Andrea Kreiner, Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
stated state agencies need a rulernaking from EPA
that unties the hands of state regulators
considering environmental justice concerns during
a permit process. She explained that rules should
be promulgated that establish a minimum level of
disparity and the maximum level of exposure than
can be tolerated by communities affected by
environmental justice concerns. Ms. Kreiner
expressed her concern that, without such clear
lines, state agencies fear being considered
arbitrary and capricious. She also stated that
guidance should be developed that instructs states
in how to consider such factors as a community's
special needs, income, and other factors when
deciding to issue a permit. That guidance, Ms.
Kreiner stated, should be developed at the national
level.
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Kreiner emphasized
that lacking a standard mechanism for
incorporating environmental justice factors into all
permitting decisions, state agencies can respond
only in cases in which there is public opposition.
Mr. Steve Heare, Acting Director, PSPD, EPA
OSWER, explained that he represents the
permitting program under RCRA for facilities that
manage hazardous waste. He expressed his
pleasure at being present at the meeting of the
NEJAC to share some thoughts about the
program's limitations and gaps with respect to
addressing environmental justice concerns in
issuing permits under RCRA. He stated that it is
true that regulations that govern permitting under
RCRA hamper the ability of state governments to
address environmental justice concerns; however,
he pointed out, there are many other avenues
available to effectively address environmental
justice concerns within the current regulatory
"regime" of RCRA. He then stated that ability to
address environmental justice under current RCRA
regulations is limited in five ways and proposed
possible solutions that may resolve each limitation:
• The permitting process under RCRA does not-
usually involve a decision about where the
facility will be sited. EPA can work harder to
educate and inform stakeholders by sharing
successful models, guidance, and training.
One EPA effort to address the limitation is the
development of a brochure that focuses on a
community's quality-of-life issues and
suggests that, states, and local permitting
authorities consider such issues when
deciding where to site a facility.
• The permitting process under RCRA focuses
only on the protection of human health and the
environment; therefore, permits cannot be
denied on the basis of factors that are not
related to human health or the environment.
This limitation could be overcome by
considering demographic factors during
1-22
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
permitting to identify vulnerable
populations and by working with the state
and local governments in the community
to reach sound permitting decisions.
• The permitting process under RCRA cannot
address cumulative risk adequately. Noting
that some EPA regional offices and state
governments have begun to conduct
cumulative risk assessments, and EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
also is developing tools for conducting
cumulative risk assessments.
• The permitting process under RCRA cannot
deal with cross-cutting program issues related
to the issuance of permits. This limitation
demonstrates the need for stronger
cooperation among EPA's environmental
permitting programs.
• The permitting process under RCRA is a
delegated program; each state can modify the
permit program, as long as the program
remains at least as stringent as EPA's national
regulations. This limitation also is an
opportunity because states have more
resources for issuing permits than EPA and
should be "more in tune" with issues of
importance to local communities.
Concluding his presentation, Mr. Heare
acknowledged that EPA does have an oversight
role and that EPA regional staff will continue to
work with states, tribes, and communities to help
address environmental justice concerns that arise
during the permitting process.
Ms. Ramos commended The Dow Chemical
Company for its efforts to incorporate some of the
principles of the Model Plan for Public Participation
developed by the NEJAC into activities related to
the permitting process for the proposed facility in
Plaquemine, Louisiana. She then expressed her
concern that grassroots communities that are
affected by pollution are not represented
adequately on Federal advisory committees that
help to influence the decision-making process at
EPA. She asked Mr. Charles whether any of the
organizations that he represents had investigated
this concern. In response, Mr. Charles expressed
his belief that grassroots organizations should
ensure, that in every venue in which decisions are
made that affect the lives of people from local
communities, those people be represented. He
then noted that one of the best things that can be
done to achieve the goals of environmental justice
is to diversify the staff of the regulators and include
people from the community in the review process.
He also stated that additional resources should be
provided to educate the community, to encourage
young people to pursue careers in the
environmental field.
Ms. Jane Stahl, Assistant Commissioner,
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection and member of the Health and
Research Subcommittee, stated that the NEJAC
and EPA should focus on how to ensure effective
public participation on advisory committees and
boards and to make such participation the
process. In addition, Ms. Stahl commented that
the myth that environmental, justice impedes
economic development will remain until real
standards are developed because environmental
justice, to most regulators and industry, is an
"amorphous blob" that takes away the
predictability, quickness, and certainties of the
decision-making process.
3.5.3 PanelS: Opportunities for
Improvement: What Factors Should
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Consider to Help Ensure
Environmental Justice in Permitting?
Mr. Lee introduced the third panel explaining that
members of the panel would review lessons
learned and the limitations of the permitting
process, as well as identify opportunities for
improving the process. Exhibit 1-7 presents the
problem statement that the members of the panel
addressed.
Professor Eileen Gauna, Professor, Southwestern
University Law School, Los Angeles, California,
began her discussion by stating that many Agency-
inspired initiatives have occurred in the absence of
clear regulatory authority. Professor Gauna then
presented her approach to incorporating
environmental justice concerns into the permitting
process through three key areas of inquiry -
snapshot, streamlining, and sequencing.
She explained that, through the snapshot, the
regulators should look first at as many factors as
possible to get a "handle" on what will be dealt with
in terms of conditions in the community. Further,
she said, existing contributors, whether they are
permitted or not, should be included in the
snapshot, along with an investigation of the
industry's compliance history. .Then, she
continued, a snapshot of the community itself is
taken to identify basic demographics and to
consider nontraditional cultural practices that may
be injured because of the proposed activity. In
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999 .
1-23
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 1-7
PANEL 3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
This panel was to address the question: 'To secure
protection from environmental degradation for all
citizens, what factors should be considered by a
Federal permitting authority, as well as state or local
agencies that have delegated permitting
responsibilities, in the decision-making process
before to allowing a new pollution-generating facility
to operate in a minority or low-income community
that may already have a number of such facilities?"
Adequate consideration of the question necessitates a
combination of approaches that are process-oriented
(for example, meaningful community involvement) or
substance-based (for example, standards and siting
criteria). Panelists would make positive and proactive
recommendations about specific provisions for
consideration of environmental justice issues. In
particular, panelists were requested to offer
recommendations based upon a set of working
selection criteria developed by the expanded Protocol
Committee of the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council.
addition, other vulnerabilities that the community
experiences, such as cancer and asthma rates,
should be examined, she said. Therefore, for this
phase of the approach, Professor Gauna
explained, stakeholders should risk over
inclusiveness, rather than take the narrow
approach of considering only the emissions
requirements under the permit process.
The second area of inquiry, Professor Gauna
continued, is to consider streamlining. For
example, she explained, an expedited permitting
process may meet a regulatory authority's
requirements; however, if that authority should
slow the process, if necessary, to ensure that the
community is involved.
Professor Gauna then described the third area of
inquiry, is sequencing. She explained that the
order in which issues are determined is essential.
Therefore, an alternative analysis is at the heart of
a program. Regulators should ask a series of
questions, she said, identifying those questions as:
1) Does it make sense in the context to issue a
permit?; 2) If a facility is sited, how can
environmental effects be completely avoided?; and
3) If effects cannot be avoided, consider on-site
minimization of the effects, such as application of
specialized control technology. She explained that
it is essential to determine sequencing of the
issues in a particular manner.
Concluding her remarks, Professor Gauna
acknowledged that, while the three-stage process
may sound burdensome, in the long run, it may be
more beneficial to the permittee because
controversy will be avoided because all
considerations have been developed and
discussed.
Mr. Robert Shinn, Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Justice, New Jersey Department of
Environment Protection, explained that the trading
of air emissions credits is an important concept for
environmental justice, not because of problems in
the program, but to attempt to harness the
economic power that the trading program can have
to provide benefits.
Mr. Shinn then discussed a concept he developed
— the establishment of an environmental emission
trading board that would use the availability of a
funded emission trading bank to directly address
disparate effects caused by the trading air
emissions credits in communities that have
environmental justice concerns. Continuing, he
explained that the proposed board would be made
of a broad range of members of the affected
community, as well as state and local officials. In
addition, expertise in engineering, real estate, and
health would be included on the board, he said.
The mission of the board would be to rank and
select sites that require the abatement of disparate
effects.
Mr. Shinn then recommended that the board be
funded by the Federal government. The board
would have the right to the credits for emission
reductions resulting from the board's actions, he
said. The board, he explained, could auction those
credits and use the revenues to help to continue
the board's funding. The board, continued Mr.
Shinn, would make an annual report to Congress
on its success in reducing pollution in terms of tons
of pollutants.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Shinn recommended
that the board could be established on a pilot basis
and that the concept fits well with Federal and
state goals related to implementing the
requirements of the CAA.
Ms. Nathalie Walker, Earthjustice Legal Defense
Fund, declared that communities that have
environmental justice concerns want EPA to
recognize that circumstances in their communities
mandate that some permits should not be issued.
Routinely approving all permits because they meet
technical requirements has never protected those
communities, she said. Ms. Walker stated her
1-24
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
belief that the correct question to ask is what
factors should be determinative when a regulatory
agency makes a permit decision about a new
pollution-generating facility in an already-burdened
environmental justice community. Ms. Walker
then noted that EPA has responded to the
demands of the environmental justice movement
by increasing the number of stakeholder meetings
it conducts; however, she stated, EPA never has
denied a permit on the basis that issuance of the
permit would violate principles of environmental
justice. Ms. Walker then described determinative
factors related to environmental justice that could
serve as a basis for denying a permit:
• Negative health risks.
• Racially disproportionate burden.
• Cumulative and synergetic effects on human
health and the environment.
• High aggregation of risk from multiple sources.
• Vulnerability of the community on the basis of:
- Health of the community.
- Number of children and elderly people
living in the community.
- Reliance on land and water that may
become pathways of toxic exposures.
•. Inadequate buffer zones.
Ms. Walker noted that EPA historically has
asserted that the Agency is sympathetic to such
concerns; however, EPA has not done more than
to continue to discuss the issues. Continuing, Ms.
Walker explained that it is imperative that EPA
move beyond the discussion-oriented framework
for environmental justice toward demonstrable
environmental justice decisions that actually
prevent or reduce disproportionate burdens of
pollution on communities.
The groundwork for EPA in integrating those
determinative factors into the Agency's review of
permits had been laid out in a document that the
EPA Office of General Counsel (OGC) prepared in
1996, continued Ms. Walker. That document
identifies nine environmental statutes that provide
opportunities to incorporate environmental justice
factors, she explained.
Concluding her remarks, Ms Walker expressed
her belief that EPA has both the authority and the
obligation under Federal law to take all appropriate
steps to address environmental justice issues.
She declared that the time had long since passed
for EPA to acknowledge that the Agency's
mandate is broader than technical compliance
considerations.
Mr. Stuart Harris, Department of Natural
Resources, Confederated Tribes of Umatilla,
Oregon, noted that the problems associated with -
environmental justice and permitting in Indian
country differ from those of other environmental
justice communities and should be addressed
separately. He explained that "tribal environmental
justice" is not simply a matter of demographics or
racial stratification, but involves a tribe's natural
resource base and whether a tribe's resources are
affected disproportionately, as well as whether a
tribe's people bear a disproportionate risk and
health burden because of their traditional life style.
He added that environmental justice in Indian
country is a matter of making decisions that affect
tribal sovereignty. Mr. Harris then emphasized the
continuing effort to teach EPA how to evaluate
risks and effects on tribes and to inform EPA about
the high degree of untapped technical expertise
tribes can offer.
The basis for environmental permitting in Indian
country is treaties and Federal trust obligations,
said Mr. Harris. He stated that members of tribes
must work with EPA to provide information needed
to effectively evaluate risk to the members,
resources, and culture of a tribe to determine
whether the tribe is being affected
disproportionately. Mr. Harris also noted that
tribes have special needs for adequate and stable
funding for regulatory programs. He explained that
tribes are not treated the same way states are
treated and therefore cannot depend on consistent
funding. In addition, Mr. Harris explained that
tribes need better health statistics to support
permitting decisions.
. Mr. Harris also emphasized that the permitting
process, as it affects.trust resources and tribal
members, involves for more than merely
establishing more single-contaminant standards. If
EPA makes decisions that affect a tribe's
sovereignty, he explained, the Agency should
consult the tribe early and often to ensure than the
trust obligation is met.
Dr. Gelobter asked the members of the panel
whether they believed that it is only a matter of
EPA "biting the bullet" and making the right
decisions, or whether there are procedural steps
that the Agency should take to integrate
environmental justice concerns into the permitting
process. Ms. Walker expressed her belief that
existing regulations support the use of factors of
environmental justice as a basis for denying a
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
1-25
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
permit. Professor Gauna observed that the duties
of the regulatory authorities are not defined clearly
and that regulatory agencies should not wait to act
until definitive answers are found.
Mr. Cole then asked the state and tribal regulators
participating in the panel the circumstances under
which they have denied permits and the authority
they use to deny permits. Mr. Shinn explained that
the state of New Jersey bases decisions on land
use. He then described the mechanisms New
Jersey has in place to protect wetlands and coastal
lands against development. Continuing the
discussion, Mr. Harris stated that his tribe had not
been successful in the permit process in EPA
Region 10 or other jurisdictions because of a lack
of resources and expertise that would allow the
tribe to participate effectively in the process.
Ms. Rosa Franklin, Washington State Senate and
member of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, asked how much emphasis is
placed on cleaning up polluting facilities and what
approach is taken to addressing those facilities.
Using a landfill as an example, Mr. Shinn
explained that the state of New Jersey undertook a
process to adopt standards under which liners
were to be required. For those facilities that did
not meet the standards, the state entered into an
administrative consent order to close the facility or
install the liners.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEES
RELATED TO PERMITTING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
This section provides a summary of the
recommendations made by the subcommittees of
the NEJAC on how EPA could better integrate
environmental justice concerns into the decision-
making process for permits.
Mr. Lee said that the idea of having meetings that
focus on a particular issue was an important
structural change for the operation of the NEJAC.
He stated further that such meetings will help the
NEJAC move in the direction of fulfilling its
mission, to provide strategic policy advice to the
EPA Administrator. He announced that the next
meeting of the NEJAC; to be held in Atlanta,
Georgia, May 2000, would focus on environmental
justice and public health. Mr. Lee stated that Dr.
Payton and the other members of the Health and
Research Subcommittee would work with Mr. Hal
Zenick, Deputy Assistant Administrator for EPA's
ORD to formulate a process for that meeting.
Turning his attention to the issue of permitting and
environmental justice, Mr. Lee explained that the
Protocol Committee of the NEJAC and EPA
believed that the format of the meeting was an
important way to further dialogue about the
question that surfaced in 1996 - whether there are
opportunities under existing authorities to
incorporate environmental justice concerns into
permitting decisions. Mr. Lee then reviewed a
series of steps that had been put in place to
identify all the relevant aspects of the jssue. He
reminded the members of a preliminary report that
had been compiled to solicit the views of various
stakeholders on the relationship between
permitting and environmental justice. OEJ, Mr.
Lee continued, then worked with three offices at
EPA - OSWER, OAR, and OW - to discuss the
environmental justice factors in the permitting
process and to develop strategies and
approaches, as well as to make commitments to
address the issue.
Mr. Lee then discussed EPA's proposal to create
the,Cross-Agency Workgroup on Public
Participation and Permitting, which would be a
cross-agency, multimedia effort to look at public .
participation as a whole to bring consistency to it
and to examine how environmental justice truly
can be factored into the permitting process.
Mr. Lee also explained that the effort would lead to
comments from stakeholders and dialogue with
them to support appropriate changes. He noted
that, if all points of view on the issue of
environmental justice were examined, everyone
would agree that all levels of government "do not
do a great job" in the area of public participation
and that there is much opportunity to make
progress.
Referring to the environmental justice selection
criteria developed by the Protocol Committee of
the NEJAC, Mr. Lee stated that the committee
had developed an initial articulation of the criteria
to address the issue. Mr. Lee then requested that
the members of the Executive Council approve a
motion to establish a special work group to
develop recommendations to be forwarded to the
EPA Administrator on environmental justice and
permitting. Members of the Executive Council
then approved the establishment of a work group,
and Ms. Miller-Travis agreed to serve as the chair.
Mr. Lee then reminded the chairs of the
subcommittees that each subcommittee was to
devote part of its agenda to a discussion of
environmental justice concerns in the permitting
process. Mr. Lee then asked each of the chairs of
1-26
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
the subcommittees to briefly present
recommendations that their subcommittees had
developed related to better integration of
environmental justice concerns into the permitting
process.
Air and Water Subcommittee
Presenting the recommendations of the Air and
Water Subcommittee on the integration of
environmental justice factors into the permitting
process, Dr. Gelobter discussed the work that the
Cumulative Permitting Work Group of the
subcommittee had accomplished. He explained
that the work group had focused its efforts on
addressing environmental justice concerns related
to "cumulative" permitting. Dr. Gelobter also
stated his belief that it was important to make note
of the joint meeting held between the Air and
Water and Enforcement subcommittees because
of the extensive overlap of issues between the two.
Mr. Lee then expressed his appreciation to Ms.
Clydia Cuykendall, J.C. Penney and member of
the Air and Water Subcommittee, and the other
members of the Cumulative Permitting Work
Group for their effort in addressing these issues.
He then noted that OEJ was working to link the
efforts of the NEJAC to those of other groups at
EPA that consider similar issues; For example,
Mr. Lee explained, EPA's National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT) has a multimedia permitting work
group. At some point, the two groups should
meet, he suggested, adding that EPA would like its
various advisory groups to interact more often than
has been the case.
Ms. Stahl then asked whether Dr. Gelobter could
discuss the proposed plans of EPA that were
discussed during the Air and Water
Subcommittee's meeting to better integrate
environmental justice into the permitting process.
Dr. Gelobter requested that Mr. Brenner briefly
provide a summary to the Executive Council.
Mr. Brenner explained that what he had described
to the members of the Air and Water
Subcommittee was a way in which EPA could
move quickly to reduce toxics in heavily burdened
areas by harnessing the desire for economic
development so that it becomes a "driver" for
reducing total loadings of toxics. EPA, he
explained, would develop guidance for areas if
they had a permitting program that would 1)
reduce their total loadings of toxics and 2) permit
new sources because, as environmental justice or
Title VI concerns were raised, they would be able
to show that the newly permitted facility was not
adding to the burden of toxics in a heavily
burdened area. The reason EPA believes this is a
promising approach is that new sources tend to be
well-controlled, continued Mr. Brenner. Usually,
the bulk of the burden for heavily burdened areas
is the result of a combination of older existing
sources and emissions from diesel trucks and
buses, he said. Mr. Brenner stated that the
guidance should be available in spring 2000 for
review by the NEJAC and other stakeholder
groups.
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelley, Oneida Environmental
Health and Safety and member of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee, expressed concern that
the approach described by Mr. Brenner may not
work in areas for which there is very little
information about toxic loadings. Mr. Brenner
acknowledged Ms. Hill-Kelley's concern and
agreed that the guidance may not address all
concerns. He explained that the guidance is an
attempt by EPA to take action with respect to
permitting that is meaningful and to take such
action soon.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked Mr. Brenner to further
comment on the overlapping issues that affect
both air and waste programs at EPA. Mr. Brenner
pointed out that OAR was participating with
OSWER in the development of the best
management practices for WTSs, which will offer
some best practices to reduce the amount of time
trucks idle outside such stations. He added that
OAR also was working with OSWER to reduce
overall loading of toxics by modifying their
operations in ways that allow them to operate more
cleanly with fewer toxic emissions.
Enforcement Subcommittee
Mr. Cole then presented the recommendations of
the Enforcement Subcommittee on environmental
justice and permitting. He explained that the
subcommittee had identified "unpermitted" or
"underpermitted" activity as a major problem. To
address that problem, the subcommittee was to
propose a resolution on CAFOs. He also
expressed the subcommittee's concern that
compliance alternatives, such as air emissions
trading programs, could be a loophole in the
permitting process that could be used to avoid
involving the public. Therefore, to address that
issue, Mr. Cole said, the subcommittee was to
propose a resolution on EPA's EIP guidance.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
1-27
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Cole also noted that the subcommittee had
heard a presentation by Professor Rabin that
focused on historical land use patterns and the
effects of these patterns on permitting today.
Finally, as part of the subcommittee's work on
permitting, the members had heard a briefing by
Ms. Ann Goode, Director, EPA Office of Civil
Rights (OCR), he explained, on EPA's activities
related to Title VI.
Health and Research Subcommittee
Dr. Payton then offered comments from the Health
and Research Subcommittee on environmental
justice permitting. She explained that one of the
limitations on or barriers to truly integrating
environmental justice factors into permitting
decisions is the lack of data on the relationship
between exposure to contaminants and the
potential effects. The second issue the
subcommittee focused on was.chemical accidents,
she said. Dr. Payton informed the members of the
NEJAC that the subcommittee had heard a
presentation from Dr. Jerry Poje, Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board, about the dangers
posed by facilities that have accidental releases or
that could "blow up." Continuing, Dr. Payton stated
that chemical accidents and community response
are very important issues that should be
considered during the permitting process.
Mr. Lee then stated that the issues related to
health effects and exposure that Dr. Payton had
raised would be addressed in more detail at the
May 2000 meeting of the NEJAC that is to focus
on public health and environmental justice. He
also stated his agreement with Dr. Payton that
emergency planning should be considered during
the review of a permit. He also pointed out that the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) was one of the nine statutes
that was identified in 1996 as providing
opportunities to incorporate environmental justice
into the permitting process.
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Mr. Brad Hamilton, Director, Native American
Affairs Office, Department of Human Resources,
State of Kansas and proxy chair of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee, presented the
recommendations of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee. Those recommendations were:
• Recommend that EPA provide tribes direct
notification of review of permits when an
application is submitted and ensure and
encourage ongoing consultation between the
tribe and the permitting agency throughout the
process.
• Recommend that EPA develop language in
layperson's terms to explain what the term
"discharge" means to a community.
• Recommend that EPA provide training for
citizens and tribal governments on the
permitting process and that training should
provide participants with the ability to
understand technical aspects of permits to
more effectively review and provide comment
on such permits.
• Recommend that EPA educate
representatives of regulated communities,
such as industry, state, and other Federal
government agencies, about cultural values of
indigenous peoples.
Continuing the presentation of recommendations,
Ms; Hill-Kelley reminded the members of the
NEJAC that tribes are governments that have
responsibility for their jurisdictions and that tribes
sometimes are the regulators. Ms. Hill-Kelley also
emphasized that the subcommittee views the issue
of ensuring meaningful public participation in the
permitting process as essential.
Ms. Hill-Kelley concluded the discussion of the
recommendations of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee with a request that a representative
of the subcommittee serve on the special work
group for permitting that was established during
the current meeting.
International Subcommittee
Mr. Arnoldo Garcia, Regional Community
Organizer, Urban Habitat Program and chair of the
International Subcommittee, noted that the
International Subcommittee had had a very brief
discussion about environmental justice and
permitting. He also expressed concern about
EPA's strategies for reducing toxics, stating that
"less poisoning is still poisoning." Mr. Garcia also
suggested that environmental health funds be
attached to the issuance of permits, with special
emphasis on communities of color, children,
women, and the elderly. He also noted that better
communication networks should be established
between local neighborhoods and the upper
echelons of EPA, for both normal and emergency
responses to pollutants.
1-28
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through Decembers, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Ms. Miller-Travis then reported on two activities
related to permitting in which the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee had participated. She
explained that the subcommittee had been
involved in the development of the draft brochure
on RCRA social siting criteria that discusses
concerns of communities related to quality of life
before, during, and after the siting and permitting
of hazardous waste facilities. She noted further
that the subcommittee was to work with EPA in a
consultative process to truly address the
environmental justice implications of the siting of
facilities under RCRA. Ms. Miller-Travis then
explained that the subcommittee would request
that the NEJAC establish a work group to provide
its views on a proposed EPA guidance on land use
for local governments regarding environmental
justice considerations for permitting and siting of
waste facilities.
5.0 REPORTS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES
On December 1,1999, each subcommittee met for
a full day. This section presents summaries of the
action items and resolutions developed during
those discussions, as well as updates on the
activities of the subcommittees. Appendix A of this
chapter presents the full text of each resolution of
the subcommittees that was approved by the
Executive Council of the NEJAC. Chapters 3
through 8 present summaries of the deliberations
of each of the subcommittees.
5.1 Air and Water Subcommittee
Dr. Gelobter presented the report for the Air and
Water Subcommittee. He stated that the
subcommittee had held discussions on such topics
as: "cumulative permitting," urban air toxics, public
utilities, fish consumption, Tier 2 air regulations,
and TDMLs. Dr. Gelobter explained that the
subcommittee has focused much of its time on
reviewing regulations as they are being developed
to ensure that local communities are in a position
to influence the decision-making process.
Dr. Gelobter stated that the subcommittee had
established a work group to address
environmental justice issues related to cumulative
permitting. The work group, he noted, was
headed by Ms. Cuykendall. Dr. Gelobter also
noted that the panel discussions on permitting
were highly useful in helping the subcommittee
focus on cumulative permitting which involves
cross-media and cross-facility issues. To address
some environmental justice concerns related to
cumulative permitting, the subcommittee had
discussed EPA's proposed offset program, he
said. Dr. Gelobter stated that the subcommittee
wished to warn EPA that, before such a program is
implemented, the Agency must clearly identify
disparities that the program is aimed at addressing
and state clearly that the program is not for
industry to use but is intended to help reduce
emissions in heavily burdened environmental
justice communities.
Dr. Gelobter then discussed several mechanisms
that EPA could use to implement the offset
program, including OW's TMDL requirements and
OAR's state implementation plans. He assured
the members of the Executive Council that the
subcommittee would monitor the process very
closely.
In addition, the members of the subcommittee
were to help OW and OAR produce materials that
explain the activities of the two offices, he
continued. Concluding his report on activities
related to cumulative permitting, Dr. Gelobter
described a citizens guide for "grandfathered
facilities" that was to be developed.
Dr. Gelobter then updated the Executive Council
on EPA's strategy for urban air toxics. He stated
that the subcommittee had developed a report that
provided recommendations to the EPA
Administrator on how to better incorporate
environmental justice concerns into the strategy.
Dr. Gelobter stated that the subcommittee
continued to have significant outstanding concerns
about EPA's implementation of the urban air toxics
strategy. He also stated that several members of
the subcommittee also were members of a work
group formed under the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee of EPA to review how EPA is
implementing the strategy at the local and state
levels. Dr. Gelobter then explained that OAR may
convene five or six workshops around the country
in 2000 to discuss the process of reducing urban
air toxics.
Dr. Gelobter then discussed the subcommittee's
activities related to public utilities. He explained
that attention should be paid to environmental
justice effects produced by facilities that generate
energy. Dr. Gelobter noted that such facilities
account for 80 percent of all pollution worldwide.
Dr. Gelobter then announced that the Air and
Water Subcommittee had established a work
group to address environmental justice issues
related to public utilities and that the work group
would be chaired by Mr. Daniel Greenbaum,
Health Effects Institute and member of the Air and
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
1-29
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Water Subcommittee. Dr. Gelobter stated that the
subcommittee also had discussed a few specific
cases, particularly public utilities in Puerto Rico.
Continuing his report, Dr. Gelobter discussed the
joint session with the Enforcement Subcommittee
on EPA's proposed Tier 2 regulations to reduce
the amount of sulfur in commercially sold gasoline.
He explained that both subcommittees had
concerns about the trading of air emissions credits
from both mobile and stationary sources, through
which facilities that produced cleaner fuel would be
able to trade their emissions credits against the
reduction in emissions in the counties in which
they operated in.
Ms. Ramos then provided information about an
emergency resolution on public utilities in Puerto
Rico the Air and Water Subcommittee had
forwarded to the Executive Council. She explained
that Puerto Rico has a very particular problem
related to power plants because the
commonwealth's regulations do not include
Federally enforceable emissions limitations. She
explained further that Puerto Rico does not prohibit
the power plants from emitting particular amounts
of pollutants; therefore, power plants can emit all
the sulfur dioxide they generate because there are
no limits. Puerto Rico has been a nonattainment
area for 20 years, and, in 1993 EPA had ordered
Puerto Rico to revise its state implementation plan
to resolve the problem, she continued. Ms. Ramos
stated that the proposed resolution requests that
the EPA Administrator require Puerto Rico to
review its state implementation plan to incorporate
minimum Federal standards for emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
Ms. Miller-Travis pointed out that Ms. Ramos and
her community had attempted to address the
issues raised in the resolution with the U.S.
Department of Justice and EPA Region 2 through
the use of a consent decree. Mr. Cole then offered
a friendly amendment to the proposed resolution:
in the fifth "whereas" clause that states, "the state
cannot control non-anthropogenic emissions, it can
control non-anthropogenic emissions," delete the
second "non." The friendly amendment was
accepted by Ms. Ramos. The resolution was
approved unanimously by the Executive Council of
the NEJAC.
The members of the Executive Council then
accepted Dr. Gelobter's request that a mail ballot
be used to approve the report of the Urban Air
Toxics Working Group of the Air and Water
Subcommittee on EPA's urban air toxic strategy.
5.2 Enforcement Subcommittee
Mr. Cole presented the report of the Enforcement
Subcommittee. He explained that the members of
the subcommittee had heard three presentations
on the relationship between environmental justice
and permitting. Summarizing Professor Rabin's
presentation, Mr. Cole stated that historical and
motivated racist actions have an effect on today's
permitting decisions. Then summarizing the
presentation made by Professor James Hamilton,
Associate Professor, Duke University, Mr. Cole
explained that the conclusions drawn by Professor
Hamilton were based on a study of more than
2,700 sites, using TRI data that indicate that, in
communities that have high levels of voter
participation or political activity, companies
voluntarily reduce emissions of carcinogenic
substances to a much greater extent than they do
in census blocks in which the populations are not
politically active. He explained further that finding
has significant implications for enforcement and
permitting because companies are taking action
voluntarily to clean up in communities that already
are empowered and not in communities that are
disenfranchised.
Summarizing the presentation of Professor Manuel
Pastor, Professor, University of California at Santa
Cruz, Mr. Cole said that Professor Pastor's
empirical studies of Los Angeles, California
revealed that the siting of facilities mattered much
more in the decision-making process than
communities moving into industrial areas.
Professor Pastor also found that the communities
that were being targeted for the siting of facilities
were communities in transition. His findings also
showed that communitiesjhat were not socially
cohesive and in which there was a transition
between the races were most vulnerable because
they were not able to come together to exercise
their power, Mr. Cole pointed out.
Mr. Cole then noted that the Enforcement
Subcommittee had had two productive
consultations, the first with Mr. Herman and a
number of enforcement personnel and the second
with Ms. Goode. Mr. Cole explained that the
subcommittee had received comment from Mr.
Herman and his staff on the activities of the
Enforcement Subcommittee. Mr. Cole also said
that the subcommittee had expressed dismay to
Mr. Herman about the budget cuts proposed for
OECA and stated that the subcommittee would
write a letter to the EPA Administrator to express
the fear that cutting enforcement resources would
not move the Agency toward achieving
environmental justice.
1-30
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Councft
Mr. Cole then briefed the members of the
Executive Council on the presentation by Ms.
Goode. He stated that the members of the
subcommittee had expressed frustration with the
lack of progress related to Title VI on the part of
the Agency. Mr. Cole explained that, since the last
time the subcommittee had met with Ms. Goode,
no administrative cases filed under Title VI had
been resolved and the guidance for addressing
complaints had not been issued. Mr. Cole stated
that Ms. Goode had assured the Enforcement
Subcommittee that the guidance would be issued
within 8 to 10 weeks. He also noted that Ms.
Goode had made a commitment to the
subcommittee to resolve the backlog of 25 Title VI
cases by January 2000.
Mr. Cole also discussed the joint session between
the Enforcement and the Air and Water
subcommittees, during which the two
subcommittees discussed EPA's draft EIP
guidance. He expressed his belief that there had
been a very productive interchange with staff of
OAR, during which the staff made concrete
commitments to addressing some of the concerns
expressed by the subcommittees, including the
prohibition of the trading an emissions credits of
lead and to the reinstatement of some of the
language on mandatory environmental justice
requirements.
Mr. Cole then reminded the members of the
Executive Council that, before the meeting began,
the Enforcement Subcommittee had forwarded
three proposed resolutions to them for review and
approval. He then informed the members that the.
resolution on state variances from CAA permit
requirements under the CAA had been approved
by the Executive Council.
Mr. Cole then addressed the resolution on the
economic benefit to industry of noncompliance
with environmental law. He stated that the
resolution had been approved with an amendment
suggested by Ms. Briggum. He explained that the
members of the subcommittee had decided not to
accept the amendment and had requested that the
proposed resolution go forward with the original
language. The resolution, Mr. Cole explained,
would urge EPA to work with states and EPA's
regional enforcement programs to capture the
economic benefit of violations, so that corporations
cannot profit by pollution. Ms. Briggum noted that
results related to economic benefit can be
calculated only if there was enforcement against all
market participants. If there are exemptions or a
failure to enforce against a particular kind of facility
because of a lack of resources in targeting, that
fact also must be taken into account in terms of
economic benefit, she pointed out. Ms. Briggum
concluded her comment by stating that companies
close to achieving compliance might be penalized
and those that are not complying at all rewarded.
The resolution then was adopted by the Executive
Council of the NEJAC, with one abstention.
Mr. Cole then acknowledged the significant
amount of work done and the very detailed briefing
paper developed by Ms. Lillian Wilmore, Director,
Native Ecology Initiative and member of the
Enforcement Subcommittee, related to the
proposed resolution on EPA's draft EIP guidance.
Mr Cole noted that the resolution also had been
approved by the Executive Council and that Ms.
Miller-Travis; Ms. Briggum; Dr. Gelobter; and Mr.
Gerald Torres, University of Texas Law School
and member of the Enforcement Subcommittee,
had offered friendly amendments that were
incorporated into the resolution. He also stated
that two members of the Executive Council voted
to deny the resolution. Mr. Cole then stated that
the members of the subcommittee had modified
the resolution to reflect their positive conversations
with staff of OAR during the joint session with the
Air and Water Subcommittee. Mr. Cole then
requested that the Executive Council of the NEJAC
approve the modified version of the resolution.
Ms. Miller-Travis thanked Mr. Cole for addressing
the issues that the members of the Executive
Council had raised. She recommended that
language be included in the resolution that
acknowledges the willingness of OAR to continue
to work with the NEJAC to address the issues of
environmental justice in the EIP. Mr. Cole then
agreed to the new language. The Executive
Council then passed the resolution, with one
abstention and one nay.
Ms. Stahl then told the members of the Executive
Council that she had objected to the resolution and
wished to explain why. She stated that the
modifications of the resolution had improved it
significantly; however, the notion of trading air .
emissions credits and market-based incentives are
valuable tools used by states to reach attainment
for all air contaminants ~ toxics, particulates, and
all other pollutants. She explained that her
objection was based on the lack of flexibility or the
diminishment of flexibility that the resolution would
create in a tool that states believe can be used
appropriately for the benefit of air quality
improvements throughout the country.
Mr. Cole then requested that the Executive Council
allow the Enforcement Subcommittee to submit
comments on the EIP guidance. Ms. Miller-Travis
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-31
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
suggested that a statement that read, "Due to the
concerns that will be outlined below, NEJAC is
compelled to voice its opposition to the September
1999 EIP," be revised to refer to the "Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC." Mr. Cole agreed to
make the necessary changes. The motion was
passed by the Executive Council, with two
abstentions.
Mr. Cole then announced a new resolution
forwarded by the Enforcement Subcommittee that
requests that EPA exercise additional oversight of
states related to CAFOs and require individual
permits for large CAFOs. He noted further that the
Enforcement Subcommittee received friendly
amendments to the resolution from the Air and
Water Subcommittee. Mr. Cole added that, after
consultation with the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, the Enforcement Subcommittee
decided to remove the language related to CAFOs
in Indian country and will draft a separate
resolution on the issue to address the very specific
and important concerns of tribes. He then
acknowledged the work of Ms. Savonala Home,
Land Loss Prevention Project and member of the
Enforcement Subcommittee, and Ms. Wilmore in
drafting the proposed resolution.- He then
requested that the resolution be sent to the
Executive Council for approval by mail ballot.
5.3 Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Mr. Hamilton reported on the activities of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, identifying four
action items the subcommittee had adopted:
• Provide EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT) a list of environmental points of
contact for the Federally recognized tribes.
• Request that the subcommittees of the NEJAC
provide copies of proposed resolutions
concerning Indian country to the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee for review before
approval by the Executive Council of the
NEJAC.
• Develop a resolution about the proposed
location of telescopes on Mount Graham in
Arizona that would impede the accessibility to
cultural and religious resources of local tribes.
• Develop a list of recommendations about
issues related to issuing permits and the
effects on indigenous people and Alaskan
natives.
He also reminded the members about the
subcommittee's draft guide for consultation and
collaboration that the subcommittee continues to
develop. Mr. Hamilton explained that copies of the
draft guide had been distributed to the Federally
recognized tribes for their review and comment.
Ms. Hill-Kelley commented further on the
consultation guide, noting that the guide's purpose
was to provide guidance for the various
stakeholder groups that interact with tribes or
indigenous communities on how to consult and
collaborate with tribes. Ms. Hill-Kelley then
discussed the subcommittee's strategic plan that
outlines the goals and objectives of the
subcommittee for the next two years. She
explained that the members had taken the task
very seriously and had identified four objectives.
She then highlighted two of the objectives:
• Identify key environmental justice issues in
Indian country.
• Provide orientation or training on issues
related to indigenous peoples to the members
of the NEJAC during new member orientation.
5.4 International Subcommittee
Mr. Garcia provided a report on the first
Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the
U.S./Mexico Border meeting held in August 1999
in National City, California, near San Diego. He
reported that 200 people had participated in the
meeting, that included various stakeholder groups,
the majority of which were community
environmental justice groups from both the United
States and Mexico, he continued. He noted that
the fact-finding tour had been "an eye opener" for
some of the participants and stated that, during the
tour, participants had viewed several Superfund
sites, as well as severely contaminated sites on
the Mexican side of the border.
Mr. Garcia then stated that, more than 100
recommendations had been generated during
breakout sessions on environmental justice and
how it is related to labor, environmental health, and
immigration that were held at the meeting. Mr.
Garcia then identified the three principal
recommendations made by representatives of
communities:
• Establish an environmental justice group, a
community-based group or commission that
would be responsible for monitoring and
developing environmental justice policies for
the border.
7-32
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
• Clean up two sites at which the United States
is partially responsible for the contamination,
the Metales y Derivados site located in
Tijuana, Mexico and the Condado Prestos lock
site in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
• Conduct a site assessment at the Matamoros
Tamaulipas and El Gato Negro sites in Laguna
Madre, Mexico.
Mr. Garcia also expressed his' belief that the
rpundtable meeting had been a qualitative step in
initiating the dialogue that is taking place among
community groups, EPA, and the NEJAC and had
provided a better understanding of international
environmental justice issues.
Continuing his report, Mr. Garcia explained that the
members of the subcommittee had heard
presentations by Mr. Alan Hecht, Principal Deputy
Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of International
Activities (OIA); Mr. Gregg A. Cooke, Region
Administrator, EPA Region 6; Mr. Enrique
Manzanilla, Director of Cross Media Division, EPA
Region 9; and Dr. Clarice Gaylord, Special
Assistant to the Regional Administrator, San Diego
Border Liaison Office, EPA Region 9. He stated
that the subcommittee's discussions had focused
on identifying priority issues to address and priority
areas in which EPA should act to increase
community involvement. Mr. Garcia also noted
that the subcommittee had conducted discussions
and dialogues about the process of understanding
issues related to economic development and toxic
waste and racism along the border.
Mr. Garcia also reiterated the importance of the
roundtable meeting as an important step toward
international recognition of environmental justice
issues. He also explained that the meeting had
provided a significant opportunity for communities
living along the border to advocate for
environmental protection. The International
Subcommittee, Mr. Garcia noted, also would
recommend that EPA create a program for across-
the-border projects similar to the program
established for South Africa.
Mr. Alberto Saldamando, General Counsel,
International Indian Treaty Council and member of
the International Subcommittee, then requested
that the Executive Council consider and approve
two resolutions to be forwarded to the EPA
Administrator. The first resolution Mr. Saldamando
discussed requested that the NEJAC ask the EPA
Administrator to communicate with the U.S.
Secretary of State about the United Nations Draft
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
He explained that the declaration involves the
rights of indigenous people to determine their own
economic development priorities and control their
own natural resources. The resolution then was
approved unanimously by the members of the
Executive Council of the NEJAC.
Mr. Saldamando then presented the second
resolution proposed by the International
Subcommittee. The resolution requested the
NEJAC to urge the EPA Administrator to request
that the U.S. Department of State and the United
States Trade Representative comply with
provisions of Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice. In addition, Mr.
Saldamando stated that the resolution refers to
Executive Order 13141, which requires that, in all
international trade agreements, certain
environmental considerations be addressed and
potential effects be subjected to environmental
review. The resolution also was approved
unanimously by the Executive Council.
5.5 Health and Research Subcommittee
Dr. Payton reported on the activities of the Health
and Research Subcommittee. She stated that the
members of the subcommittee had agreed to draft
resolutions on: (1) recommending to EPA
guidelines for community research ethics and (2)
requesting that EPA and other Federal agencies
discuss opportunities to fund community-driven
environmental health research and research topics
identified by communities. Dr. Payton then noted
that the subcommittee had recommended to the
NEJAC and EPA OEJ that the May 2000 meeting
of the NEJAC address issues related to
environmental justice and public health and that
the NEJAC work cooperatively with EPA to
coordinate a comprehensive response to the
environmental and public health concerns of
environmental justice communities.
Continuing her report, Dr. Payton explained that
the members of the subcommittee would like to
consider developing strategies to incorporate
issues related to chemical accidents and
community right-to-know information into decision-
making processes; devising a strategy for
including public health-based guidelines into
decision-making; developing strategies to
incorporate health care, public health, access to
health care, economic burden, and psychological
effects into decision making.
Dr. Payton then welcomed other members of the
NEJAC to work with the Health and Research
Subcommittee in its efforts to develop a framework
for conducting community-driven environmental
research.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-33
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
5.6 Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Ms. Miller-Travis presented the report on the
activities of the Waste and Facility Siting.
Subcommittee. She stated that the subcommittee
had adopted a strategic action plan in April 1999
and that the subcommittee was working toward the
goals outlined in that plan.
Ms. Miller-Travis recommended that the
subcommittee approve the report of the Waste
Transfer Station Work group of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee, A Regulatory
Strategy for Siting and Operating Waste Transfer
Stations, and present the work group's findings
and recommendations to the EPA Administrator
for action. Ms. Briggum noted that the report is the
result of a two-year effort that involved a work
group of about 12 people. She explained that the
workgroup had participated in fact-finding tours of
Washington D.C. and New York, New York and
had heard public testimony from various
stakeholder groups, in both the public and the
private sectors, as well as numerous community
members and Federal, state, and local officials.
The central findings, Ms. Briggum stated, indicated
that a Federal baseline for WTSs was absent, and
revealed enormous variability in their operating
practices, as well. She also noted that citizens
expressed their strong concerns about health and
environmental effects, particularly in communities
in which such facilities are clustered. Ms. Briggum
noted further that both industry and community
members agreed that it would be extremely
beneficial if EPA would develop best practices
manuals for both the siting and operations of the
stations to upgrade services and to allow the waste
industry, both public and private, to understand
exactly what its responsibilities are. Ms. Briggum
also noted that it was important that EPA develop
criteria because local standards are so vague that
they are very difficult to understand and therefore,
are not enforced.
Using the information collected and analyzed, Ms.
Briggum stated, the workgroup had developed a
report on the siting criteria, a planning process
designed to ensure a more equitable distribution of
such facilities; and a more deliberative approach to
evaluating how many of these facilities are
necessary and where they can be located
appropriately to avoid overburdening communities
of color and low-income communities; as well as
the design and operating practices, including an
investigation into opportunities to regulate the
facilities under the CAA to reduce emissions. In
conclusion, she thanked Mr. Mathy Stanislaus,
Director, Environmental Compliance, Enviro-
Sciences, Inc. and member of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee, for .drafting the
resolution and for "doing a magnificent job" on the
report. The members of the Executive Council
agreed to use a mail ballot to approve the report.
Ms. Miller-Travis then requested that Ms. Jeanne
Fox, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2 and
Ms. Melva Hayden, Environmental Justice, EPA
Region 2, pilot test the recommendations identified
in the report A Regulatory Strategy for Siting and
Operating Waste Transfer Stations, particularly in
the New York City metropolitan area and that they
observe the enforcement mechanisms noted in the
report.
Continuing her report, Ms. Miller-Travis identified
the third action item of the subcommittee: to
establish a workgroup on land use and its effects
on environmental justice considerations in the
permitting and siting of waste facilities.
Ms. Miller-Travis then proposed an emergency
resolution to address communities at risk as a
result of the Atlantic City Tunnel Project, Atlantic
City, New Jersey. The resolution, she explained,
requested that the NEJAC call upon EPA Region 2
to immediately facilitate the convening of all
parties, including the South Jersey Transportation
Authority, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, and the New Jersey
Department of Transportation, to address the
immediate issue of exposure of residents of the
community to contaminated soil during
construction activities and other issues related to
potential effects on the community residents after
construction, such as flooding and safety, and to
address long-term air quality issues associated
with the tunnel project. The members of the
Executive Council approved unanimously the
resolution. Mr. Turrentine then recommended that
OEJ send a copy of the resolution to Mr. Pierre
Hollingsworth, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Atlantic
City, New Jersey, who had made a presentation on
the subject at the public comment period on
December 1, 1999.
Continuing her report, Ms. Miller-Travis informed
the members of the Executive Council that she
and Dr. Neftali Garcia Martinez, Scientific and
Technical Services and member of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee, had participated in
quarterly meetings convened by EPA Region 6 to
address environmental health and justice issues
related to Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. She also
noted that the meetings had been co-hosted by the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
Ms. Miller-Travis then stated that the members of
the subcommittee had found a great disparity
7-34
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Councft
between the presentations that had been made to
.the subcommittee by the EPA program staff and
the testimony offered by Mr. Michael Lythcott,
Citizens Against Toxic Exposure, on the relocation
efforts at the Escambia Superfund Site in
Pensacola, Florida. She stated that, during its next
meeting, the subcommittee was to meet with Mr.
Fields, all responsible EPA program staff, and
representatives of the Escambia community to
resolve the issues.
6.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
This section presents a summary of the
discussions of the Executive Council about matters
related to the NEJAC.
6.1 Approval of the Model Plan for Public
Participation
Mr. Lee announced that the Public Participation
and Accountability Workgroup of the NEJAC had
revised the NEJAC's Model Plan for Public
Participation. Mr. Turrentine also reminded the
members that updates about the revisions had
been discussed several times during conference
calls conducted by the Protocol Committee. The
Executive Council of the NEJAC then approved the
revisions of the model plan.
6.2 Emergency Resolution on Environmental
Justice Issues Related to Louisiana
Dr. Gelobter introduced an emergency resolution
of the NEJAC that requested that the EPA
Administrator direct the Inspector General of EPA
to conduct an audit of the state of Louisiana's
permitting programs, with particular attention to
violations of EPA's public participation
requirements under statutes that regulate the
permitting process.
Ms. Stahl then stated a need to comment so that
the members of the Executive Council would
understand the action related to the proposed
resolution that she had found necessary to take.
Ms. Stahl explained that she personally supports
the intent of the proposed resolution; however, as
a representative of other state governments, she
stated that she was "loathe" to endorse the
sending of the Inspector General into any state for
an inspection. Therefore, Ms. Stahl explained, she
would reluctantly object to the motion.
Ms. Briggum also stated that she believes there
are some aspects of this resolution that might
polarize, rather than resolve, the situation because
recommending the Inspector General conduct an
audit is a severe sanction. Ms. Miller-Travis stated
that she recognizes that it is with great trepidation
that the state of Louisiana participates in a
dialogue with the NEJAC to resolve the issues and
that she hopes that the state continues the
dialogue on behalf of the communities in Louisiana
who must have some redress with regard to the
issues they are facing. However, Ms. Miller-Travis
pointed out, the resolution stems from not one
public comment period, but from testimony that the
NEJAC has heard repeatedly since 1994. The
resolution, she continued, stems from a pattern
and practice of abuse by the state of Louisiana
over a long history. Ms. Miller-Travis then stated
that the Executive Council must come to terms
with the type of strategy to be used to effect
change for the communities of Louisiana.
Mr. Cole also commented that the NEJAC's
attempts to work with the state through dialogues
and meetings have not been successful, noting
that the environmental abuse of the communities
in Louisiana continues. He also explained that the
request for an audit by the Inspector General had
been compromise, initially, some members had
suggested that EPA remove all delegated
programs from the authority of Louisiana.
The Executive Council then approved the
resolution, with two abstentions.
6.3 Retiring Members of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Hill announced that OEJ would recognize and
honor members of the NEJAC whose terms were
expiring. Comparing the NEJAC to an educational
institution, he stated that the members actually
were graduating from the NEJAC because, as they
served on the council, they had had the opportunity
to educate one other. Mr. Herman seconded the
sentiments that Mr. Hill had expressed and
thanked all the members of the NEJAC for their
participation. Mr. Herman also pointed out that the
Administrator of EPA had established the NEJAC
to ensure that the Agency had the benefit of the
advice, counsel and views of people like the
members of the NEJAC. He also noted that the
advice given by the NEJAC had had an effect on
EPA's policies. Concluding his remarks, Mr.
Herman assured the members that EPA does
listen.
Mr. Hill then expressed his appreciation to Mr.
Turrentine for managing the deliberations of the
Executive Council of the NEJAC. Mr. Hill then
recognized the members of the NEJAC whose
terms were expiring for their service on the council.
Exhibit 1-8 presents the names of the retiring
members of the NEJAC. •
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2,1999
1-35
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 1-8
RETIRING MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY
COUNCIL
Ms. Sue Briggum
Mr. Dwayne Beavers
Ms. Leslie Cormier
Ms. Rosa Franklin
Mr. Gerald Prout
Ms. Margaret Williams
Mr. Richard Drury
Ms. Kathleen Hill
Ms. Nancy Howard
Ms. Janet Phoenix
Mr. Mathy Stanislaus
Ms. Lillian Wilmore
Mr. Hill also recognized Ms. Sherry Milan, EPA
OECA and former DFO of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, for her time and effort in serving as
the DFO of the Enforcement Subcommittee. Mr.
Hill also recognized the DFOs of all the
subcommittees of the NEJAC for their hard work
and support in making the meeting a success. He
also recognized the environmental justice
coordinators for their support for the NEJAC.
7.0 CLOSING REMARKS
This section summarizes the closing remarks of
the members of the Executive Council of the
NEJAC.
7.1 Remarks of the Retiring Members of the
Executive Council
Mr. Turrentine provided an opportunity for the
retiring members of the NEJAC to offer closing
remarks. Mr. Dwayne Beavers, Program
Manager, Office of Environmental Services,
Cherokee Nation and member of the Indigenous
People Subcommittee, expressed his appreciation
for the opportunity to serve on the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee and on the Executive
Council, which, he said, had been a learning
experience for him. He commented that, in
September 1999, he had addressed participants at
the EPA Region 6 Annual Tribal Environmental
Summit and encouraged tribal members to
participate in the environmental justice process.
He expressed concern, however, that there
remains much information about environmental
justice that the tribes are unaware of, adding that
use of the Federal Register to notify tribes about
permits is not sufficient. Referring to the
permitting process in general, Mr. Beavers
expressed his belief that direct notification of the
affected community by mail and in a timely manner
is necessary to allow the community sufficient time
to gather its resources so its members can provide
comments effectively.
Ms. Briggum thanked everyone for the opportunity
provided to her to serve on the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee for five years and on the
Executive Council for two years. She said that the
experience had been the best of her professional
life, not only because the issues are so important,
but also because of. the people with whom she
worked on the Executive Council who, she said,
have great character and integrity.
Ms. Leslie Cormier, DuPont Specialty Chemicals
and member of the Enforcement Subcommittee,
expressed her hope that more industry people
would participate in the meetings of the NEJAC
and concluded by saying that she looked forward
to continuing to work with the NEJAC.
Ms. Williams noted that she had enjoyed working
with the members of the NEJAC and, during her
service on the council, had experienced almost
every emotion possible. She said that she could
empathize with all the communities whose
members came before the NEJAC because she
had experienced similar issues.
Ms. Williams also asked how much more studying
and researching of problems will be conducted
while communities are dying. She also expressed
her belief that research should be conducted near
facilities at which children are present. Ms.
Williams remarked that agency representatives do
not understand how affected members of
communities feel unless they have faced the same
situation. She stated her belief that there is a lack .
of communication between the headquarters and
the regional levels, between the regions and the
states, and between state and local governments.
Ms. Williams explained that, if solutions are to be
found, representatives of Federal, state, and local
governments must synchronize their laws and
policies to ensure that environmental justice
concerns are integrated into the permitting
process.
7.2 Closing Remarks of the Chair of the
Executive Council
Mr. Turrentine thanked the retiring members and
said that it had been his pleasure to work with
them and that he hoped that all would continue the
struggle to bring about justice for all people. In
addition, he expressed his desire that current and
1-36
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
former members of the NEJAC continue to
network and collaborate more than ever to "get the
job done." ,
Mr. Turrentine agreed with Mr. Beavers that the
NEJAC is a tremendous learning experience for all
who participate and reemphasized that the NEJAC
is not the answer to the problems that face
communities of color, but an avenue through which
members of those communities can provide
information to the EPA Administrator.
In response to concerns about how other Federal
agencies integrate principles of environmental
justice into their policies and procedures, Mr.
Turrentine announced that the fall 2000 meeting of
the NEJAC will focus on interagency work and
policies related to environmental justice.
7.3 Closing Remarks of the Designated Federal
Official of the Executive Council
Mr. Lee informed the members of the Executive
Council that EPA had reconvened the Interagency
Workgroup on Environmental Justice and that the
group had been holding monthly meetings. Mr.
Lee then explained to the members of the
Executive Council that, as the NEJAC moves
toward offering policy advice of a systemic nature,
there will naturally be some movement away from
environmental justice communities because the
focus of discussion and activity would be slightly
different. The difference, he noted, is between
providing broad policy advice, while at the same
time addressing site-specific questions. Mr. Lee
then expressed his belief in the importance of the
past year's activities of the NEJAC, which he
noted, had included the border roundtable meeting
and the fact-finding tours of the WTSs because
such activities engage communities, and, he
stated in conclusion, environmental justice begins
and ends in the communities.
8.0 SUMMARY OF APPROVED RESOLUTIONS
This section summarizes resolutions that were
discussed by the subcommittees and approved by
the Executive Council of the NEJAC during the
meeting. Appendix A provides the full text of each
resolution.
• The NEJAC recommends that EPA request
that the commonwealth of Puerto Rico revise
its state implementation plan to comply with
the, 0.1 Ibs/MBTU Federal emission limit for
particulate matter and the appropriate sulfur
dioxide emission limitation for the entire island,
including the non-attainment area.
The NEJAC recommends that EPA request
that the U.S. Department of State and the U.S.
Trade Representative comply with the
provisions of Executive Order 12898 on
environmental justice and Executive Order
13141 on environmental reviews of trade
agreements.
The NEJAC recommends that EPA
communicate to the U.S. Secretary of State
that the United States supports the adoption of
the draft declaration on the rights of
Indigenous Peoples currently before the United
Nations.
The NEJAC requests that EPA Region 2
facilitate a meeting between the Westside
Homeowners Protective Association, the
Venice Park Civic Association, the U.S.
Department of Transportation, the South
Jersey Transportation Authority, and the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection to address issues of exposure of
community residents to contaminated soil,
long-term air quality issues, and the potential
adverse effects on the community residents
after the construction of the Atlantic City-
Brigantine Connector Tunnel.
The NEJAC recommends that the EPA
Administrator request that the Inspector
General of EPA conduct a full audit of the state
of Louisiana's permitting programs, with
particular attention to the violations of EPA's
public participation regulations, the public
participation guidelines of the NEJAC, and the
provisions of the Constitution of the United
States.
The NEJAC recommends that EPA amend the
Agency's proposed EIP regulations to include
considerations and requirements related to
environmental justice.
The NEJAC recommends that EPA's policies
on determining appropriate penalties for
noncompliarice require that these penalties
reflect the economic benefit of noncompliance
enjoyed by violating facilities.
The NEJAC recommends that EPA adopt a
national policy that prohibits Federal
recognition of variances issued by states to
permitting requirements under Title V of the
CAA.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 through December 2, 1999
1-37
-------
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
November 30 and December 1,1999
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Charles Lee Haywood Turrentine
Office of Environmental Justice Chair
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
-------
-------
CHAPTER TWO
SUMMARY OF THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During its meeting in Arlington, Virginia, the
Executive Council of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) held two public
comment periods, the first on Tuesday evening,
November 30,1999 and the second on the evening
of Wednesday, December 1,1999. During the two
sessions, 31 individuals offered comments.
This chapter presents summaries of the testimony
the Executive Council of the NEJAC received during
the public comment periods and the comments and
questions that the testimony prompted on the part of
the members of the Executive Council. Section 2.0,
Focused Public Comment Period Held on November
30, 1999, summarizes the testimony offered related
to environmental justice and the issuance of
environmental permits during the public comment
period held on that date and the dialogue between
the presenters and the members of the Council that
followed those presentations. Section 3.0, General
Public Comment Period Held on December 1, 1999,
summarizes the presentations on general
environmental justice issues offered on that date,
along with the dialogue those presentations
prompted.
2.0 FOCUSED PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
HELD ON NOVEMBER 30,1999
This section summarizes the testimony presented to
the Executive Council during the public comment
period on November 30, 1999, as well as the
dialogue between individuals, who offered testimony
and members of the Executive Council that those
presentations prompted. The section begins with a
brief summary of the opening remarks of the chair of
the Executive Council.
Opening the session, Mr. Haywood Turrentine,
Executive Director, Laborers Education and Training
Trust Fund (an affiliate of the Laborers International
Union of North America) and chair of the Executive
Council of the-NEJAC, asked the members of the
Executive Council to introduce themselves, and they
did so. After having made his introduction, Mr.
Tseming Yang, Vermont School of Law and member
of the International Subcommittee of the NEJAC,
noted that his schedule would make it necessary that
he excuse himself early in the session. Therefore,
he continued, he wished to take the opportunity to
share his observations after attending a meeting of
the NEJAC for the first time as a member of that
body. Mr. Yang then declared himself "a little
disappointed" that, during the earlier session of the
Executive Council, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) had not provided sufficient
information about the role of the provisions of Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) in permitting
decisions. He also expressed a need for specific
information about when the guidance on the issue
currently being prepared by EPA would be made
available. EPA, he stated, must move forward on
the issue. Until the issue of legal authority to
incorporate considerations of environmental justice
into the permitting process is resolved, he pointed
out, communities would be left without support.
Expressing his agreement, Dr. Michel Gelobter,
Graduate Department of Public Administration,
Rutgers University and chair of the Air and Water
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, cited several points
made by Professor Yale Rabin, Yale Rabin Planning
Consultant (see Chapter One, Summary of the
Executive Council, for a description of Professor
Rabin's presentation). It is important, said Dr.
Gelobter, that communities, have available such
information as Professor Rabin's explicit
identification of the historical conditions that led to
current housing patterns - in particular, prejudicial
housing and zoning decisions by local authorities
and, before the passage of the Civil Rights Act,
discrimination in mortgage lending practices. "You
have to name the things to act on them," Dr.
Gelobter pointed out.
Mr. Turrentine then observed that the NEJAC is the
"only group" that will listen to communities and urged
EPA to act on the concerns of those communities.
He then briefly reviewed guidelines that govern the
public comment period, emphasizing in particularthe
five-minute time limit on comments. He noted as
well that commenters would have the opportunity to
submit additional information in writing to be read
into the record. Mr. Turrentine then reminded all
present that the NEJAC makes a record of all
comments offered before it and refers issues raised
to the appropriate offices of EPA and the
appropriate subcommittees of the NEJAC.
Mr. Turrentine then announced that the first
comment of the session was to be presented in
writing, rather than by verbal comment.
Comments are summarized below in the order in
which they were offered.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
2-1
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
2.1 Nona Harris, Mossville Environmental
Action Now, Inc., Mossville, Louisiana
(Written Statement)
What factors, asked Ms. Nona Harris, Mossville
Environmental Action Now, Inc. (M.E.A.N.),
Mossville, Louisiana, should Federal, state, and local
agencies consider before allowing a facility to
operate in a minority or low-income community in
which a number of such facilities already are
present. First, she wrote, the complaints and
concerns of communities related to irresponsible
acts by industries must be acknowledged and
investigated immediately. Offering a description of
the predominantly black community of Mossville,
Louisiana, in the vicinity of which are located some
40 chemical and industrial facilities, Ms. Harris wrote
that the community is threatened by a host of toxic
pollutants. Some residents, tested by the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
had been found to have high levels of dioxin in their
blood, the result, wrote Ms. Harris, of the pollution
affecting the community.
EPA, continued Ms. Harris' statement, must develop
a method of including emissions from pipelines and
flanges in calculations of total air emissions. The
pipelines, she pointed out, are located throughout
neighborhoods, yet fugitive emissions from them are
not included in calculations of total air emissions.
Further, her statement declared, effective buffer
zones must be established between industries and
communities, and communities such as Mossville
should be used as models for studies of the
cumulative effects of exposure to toxic substances
on human health.
EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ), the statement continued, must not
continue to allow polluting industries to be self-
policing, since, charged Ms. Harris, those industries
had been polluting waterways, air, and soil for some
30 years. Ms. Harris then wrote that such industries
should not be permitted to build new facilities or
expand existing ones "until they prove that they can
operate without endangering human lives and the
resources we depend on to sustain life."
2.2 James B. MacDonald, Pittsburg Unified
School District, Pittsburg, California
Mr. James B. MacDonald, Pittsburg, California, first
identified himself as a trustee of the Pittsburg Unified
School District. The school district, he explained, is
located in a heavily industrialized area, where many
of the residents are advised not to eat the fish from
local rivers. Continuing, he noted that, since the
deregulation of the power industry in California,
significant savings in power costs had been realized
through the construction of large power plants that
can supply power to local industry without the need
to rely on the power service "grid." The power
plants, he charged, are not clean-burning facilities
and will have ill effects on nearby populations. In
decisions related to the construction of such plants,
he charged further, considerations related to
environmental justice were being "completely
ignored."
In 1998, he continued, the city of Pittsburg
announced plans to build a power plant on a site that
lies within 1,200 yards of existing homes in a low-
income neighborhood. The city council, he went on,
supported the plan, concluding that construction of
the plant was in the best interests of residents of the
city and would have no negative effects on residents
in its vicinity. Mr. MacDonald contrasted the
council's position on the issue with the position it had
taken in an earlier case of a proposal to site a landfill
near an affluent area of the city, which the council
had opposed vigorously. Yet, he pointed out,
residents concerned about the power plant had
asked the city council to cite the same objections it
had voiced in opposition to the landfill project during
the proceedings conducted by the California Energy
Commission (CEC) on the issue of the power plant.
To support industry, Mr. MacDonald declared, local
agencies had interpreted EPA's guidelines so
broadly that no ruling based on considerations of
environmental justice could be made. For example,
he stated, calculations of average ambient pollution
levels had been based on data from two monitoring
stations some 110 miles distant from the area of
concern, one not in the Pittsburg air stream and the
other in a location where the air is diluted by a
secondary air mass. Concerned citizens argued the
averaging of ambient air pollution levels on the basis
of distant .monitors and asked that the agencies
conduct monitoring in nearby neighborhoods or
perform modeling of known existing sources of
pollution, the requests were refused, he continued.
Further, stated Mr. MacDonald, both the CEC and
the applicant contend that it is irrelevant both that the
population of Pittsburg is approximately 60 percent
minority and that 67 percent of the school district's
students participate in the free or reduced-price
lunch program, electing instead to define low-income
status by the poverty line. The trustees of the school
district, Mr. MacDonald pointed out, had adopted a
resolution requesting that EPA declare the city an
environmental justice community.
2-2
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Periods
In addition, Mr. MacDonald pointed out that the
applicant had been allowed to buy pollution credits
for some pollutants; those credits, he added can be
purchased from any source, even from companies
that have closed theirfacilities. The program, he told
the council, serves only to relocate pollution to
minority and low-income communities and therefore
is discriminatory. Mr. MacDonald then stated that
the CEC had denied due process to citizens by
expediting the approval process to the extent that
citizens who may be affected by the decision had not
been made aware of, educated about, or afforded
sufficient time to comment on the decision-making
process. Further, he said, staff of CEC consistently
had characterized citizens' views as unscientific and
irrelevant, while accepting all the information
submitted by the applicant as scientific and expert
comment.
Mr. Turrentine then asked Mr. MacDonald to state
his specific recommendations. In response, Mr.
MacDonald identified three factors, beginning with
improved enforcement. He added that communities
should have more time to consider such cases,
noting that, in the Pittsburg case, documents had
been made public only some 10 days before the
deadline for submitting comments. He urged that
EPA empower local community groups by allowing
groups sufficient time to educate themselves about
the issues. Mr. MacDonald expressed his belief that
current time frames related to the permitting process
are unrealistic for community members to gather and
analyze information. Further, he suggested,
because adverse effects may not be evident
immediately, any concerned group should be able to
take action 5, 10, or even more years after the
construction of a facility.
When asked by Dr. Gelobter whether he was
present as a representative of the school district, Mr.
MacDonald indicated that he was not. Dr. Gelobter
then suggested that Mr. MacDonald attend the
meeting of the Air and Water Subcommittee of the
NEJAC scheduled for the following day to pursue the
issue because the subcommittee will be discussing
issues related to public utilities.
Mr. Arnoldo Garcia, Urban Habitat Program and
chair of the International Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, then asked Mr. MacDonald how the local air
quality district had handled the issue and how EPA
Region 9 interacts with the air quality district. Mr.
MacDonald responded that the district's position is
that air monitoring is the only reliable method of
measuring ambient air quality. Mr. MacDonald
maintained, however, that monitoring is reliable only
for the area in which the monitor is located, noting
that he had asked the district specifically how that
body could justify the use of distant monitors. The
district, he said, had responded that, with the project
scheduled to be underway within a year, time
constraints precluded the alternative approaches Mr.
MacDonald had proposed. In response to a
question from Ms. Rose Marie Augustine,
Tucsonans for a Clean Environment and member of
the Health and Research Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, Mr. MacDonald stated that there are some
17 schools in the affected area, along with two elder
care facilities, two medical facilities, a sports field,
and a number of other sensitive receptors. None of
those sensitive receptors had been studied, he said
in conclusion.
2.3 Dagmar M. Darjean, Mossville
Environmental Action Now, Inc., Mossville,
Louisiana
Ms. Dagmar M. Darjean, M.E.A.N., Mossville,
Louisiana, declared that the environmental
conditions under which she and her family live are
appalling. Not only, she explained,, do the residents
of Mossville cope with raw sewage running into
ditches in front of their homes because there is not
a sewer system, the residents breath foul air and are
bombarded by toxic chemicals produced by nearby
petrochemical facilities.
She then reported that M.E.A.N. had voiced the
Mossville community's concerns about high levels of
pollution and the issuance of the air permits in a
letter to Mr. Gustave von Bodungen, Assistant
Secretary, LDEQ. She then stated that Dr. Neil
Carman, Sierra Club, had provided to M.E.A.N. an
interpretation of the technical language of the permit
issued by LDEQ to Conoco Inc., under which the
corporation is to refine "heavy sour crude oil" at an
existing refinery in the Mossville community. Adding
that a number of environmental groups in Texas had
provided support for M.E.A.N.'s position in letters to
EPA, LDEQ, and the Air Quality Division of the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
Ms. Darjean stated that she also had written to Mr.
Lynn E. Hohensee of Conoco, requesting
information about facts that she stated had been
omitted from the corporation's permit application.
His response, she said, had been confined to
comments about the economic value of the project
and LDEQ's review of the requirements under Title
V of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permits, which
Mr. Hohensee had described as careful, said Ms.
Darjean. In his letter, she added, Mr. Hohensee also
had cited LDEQ's determination that the project
would have no adverse effects on the environment.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
2-3
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Concluding her remarks, Ms. Darjean questioned the
impartial position of LDEQ related to issuing permits
and strongly urged EPA Region 6 to investigate the
decisions made by LDEQ. She recommended that
EPA request that an independent counsel investigate
LDEQ and its relationship to local industry. In
addition, Ms. Darjean requested that EPA Region 6
overturn LDEQ's decision and deny the permit
issued to Conoco.
Mr. Turrentine then observed that the NEJAC hears
testimony from a member of the Mossville
community every time it meets, declaring that action
must be taken on the issues the community had
raised. Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Partnership for
Sustainable Brownfields Development then
commented that the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, of which she is chair, had conducted
an extensive dialogue with members of the Mossville
community and with staff of EPA Region 6 in an '
effort to determine what is being done to address the
issue. There are, said Ms. Miller-Travis, "serious
problems" with the state of Louisiana. One problem,
she continued, is that the permitting authority is the
state and local agencies; EPA's authority therefore
is severely limited, she said. She stated that
answers need to be given to questions such as, what
is the process for dealing with permitting authorities
when EPA is not the responsible party and what is
EPA's statutory authority to address those issues.
Members of the Mossville community and other
communities, said Ms. Miller-Travis, turn to the
NEJAC because they are rebuffed by their state
agencies. What is needed, she declared, is a
process for dealing with such situations when EPA is
not the permitting authority.
Ms. Peggy Shepard, West Harlem Environmental
Action and member of the Health and Research
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, then referred to a
telephone conference call among personnel of
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
(LDHH), ATSDR, and LDEQ and members of the
Mossville community. She asked Ms. Darjean
whether any resolution»had been reached. In
response, Ms. Darjean stated that, on the preceding
day, she had received a letter from ATSDR, noting
that ATSDR had been the one authority that the
community had been able to trust and that had
helped the community. EPA Region 6, she
continued had canceled a meeting scheduled to
discuss the health issues in Calcasieu Parish, where
the community is located. Members of the
community, she continued, had met earlier with staff
of ATSDR, LDHH, LDEQ, and EPA Region 6.
During that meeting, it had been agreed that a work ,
group would be formed, she said. But, she added,
at that time, EPA staff were aware that the
subsequent meeting was to be canceled. Despite
their frustration because "nothing ever is
accomplished," she said, citizens of the community
again had invited all the agencies involved to meet
with the community's technical and legal advisors in
the near future. Mr. Turrentine then stated that staff
of EPA Region 6 was to meet the next day,
suggesting that the representatives of the Mossville
community attend that meeting to present their
concerns. Ms. Miller-Travis added that her
subcommittee was scheduled to discuss the issues
of concern to the Mossville community during its
meeting on the following day.
2.4 Barbara Warren, Consumer Policy Institute
of the Consumers Union, Yonkers, New
York
Ms. Barbara Warren, Consumer Policy Institute of
the Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York,
expressed concern about EPA's proposed final
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, citing
permitting issues related to that strategy. The
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
she pointed out, requires that the results of the
programs of government agencies be reported as
measured outcomes. Under GPRA, she said, it is
not sufficient to "merely talk to minority
communities." EPA, she declared, needs to show
results of protecting the environmental health of
communities. The concerns of advocates of
environmental justice, said Ms. Warren, are
cumulative risk, existing health conditions, "negative"
land use, development of sustainable businesses,
and reform of the system without the need to resort
to legal action. Under the existing decision-making
process, however, she continued, businesses have
procedural rights to pursue any kind of project, and
projects are evaluated individually, rather than in the
context of the setting in which the project will be
constructed and otherfacilities already located there.
Further, she said, information about the results of
health surveillance and about public health issues is
excluded from the permitting process, and economic
subsidies are awarded without regard for community
interests, often to large and particularly deleterious
projects.
Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA), she continued, establishes the urban
strategy as a method of addressing the problems of
minority communities related to air toxics. EPA, she
continued, also is authorized to protect public health;
that authority, she pointed out, can be applied to the
benefit of such communities. Ms. Warren then
noted that the Urban Air Toxics Work Group of the
2-4
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Periods
NEJAC's Air and Water Subcommittee had
submitted to EPA a number of specific
recommendations related to the proposed strategy;
many of those recommendations, she stated, had
been ignored. Although the final strategy "comes up
short," she continued, there is opportunity to
influence the implementation of the program.
Emphasizing that section 112(k) provides in law a
means of addressing core issues of environmental
justice., such as cumulative burdens and
disproportionate health risks, Ms. Warren stated that
public health issues must be identified and examined
in the permitting process. She then requested that
the NEJAC "hold EPA accountable" and recommend
that section 112(k) be used to accomplish that
purpose.
Dr. Gelobter noted that Ms. Warren would attend the
meeting of the Air and Water Subcommittee on the
following day.
2.5 Elizabeth Crowe, Chemical Weapons
Working Group, Berea, Kentucky
Ms. Elizabeth Crowe, Chemical Weapons Working
Group, Berea, Kentucky, reported that, in the mid-
1980s, the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) had
made public information about the existence of
stockpiles of chemical weapons manufactured
during the two World Wars, but never used. The
stockpiles, she continued, were stored near nine
communities in which the Army proposed to build
incinerators to dispose of the chemicals. Ms. Crowe
identified those communities as Anniston, Alabama;
Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Pueblo, Colorado; Newport,
Indiana; Richmond, Kentucky; Aberdeen, Maryland;
Umatilla, Oregon; and Tooele, Utah in the
continental United States and Kalama Island,
Republic of Indonesia. Although incineration was
thought to be a state-of-the-art technology at the
time, skeptical citizens of those communities banded
together as the Chemical Working Group to identify
an alternative disposal technology seen by the
communities as safer than incineration, she said.
Continuing, Ms. Crowe explained that, by 1991,
several such technologies were under development.
The Army, however, refused to consider them, she
stated. Two incinerators were constructed, said Ms.
Crowe, one on Kalama Island and the other in
Tooele, and operations began despite concerns
about safety expressed by both residents of the
Tooele area and certain staff of the Tooele facility,
including the chief safety officer. Ms. Crowe then
cited a number of problems that have been
encountered at the Tooele incinerator, including:
confirmed releases of uncombusted chemical agents
'from the smokestacks; permanent shutdown of
subsystems that created the need to dispose of
hazardous waste off site; and smokestack emissions
of dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and
mercury at levels that exceed Federal guidelines for
infants and subsistence farmers. The facility, she
added, produces some 15 pounds of hazardous
waste for each pound of chemical agent destroyed;
those are the wastes that must be disposed of off
site, she noted.
Ms. Crowe then stated that several advanced
technologies could replace incineration; two pilot
projects testing such technologies currently are
underway, she added. In 1996, she continued, the
Chemical Weapons Assessment Program of the
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), in response to
citizen demand, identified six technologies, three
already demonstrated and three to be demonstrated
in 2000. Currently, said Ms. Crowe, chemical
weapons stockpiled in Maryland and Indiana are to
be destroyed by application of advanced,
nonincineration technologies; such technologies
were under consideration for the Kentucky and
Colorado facilities, as well. However, she added,
incineration continues in the Pacific and in Utah, and
incinerators are under construction in Alabama,
Arkansas, and Oregon. The communities affected
by those continuing incineration projects, she pointed
out, are predominantly .communities of people of
color. On behalf of her organization, Ms. Crowe then
asked that EPA reexamine the current permits for
the chemical weapons incinerators and move
forward immediately with issuance of permits for the
applications of the alternative disposal advanced
technologies.
Mr. Brad Hamilton, Native American Affairs Office,
Kansas Department of Human Resources and proxy
chair of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee,
asked Ms. Crowe to specify the alternatives that
communities had identified as preferable to
incineration. She responded that six technologies,
including neutralization combined with biological
remediation, super-critical water oxidation, and gas-
phase chemical reduction, are considered superior
to incineration for the disposal of chemical weapons.
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Office of the Governor,
State of Oregon and member of the Air and Water
Subcommittee, then asked at what point in the
decision-making process alternative technologies
had been introduced for consideration. In response,
Ms. Crowe noted that the process currently had
reached an advanced stage, and such technologies
had not yet been considered. For example, she
explained, the incinerator at Umatilla is scheduled to
begin operations in the near future, and three other
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
2-5
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
incinerators are under construction. However, she
added, various vendors had assured the citizens'
organizations that it is a simple procedure to remove
a combustion component and insert the alternative
technology.
Ms. Miller-Travis noted that the deputy secretary of
the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDOE) was present at the meeting and suggested
that Ms. Crowe consult with that official. Maryland,
she added, has in place a statewide policy based on
consultation. She then asked Mr. Barry Hill, Director,
EPA Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), which of
the two Federal agencies involved in the case, EPA
and DoD, would have precedence. Dr. Gelobter
noted that clear statutory authority is established
under each of the pertinent environmental laws. Ms.
Miller-Travis observed that DoD tends to act and
then inform other agencies. At Mr. Turrentine's
suggestion, Mr. Arthur Ray, Deputy Secretary,
MDOE and former chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, clarified how the issue
was being handled in that state. Realizing that there
was enormous concern among citizens about
incineration, Mr. Ray explained, MDOE worked with
citizens groups to ensure that the Army kept citizens
informed. MDOE, he said, had taken action before
a decision to incinerate was made. DoD, he added,
had used the process of consultation developed for
the Maryland case as an example of effective public
participation.
Ms. Crowe observed that the stockpile located in
Arkansas was made up of the same constituents as
that to be treated in Maryland. However, she said,
because the political environment differs
significantly, the Army is unwilling to consider any
technology other than incineration for the Arkansas
project.
Suggesting interagency communication as a way to
help resolve these issues to determine which agency
has precedence, Ms. Augustine asked Mr. Charles
Lee, Associate Director for Policy and Interagency
Liaison, EPA OEJ and Designated Federal Official
(DFO) of the Executive Council, whether the Federal
Interagency Working Group on Environmental
Justice (IWG) had met recently. Mr. Lee then
explained that the IWG had been established under
Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice,
had met several times over two years, and had
formed a number of subcommittees. The working
group's efforts then "came to a standstill," said Mr.
Lee. An effort to revive interagency interaction was
under way, he said, characterizing that effort as
"difficult." He then cautioned that many current
issues are not dealt with on the Federal level, but are
instead the purview of state and local government
agencies.
2.6 Mildred McClain, People of Color and
Disenfranchised Communities
Environmental Health Network, Savannah,
Georgia
Dr. Mildred McClain, People of Color and
Disenfranchised Communities Environmental Health
Network, Savannah, Georgia, expressed the
concerns of low-income communities and minority
communities - indigenous peoples, other people of
color, and low-income whites ~ affected by
environmental problems at Federal facilities under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE). Communities, she said, do not understand
the permitting process. Nevertheless, she
continued, those communities are confronted with
highly contaminated sites. For example, she
explained, DOE's Savannah River, South Carolina
site has a "wealth of legacy material." Further,
15,000 spent rods from nuclear power plants are
scheduled to be shipped to the facility, which also
stores 34 million gallons of highly radioactive waste,
she said. DOE's facilities at Hanford, Washington;
Rocky Flats, Colorado; and Los Alamos, New
Mexico pose similar problems, she continued.
Citizens groups, Dr. McClain then observed, had
been working to bring issues related to Federal
facilities to the table since the inception of the
NEJAC, but believe they have met with little success
in doing so. What changes in the rule-making
processes is EPA considering, she asked, and does
EPA's OEJ play an integrated role in that process?
She then urged that the NEJAC remain mindful of
the issues she had raised. In response, Mr. Hill
assured Dr. McClain that OEJ plays an active role in
the rule-making process. The office, he continued,
currently was commenting on several proposed
rules. Dr. McClain then stated that community
groups could count on OEJ to help them examine
and investigate issues related to Federal facilities.
Responding, Mr. Hill cautioned Dr. McClain about
the extent to which OEJ could investigate issues.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Hill and Dr. McClain
agreed on the word "explore" to characterize the
action to be requested of OEJ.
Ms. Shepard then asked what environmental health
issues are of particular concern to Dr. McClain's
organization. In response, Dr. McClain stated that,
beyond cancer outcomes, the people of affected
communities suffer from a number of illnesses and
diseases. Further, she said, those communities are
concerned about increasing rates of illness resulting
from the trucking and transportation of wastes
2-6
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Periods
through those communities. Dr. Gelobter, noting
briefly the history of ineffective efforts to remediate
the sites of concern to Dr. McClain's organization,
then asked whetherthe NEJAC had taken any action
on the issue in the past. The members agreed that,
although Dr. McClain had raised the issue over the
years, no action had been taken. When Ms. Sue
Briggum, Waste Management, Inc. and member of
the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, suggested that the issue should be made
the specific responsibility of one subcommittee, it
was agreed that the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee would assume that role. Ms. Miller-
Travis then asked Dr. McClain whether her
organization had taken up the issue with the Federal
facilities program of EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and, if so, whether
that approach had been productive. Dr. McClain
responded that her organization had done so and
that the effort had not been productive. Ms. Miller-
Travis then indicated that her subcommittee would
focus on bringing those interested parties together to
address the issue. Mr. Turrentine then suggested
that Mr. Luke Cole, Center on Race, Poverty, and
the Environment, California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation and chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, work with Ms. Miller-
Travis on the issue, since the Enforcement
Subcommittee had done some work with EPA's
Federal facilities program in the past. All parties
agreed to that arrangement.
Dr. McClain then introduced several members of her
organization, representing a number of the
concerned communities Dr. McGlain had identified
during her comments. After each had expressed
personal concerns similar to those voiced by Dr.
McClain, Mr. Don J. Aragon, Wind River
Environmental Quality Commission, Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes and member of the Health
and Research Subcommittee of the NEJAC, asked
whetherthe organization had had any direct contact
with DOE. Dr. McClain responded that the group
had met that day with officials of DOE, characterizing
that meeting as a "first step" and noting that some
members of the organization had been working to
bring their concerns to the attention of DOE for 15
years.
2.7 Jeffrey Ruch, Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER),
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Jeffrey Ruch, Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Washington,
D.C., explained that his organization is a service
organization for state, Federal, and other public
employees concerned about the performance of their
own agencies in the area of environmental issues.
The organization has members in 27 states and 10
Federal agencies, including EPA and the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), he noted.
Mr. Ruch then turned to the subject of his comment,
a proposal related to the open market trading of air
emissions credits under EPA's Economic Incentives
Program (EIP). The program, he declared, poses a
direct threat to the air quality permitting process and
has direct and negative environmental justice
consequences. The proposal, he explained, would
allow intersector or open market trading as .an
alternative to compliance with permit requirements or
reduction of pollution. He then outlined a number of
"basic problems" posed by the proposed program,
stating that it puts cost reduction above community
health; its implementation would aggravate
enforcement problems, particularly those related to
compliance with permit requirements; and it is
inconsistent with recommendations made within EPA
itself.
Continuing, Mr. Ruch noted that the beneficiaries of
the program would be stationary sources,
smokestacks that, he pointed out, are located
primarily in urban areas populated by low-income,
minority communities. Mr. Ruch charged further that
the only environmental justice effect of the program
that EPA acknowledges is a distributional one - that
is, he said, "you can trade off an urban bad effect for
a suburban good effect." While EPA had made a
commitmentto addressing that issue, said Mr. Ruch,
the proposed program includes no standards and
provides "numerous escape clauses." Further, he
said, there is no provision for analysis of cumulative
effects.
Mr. Ruch then requested that the NEJAC formally
take the issue under consideration. Mr. Cole then
observed that the NEJAC had been concerned for
some time about air emissions trading programs, in
particular the EIP. For example, said Mr. Cole, the-
NEJAC had commented extensively on an earlier
draft of the EIP, was to comment on the current
draft, and had adopted several resolutions related to
the open market trading of air emissions credits. Mr.
Cole then suggested that Mr. Ruch attend a joint
meeting of the Air and Water and the Enforcement
subcommittees of the NEJAC, scheduled for the
following day, during which the subcommittees were
to consider the issue.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
2-7
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
2.8 Rebecca Davidson, Delaware Tribe of
Western Oklahoma, Anadarko, Oklahoma
Ms. Rebecca Davidson, Delaware Tribe of Western
Oklahoma, Anadarko, Oklahoma, stated that the
tribes in southwest Oklahoma have significant
concerns aboutthe presence of concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFO) in their communities.
After briefly recounting the" history of the
transportation of Native Americans to the area and
the history of the allocation of lands to those newly
arrived populations," Ms. Davidson stated that large
numbers of CAFOs are being established in the
vicinity of those lands, where tribal people have lived
since the 1850s. Some 20 such operations, she
said, had applied for permits to operate in Caddo
County before a new licensing procedure was
established in 1997. That procedure, she continued,
is administered by the Oklahoma Department of
Agriculture, with water permitting the responsibility of
the state's Department of Environmental Quality.
Three of the five members of the agriculture
department's permitting board, she declared, are
"the largest CAFO owners in the state." Continuing,
Ms. Davidson stated that the numerous CAFOs in
the area would have deleterious effects on the
watershed of the two major rivers that flow through
the area. Stating that 20 CAFOs are "entirely too
many for one county," Ms. Davidson then suggested
that EPA withhold any funds it provides the state of
Oklahoma until the issue is addressed effectively.
Commenting on Ms. Davidson's suggestion, Mr.
Turrentine observed that people come before the
NEJAC time after time to call attention to the same
problems occurring in various communities. The
threat of the loss of funding, he continued, could be
a strong incentive to take action to address such
problems, he suggested. He suggested further that
the NEJAC should consider "a stronger stance" in its
recommendations to EPA. Mr. Cole then referred
Ms. Davidson to the CAFO Work Group of the
Enforcement Subcommittee and invited herto attend
the following day's meeting of the subcommittee,
during which the subcommittee was to consider a
resolution on the subject. Mr. Hamilton then invited
Ms. Davidson to address the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee on the following afternoon.
Ms. Rosa Franklin, Washington State Senate and
member of the Health and Research Subcommittee
of the NEJAC, asked whether the livestock
operations are located on Native American lands. In
response, Ms. Davidson explained that the
operations are located on properties adjacent to
tribal lands and are affecting water quality on those
tribal lands. Ms. Franklin then asked about the
response of local officials to the concerns of tribal
communities. Ms. Davidson pointed out that those
communities are very poor and have little influence
on such officials. Her response prompted further
discussion of the role the threat of denial of funds
could play in prompting action to address such
issues.
Ms. Davidson also was invited to attend the meeting
of the Air and Water Subcommittee (OW), which
was to receive a presentation by representatives of
EPA's Office of Water, which currently was
developing a rule to regulate CAFOs. Further,
Mr. Aragon suggested that Ms. Davidson build a
relationship with members of tribes located in South
Dakota who also had been combating the siting of
hog operations on tribal lands.
2.9 Clifford Roberts, St. James Citizens for
Jobs and the Environment, Convent,
Louisiana
Mr. Clifford Roberts, St. James Citizens for Jobs and
the Environment, Convent, Louisiana, addressed
issues related to the permitting of chemical and
petrochemical facilities in the state of Louisiana. He
expressed his concern about LDEQ placing
economic gain before the health and welfare of the
communities of Louisiana. Relating an anecdote
about his personal encounter with personnel of
LDEQ that he cited as evidence that officials of
LDEQ are unwiNing to address the issue of
contamination originating from such facilities, Mr.
Roberts described those officials as "in denial."
Further, he charged, the governor, influenced by
large campaign contributions, favors "any industrial
plant that comes."
Mr. Roberts then described extensive pollution in his
own community, as well as several other minority
communities that make up what is known as "cancer
alley." Mr. Roberts also explained how- church
services often need to be canceled because of
releases from two nearby oil refineries. He then
stated that his organization had encountered
opposition on the part of local and state officials,
declaring, "We need help from outside sources."
Noting that since the state legislature of Louisiana
passed Rule 20 which prevents law students from
Tulane University Environmental Law Center from
providing legal assistance to community groups, Mr.
Roberts stated his organization has no one to turn to
for help. His organization, he then stated,
recommends that no new chemical or petrochemical
facilities be permitted in the state of Louisiana until
current problems have been addressed. He asked
2-8
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Periods
that the NEJAC exert its influence to achieve that
end.
Observing that issues related to chemical and
petrochemical facilities in Louisiana had been
brought before the NEJAC several times and that the
members of the NEJAC had visited affected
communities during their meeting in Baton Rouge in
1998, Mr. Turrentine asked that the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee work to develop
recommendations related to those issues for the
consideration of the Executive Council of the
NEJAC. Dr. Gelobter then pointed out that the
NEJAC had recommended strong guidelines for
public participation and that EPA had embraced
those recommendations. Yet, he stated, efforts are
being made to deny affected communities legal
representation by blocking the assistance offered by
the Tulane University Law Center. Dr. Gelobter
suggested that, under such circumstances, EPA
might considerwithdrawing permitting authorityfrom
the state. Ms. Miller-Travis then pointed out that
EPA has no legal authority under which it can
withdraw permitting authorityfrom the state because
the state has been operating under statutory
authority. The fundamental issue, she continued, is
what can the NEJAC do "to bring the state of
Louisiana to the table in a way that encourages
[state officials] to work with their own people," people
who, Ms. Miller-Travis stated emphatically, are not
being given the equal protection guaranteed to them
under the Constitution. She then expressed the
opinion that the issue in Louisiana is whether EPA
"has the political will to use all its resources to force
the state of L9uisiana to protect all its people
"equally." She then suggested that the NEJAC
prepare a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner
to set forth the history of the situation in Louisiana
and to ask formally what action the Agency was
prepared to take to resolve such issues.
Noting that several other members of the Executive
Council had signaled their desire to comment on the
issue, Mr. Turrentine nevertheless curtailed the
discussion in favor of individuals awaiting their
opportunity to address the NEJAC. He suggested
that the members could choose to continue their
current discussion after receiving the remaining
comments.
2.10 Juanita Stewart, North Baton Rouge
Environmental Association, Alsen,
Louisiana
Ms. Juanita Stewart, North Baton Rouge
Environmental Association, Aisen, Louisiana, noting
that she had appeared before the NEJAC previously,
expressed her concern about the procedures LDEQ
follows in issuing permits. She stated that polluting
facilities routinely are sited in minority communities.
Continuing, Ms. Stewart stated that, although
permitting procedures had been revised, she
believed that LDEQ had not implemented those
revisions. She then suggested that notices of permit
applications should be published in a prominent
position in local newspapers and that action should
be taken to ensure that such facilities are not located
in already overburdened communities. Ms. Stewart
stated that these facilities promise jobs for members
of the local community; however, the facilities "bus
in" employees to work. There is no economic gain
for the local community, she declared.
Ms. Stewart then described several incidents in her
own community during which she had contacted
LDEQ, only to find the agency's response completely
ineffective. The community, she stated, is plagued
by numerous health problems. Attributing such
problems to pollution in the community, she then
requested the assistance of the NEJAC in bringing
about action to alleviate such pollution.
2.11 Kathryn Mutz, Natural Resources Law
Center, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado
Ms. Kathryn Mutz, Natural Resources Law Center,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, explained
that the center is interested in the social justice
implications of both the development and the
preservation of natural resources, particularly in the
West. Pointing out that "what is written in a permit is
only as effective as what is enforced under that
permit," Ms. Mutz expressed concern that budget
cuts could result in the loss of more than 60
positions in EPA's Enforcement Division. Such
significant cuts, she observed, have far-reaching
implications forthe environmental justice movement,
both in maintaining progress made and in continuing
to make progress in the future.
Mr. Cole then noted that the Enforcement
Subcommittee had undertaken-consideration of the
issue of the enforceability of permits.
2.12 Damu Imara Smith, GreenPeace,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Damu Imara Smith, GreenPeace, Washington,
D.C., observing that the present meeting of the
NEJAC would be the last before the new millennium,
stated that the issue of permitting is "fundamental to
many of the issues that we will continue to confront
as we move into the next century." Continuing, Mr.
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
2-9
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Smith pointed out that a community dealing with
chemical emissions from plants in its vicinity also
must deal with the rail, river barge, and highway
traffic; noise; flares; accidents caused by vehicles
passing through the community; and other problems
related to the facilities and their operations. All those
problems, he said, must be considered in the
permitting process when it is proposed that a new
facility be sited in such a community. For example,
he said, when church services in a community are
interrupted by explosions orthe invasion of chemical
emissions into the church building, and yet the
community is told that such conditions cannot be
considered in the permitting process, there is "a
problem that must be confronted."
Mr. Smith then noted that permitting issues are
particularly serious in Louisiana, as testimony during
the current session had demonstrated. However, he
stated, those same issues are a problem throughout
the country, as well. Mr. Smith then announced that,
in the following week, the National Black Community
Dialogue on Environmental and Economic Justice
would bring some 200 people together to consider
those issues.
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos, Community of Catano
Against Pollution and member of the Air and Water
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, then noted that, since
July 1999, "all refineries must request a Title V
permit." That requirement is an opportunity under
Federal law to establish in a facility's permit new
emissions standards and monitoring requirements
that had not been included in earlier permits. Any
factor that the state has determined to be material,
she said, can be considered in the permitting
process. A community can petition for the inclusion
of such factors, she concluded, and, further, can ask
for judicial review if the state fails to acknowledge
that petition. Mr. Smith then commented that EPA
treats favorably very few citizen complaints filed
under Title V. At the request of Ms. Miller-Travis, he
then confirmed that the complaint that succeeded in
blocking permitting in the well-known Shintech case
had been a complaint filed under Title V of the CAA,
not a complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
He expressed the opinion that the complaint filed in
that case had been accepted by EPA only because
of the mobilization in Louisiana and around the
country of extensive support for the complaint. Many
equally legitimate complaints are rejected routinely,
he said. Ms. Ramos then noted that, if a community
is to have the right to ask for judicial review, that
community must have participated in the permitting
process. In response to that comment, Mr. Smith
passed along, and endorsed vigorously, the
recommendation of an EPA staff member that
communities be provided training that will equip
them to understand and work within the permitting
process.
Ms. Franklin then observed that, as authority is
passed more frequently from the Federal to the state
and local levels, such problems as those that have
arisen in Louisiana will arise more frequently.
Further, Ms. Franklin expressed her concern about
communities' lack of political influence; people, she
said, must be empowered and organized so that
their voices will be heard. When Ms. Augustine then
noted that EPA's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has a
role to play in the matter, Mr. Cole reminded the
members of the council that Ms. Ann Goode,
Director, of that office was to address several
subcommittees on the following day. He suggested
that members of the NEJAC could attend any of
those sessions.
Dr. Gelobter then returned the attention of the
members of the Executive Council to the suggestion
that the NEJAC prepare a letter to the EPA
Administrator to urge strong action on the issues
raised by communities in Louisiana. He proposed
that he, Mr. Cole, and Ms. Miller-Travis work to
develop such a letter for consideration during the
sessions to be held the following day. He invited the
other members of the NEJAC to participate in that
effort, as well.
After attending to some administrative matters, Mr.
Turrentine entertained a motion to adjourn, and it
was so moved, seconded, and adopted.
3.0 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
HELD ON DECEMBER 1,1999
This section summarizes the comments presented
to the Executive Council during the general public
comment period held on December 1, 1999, along
with the questions and observations those
comments prompted among members of the
Executive Council.
Comments are summarized below in the order in
which they were offered.
3.1 Pamela Bingham, Bingham Consulting
Services, Silver Spring, Maryland (Written
Statement)
Mr. Turrentine stated that Ms. Pamela Bingham,
Bingham Consulting Services, Silver Spring,
Maryland, would submit a written statement that was
to be entered into the record; however, no statement
2-70
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Periods
has been received. OEJ has made attempts to
contact Ms. Bingham but to no avail.
3.2 Mary Anne Holman, Private Citizen, Orange,
Texas (Written Statement)
Ms. Mary Anne Holman, private citizen, Orange,
Texas, submitted a written statement to the
members of the Executive Council. In that
statement, Ms. Holman requested that the NEJAC
provide information about how citizens who have
been exposed to harmful chemicals from refineries
can obtain assistance related to environmental
justice. Ms. Holman stated that her own efforts to
obtain such assistance for her community had
included contacting various local and state agencies
over a period of three years. She stated that during
that time, she had received no acknowledgment by
such agencies. Refineries therefore continue to
expose nearby citizens to harmful and toxic
chemicals without any repercussions, she noted. In
her statement, Ms. Holman requested that the
NEJAC contact her to discuss conditions in her
community.
3.3 Marcus Jimison, Land Loss Prevention
Project, Durham, North Carolina (Written
Statement)
In a written statement submitted to the NEJAC, Mr.
Marcus Jfmison, Land Loss Prevention Project,
Durham, North Carolina, expressed concern about
the expansion of the Feltonsville Landfill in Holly
Springs, North Carolina. The landfill, located in a
predominantly African-American community in Wake
County, was closed in 1998 because it did not meet
the requirements set forth under Subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The landfill was unlined and suspected of leaking
leachate into the groundwater, he wrote. To
accommodate trash disposal, Wake County decided
to purchase substantial portions of land in Easton
Acres, a predominantly low-income African-
American neighborhood, Mr. Jimison continued,
because the expansion area would not be sufficient.
The new landfill, called the South Wake, is to cover
471 acres and reach 280 feet in height. The
governing body of Wake County never considered
alternative sites for the landfill, nor did they consider
the detrimental effects the landfill will have on nearby
African-American populations, he said. On February
18,1999, Mr. Jimison stated that the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources (DENR) had issued a final permit for
construction of the South Wake County Landfill. Mr.
Jimison's organization, the Land Loss Prevention
Project, since had initiated state administrative
proceedings to challenge the issuance of the permit,
he reported. One of the issues currently being
litigated is whether Wake County and North Carolina
DENR are required to comply with the North Carolina
Environmental Justice Act, which mandates that
county governments consider socioeconomic and
demographic data, hold public hearings, and
consider alternative sites before siting a landfill within
one mile of an existing landfill. Mr. Jimison then
stated that he was bringing that issue to the attention
of the NEJAC because Wake County had not
followed the guidelines before siting the South Wake
County Landfill next to Easton Acres and
Feltonsville.
3.4 Kenneth and Doris Bradshaw, Defense
Depot Memphis Tennessee, Concerned
Citizens Committee, Memphis, Tennessee
Mr. Kenneth Bradshaw, Defense Depot Memphis,
Tennessee (DDMT) Concerned Citizens Committee,
Memphis, Tennessee, expressed concern about the
manufacture, testing, and disposal of chemical and
nuclear weapons by the Federal government at
Federal facilities. Such activities, he said, have
polluted Memphis and other communities across the
United States. The actions of the Federal
government are "wreaking havoc" on the people of
South Memphis that live near DDMT, he pointed out._
He stated that there is a governmental conflict of
interest in the case, since the entities that create the
pollution also regulate it. Situations in which one
Federal government agency regulates another affect
the credibility of the government, he stated. Mr.
Bradshaw pointed out that EPA had been created
and appointed as the lead Federal agency to protect
the environment and the health of the people.
Nevertheless, DoD is allowed to regulate itself under
amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) without EPA's oversight, he said.
Mr, Bradshaw also noted that senior management of
EPA is "disconnected" from the people who perform
on-site inspections. That circumstance leads to
inefficient policy decisions, he said.
Mr. Turrentine, pointing out that Mr. Bradshaw and
Ms. Doris Bradshaw, DDMT Concerned Citizens
Committee, had offered comments during earlier
meetings of the NEJAC, stated that the Executive
Council would assign the issue to a subcommittee
for consideration. Ms. Augustine asked
Ms. Bradshaw if she had petitioned EPA to review
the site. Ms. Bradshaw stated that she had filed
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
2-11
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
environmental justice complaints but that she cannot
obtain assistance from EPA because the facility in
question is a Federal facility. Ms. Ramos asked Ms.
Bradshaw whether her group had considered
relocation. Ms. Bradshaw stated that she thought
relocation was an excellent idea but that, within a
half-mile radius of the facility, approximately 25,000
people in the community are affected. Relocation
therefore would be difficult, she noted.
3.5 Barbara Warren, Consumer Policy Institute
of the Consumers Union, Yonkers, New
York
Ms. Warren stated that she was speaking on behalf
of the Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods
and the New York City Environmental Justice
Alliance. She then urged the Council to act on the
recommendations related to waste transfer stations
(WTS) that have been developed by the WTS Work
Group of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee of the NEJAC. In the absence of
such action, she stated, several communities will be
affected severely when New York City's current
plans are carried out to close the city's only
remaining landfill. Ms. Miller-Travis added that the
report and recommendations on WTSs will be
presented to the Executive Council for approval
when the full Council met on the following day. Ms.
Miller-Travis added that EPA Region 2 had been
directed to begin action on the recommendations of
the NEJAC related to WTSs.
3.6 Mildred McClain, Executive Director,
Citizens for Environmental Justice,
Savannah, Georgia
Noting that the previous night's public comment
period had been limited to discussion of the
permitting of facilities on Federal sites that generate
pollution, Dr. McClain said that communities are
concerned about other issues related to Federal
facilities, as well. Her community in Savannah,
Georgia had lived with a "nuclear nightmare" for the
past 15 to 20 years, she declared. The health of the
residents of her community, she continued, had
been affected adversely by activities carried out at a
Federal facility.
Dr. McClain then stated that her organization's
desire to "get on NEJAC's radar screen" with this
issue. Dr. McClain requested that the NEJAC
address issues associated with Federal facilities on
a future agenda. She also noted that she would like
to see a representative of one of the communities
that currently deals with issues related to Federal
facilities on the Executive Council of the NEJAC. Mr.
Turrentine assured Dr. McClain that the council
would take appropriate action in response to her
recommendations.
3.7 Michael J. Lythcott, The Lythcott Company,
Marlboro, New Jersey
Mr. Michael J. Lythcott, The Lythcott Company,
Marlboro, New Jersey (who serves as the Technical
Assistant Grant [TAG] Advisor for Citizens Against
Toxic Exposure [GATE], Pensacola, Florida)
explained that he was representing residents who
currently were being relocated from neighborhoods
contaminated with toxic substances in the vicinity of
the Agrico and Escambia Superfund sites in
Pensacola. Mr. Lythcott requested that the NEJAC
accept into the record a report compiled by CATE
that discusses the reactions of members of the
community to the relocation effort. He also stated
that he had brought 64 responses to a survey of
those residents that CATE had conducted. Mr.
Lythcott stated that his conversations with residents
who had completed the relocation process had
indicated that relocation can be an appropriate and
equitable remedy for homeowners who have been
affected adversely by the proximity of their homes to
Superfund sites near Pensacola. Continuing, he
stated that some residents express sadness about
the loss of friends and neighbors; however, some
relocated families had begun to notice improvements
in their health, such as decreases in occurrences of
respiratory distress in children and in the frequency
and severity of headaches.
However, Mr. Lythcott stated, some serious
problems still plague the effort to use the Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act (URAA) as the foundation
for EPA's Superfund relocation policy. He expressed
his concern that the URAA was not designed to
implement relocations under CERCLA. For
example, citizen landlords who had stopped renting
their units after contamination had been discovered
had been denied compensation for lost rent, he
explained. At the same time, he continued, EPA, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and the
U.S.- Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) are negotiating such a rent loss
compensation package for the owners of the
Escambia Arms Apartments. He added that under
the URAA renters who do not have private
bathrooms and private kitchens are not considered
tenants; therefore, such individuals will be denied
relocation benefits. Mr. Lythcott stated that
homeowners also are denied access to appraisals
performed by USACE under the URAA that had
been used to support the offers made on their
houses.
2-12
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Periods
Mr. Turrentine asked Mr. Lythcott what action he
wished the NEJAC to take in response to the issue.
Mr. Lythcott replied that the URAA should be
evaluated thoroughly and amended as necessary so
that it can be used effectively in Super-fund
relocations. GATE proposes, he said, that a flexible,
rapid-response decision-making mechanism be
established to assist families that currently need
help.
Ms. Miller-Travis mentioned that, during the meeting
of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee that
afternoon, she had a discussion with staff of EPA
Office of Emergency Response and Remediation
(OERR), the office responsible in OSWER for
relocation issues. That discussion, she stated had
not reflected the issues Mr. Lythcott had presented.
Ms. Miller-Travis then suggested that she and Mr.
Lythcott conduct a telephone conference call with
Ms. Suzanne Wells of OERR to discuss some of
those issues. Mr. Turrentine requested that Ms.
Miller-Travis coordinate arrangements with Mr.
Lythcott and staff of OERR to set up a conference
call. Ms. Margaret Williams, President, GATE and a
member of the Health and Research Subcommittee
of the NEJAC, stated that the subcommittee already
had communicated with Ms. Wells, but to no avail.
Mr. Turrentine assured Ms. Williams that Ms. Miller-
Travis would work to resolve the issue.
3.8 Virinder Singh, Renewable Energy Policy
Project, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Virinder Singh, Renewable Energy Policy Project
(REPP), Washington, D.C., began his presentation
by stating that his comments would focus on the
types of industries and technologies members of a
community would welcome to their locality, as
opposed to those they would find undesirable.
Renewable energy is one possibility, he explained,
because it promotes sustainable economic
. development and can serve as an engine for job
creation, affordable housing, and environmental
protection for low-income and minority communities
nationwide.
He then proceeded to describe three examples of
renewable energy. First, he explained that wind
power for Indian Country, including lands in New
England and the Midwest, where the wind is
strongest, can produce substantial revenues by
having wind turbines on their land. A second
example, Mr. Singh pointed out, is affordable,
efficient, and clean housing, particularly public
housing. This would include, he explained, housing
built using energy efficient designs that used
renewable resources such as solar power for
electricity. Such housing could reduce monthly
electric bills and create new jobs to install these
systems, he said; Another example of the use of
renewable energy, Mr. Singh suggested, could be
the conversion of brownfields to what he termed
"brightfields," areas that house solar power
businesses or a solar power installation that provides
economic benefits to a previously degraded site.
That option creates jobs and preserves
environmental health and would allow communities
to avoid the siting of polluting industries in their
midst, he stated.
To make renewable energy a practical option, Mr.
Singh noted, trie REPP promotes dialogue between
representatives of low-income and minority
communities and representatives of renewable
energy enterprises. Mr. Singh added that the REPP
would welcome partnerships with environmental
justice groups to help organize and define that effort.
Mr. Singh also pointed out that the restructuring of
the electrical industry would affect communities.
Restructuring gives individuals the right to choose
which power plants will exist in their communities on
the basis of prices, services, and environmental
values, he said. In Maryland, he noted as an
example, the final restructuring bill provides no
resources for sustainable energy, while in Texas,
there is a mandate that requires utilities create at
least 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy over the
next 10 years. Environmental justice groups must
make their voices heard in political debates about
Federal restructuring policy related to public utilities,
Mr. Singh said. If environmental justice groups do
not participate, he explained, a major voice would be
lost in the debate about issues that affect the
environment, provision of energy to low-income
communities, and job creation. He urged that the
NEJAC engage in the ongoing reform of the
electrical sector and add its voice to the debate.
Dr. Gelobter asked Mr. Singh whether the
environmental effects of the choices that citizens
make will be limited to the immediate energy
generation facility. He also asked how the use of
renewable energy and subsidies for low-income
communities could be promoted in a utility
deregulation scheme. Mr. Singh replied that the
complete fuel cycle includes mining of coal,
transportation of coal, and combustion of coal.
When compared with the complete fuel cycle of a
wind turbine, which consists of manufacture and
installation, the effect of the coal plant and the coal
system is much more extensive, he stated. In
response to the second question, Mr. Singh stated
that California had established a fund to support
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
2-13
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
renewable energy, energy efficiency, and low-income
energy programs.
3.9 Gloria Roberts, St. James Citizens for Jobs
and the Environment, Convent, Louisiana
After meeting with the NEJAC in December 1998,
Ms. Gloria Roberts, St. James Citizens for Jobs and
the Environment, Convent, Louisiana, explained that
her community continues to be affected adversely by
17 polluting chemical plants and three oil refineries.
She stated that 2,711 people, 83 percent of whom
are African-American and 62 percent of whom are
unemployed, live within four miles of eight hazardous
industrial facilities. More than 100 petrochemical
plants and oil refineries are located in an 85-mile
corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans,
she added. Each year, 132 million pounds of toxic
substances are emitted in that corridor, which is
known as "Cancer Alley," she said. Ms. Roberts
stated that the children in her community suffer from
asthma, headaches, nose bleeds, and respiratory
illnesses. State agencies still allow polluting
industries to locate or expand in her community
solely for economic gain, she stated, noting that the
presence of such facilities discourages nonpolluting
industries from locating there.
She also charged the Governor of Louisiana with
unfairly influencing the Louisiana Supreme Court to
limitthe participation of students of Tulane University
Law Center to provide legal representation for
community groups. Ms. Roberts expressed her
belief that the Louisiana Court is violating their civil
rights by requiring that members of community
groups release their personal financial records to
demonstrate a need for assistance from the law
clinic.
Ms. Roberts stated that St. James Citizens for Jobs
and the Environment recommends that the NEJAC
focus on enforcement action' and reduction of
fugitive emissions in her community. She pointed
out that more work must be done to protect
communities from the cumulative effects of low-level
exposure. Mr. Turrentine then stated that the Waste
and Facility Siting Subcommittee would work with
EPA Region 6 to further investigate the issues.
3.10 Veronica Eady, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, State of
Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts
Ms. Veronica Eady, Director of Environmental
Justice and Brownfields, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, State of Massachusetts,
Boston, Massachusetts, told the members of the
Executive Council that a predominantly African-
American community in Roxbury, Massachusetts
had been affected by environmental racism. She
described Roxbury as a beautiful community in
which is found some of the most historically
significant architecture in Boston, as well as a large
number of public housing units. She explained that
there is a background level of asbestos, lead, and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the soil as a
result of renovations and demolitions. Some
developers have reported the background levels of
asbestos and lead contamination in the soil, but
others have not, she stated. Ms. Eady asked that
the NEJAC address the matter, develop policy that
is not ad hoc, and come forward to help communities
that are dealing with such issues.
Ms. Eady also stated that she would like to see the
NEJAC assume a leadership role in the mentoring of
states in developing policies on environmental
justice. The NEJAC should help by serving as a
central body for the sharing of information, and
discussion of problems among the states, she said.
Ms. Eady also requested that the NEJAC hold a
concurrent session with the Environmental Council
of the States (ECOS). Such a session, she
suggested, would be helpful in providing states
leadership in developing policy.
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelley, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
and member of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee of the NEJAC, asked Ms. Eady
whether a contingent of state environmental justice
representatives attends ECOS meetings. Ms. Eady
replied that she had never attended an ECOS
meeting and that she would not expect to be invited,
since the participants are primarily high-level
commissioners and secretaries; however, it is her
understanding that breakout sessions on
environmental justice have been held at meetings of
ECOS.
Ms. Jane Stahl, State of Connecticut and member of
the Health and Research Subcommittee of the
NEJAC, stated that working groups of ECOS are
interested in issues related to environmental justice.
She noted that ECOS has established procedures
that allow individuals other than upper-level officials
to attend its meetings. Ms. Stahl then offered to
provide Ms. Eady the telephone numbers of
individuals interested in pursuing environmental
justice issues on behalf of their communities. Ms.
Eady expressed her interest in obtaining that
information and restated her belief that the NEJAC
should play a major role in the area. Mr. Lee
suggested that he and Ms. Eady discuss the issue.
Dr. Marinelle Payton, Harvard School of Public
2-14
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Periods
Health and chair of the Health and Research
SuBcommittee of the NEJAC, suggested that the
NEJAC keep Ms. Eady and her group informed
about various activities and invite them to meetings
in the future, Dr. Payton also offered to meet with
Ms. Eady in Boston to begin to establish a
collaborative effort.
3.11 Dagmar Darjean, Mossville Environmental
Action Now, Inc. (M.E.A.N.), Mossville,
Louisiana
Ms. Darjean stated that she had come before the
NEJAC to discuss the history of her community's
struggle for environmental justice and to expose the
procrastination and disrespect of those who had
been appointed to help the community. In April
1999, she said, ATSDR, EPA, LDEQ, and LDHH
held a meeting in Mossville to inform the community
that blood tests had revealed significant levels of
dioxin. The Governor of Louisiana subsequently
formed a multi-agency task force to address the
health concerns of Mossviile residents, she said. In
May 1999, Ms. Darjean continued, M.E.A.N. was
invited to discuss the formation of the "Mossville
Health Response Workgroup," but when they met
they discovered that the government already had five
work groups in place. From the outset, Ms. Darjean
stated, she had perceived an attempt by EPA to
discredit one of Mossville's strongest supporters,
GreenPeace of USA. Following an unproductive
conference call held on October 18,1999, M.E.A.N.
sent a letter to the government agencies to request
the data on the 28 blood samples and to suggest the
establishment of work groups specifically intended to
resolve the health crisis in Mossville, she said. The
agencies had agreed to hold a conference call to
discuss the demands, she continued, but the call
later had been canceled.
Ms. Miller-Travis requested that Ms. Darjean
summarize the conversation held during the meeting
of the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee earlier
that afternoon. Ms. Darjean stated that Mr. Samuel
Coleman, Director, Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Division, EPA Region 6, had invited
members of the subcommittee to participate in
meetings about the region's Calcasieu Parish
Initiative; Ms. Miller-Travis agreed to attend. In
addition, Ms. Darjean stated that she had had a
telephone conversation with Mr. Warren Arthur,
Environmental Justice Coordinator, EPA Region 6,
who had indicated that he "wants to see results" in
Mossville and wants an aggressive effort to reduce
emissions and to clean up the groundwater in that
community. Mr. Turrentine added that he had had a
conversation with Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 6 earlier in the day and
that Mr. Cooke had indicated that the region was to
mobilize additional resources to be focused on the
Calcasieu, Mossville, and Lake Charles areas.
3.12 Da mil Imara Smith,
Washington, D.C.
GreenPeace,
Beginning in 1996, Mr. Smith explained that
GreenPeace had undertaken an effort to support
communities in the Lake Charles, Louisiana area
that are fighting to improve their health and
environment. Many residents of the area, he said,
believe that local, state, and Federal agencies have
made only minimal efforts to protect their
neighborhoods from the onslaught of industrial
pollution. GreenPeace had increased its
involvement in Louisiana, he added, not only
because communities have asked for assistance,
but also because the area is a "global toxic hot spot"
as a result of the heavy concentration of polluting
industries there. The industries not only pollute the
host communities nearest to them, he continued, but
they also contribute significantly to the pollution that
plagues the entire planet.
In April 1999, ATSDR announced the results of its
tests of blood drawn from 28 residents of Mossville
and West Lake, Louisiana, said Mr. Smith. The
results indicated elevated levels of dioxin among
those tested compared with other populations.
Those results, continued Mr. Smith, pointed to a
serious health and environmental crisis in the
Mossville community. In their responses to that
crisis, Federal and state agencies are guilty of a
series of serious violations of environmental justice
protocol, he stated. Mr. Smith emphasized that
ATSDR and Louisiana agencies had prolonged their
response effort unnecessarily by ignoring the
constructive proposals of residents of Mossville that
their concerns be addressed through a "community-
directed" environmental justice model. Had the
agencies listened to what the community was saying,
he pointed out, six months of wasted time could
have been saved.
Mr. Smith suggested to the NEJAC that the
environmental justice team at EPA Region 6
undergo rigorous training in environmental justice
and community relations, with the participation of
experts in environmental justice and of
representatives of people of color and low-income
communities in Louisiana and other states in the
region. Mr. Smith also proposed that the NEJAC
send a team of representatives to Louisiana and
other states in the region to examine and evaluate
the performance of the agency's environmental
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
2-15
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
justice program, as well as the Permitting Office and
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Dr. Payton requested that Mr. Smith elaborate on the
significance of the selection of the 28 people whose
blood was tested. Mr. Smith explained that 100
residents originally were tested. Because high levels
of dioxin were detected from that composite, he
explained, ATSDR selected 28 individuals for further
testing. Ms. Darjean added that those individuals
had been selected at random from among residents
of the neighborhood of Bellair, which is located
across the street from the Conoco facility in
Mossville. When Ms. Miller-Travis then asked Ms.
Darjean whether the 28 individuals lived near or
downwind of the incinerator, Ms. Darjean verified
that they lived downwind from the incinerator.
3.13 Juanita Stewart, North Baton Rouge
Environmental Association, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana and Margie Richards, Concerned
Citizens of Norco, Norco, Louisiana
Ms. Stewart expressed her discontent that
undesirable industries are locating in African-
American communities. Chemical industries began
invading her community, Alsen, in the 1950s, she
explained. In 1964, she continued, a pit for the
dumping of toxic chemicals from nearby industries
had been dug. The pit, she stated, since had
contaminated 80 acres of land. Ms. Stewart also
charged that the state of Louisiana gives unfair tax
breaks to chemical industries. She concluded her
statement by emphasizing that her community will
continue to fight for justice on the issue.
Ms. Margie Richards, President, Concerned Citizens
of Norco, Norco, Louisiana, explained that she was
speaking on behalf of the citizens of the Old
Diamond Plantation. She stated that residents living
in close proximity to the Shell Motiva chemical plant
in Norco suffer from respiratory diseases. It has
been proven, she said, that members of the
community inhale more than 20 known carcinogens
and are exposed to hazardous substances leaked
from the plant: Ms. Richards asked that the NEJAC
help the community because authorities had refused
to relocate its residents. Ms. Richards added that
the problem had been brought to the attention of
local, state, national, and international authorities,
but to no avail.
Ms. Ramos asked Ms. Richards whether the
emergency escape route the community had
requested had been constructed. Ms. Richards
replied that Norco had not yet established an
alternative escape route. Ms. Ramos then asked
whether EPA had taken any action in response to a
recent explosion at the site. Ms. Richards stated
that the facility had been notified of a violation, but
that the community had been able to arrange a
meeting with representatives of the facility only after
a three-month effort. She added that industry had
adopted Norco as a pilot program to develop a better
means of communication in the event of
emergencies. Ms. Ramos then asked whether EPA
Region 6 had performed a multimedia inspection, as
the region had agreed to. Ms. Richards verified that
the inspection had been performed, but that
residents had not yet met with representatives of the
region to discuss the findings. Ms. Augustine asked
whether the community had training in individual
protection during emergencies. Ms. Richards stated
that representatives of Tulane and Xavier
universities, as well as other environmental groups,
had provided training to the community. She pointed
out, however, that training is only part of the answer
to the problem, since there is no effective escape
route. Mr. Turrentine then stated that the Executive
Council would examine the issues related to
relocation as a resolution of her community's
problems.
3.14 Delbert Dubois, Private Citizen, Charleston,
South Carolina
Stating that he had lived in Charleston for 37 years,
Mr. Delbert Dubois, private citizen, Charleston,
South Carolina, emphasized that his community is
affected adversely by numerous polluting facilities.
Mr. Dubois requested that the NEJAC examine the
progress and outcomes of all EPA and South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (DHEC) programs in the Charleston, South
Carolina area. Because of exposure to chemical
and biological toxics, he said, people in the
community had developed cancers and heart
problems, and the infant mortality rate is high. Mr.
Dubois questioned how a community can bear the
burdens of an excess of polluting facilities, with more
such facilities locating there, when state and Federal
environmental officials have proof and
documentation that the environment in the
community already poses a threat to human health.
Mr. Dubois stated that he had been "getting the
runaround" from state and Federal agencies as he
had attempted to explore relocation issues with
them.
Mr. Cole stated that Mr. Dubois is a member of the
Enforcement Subcommittee and that the
subcommittee had discussed the issue during their
meeting earlier that day. Mr. Cole then invited other
subcommittees to examine the issues Mr. Dubois
2-16
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Comment Periods
had raised, as well. When Mr. Dubois asked how he
would know the issues were being investigated, Mr.
Lee requested that Mr. Cole follow up with Mr.
Dubois to ensure that the issues are properly
addressed.
3.15 Michelle Xenox, Shundahai Network, Las
Vegas, Nevada
Ms. Michelle Xenox, Shundahai Network, Las
Vegas, Nevada, stated that she lived south of the
Nevada Nuclear Test Site, the site currently
proposed forthe Yucca Mountain Project. Underthe
project, the Yucca Mountain site would receive more
than 80,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive
waste. Members of her community already suffer
adverse health effects, she said, and babies are
born with defects and cancers. She stated that it is
obvious that DOE is concerned about radiation
because the department spends billions of dollars on
the development of protective technologies.
Ms. Xenox explained that uranium affects the
environment from the moment it is mined, because
it creates a waste stream at all points from
processing through disposal. She stated that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), rather than
EPA, sets exposure standards; NRC's standards,
she continued, are three to four times higher than
those that EPA would propose. Nuclear wastes
have such long half-lives, she explained further, that
the true extent of their effects is unknown, especially
in such a delicate ecosystem as that of the Yucca
Mountain area. All communities eventually will feel
the effects of nuclear wastes, she added.
Ms. Xenox then pointed out .that it is a serious
problem that DOE is self-regulating. She urged that
the NEJAC help prevent DOE from using the Yucca
Mountain site.
Ms. Augustine asked Mr. Lee why there is no
subcommittee of the NEJAC established specifically
to examine issues related to Federal facilities and
military contractors. She suggested that the NEJAC
form such a subcommittee to consider issues related
to DoD, DOE, and the NRC. Mr. Lee acknowledged
Ms. Augustine's comment, stating that the NEJAC
should consider her proposal. He added that it
would be possible to form a work group to address
the issue.
3.16 Reverend Zack Lyde, Director, Save the
People, Brunswick, Georgia
Reverend Zack Lyde, Director, Save the People,
Brunswick, Georgia, stated that his community,
located on the Atlantic coastline of southeast
Georgia, had been subjected to an invasion of
contaminating industries since 1913. Sherman's
Reservation, an area where Reverend Lyde resides,
had attracted paper mills and chemical companies
that are unwilling to compromise with the community,
he said. Reverend Lyde stated that he had thought
that the membership of the NEJAC would include
more people of color and representatives of affected
communities. The body of the NEJAC, is "unstable"
because it is not representative of the people who
live in communities affected by contamination, he
asserted. Consequently, the NEJAG does not feel
the sense of urgency that the residents of
contaminated communities feel, he said. Reverend
Lyde stated that the NEJAC should ensure that the
Federal government is addressing the problems of
those communities and dedicated to implementing
change.
3.17 Carolyn Jones-Grey, Frederick Douglass
Community improvement Council,
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Carolyn Jones-Grey, Frederick Douglass
Community Improvement Council, Washington,
D.C., began her comment by describing some of the
environmental issues that affect her community of
Anacostia, in southeast Washington, D.C. The
community still suffers from the effects of toxic waste
dumped at the site of the former St. Elizabeth's
Hospital some 10 years earlier, she said. Traffic
from Maryland and Virginia causes air pollution, she
continued/and planned high-rise buildings will bring
even more traffic and pollution to the community, she
said. Children in the community suffer from asthma
and learning disabilities, and adults have heart
trouble, she added. The streets are littered with
condoms and needles, she said, and the sewer
system emits unhealthy odors. During the summer,
she continued, the community is inundated with flies
and maggots because the frequency of trash
collection is inadequate. Ms. Jones-Grey requested
that the NEJAC help her community require that the
city enforce its laws.
Mr. Turrentine asked Ms. Jones-Grey why the city
had cut back trash collection from two days per week
to one. Ms. Jones-Grey replied that the mayor at the
time had indicated that the city of Atlanta had been
able to move to a once-a-week collection schedule
through the use of the "supercan." However, she
pointed out the supercan is not working in Anacostia
because yards in the community are too small to
accommodate it, she said. Mr. Turrentine then
asked that Mr. Cole and Dr. Gelobter to coordinate
a meeting with Ms. Jones-Grey to discuss her
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1,1999
2-17
-------
Public Comment Periods
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
concerns. Dr. Payton asked Ms. Jones-Grey
whether she had contacted the health department to
discuss the issues. Ms. Jones-Grey said that she
had attempted to bring the issues to the attention of
the health department, but that agency had provided
no help.
3.18 Jim MacDonald, Trustee, Pittsburg Unified
School District, Pittsburg, California
Pointing outthat he was representing Californians for
Renewable Energy, Mr. MacDonald stated that
segregation still exists and is the underlying reason
for environmental racism. The NEJAC should
empower itself to take action, he emphasized,
because the problem is not a permitting issue, it is
an issue of Constitutional rights. Mr. MacDonald
stated that the issue is the same that led to the
desegregation of schools.
3.19 Pierre Hollingsworth, Atlantic City National
Association for Advancement of Colored
People, Atlantic City, New Jersey
Mr. Pierre Hollingsworth, Atlantic City National
Association for Advancement of Colored People"
(NAACP), Atlantic City, New Jersey, expressed
concern about the construction of a tunnel through a
stable African-American community in Atlantic City,
New Jersey. Construction of the tunnel, Mr.
Hollingsworth said, would displace the people in the
community and threaten neighborhoods with air
pollution and contamination of the soil and water. He
pointed out that public funds are being used to
construct the tunnel and that it is the primary route to
a new casino. Other routes have been
recommended, he said, but the process of obtaining
approval of those routes from the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
would be time-consuming because of wetlands
issues. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that a group of
residents had sued the project developers under
Title VI, but that they had been unable to fund the
expert witnesses needed to press their case. Under
the settlement, the residents had been allotted funds
to hire an independent consultant to monitor health
and safety problems at the site, he continued, but all
of the consultants' recommendations had been
rejected. Soil in the community is contaminated with
heavy metals, petroleum compounds, and other
substances at levels that exceed health-based
standards established by NJDEP, he added. Dust
could contain hazard contaminants, and residents
have been complaining of such respiratory problems
as dormant asthma, he said. Hot spots of carbon
monoxide and sulfurdioxide, he continued, had been
detected in areas adjacent to the tunnel. The
residents had recommended that vents and air
control devices be installed, he pointed out, but their
recommendations had been rejected. Stating that
the community is in need of direct Federal
intervention, Mr. Hollingsworth recommended that
EPA, through its Region 2 offices facilitate a meeting
of all parties to address all issues he had
enumerated.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Hollingsworth whether the
community had filed a Title VI administrative
complaint with the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT). Mr. Hollingsworth responded
that the community had not filed such a complaint
because lack of money would make it difficult to do
so. Ms. Shepard asked Mr. Hollingsworth whether
mitigation measures had been included in the
settlement. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that mitigation
measures had been included but that all such
recommendations had been ignored. Ms. Shepard
then asked what kind of relationship the community
had with NJDEP. Mr. Hollingsworth responded that
that agency had done nothing to assist the
community. When Ms. Shepard asked whether the
community had contacted the department of health,
Mr. Hollingsworth confirmed that members of the
community had met with the city and state
departments of health.
Mr. Turrentine then requested that Ms. Miller-Travis
briefly discuss the recommendations related to the
issue that the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee had developed during its meeting
earlier that day. Ms. Miller-Travis responded that the
subcommittee requested that Ms. Melva Hayden,
Environmental Justice Coordinator, EPA Region 2,
use the weight of the Office of the Regional
Administrator to bring about a meeting among the
necessary parties to discuss the issues. Ms. Miller-
Travis then stated that Mr. Robert Shinn,
Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Justice, NJDEP, had stated that he would investigate
the issues, as well.
The members of the NEJAC then adjourned the
meeting for the evening.
2-18
Arlington, Virginia, November 30 and December 1, 1999
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 1,1999
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Alice Walker
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
Wil Wilson
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
Michel Gelobter
Rutgers University
Chair of the Subcommittee
-------
-------
CHAPTER THREE
MEETING OF THE
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Air and Water Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 1, 1999, during a three-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Dr. Michel
Gelobter, Rutgers University, continues to serve as
chair of the subcommittee. Ms. Alice Walker, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Water (OW), and Dr. Wil Wilson, EPA Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR), continue to serve jointly as the
Designated Federal Officials (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 3-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Air and Water Subcommittee, is
organized into five sections, including this
Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes the
opening remarks of the chair of the subcommittee.
Section 3.0, Activities of the Subcommittee,
summarizes discussions about the activities of the
Air and Water Subcommittee's three work groups
and discussions about the draft mission statement of
the subcommittee. Section 4.0, Presentations and
Reports, presents an overview of each presentation
and report delivered during the subcommittee
meeting, as well as a summary of relevant questions
and comments of members of the subcommittee.
Section 5.0, Resolution and Significant Action Items,
summarizes the resolution forwarded to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC for consideration
and significant action items adopted by the
subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Dr. Gelobter began the subcommittee meeting by
welcoming the members present and Ms. Walker
and Dr. Wilson. He introduced Mr. Robert Brenner,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA OAR,
and Ms. Dana Minerva, Deputy Assistant
Administrator of EPA OW, who participated
extensively in the discussions conducted during the
meeting of the subcommittee.
Exhibit 3-1
AIR AND WATER
SUBCOMMITTEE
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 1,1999
Dr. Michel Gelobter, Chair
Ms. Alice Walker, co-DFO
Dr. Wil Wilson, co-DFO
Dr. Elaine Barren
Dr. Bunyan Bryant
Ms. Daisy Carter
Ms. Clydia Cuykendall
Mr. Daniel Greenbaum
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos
Mr. Leonard Robinson
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Dr. Kathleen Hill
Mr. Damon Whitehead
3.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section discusses the activities of the
subcommittee, including the activities of the
subcommittee's work groups and the development
of the draft mission statement of the subcommittee.
3.1 Updates on the Activities of the Work Groups
of the Air and Water Subcommittee
This section discusses the activities of the work
groups of the Air and Water Subcommittee. Exhibit
3-2 identifies the work groups and lists the members
of each.
3.1.1 Work Group on Cumulative Permitting
Ms. Clydia Cuykendall, J.C. Penney, provided an
update on the activities of the Work Group on
Cumulative Permitting. She reported to the
members that, in a majority of cases, EPA is issuing
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
3-1
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 3-2
WORK GROUPS OF THE
AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Work Group'
on Cumulative Permitting
Ms. Clydia Cuykendall, Chair
Mr. Leonard Robinson
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos
Ms. Hazel Johnson, Community Representative
Mr. Graver Hankins, Academia Representative
Ms. Jeneva Craig, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
Mr. Dave Hair, EPA
Mr. Leo Slander, EPA
Mr. Bill Hamett, EPA
Ms. Chebryll Edwards, EPA
Mr. Gary Carrol, EPA
Work Group on Fish Consumption
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Chair
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi
Ms. Daisy Carter
Work Group on Urban Air Toxics
Mr. Damon Whitehead, Chair
Ms. Maribel N. Nicholson-Choice
Ms. Felice Stadler
Ms. Barbara Warren
"cumulative" air and water permits even though no
provision has been made for opportunities for public
participation. She pointed out that the work group
had developed recommendations for EPA to
consider when working with communities during the
development of cumulative permits under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Ms.
Cuykendall stated that, as emphasized by the
testimony offered by commenters during a public
comment period held on November 30,199Q, during
the current meeting of the NEJAC, early and
frequent involvement of all stakeholders, particularly
communities that will be affected by the issuance of
the permits, is crucial to the decision-making
process. The recommendations, she noted, include:
• Involve the public as early as possible when
developing permits.
• Advise the permit. applicant to focus on
emissions reduction, pollution prevention, and
stationary and mobile sources.
• Post notices about permitting decisions in
"popular" community locations and use local
public. television stations as a means of
disseminating information.
• Structure meetings so that a number of issues
can be addressed by including representatives
of the local police, fire, and water utility to share
information.
•> Establish multimedia measurement projects
that, after a permit has been issued, monitor the
health of members of the community and
emission levels.
• Prepare brochures and conduct workshops on
such issues as emergency action procedures.
• Establish community advisory panels before
permitting decisions are made that ensure that
such panels are representative of all
stakeholders affected.
• Invest in job training for members of the affected
community.,
• Encourage industry to provide training related to
the proposed permit, translation services, and
technical expertise to community groups by
neutral parties.
* Schedule public meetings for convenient times
and locations and customize each meeting to
the characteristics of the affected community.
• Encourage industry to conduct tours of facilities
for members of the community.
Mr. Leonard Robinson, TAMCO Steel, presented a
list of the work group's recommendations for ways in
which industry could improve relations with nearby
communities:
• Use annual reduction goals to place caps on
discharges and establish economic incentives
for voluntary reduction and the use of state-of-
the-art pollution prevention equipment.
• Conduct emissions monitoring to ensure
reductions have been achieved and are being
maintained.
• Conduct new source review and ensure new
source performance standards based on
process modifications in such areas as fuel,
equipment, process, and production.
3-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
• Encourage public participation through
involvement in meetings of community advisory
groups and local hiring practices.
• Establish a cooperative effort with academia and
government.
• Allow trading discharge and emissions credits
for "grandfathefed" plants for specific reduction
purposes only.
Ms. Rosa Hilda Ramos, Community of Catano
Against Pollution, supported the recommendations
that public participation efforts be conducted early in
the decision-making process related to the issuance
of permits. She commented that, while EPA is
required to publish a public notice when a permit is
being developed, no date is established on which the
notice must, be published. Ms. Ramos urged that
EPA involve members of the affected community as
soon as the Agency learns about a proposed new
source or a process modification under a permit.
She added that the allowance of only 30 days to
provide comment on a proposed permit is unfair and
urged EPA to give communities some flexibility in
that area. Ms. Ramos also recommended that EPA
require industry to make memoranda, letters,
studies, and other relevant information about the
proposed permit available for public review. She
stated that both the community and industry would
benefit from doing so because the community would
remain informed and the industry would gain the
public's trust through its openness. She reported
that Dow Chemical has gained the public's
confidence by opening up its documents and
activities to review by members of communities.
Ms. Ramos commented that EPA is "subjective" in
differentiating between process modifications that
trigger new source performance standards and
those that fall under "grandfathered" permits. She
stated that certain industries in Puerto Rico have
modified their processes and increased their
capacity, but EPA has not considered the changes of
sufficient significance to merit their placement under
new source performance standards. She urged that
EPA develop a standard approach to decision-
making.
Ms. Daisy Carter, Project Awake, recommended that
"government-funded education" about permitting
issues be added to the list of recommendations to be
made to EPA.
Mr. Daniel Greenbaum, Health Effects Institute,
requested that the first recommendation be revised
to include language that early public participation is
essential. He commented that, under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA imposes
requirements that each municipality identify each
drinking water source and evaluate its effects on the
community. To achieve that end, the municipality
must understand, the interactions and effects of all
sources in the watershed. Mr. Greenbaum stated
that he was not aware of a comparable approach
underthe CAA; underthat legislation, he pointed out,
an inventory is taken for an airshed.
Dr. Elaine Barron, Paso del Norte Air Quality Task
Force, thanked Ms. Cuykendall and the members of
the work group for the good work they had done in
developing the recommendations, she then stated
her agreement that EPA should develop effective
methods of communicating information, particularly
to communities that have concerns related to
environmental justice. She stated that the use of a
neutral party, such as an ombudsmen, would be
beneficial in promoting effective communication.
She explained that communities often do not have
the appropriate resources to support efforts to obtain
information and that EPA should provide those
communities with such assistance. She emphasized
that EPA must facilitate public dialogue by giving the
people the tools they need to act. Concluding her
comments, Dr. Barron pointed out that radio
announcements and shows have proven to be very
effective methods of providing information to
communities.
Ms. Marianne Yamaguchi, Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project, also suggested the. use of the
Internet to notify the public of process modifications
and permitting proposals.
Dr. Bunyan Bryant, School of Natural Resources and
the Environment, University of Michigan, reported
that one of his students had found that communities
that have environmental justice concerns do not
always succeed in using legal strategies and public
participation. He asked that EPA monitor the
success of communities in using legal strategies and
the success of public participation efforts. He
commented that, if legal strategies and public
participation are not working, it may be necessary to
revise the entire process by which EPA involves the
public in decision-making. Mr. Bryant also asked
that EPA examine whether involving the public at the
beginning of the permitting process makes a
significant difference.
Dr. Gelobter commented that there is a clear need
for "triggers" that enable communities to participate
actively. He stated that he is not convinced that
there are enough "triggers" for public participation
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
3-3
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
and urged the subcommittee to consider the effects
of the lack of "triggers" on the involvement of the
public in the decision-making process related to
issuing permits.
The members of the subcommittee then identified
the following items for the work group to consider:
• Effectiveness of using legal strategies and public
participation to influence EPA's decision-making
in the context of cumulative permitting.
• Effects of emissions on the issuance of permits.
• Effectiveness of best management practices.
• Development of manuals to guide active public
participation in the cumulative permitting
process.
• Public participation in the development of
requirements under the CWA related to total
maximum daily loads (TMDL).
3.1.2 Work Group on Fish Consumption
Ms. Annabelle Jaramillo, Office of the Governor of
Oregon, reported that the Work Group on Fish
Consumption was focusing its efforts on fish
consumption as it is related to cultural practices of
Native American communities; fish monitoring and
the determination of the health of fish; the necessity
for fish advisories; and the reduction of human
exposure to contaminants in fish. She stated that
the work group had not made significant progress
since its creation in December 1998.
Ms. Minerva commended the work group for its list
of focus issues. She stated that she herself would
have developed a very similar list. She
recommended that the work group also consider the
inclusion in its list of focus issues of a study of how
much fish people consume. In the area of fish
monitoring, Ms. Minerva reported that states
currently are disseminating information on fish
advisories through the sale of fishing permits. She
expressed concern about that method of
dissemination because, she pointed out, while the
purchaser of the permit is receiving notice about the
advisories, his or her family may not receive the
same information.
Ms. Jaramillo emphasized the importance of
developing a relationship among Federal, state, and
local government entities. She reported that the
state of Oregon had issued an Executive Order that
requires state government agencies to coordinate
efforts with Native American communities and local
municipalities when dealing with issues related to
fisheries, timber, and other natural resources.
Dr. Barron asked the work group to consider the
cumulative health effects of certain chemicals on the
health of fish and of consumers of fish. She also
expressed concern about bodies of water in which
fish are scarce because of significant contamination.
She asked how EPA should advise the public about
other routes of exposure (for example, dermal
contact), in addition to consumption of fish. Ms.
Jaramillo agreed that EPA and the work group
should not examine fish consumption alone. The
overall focus, she stated, should be on water quality;
she noted specifically nohpoint source pollution also
should be considered.
Ms. Carter stated that she recognizes that EPA relies
heavily on state health and environmental
departments to monitor fish populations. She
advised that EPA focus its attention on contaminated
water bodies that are fished heavily. She also asked
whether a fisher can be trained to identify
contaminated fish. Mr. Arnold Kuzmack, EPA OW,
responded that, while lesions on a fish typically
indicate a problem, it remains possible for fish to
have accumulated large amounts of contaminants
without exhibiting any physical symptoms. Some
fish can survive and reproduce in highly
contaminated waters, he said.
Mr. Tom Armitage, Chief, Risk Assessment and
Management Branch, EPA Office of Science and
Technology, reported on an EPA study of 700 lakes
throughout the United States. The study involved
examination of the average levels of about 80
chemicals present in fish tissue, he explained. He
stated that EPA was to make the data available to
the public as it is retrieved.
Ms. Minerva announced that EPA OW had
developed an Internet home page that identifies
areas for which fish advisories have been issued.
She reported that, unfortunately, some 10 states do
not conduct fish monitoring. Ms. Minerva and the
members of the subcommittee decided that EPA
OW would coordinate with the efforts of the work
group to identify additional items for the work group
to consider.
3.1.3 Urban Air Toxics Working Group
Dr. Gelobter reminded the members of the
subcommittee that the Executive Council of the
NEJAC had approved the creation of the Urban Air
Toxics Working Group at the December 1998
meeting in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He explained
that the work group had been charged with
3-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr and Water Subcommittee
examining EPA's draft Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy. Exhibit 3-3 describes the proposed
strategy.
Exhibit 3-3
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S INTEGRATED URBAN AIR
TOXICS STRATEGY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy focuses on
reducing the threats to human health posed by air
toxics in urban areas. Toxic air pollutants are of
special concern in urban areas because large numbers
of people live and work near a variety of sources of
pollution. In the strategy, EPA outlines future
actions that it will take to reduce emissions of air
toxics and improve its understanding of the threats to
health posed by air toxics in urban areas.
EPA's overall goal for the strategy includes
reduction of cancer and noncancer risks associated
with air toxics in urban areas. Specific goals
include:
• Reduce by 75 percent the risk of cancer
associated with air toxics from both large and
small commercial and industrial sources.
• Substantially reduce noncancer health risks
(such as the risk of birth defects) associated
with air toxics from small commercial and
industrial sources.
• Address and prevent disproportionate effects of
air toxics, such as those in areas known as "hot
spots" and those that affect sensitive
populations in urban areas, including children,
the elderly, and minority or low-income
communities.
Dr. Gelobter informed the subcommittee that the
work group had submitted its report on EPA's urban
air strategy on April 6, 1999. Members of the
subcommittee then identified items for the work
group to consider:
• Status of air monitoring by EPA.
• Review of EPA's National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA).
• Recommendations related to EPA's proposed
rule on mobile air toxics.
• Update on the development of state, local, and
tribal air programs.
• Review of pilot projects that involve public
participation in program development.
• Development of a citizen's guide to
"grandfathered" air permits.
The members of the work group then invited Mr.
Brenner to provide an update on EPA's activities
related to urban air toxics. Section 4.1.2 of this
chapter summarizes that presentation.
3.2 Mission Statement of the Subcommittee
Members reviewed a proposed mission statement
for the subcommittee and agreed to make final
revisions during the next conference call of the
subcommittee, scheduled for January 2000. The
proposed mission statement is:
"The mission of the Air and Water
Subcommittee is to develop creative,
sustainable, and environmentally just
solutions to social and environmental
challenges, based upon lessons learned, so
that informed policy decisions can be
made."
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations and
reports made to the Air and Water Subcommittee,
including those delivered during a joint session with
the Enforcement Subcommittee.
4.1 Presentations by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Air and
Radiation
Mr. Brenner and other staff of EPA OAR briefed the
members of the subcommittee on EPA's efforts to
ensure the protection of air quality.
4.1.1 Discussion of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Draft Economic
Incentive Program Guidance
The Air and Water and the Enforcement
subcommittees held a joint session during the
December 1999 meeting of the NEJAC to consider
EPA's draft Economic Incentive Program (EIP)
guidance. Exhibit 3-4 describes the draft EIP
guidance. Mr. Luke Cole, California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation Center on Race, Poverty,
and the Environment and chair of the Enforcement
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
3-5
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 3-4
DRAFT ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAM
GUIDANCE
On September 3,1999, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) released draft guidance for
states that wish to use economic incentive programs
(EBP) to improve air quality and visibility. The draft
guidance document outlines EIPs that states may
incorporate into their strategies to meet air quality
standards and visibility goals. (The strategies are
known as state implementation plans [SIP]). The
guidance provides advice on how to choose an
appropriate type of incentive program, which
emission sources should be included in such a
program and how to ensure that a program will be
successful.
The draft guidance has no direct regulatory
consequences. The document is designed to help
states incorporate EIPs as they develop or revise
SIPs. In addition, the draft guidance is a
comprehensive update of EPA's 1994 ED? rule.
Subcommittee, convened the joint session by
expressing the continued concerns of the NEJAC
about integrating principles of environmental justice
into the development of EIPs. Dr. Gelobter then
reminded members of both subcommittees of a
pending resolution of the Enforcement
Subcommittee related to EPA's draft EIP guidance.
He explained that a significant concern related to the
guidance is its enforceability. Mr. Cole added that
the Enforcement Subcommittee also is in the
process of preparing comments on the proposed
draft guidance to accompany the pending resolution.
Mr. Brenner explained that the draft EIP guidance is
designed to help states incorporate EIPs as they
develop or revise state implementation plans (SIP).
He stated that although there are no direct regulatory
consequences if states choose not to follow the
guidance, he was confident that EPA has other
approaches to encourage implementation. He
explained that EPA could remind states that, if they
do not address issues related to environmental
justice, a community may file an administrative
complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VI). Mr. Brenner acknowledged that EPA
understands the lack of confidence that EIP
programs will succeed in helping urban communities
improve air quality.
Mr. Richard Ossias, Air and Radiation Law Office,
EPA OAR, added that the manner in which EPA
approves SIPs is to issue nonbinding guidance. He
stated that, in general, EPA does not issue guidance
that demands that states meet the terms of the
guidance. He added that EPA would be violating the
Administrative Procedures Act if the Agency were to
penalize a state for not complying with the guidance.
However, he assured the subcommittee, EPA does
intend to achieve the goals outlined in the EIP
guidance.
Mr. Greenbaum commented that, for approximately
six years, states had been developing SIPs in the
absence of guidance from EPA. He encouraged
EPA to-consider the SIP implementation process
thoroughly and outline it carefully.
Mr. Gerald Torres, University of Texas Law School
and member of the Enforcement Subcommittee,
emphasized that it is necessary that EPA create
"transparency" in its decision-making, including
approval of SIPs. Mr. Torres stressed the
importance of a SIP as the primary document in the
regulation of air emissions by a state. He added that
EPA should consider the local history upon which a
SIP is based. For example, he continued, the
influence of historical zoning in Austin, Texas, can
be seen in the city's regulations governing emissions
trading; the east side of the city clearly had been
designated for occupation by industry and minority
communities. Mr. Torres emphasized that certain
communities have long histories of high pollution; he
encouraged EPA to recognize that SIPs are being
written for areas that already endure disproportionate
levels of pollution. The "transparency" issue, Mr.
Torres added, is crucial to the fostering of trust
among members of the public.
Mr. Richard Drury, Communities for a Better
Environment and member of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, expressed the NEJAC's continued
fear that air emissions trading have the potential to
create toxic "hot spots" in communities of color.
Reminding Mr. Brenner and EPA OAR that,
approximately three years earlier, the NEJAC had
requested that EPA take action and adopt
safeguards to prevent the creation of such toxic hot
spots, Mr. Drury pointed out that EPA had not
implemented safeguards to prevent such effects. He
stated that, when environmental justice is discussed
in the draft EIP guidance, the word "should" is used,
rather than the word "must." Such soft language in
the guidance, he said, underlines his concern that
such statements are a tacit declaration by the
Agency that it is not mandatory that states conform
to the requirements of Title VI. Mr. Drury
emphasized that all approvals of SIPs must comply
withotherapplicable Federal requirements, including
Title VI.
3-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr and Water Subcommittee
Mr. Drury also expressed concern that companies
are able to purchase lead credits for emissions of
lead. Mr. Brenner responded that lead had been
listed as a criterion pollutant under the CAA;
however, he stated that he does not expect to see
any trading of air emissions credits with respect to
lead. He stated that he would add language to the
draft EIP guidance that specifies that no trading of
air emissions credits related to lead should take
place.
Ms. Carter requested that EPA develop a timeframe >
for accomplishing its goals under the EIP. She
emphasized that it should not be necessary for the
NEJAC to discuss the issue again. Ms. Carter
suggested that EPA send the NEJAC a check list of
accomplishments the Agency plans to complete
before the next meeting of the NEJAC.
4.1.2 Update on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Air and
Radiation's Activities Related to Urban
Air Toxics
This section summarizes an update provided by Mr.
Brenner on issues related to cumulative risk under
EPA's Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy as well
as a report on pilot projects in urban communities.
In addition, Ms. Barbara Warren, Consumer Policy
Institute of the Consumers Union, offered a
nongovernmental organization (NGO) perspective on
EPA's activities related to urban air toxics.
Mr. Brenner stated that EPAOAR's Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy encourages that states and
municipalities examine issues related to cumulative
risk. Mr. Brenner explained that industry and state
agencies have questioned EPA and have requested
that the Agency provide scientific evidence that
supports cumulative risk exposures. Unfortunately,
Mr. Brenner continued, in many cases data are not
yet available to support cumulative risk arguments.
Mr. Brenner reported that EPA Office of Research
and Development (ORD) is working to develop a
framework for assessing cumulative risk. While EPA
is developing those tools to scientifically assess
cumulative risk, the Agency, in the short term, can
identify overall emissions levels for each facility in a
community, he said.
Mr. Brenner stated that EPA can inform industry and
state and municipal agencies that wish to pursue
economic development by adding new facilities that
substantial reductions should be brought about to
allow. the establishment of new facilities in an
airshed. Although EPA cannot protect an industry or
a state agency from a complaint filed under Title VI,
Mr. Brenner explained, EPA would take into
consideration the implementation of a toxic
emissions reduction program.
Mr. Greenbaum noted that "a dynamic occurs" when
emissions of older facilities are reduced to allow new
economic growth; however, the trade-off usually is
"not equal or less."
Dr. Barron reported that, under its initiative Healthy
People 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) has undertaken a goal of
establishing a cancer-screening and management
program in low-income communities by the year
2010. Exhibit 3-5 describes the initiative. Dr. Barron
asked how EPA OAR could coordinate its efforts to
reduce cumulative risk with the efforts of HHS. Mr.
Brenner responded that air issues are being
incorporated into the Healthy People 2010 initiative,
for example, he said Ms. Mary Smith, EPA OAR, is
working with HHS on issues related asthma. He
asked that the subcommittee forward him additional
issues to be considered as the project evolves.
Exhibit 3-5
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010
The Office of Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion (ODPHP), U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) serves as the coordinator
for the Healthy People 2010 Initiative. The initiative
is the prevention agenda for the United States and is
a statement of national health objectives designed to
identify the most significant preventable threats to
health and to establish national goals to reduce those
threats. Healthy People 2010 is a national health
promotion and disease prevention initiative that
brings together national, state, and local government
agencies; nonprofit, voluntary, and professional
organizations; businesses; communities; and
individuals to improve the health of all Americans
and eliminate disparities in health.
For further information about the initiative, visit the
HHS home page at -
.
Dr. Gelobter expressed concern about the
"regulatory bite," asking about the incentive states
and local municipalities would have to comply with
EPA's offset policy related to the trading of air
emissions credits. (An offset is a form of effluent
trading that involves an increased discharge of a
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
3-7
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
particular pollutant into the air in-exchange for a
decreased discharge of that same pollutant into the
air. The end result would be a net environmental
improvement in the air quality.)
Responding to the concerns expressed by Dr.
Gelobter, Mr. Brenner stated that the "hook" EPA
can use to encourage participation by states and
localities as well as by industry, is the concern of
those entities that they might be challenged by a
community that can file an administrative complaint
under TiJIe VI. He then stated that EPA can advise
those parties about how to address environmental
justice and build more trusting relationships with
potentially affected communities.
Ms. Laura McKelvey, EPA OAR, then made a
presentation on urban community pilot projects in
urban communities, which she noted, currently were
"on hold" because of lack of funding. The objectives
of the pilot programs are to (1) establish appropriate
Federal measures; (2) provide flexibility for state,
local, and tribal programs; (3) provide incentives for
state, local, and tribal action; (4) provide the public
information about risk; (5) focus on areas in which
deterious effects are disproportionate; and (6)
reduce risk to the public in urban areas. The results
of the pilot studies will be incorporated into
establishing air standards and other regulatory
activities, she noted.
Ms. Warren then offered an NGO's perspective on
EPA's activities related to urban air toxics. She
acknowledged that, because EPA had been "under
the gun" to issue its integrated Urban Air Toxic
Strategy, EPA had failed to conduct sufficient
research related to area source emissions. She
reported that peer reviewers of the strategy had
expressed concern about why certain chemicals had
been eliminated from the list of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). Ms. Warren stated that she would
like an opportunity to add sources and pollutants
during the implementation phase of the strategy.
She then referred to a letter that she and Ms.
Margaret Round, Clean Air Task Force, had written
to Ms. Sally Shaver, Director, Emissions Standard
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, EPA, in which she and Ms. Round had
outlined concerns about the strategy. One concern,
Ms. Warren noted, was related to the averaging of
emissions across a large area in a county, when
there were cities in the county that obviously were
affected more extensively.
Dr. Gelobter asked Ms. Warren her views about
other actions the subcommittee should take to
address the issue. Ms. Warren stated that the
NEJAC and the public must be made aware of the
research component of the strategy and that public
participation is integrated throughout the process.
She also expressed concern about the lack of
funding for the pilot projects that Ms. McKelvey had
discussed. Addressing Ms. Warren's concern about
the lack of funding, Ms. Shaver replied that funding
for such activities is a serious issue; however,
funding only makes up one small component of the
overall challenge, she observed. Ms. Shaver then
stated that EPA cannot "outrun" the science that is
necessary to implement the strategy, emphasizing
that EPA is working actively to move forward and
determine cumulative risks as effectively and
credibly as possible.
Ms. Warren then noted that she had not received a
response from OAR related to her concerns about
EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
program, which, she noted, is a part of the strategy.
Exhibit 3-6 describes NATA.
Exhibit 3-6
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S
NATIONAL AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM
The National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
program, one of four components identified in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy to reduce air toxics. The NATA
program will help EPA identify areas of concern,
characterize risks, and track progress in achieving
the Agency's overall goals for the air toxics
programs. Activities under NATA include
expanding of air toxics monitoring, improving and
periodically updating emissions inventories,
national- and local-scale air quality, multi-media and
exposure modeling, continued research on health
effects and exposures to both ambient exposure and
assessment tools. The activities will provide EPA
with improved characterizations of risk posed by air
toxics and risk reductions that result from the
imposition of emissions control standards and the
adoption of initiatives for stationary and mobile
source programs.
Ms. McKelvey concurred with Ms. Warren that EPA
should report to the subcommittee on the research
being conducted under the NATA program. She
added that a monitoring plan is being developed
under the advisement of EPA's Clean Air Act
Advisory Council. The monitoring plan will undergo
review by the National Academy of Science, followed
by another round of public review, she pointed out.
3-3
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
Ms. McKelvey assured Ms. Warren that the
subcommittee would have access to the monitoring
plan..
Ms. Carter asked whether EPA was considering rural
communities, in addition to urban areas, when
conducting its pilot studies. Ms. McKelvey stated
that EPA was conducting a national screening-level
analysis that, she said, will produce information on
the county level for both rural and urban areas.
4.1.3 Update on U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Proposed Rule for Tier 21
Gasoline Sulfur
Mr. William Harriett, Acting Director, Information
Transfer and Program Integration Division, EPA
OAR, reported to the subcommittee that EPA's
proposed rule for Tier 2 gasoline sulfur addresses
(1) more protective tailpipe emissions standards for
all passenger vehicles, including sport utility vehicles
(SUV), minivans, vans, and pickup trucks and (2)
lower standards for sulfur in gasoline. He pointed
out that the regulation marks the first time that SUVs
and other light-duty trucks are subject to the same
national pollution standards as are cars.
Mr. Harriett stated that EPA OAR historically had
focused its efforts on regulating emissions at
refineries. However, EPA had begun to assert its
authority under the CAA to establish lower emissions
standards for automobiles and to establish fuel
standards (such as removal of sulfurfrom gasoline).
The goals of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur rule are to
reduce by 2007 (1) 8,000 tons of nitrogen oxide
emissions, (2) 200,000 tons of emissions from
mobile sources, and (3) 1,500 tons of emissions of
volatile organic compounds from refineries. Mr.
Harnett expressed confidence that, as more people
buy new vehicles that meet the new, more stringent
standards, realization of the goals will become
increasingly feasible.
In the area of environmental justice, Mr. Harnett
emphasized that OAR is committed to involving local
communities in the implementation of the rule, with
assistance from regional and headquarters
environmental justice coordinators. EPA, he
continued, plans to inform the public of the level of
toxics in their community and the health effects of
the chemicals of concern. EPA also was evaluating
population demographics in the vicinity of refineries
and in relation to emissions. Mr. Harnett stated that
he would present the results of that analysis to the
subcommittee when the data become available.
Mr. Drury expressed concern about several
measures in the rule that would ensure flexibility for
the automobile and petroleum industries in
implementing the rule, particularly the establishment
of a market-based credit system for both the auto
and oil industries. He pointed out that the rule has
the potential to create toxic hot spots because the
Agency will be allowing refineries to obtain credits for
projected reductions in mobile source emissions.
Mr. Drury strongly encouraged EPA to subject any
changes in emissions by industry to new source
review and stated further that offsets be obtained at
the source of the emission.
Responding to Mr. Dairy's concerns, Mr. Harnett
stated that EPA would require new source review
and that procedures under existing regulations
encourage the installation of emission controls. He
also emphasized that EPA is committed to working
through and resolving issues at the local level.
4.2 Presentations by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Water
Ms. Minerva; Ms. Joan Warren, EPA OW; and Mr.
Bill Painter, EPA OW, briefed the subcommittee on
EPA's efforts in the area of protection of water
quality.
4.2.1 Presentation on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Proposed Rule for
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Ms. Minerva announced to the subcommittee that
EPA was taking steps to achieve cleaner waters by
revising the TMDL program, which was established
under section 303(d) of the CWA. Exhibit 3-7
provides a definition of TDML. She explained that
the primary mission of the TMDL program is to
protect public health and ensure the health of
watersheds. EPA OW, Ms. Minerva continued,
issued a proposed rule in August 1999 that would:
• Significantly strengthen the nation's ability to
achieve goals related to clean water.
• Ensure that the public is provided more and
better information about the health of waters.
• Give states clearer direction and provide greater
consistency in identifying impaired waters and
setting priorities for improving the quality of such
waters.
• Provide new tools to ensure implementation of
TMDLs.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
3-9
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 3-7
Exhibit 3-8
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a calculation
of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet water quality
standards, accompanied by an allocation of that
amount to the sources of the pollutant.
A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a
single pollutant from all contributing point and
nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a
margin of safety to ensure that the waterbody can be
used for the purposes the state, tribe, or territory has
designated. The calculation also must account for
seasonable variation in water quality.
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act establishes water
quality standards and TMDL programs.
Ms. Warren then described in more detail EPA's
proposed TMDL rule as a program that is crucial in
achieving healthy watersheds and clean water
nationwide. State reports indicate that almost 40
percent of assessed waters remain too polluted for
fishing or swimming, Ms. Warren noted.
In 1996, EPA established a Federal advisory
committee to provide recommendations for
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of TMDL
programs, explained Ms. Warren. She informed the
subcommittee that, during the deliberations of the
Federal Advisory Committee on the TMDL Program,
public participation was emphasized as crucial to
success in implementing the committee's
recommendations. Exhibit 3-8 provides a list of the
committee's recommendations.
Ms. Warren then outlined for the members of the
subcommittee the proposed regulatory changes in
implementing state, territorial, authorized tribal, and
EPA responsibilities under Section 303(d) of the
CWA that are related to TMDLs:
• Submit a more comprehensive list of waters
threatened and impaired by both pollutants and
pollution.
• Provide more specific listing methodologies.
• Develop schedules for establishing TMDLs over
a 15-year period. •
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TOTAL
MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS PROGRAM
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Federal Advisory Committee on Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL) Program developed the
following recommendations related to broad issue ,
areas:
Restoring impaired waters must be a high
priority for all responsible agencies and sources.
Implementing TMDLs is the key to program
success.
Communicating with the public is crucial.
Involving stakeholders in the TMDL program is
a key to successful implementation.
Significant strengthening of the government's
capacity to carry out the TMDL program is
necessary.
In case of uncertainty, assuming an iterative
approach to TMDL development and
implementation will ensure progress toward
meeting water quality standards.
• List waterbodies until water quality standards
have been achieved.
• To encourage "smart growth," include an
allowance for reasonably forseeable increases
in pollutant loadings.
• Include an implementation plan in the TMDL.
Concluding her remarks on EPA's proposed rule for
TMDLs, Ms. Warren stated that, to obtain more
information about TMDLs, members of the public
can visit EPA's Internet home page at:
. She
stated that the Internet site provides information
about the proposed rule, the Federal advisory
committee, litigation related to TMDLs, and policies
and guidance, as well as maps showing impaired
waterbodies.
Ms. Yamaguchi asked whether the proposed rule
included requirements related to public participation.
Ms. Warren responded that, when states provide
lists of impaired waterbodies, the lists would have
3-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
been subject to public review, as would the
development of a TMDL itself.
4.2.2 Presentation on Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations
Under Section 502 of the CWA, a concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFO) are defined as
point sources, explained Mr. Painter. EPA OW
therefore has the authority to regulate CAFOs under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program, he said. Mr. Painter described a
CAFO strategy that attempts to issue permits to
existing CAFOs and establish a permitting program
for new CAFOs. EPA has issued guidance for
Round I of the strategy, which focuses on the
nation's largest CAFO facilities, he said. The
requirements specify that facilities must develop
comprehensive nutrient management'plans, which
are to be included in NPDES permit applications.
EPA encourages co-permitting, which brings
together corporate entities and individual producers,
he reported, adding that the guidance also sets forth
monitoring and reporting requirements in detail.
Ms. Rebecca Davidson, Delaware Tribe of Western
Oklahoma, reported that 20 new CAFOs for hogs
had been proposed in an Oklahoma watershed that
already is impaired by excessive nutrients. The
facilities already had been constructed and were
ready for operation as soon as the NPDES permit
applications are approved, she pointed out. Ms.
Davidson then stated her belief that she had not
been kept informed of the application process,
declaring that she wanted recourse. Ms. Minerva
stated that she would follow up on that issue.
Dr. Gelobter recommended that the Enforcement
Subcommittee consider enforcement issues related
to CAFOs.
4.3 Presentations on Public Utilities
This section summarizes the presentations made to
the subcommittee on environmental justice issues
related to public utilities.
Dr. Gelobter began the discussion of public utilities by
reporting that 80 percent of air pollution in the world
comes from energy facilities. He then introduced
several speakers to present various perspectives on
the effects of public utilities on communities that have
concerns related to environmental justice. Mr. Brian
McLean, Acid Rain Division, EPA OAR; Mr. Mark
Brownstein, Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG);
Mr. Jim MacDonald, Pittsburg Unified School District,
California; Mr. Jason Grumet, Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM); and
Mr. Virinder Singh, Renewable Energy Policy Project.
Mr. McLean reviewed the effects of emissions from
power utilities, including:
• Health effects from inhalation of power
emissions related to the generation of power,
such as sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), particulate matter, and ozone.
• Acidification of lakes and streams.
• Eutrophication of coastal waters.
• Damage to crops and forests.
• Damage to buildings and monuments.
• Regional haze.
• Bioaccumulation of mercury, primarily in fish.
• Climate change, caused primarily by carbon
dioxide emissions.
Mr. McLean then reviewed the institutional
mechanisms that are in place to counter such effects
of the utilities industry:
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
SIPs.
• New (and modified) source reviews.
• Acid deposition control under Title IV B of the
CAA.
• Increased regulation of sulfur and nitrogen
emissions to target regional haze problem.
• Pending EPA decision on mercury.
• Voluntary emissions reduction to control climate
change.
Mr. Brownstein, whose organization is based in
Newark, New Jersey, discussed the restructuring
and deregulation of the electrical power industry and
its effects on communities that have concerns
related to environmental justice. He reported that
power plants increasingly are becoming competitive
businesses. Growth in generating capacity at urban
coal-fired power plants has increased since Federal
regulations opened the wholesale energy market to
competition. Mr. Brownstein warned that the plants
are going to attempt to give consumers the greatest
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
3-11
-------
Air and Water Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
amount of energy for the lowest price, which will lead
to higher production levels at coal-fired plants, which
contribute almost two-thirds of the nation's SO2
emissions, because such plants are the least
expensive means of generating electricity. Ms.
Cuykendall asked whether any of the coal-fired
plants could switch to natural gas. Mr. Brownstein
answered that some facilities do have that capacity;
however, he pointed out, natural gas fuel is twice as
expensive as coal and less efficient, as well.
Mr. Brownstein stated that his organization had been
active in setting regional standards for power plants
to ensure that the power plants are regulated
equally. One way to do achieve that end, is by
environmental disclosure, he pointed out. If the
power plant cannot be regulated at the stack, then it
can be regulated through environmental
performance standards, he suggested in conclusion.
Dr. Gelobter asked for Mr. Brownstein's views on the
health effects and the scale of the effects of power
plant emissions on water sources. Mr. Brownstein
responded that airborne deposition is a major
concern with regard to water, especially in the case
of mercury emissions. He added that many power
plants use once-through cooling. He then stated that
those who know about fishing would understand the
effects of such cooling procedures on water
temperature.
Mr. MacDonald presented a grassroots perspective
on the public utility issue. He stated adamantly that
power companies are not called power companies in
California; they are called "employment centers." He
reported that 10 power companies had been
approved in his area, in 1999. EPA regulates the
companies on the basis of the companies' own
reports of their emissions, he continued. Mr.
MacDonald observed that abuse is associated with
self-reporting, and communities in the vicinity of a
plant suffer as a result of such abuse. Ms. Carter
asked whether any of the facilities are located in
minority or low-income communities. Mr.
MacDonald responded that the town of Pittsburg,
California has a minority population of 60 to 70
percent. Mr. Brownstein pointed out, while many
members of a community encourage inclusion of
environmental criteria in the process of selecting
suppliers, many schools boards consider onjy the
bottom line, selecting the cheapest source available.
Mr. Brownstein also added that many school districts
in the northeast United States are taking advantage
of the new competitive market for electricity by
forming buying pools in an effort to obtain a discount
on electricity.
Mr. Grumet stated that the status quo had been
altered drastically in the public utility industry
because of the deregulation of the electric and gas
market by state and Federal governments. He
explained that the purpose of NESCAUM is to
exchange technical information and to promote
cooperation and coordination of technical and policy
issues related to air quality control, among member
states of the northeast. Continuing, Mr. Grumet
stated that, amid the deregulatory "chaos," there also
exist opportunities to improve the way utilities
conduct themselves in relation to the environment.
He pointed out that truths about a utility's public
record surface much more quickly when competition
exists than was the case when the government
regulated the industry heavily.
Mr. Singh then described the concept of a full fuel
cycle, which examines the source of the fuel, the
transportation or extraction process, and the
environmental effects of the transportation or
extraction process. On the basis of a full fuel cycle,
he stated, renewable energy sources should be
considered more seriously as alternatives to
conventional energy sources, and energy-efficient
technologies should be a priority.
Mr. Singh presented three examples of ways in
which energy efficiency and renewable resources
can help advance environmental justice: (1) the use
of wind turbines on tribal land brought about
thousands of dollars in savings for farmers in
Minnesota and California; (2) alternative housing
based on renewable resources is more affordable
than traditional housing, and development of an
alternative housing industry could create new jobs;
and (3) conversion of brownfields to "bright fields"
(solar power businesses) in Chicago signals the
trend toward development of clean energy.
businesses. Mr. Singh stated that a significant
advantage of using renewable resources is that jobs
become "more localized." He emphasized that
considerations of environmental justice must play a
greater role in restructuring the power industry.
Ms. Ramos expressed her frustration about the
manner in which EPA oversees public utilities in the
United States and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico, she
explained, has the highest emissions from public
utilities per square mile in the U.S. and its territories.
She stated that power plants in Puerto Rico have
been producing pollution for more than 30 years and
that, despite the fact that an EPA list indicates that
the commonwealth has "four of the dirtiest" power
plants in terms of SO2 emissions, there are no
limitations on SO2 emissions in Puerto Rico. She
also stated that Puerto Rico's SIP is less restrictive
than is required to be under the CAA. Concluding
3-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Air and Water Subcommittee
her remarks, Ms. Ramos stressed that EPA should
monitor at night when the releases are highest rather
than during the day. In addition, she stated her
belief that EPA does not select the most appropriate
sites for the placement of monitoring stations.
Responding to Ms. Ramos' concerns about utilities
in Puerto Rico, Mr. Brenner stated that he had
spoken with Ms. Jeanne Fox, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 2, who had indicated that
EPA monitors for particulate matter and SO2
emissions and had found no violations. He also
explained that EPA does not have the statutory
authority to reduce SO2 emissions under the
Agency's acid rain program in Puerto Rico.
Continuing the discussions about public utilities, Ms.
Minerva stated that acid deposition is a concern of
EPA OW and that OW will continue to work with
OAR through such initiatives as EPA's Air Deposition
Initiative. Exhibit 3-9 defines acid deposition and
describes the Air Deposition Initiative.
Mr. Brownstein added that most customers want the
least expensive form of energy; only a few want
energy produced by renewable technologies. He
also pointed out that, in the northeast section of the
United States, many facilities are using a mixture of
technologies to produce electricity.
Dr. Gelobter then recommended that the
subcommittee consider establishing a work group to
address environmental justice concerns related to
public utilities. Mr. Greenbaum agreed to serve as
a chair of the work group, with Ms. Jaramillo, Mr.
Grumet, Mr. Brownstein, Mr. Singh, and Mr.
MacDonald and a representative of EPA OW serving
as members of the group. In addition, members of
the subcommittee agreed to forward a proposed
resolution about public utilities in Puerto Rico to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC for its
consideration.
5.0 RESOLUTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT
ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the resolution forwarded to
the Executive Council of the NEJAC .for
consideration and significant action items adopted by
the Air and Water Subcommittee.
The members discussed a resolution in which the
NEJAC requests that EPA examine the regulation of
power plants in Puerto Rico and their history of
noncompliance with air quality standards, including
limitations on SO2 emissions and the quality of fuel
consumed.
Exhibit 3-9
ACID DEPOSITION AND THE U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIR DEPOSITION INITIATIVE
Pollutants released in the air are carried by wind
patterns away from their place of origin. The
pollutants come from sources related to human
activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, industrial
processes, cars and other forms of transportation,
fertilizer and the volatilization of animal wastes.
Acid deposition occurs when the pollutants in the air
fall on the land or water.
In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water established an Air Deposition
Initiative to work with the EPA Office of Air and
Radiation to identify and characterize air deposition
problems with greater certainty and examine
solutions that address such problems. The air and
water programs are cooperating to assess the
atmospheric deposition problem, conduct scientific
research, provide innovative solutions to link tools
under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act to
reduce the deposition of such pollutants, and
communicate their findings to the public.
The members also adopted the following action
items:
/ Recommend that the subcommittee coordinate
efforts with EPA to monitor the success of legal
strategies and public participation in achieving
environmental justice.
/ Recommend that the subcommittee's Work
Group on Cumulative Permits develop a two- to
three-page citizens' guide to "grandfathered"
permits.
/ Recommend that the NEJAC establish a work
group to assess the effects of public utilities on
communities that have concerns related to
environmental justice.
/ Recommend that the Enforcement
Subcommittee consider enforcement issues
related to CAFOs.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
3-13
-------
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
ofthe
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
ofthe
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 1,1999
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Shirley Pate Luke Cole
Office of Enforcement and Chair
Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
-------
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
MEETING OF THE
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Enforcement Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 1, 1999, during a three-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Luke Cole,
Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment,
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,
continues to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. Shirley Pate, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), serves as the newly
appointed Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 4-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
the member who was unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Enforcement Subcommittee, is
organized in f ou r sections, including this Introduction.
Section 2.0, Presentations, provides an overview of
each presentation, as well as a summary of
questions and comments from members of the
subcommittee and others who were present during
the meeting. Section 3.0, Dialogue Sessions,
summarizes dialogues and question-and-answer
sessions between members of the subcommittee
and select individuals who were invited to discuss
specific topics. Section 4.0, Resolutions,
summarizes the resolutions forwarded to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC for consideration.
2.0 PRESENTATIONS
This section summarizes the presentations made to
the Enforcement Subcommittee. Key points of
discussion, as well as summaries of questions asked
and the answers offered, also are presented.
2.1 Presentation by James Hamilton, Duke
University, On Research Entitled "Exercising
Property Rights to Pollute: Do Cancer Risks
and Politics Affect Plant Emission
Reductions?"
Mr. Cole introduced Mr. James Hamilton, Duke
University, explaining that Mr. Hamilton had been
invited to make a presentation before the
subcommittee because his research was particularly
relevant to subjects about which the subcommittee
provides advice to EPA. For example, Mr. Cole
Exhibit 4-1
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 1,1999
Mr. Luke Cole, Chair
Ms. Shirley Pate, DFO
Ms. Leslie Cormier
Mr. Richard T. Drury
Mr. Delbert Dubois
Ms. Rita Harris
Ms. Savonala Home
Ms, Zulene Mayfield
Ms. Lillian Mood
Mr. Gerald Torres
Ms. Lillian Wilmore
Member
Who Was Unable To Attend
Mr. Lament Byrd
explained, the subcommittee had requested that
EPA target its enforcement efforts on the "worst
polluted areas," and those areas, for the most part,
tend to be the focus of little political activity - which.
is a phenomenon Mr. Hamilton examined in his
research.
Mr. Hamilton then presented information about
research he conducted on toxic air emissions and
the cleanup of Superfund sites. (Superfund sites are
those that EPA has determined to be among the
nation's worst hazardous waste sites. Superfund
sites are eligible for Federal funding for investigation
and cleanup activities.) During his research, Mr:
Hamilton examined various theories about why
certain communities are exposed disproportionately
to pollutants.
Mr. Hamilton shared key aspects of his findings, as
follows:
• Discrimination is one factor, among others, that
explains why some communities are exposed to
pollutants.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
4-1
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Communities must take action, or threaten to
take action, if they are to "get results."
• In general, the more politically active a
community is, the less risk it faces from
exposure to toxins (and, in contrast, less
politically active communities tend to face higher
risks).
• In general, companies are more likely to reduce
toxic air emissions in communities that are more
politically active.
• A disproportionately large number of minorities
live in areas in which large numbers of
Superfund sites are located; there are an
average of 11.4 polluting facilities in minority
communities, compared with an average of 6.3
in Caucasian communities.
• The larger the percentage of minorities among
the population, of an affected community, the
less money EPA spends to avert cancer, the
more likely EPA is to choose the least expensive
cleanup method, the more likely EPA is to
choose the least strict cleanup levels, and the
less likely the community is to receive technical
assistance grants (TAG). Exhibit 4-2 defines a
TAG.
Exhibit 4-2
SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS PROGRAM
Community involvement is an important part of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
efforts under the Superfund program to respond to
risks associated with the nation's worst hazardous
waste sites. The Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
program provides funds for qualified citizens' groups
affected by a Superfund site to hire independent
technical advisors to help interpret and comment on
site-related information.
Additional information about the TAG program is
available on EPA's Superfund Home Page at
Mr. Hamilton also explained that his research found
that government agencies tend to act in one of two
modes, which he characterized as: "police patrol" or
"fire alert." In areas in which the populations include
large percentages of minorities, he said, government
agencies tend to operate in a "fire alert" mode,
reacting and responding to emergency situations or
crises. He compared that circumstance with those
in other communities, in which government agencies
tend to operate in a "patrol" or preventive mode to
identify and address problems before they become
crises.
Mr. Hamilton explained that, in conducting his
research, he used data from geographic information
systems (GIS); information obtained from the Bureau
of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce;
maps; and other sources to identify the various types
of communities that are exposed to pollutants and to
measure the extent to which communities are
exposed to pollutants. His methodology also
included the use of risk assessment models to
determine predictions of cancer rates resulting from
exposure to toxins, as well as the reactions of
companies, state agencies, and Federal agencies to
human health risks. Mr. Hamilton explained further
that he used data on carcinogens that were available
from EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data
base, which contains, among other data, national
information about the amounts and types of air
emissions from facility operations.
When asked for his opinion about the types of
recommendations the subcommittee should make to
EPA or information it should request of the Agency,
Mr. Hamilton stated that additional modeling data
that pertain specifically to expected cases of cancer
and individual health risk levels would be beneficial.
He added that the establishment of better Internet
links between risk modeling data and related
information also would be helpful and appropriate.
Mr. Hamilton suggested further that, as a growing
amount of research is conducted in the area of
disproportionate levels of pollution in certain
communities, the scrutiny to which regulators are
subjected will increase, as well. Such scrutiny, he
observed, will have a positive outcome.
Ms. Zulene Mayfield, Chester Residents Concerned
for Quality Living, asked whether Mr. Hamilton had
been able to ascertain whether companies have
"become more sophisticated in hiding their TRI data"
or whether actual reductions in toxic air emissions
are taking place. In response, Mr. Hamilton
explained that, in cases in which companies
appeared to have eliminated or reduced their air
emissions, it was not clear whether the reductions
had been reported because the companies had
begun to use noncarcinogenic materials or because
the companies had reported releases differently from
one point in time to the next. He also pointed out
that if enforcement-sensitive data are withheld from
communities studying polluters they may not fully
identify which polluters are failing to comply with
environmental regulations.
4-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
Ms. Lillian Mood, South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control, asked whether
Mr. Hamilton would be willing to share his research
methodology with universities that wish to apply for
research grants. Mr. Hamilton agreed to make
copies of his research, the research methodology,
and two academic articles on air toxins and the
expansion of hazardous waste facilities available to
the DFO of the subcommittee for distribution to its
members. He also provided his e-mail address:
jayth@pps.duke.edu.
When several members of the audience indicated
that they wished to ask questions of Mr. Hamilton,
Mr. Cole opened the floor to their questions and
comments^ Audience member Ms. Sonia Peters, an
intern in EPA's Office of Environmental Justice
(OEJ), asked whether Mr. Hamilton had encountered
situations in which "known hot spots" exist, but the
supporting data were not available to demonstrate
the presence of such hot spots. She asked whether
he could suggest how researchers could overcome
such problems. Mr. Hamilton explained that, when
pertinent information is limited, data from state
agencies, in conjunction with information from local
telephone books, can be used to create a map of
facilities in a certain geographical area. He
suggested that those maps then could be taken to
the appropriate authorities or used by communities
to initiate further action.
Several" other members of the audience asked
questions or made comments about the merits of
various methodologies and data sources that have
been or could be used to calculate cancer risks. To
those questions and comments, Mr. Hamilton
responded that in his research, toxicity factors had
been used to estimate cancer risks. He reported
further that he had not conducted an epidemiology
study. He added that he had used the "RiskPro"
model to calculate and assess the data. He pointed
out, however, that modeling is but one approach that
can be used. He stressed the importance of using
and overlaying a variety of data and analytical
methods to achieve the most comprehensive results.
Mr. Cole thanked Mr. Hamilton for his research and
for his willingness to share the results of his work.
2.2 Presentation by Manuel Pastor, University of
California, on Research Entitled "Which Came
First? Hazardous Sites or Minority Move-In?
- Evidence from Los Angeles County"
Mr. Manuel Pastor, University of California,
presented information about research he and his
colleagues had conducted to investigate whether
minorities tend to move into areas in which large
numbers of polluting facilities are located or whether
polluting facilities tend to be sited in areas in which
minorities make up a large percentage of the
existing population. Mr. Pastor explained that, until
recently, the available research in that area had
provided only a "snapshot" view and that, as a
number of more recent studies conducted by other
researchers have revealed the relevance of race, the
point of view that minorities tend to move into areas
in which large numbers of polluting facilities are
located, likewise had gained increasing acceptance.
He then identified the following key policy questions:
• What are the processes that govern and
determine where facilities will be placed?
• If facilities are sited disproportionately in minority
communities, what can be done to change the
siting process?
• If minorities tend to move into areas in which
large numbers of polluting facilities are located,
do factors such as housing discrimination and
lack of information play a role? If so, what can
be done to address those factors?
Mr. Pastor then presented the following three major
findings of his research:
• Race does play a role in decisions about the
placement of facilities. In fact, race is a key
factor regardless of the method of scientific data
analysis used (such as regression analysis or
simultaneous modeling).
• There is a historical legacy of siting facilities in
minority neighborhoods.
• The extent to which a community is undergoing
"transition" also plays a role in facility siting (for
example, more facilities might be sited in areas
that are in transition from predominately
Caucasian to predominantly African-American
populations than in other areas).
Mr. Pastor explained that, even when he controlled
the data for such factors as income and land use,
among others, race still had an effect on .the
distribution and location of facilities. There are, he
said, more polluting facilities in areas populated with
minorities, low-income persons, and persons having
less than the average level of education make up a
large proportion of the population.
While describing the methodology, he had used in
conducting his research, Mr. Pastor pointed out that
he had used existing data from various sources and
verified that the facilities actually existed at the
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
4-3
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
addresses listed. He used regression analysis to
determine whether, if other factors were held
constant, race was a significant determinant in the
selection of the location of a facility. ,ln addition, he
explained, sophisticated simultaneous modeling had
been used, and the results had provided little support
for the point of view that "minority and low-income
people move to areas already populated with
polluting facilities."
The most vulnerable communities, Mr. Pastor said,
were those in which the population was
approximately 54 percent African-American and 46
percent Latino. He referred to those areas as having
a "peak level of vulnerability." In the examination of
this finding, questions also are asked about "ethnic
churning" and whether communities in transition tend
to shift from white to black majorities, Mr. Pastor
explained. He said that, when facility data were
overlain with data on the amount of ethnic churning
occurring in an area, the data suggested that efforts
to "build bridges" and deal with race can have
significant positive effects, particularly as
communities undergo change.
With respect to the policy implications of his
research, Mr. Pastor offered the following insights:
• There is a need for more extensive public
participation during decision-making processes.
• Rules should be established to protect
communities that cannot protect themselves (for
example, siting of facilities should not be allowed
in any area in which such placement would have
adverse effect on conditions in the community -
regardless of whether the communities already
are overburdened with facilities). "If that rule
were applied, half of the sitings in Los Angeles
in the 1970s would have been eliminated," Mr.
Pastor said. He added that such a rule would
differ from one that merely would disallow
"additional" facilities in overburdened areas,
because it would take into account factors other
than the number of existing facilities in an area.
• Efforts should be made to identify and target
vulnerable communities for cleanup actions.
Mr. Cole asked whether there was a way to actually
measure "intra-ethnic churning." He expressed the
opinion that, in rural California, communities in which
the largest numbers of polluting facilities are located
have predominantly Latino populations. However,
he continued, in the 1970s, the populations in those
areas differed from those in the 1980s or the 1990s,
primarily because of the numbers of migrant farm
workers among those populations had increased.
Mr. Pastor indicated that Mr. Cole had raised a point
worth exploring, because there may be differences
between migrant workers brought into the United
States and people of the same ethnic group who are
born and raised in this country.
Ms. Savonala Home, Staff Attorney, Land Loss
Prevention Project, commended Mr. Pastor for his
research. She pointed out that a study performed to
analyze the siting of concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFO) found that the largest numbers of
such facilities had been sited in African-American
communities. Exhibit 4-3 defines CAFOs. Mr.
Pastor's research, she explained, "adds ammunition"
for addressing the issue of CAFOs and the related
struggles of communities near which CAFOs have
been located.
Exhibit 4-3
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING
OPERATIONS
A concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) is
an operation that confines or houses livestock or
ppultry before the animals are sent to market or to
processing plants for slaughter. The term CAFO is
defined at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
122.23, and that definition is clarified in 40 CFR part
122, Appendix B. An operation is classified as a
CAFO if it confines more than a specific number of
animals, with that number varying by species and by
the manner in which pollutants are discharged, and it
discharges pollutants through a constructed device or
discharges pollutants directly into waters of the
United States that originate outside of and pass over,
across, or through the facility or otherwise come into
direct contact with the animals confined by the
operation. Several additional criteria determine
whether a particular feedlot is to be considered a
CAFO. Those criteria include:
• Animals must be maintained in confinement for
45 days or more within a 12-month period.
• The area of confinement does not sustain crops,
residues of harvested crops, or vegetative forage
growth during the normal growing season, a
criterion that distinguishes CAFOs from pastures.
Ms. Lillian Wilmore, Native Ecology Initiative,
expressed the opinion that the findings of Mr.
Pastor's research should be disseminated
throughout EPA. She stated that some people in
EPA "really believe in the move-in theory" and should
be made aware of the results of Mr. Pastor's
research. Mr. Pastor commented that he had been
4-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
asked to present his research findings to staff of
EPA Region 9. He also stated his willingness to
provide to interested persons citations from his
research and copies of an opinion paper on a similar
topic he had developed.
In his concluding comments, Mr. Pastor expressed
concern about the lack of environmental justice
policies at the state-level, stating that states should
have such policies. He also noted that he had
conducted additional research for a dissertation
project that specifically had examined the cumulative
effects of facilities on minority and low-income
communities. That research, he said, negated the
notion of "tradeoffs." That is, areas in which
populations were predominantly minorities and a
large number of facilities were located did not
experience an increase in the number of jobs in the
community. That finding, Mr. Pastor pointed out,
conflicts with the point of view that communities
derive the benefit of job creation when facilities are
located in those communities.
2.3 Presentation by Ann Goode, Director, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Civil Rights
Before Ms. Ann Goode, Director, EPA Office of Civil
Rights (OCR), began her presentation, Mr. Cole
pointed out that the "ambitions Ms. Goode
articulated at the last NEJAC meeting" had not been
realized. Ms. Goode explained that "foundation
efforts that are critical to success" were underway
and that those efforts perhaps were not readily
apparent to the members of the subcommittee. She
explained that among those efforts were the
development of internal protocols and attempts to
address budget issues.
Ms. Goode summarized the ongoing efforts of OCR,
including:
• OCR had developed an Internet site that
includes a comprehensive list of cases and
specific information about each case, such as
the parties involved and the status of each case.
The Internet site also is designed to receive
comments and provide information .relative to
Title VI.
• Over the past year, four complaints had been in
an "active" state of investigation by OCR; two
are nearing completion.
• OCR currently was reviewing 25 complaints to
determine whether to accept or reject them.
OCR's goal is to make an "accept/reject"
decision on each of those complaints by the end
of January 2000. (To clarify, Ms. Goode noted
that the cases were not under investigation, but
were being examined only to determine whether
to accept them for investigation.)
• OCR had accepted 19 complaints, three for
investigation; of those cases three were
undergoing alternative dispute resolution.
• In total, 44 cases were "pending" some action,
and OCR had rejected 42 cases.
• Four cases had been dismissed after
investigation.
Turning her attention to staffing issues, Ms. Goode
explained that the small size of the staff of OCR
remains an area of concern. She reported that a
hiring freeze had slowed the process of hiring a team
leader, but she stated that OCR hopes to have hired
a team leader by the end of February 2000. She
also reported that new staff had been hired who
have permitting and enforcement experience in
various EPA regions, as well as an additional staff
person from EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW).
Two people had resigned, she added, and there
currently were five staff in OCR, although six
positions were filled (one person was on a detail to
the union for an indefinite time period.)
Mr. Cole inquired about the number of attorneys on
the staff of OCR. Ms. Goode explained that the
attorneys on her staff primarily perform case
management work, rather than functioning in a "legal
capacity." She added, however, that OCR had
"farmed out" some legal work to staff of EPA's Office
of General Counsel (OGC) who, she said, had been
supportive of OCR's efforts.
During her presentation, Ms. Goode also reported on
the status of OCR's efforts to revise the Title VI
Interim Guidance For Investigating Administrative
Complaints Which Challenge Permitting Decisions.
Exhibit 4-4 provides background information on the
interim guidance and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (Title VI). Specifically, Ms. Goode reported:
• Revisions of the Title VI interim guidance were
underway.
• Internal guidance for EPA staff and external
guidance for the general public had been drafted
and currently were under review by EPA. (Ms.
Goode explained that the review process
included review by EPA Assistant Administrators
and Regional Administrators.)
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
4-5
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 4-4
THE TITLE VI INTERIM GUIDANCE
FOR INVESTIGATING
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS
WHICH CHALLENGE PERMITTING
DECISIONS
What is Title VI? Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 states:
"No person in the U.S. shall, on the ground of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance."
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires the Federal
government to ensure that Federal funds are not used
to discriminate against people on the basis of race,
color or national origin. Under Title VI of the act,
citizens may file complaints with EPA that allege
discrimination from the programs and activities of
people who receive EPA funding. State and local
governments carry out most of the day-to-day
permitting decisions with EPA funding. But the Civil
Rights Act only allows citizens to file complaints
with the Federal government not with state or local
governments.
The Title VI Interim Guidance for Investigating
Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits was
developed by EPA to provide a framework for
addressing a citizen's claim of discrimination by a
state or local government's decision to issue a
specific environmental pollution control permits.
On February 5,1998, EPA published the interim
guidance in the Federal Register and on its web site
that requested written comments be submitted by
May 26,1998. The guidance proposes a policy and
set of procedures for dealing with these complaints.
On March 12,1998, EPA announced the creation of
a Title VI Work Group under EPA's National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology to open up a dialogue with impacted
stakeholders. The Work Group is comprised of 26
representatives from state, tribal and local
governments; industry; academia; non-government
organizations; and community groups and is working
on how to address these permitting concerns before a
permit becomes the subject of a complaints.
• OCR had received many comments and had
carefully reviewed the comments received.
• OCR estimated that the guidance would be final
and published in the Federal Register within
about two and one-half months after the present
meeting of the subcommittee.
v A 60-day public comment period will be
provided. To encourage the maximum possible
number of comments, OCR will notify the
NEJAC in advance of the publication of the
Federal Register notice for the guidance.
• The Federal Register notice will include (1) a
summary response to all comments received by
OCR; (2) an explanation of the legal basis for
the guidance; (3) specific guidance for recipients
of EPA funding, including a discussion of options
for avoiding issues that could lead to the filing of
administrative complaints under Title VI (Ms.
Goode stressed that such options would be in
the form of guidance, rather than requirements);
and 4) internal guidance on how EPA will
process complaints.
• OCR was planning a strategy to "roll out" the
guidance, which will include meetings in such
cities as Chicago, Illinois; San Francisco,
California; Washington, D.C.; and Dallas, Texas,
to discuss the guidance with interested parties
and answer questions.
At Mr. Cole's request, Ms. Goode agreed to provide
"hard copies" of the guidance to members of the
Enforcement Subcommittee. She also pointed out
that all complainants, who have filed administrative
complaints under Title VI, will receive copies of the
guidance.
Ms. Goode explained that OCR recently had
coordinated a stakeholder dialogue process (with the
help of contractor support), during which OCR
discussed issues related to key topic areas with
approximately 20 stakeholders (40 had been invited
to participate). Through the dialogue, she noted,
OCR became aware of the need to better clarify a
number of issues. Ms. Goode explained that that
awareness had affected OCR's efforts to revise the
Title VI guidance in such ways as the development
of a glossary to accompany the guidance, as well as
an attempt to use "plain English" throughout the
guidance so that lay persons can understand it.
Attempts, she added, also had been made to better
clarify those portions of the guidance intended for
"internal" use by EPA. For example, she explained,
a step-by-step process for determining what
constitutes an "adverse impact" will be included. In
4-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
addition, the document will define roles and
responsibilities clearly, she said.
In her concluding remarks about the Title VI
guidance, Ms. Goode stated that the emphasis of the
guidance would be to encourage people to "do the
right thing" up front. She added that, from OCR's
perspective, the "bottom line" is what, counts in
"determining whether or not there is an adverse and
disparate impact.
Following her presentation, Ms. Goode answered
several questions from members of the
subcommittee, as described below:
• Mr. Cole expressed concern that, once a
community had filed an administrative complaint,
no action is taken to help that community during
the time in which EPA is reviewing and
investigating the complaint. He asked what
could be done to encourage EPA to address
"concrete issues" in communities during the
complaint resolution process. Ms. Goode
replied that she was open to suggestions and
expressed her hope that OCR was "off to a good
start" by developing a clearly articulated
framework for addressing issues.
• Ms. Mood inquired about the process OCR uses
when it receives complaints about issues that
are not within EPA's jurisdiction. She asked
specifically whether EPA forwards those cases
to the appropriate agency. Ms. Goode explained
that, if such cases are within the jurisdiction of a
Federal agency, OCR forwards them to the
' appropriate Federal agency.
• Ms. Rita Harris, Community Living in Peace,
Inc., asked who in OCR actually conducts
investigations. Ms. Goode explained that a
variety of people are involved in conducting
investigations and, depending on the issue,
OCR may seek support from EPA regional
offices in collecting and analyzing data. She
added, that currently, those include analysts,
data specialists, and air experts.
• Mr. Delbert Dubois, Four-Mile Hiberian
Community Association, Inc., inquired about the
requirements for filing an administrative
complaint under Title VI. Ms. Goode explained
that, among other criteria, complaints must be
timely, a claim must be made, and a description
of the specific harm must be included.
• Ms. Wilmore asked whether the Title VI
guidance would apply to Federally-recognized
Indian tribes. Ms. Goode said that it would not
and explained that staff of OCR had engaged in
dialogue with tribal representatives throughout
1999. The results of the dialogue had been that
the tribes did not believe that Title VI should
apply to them. However, she pointed out, issues
related to tribes probably would be included in
forthcoming guidance.
• Mr. Dubois, Mr. Cole, and Ms. Mayfield
expressed serious concern about what they
stated they perceive to be a lack of fairness in
EPA's rules governing the time limits within
which communities must file a claim, contrasted
to the significant amount of time EPA takes to
process the claims. Ms. Mayfield suggested
that EPA suspend the rule that requires
communities to file "timely" complaints. Ms.
Goode replied that the regulations are very
specific with respect to the issue of "timely"
filing; however, she pointed out that very few
complaints had been disallowed because of
violations of the requirement for timeliness. Ms.
Mayfield expressed the opinion that
disallowance of even one case because of such
a violation would be "one case too many."
Mr. Cole expressed frustration about the "lack of
progress." He added that many communities had
brought significant issues to the attention of OCR
and, despite those communities' requests for
assistance, they are "out there on their own" while
their claims are being reviewed. In particular, Mr.
Cole pointed out, Mr. Fred Hansen, former Deputy
Administrator of EPA, had said in 1996 that the
guidance on Title VI would be issued in 1997. Mr.
Cole noted that he found the delay "disappointing."
2.4 Joint Session of the Enforcement and Air
and Water Subcommittees
Members of the Enforcement and Air and Water
subcommittees of the NEJAC participated in a joint
session, during which they heard presentations on
issues related to EPA's draft guidance on the
Economic Incentive Program (EIP) and urban air
toxics. Chapter Three of this meeting summary
presents a summary of those presentations and the
discussions among the members of the two
subcommittees they prompted.
3.*0 DIALOGUE SESSIONS
This section summarizes dialogue sessions between
members of the subcommittee and select
individuals. During the meeting, members of the
subcommittee discussed specific topics of interest
with individuals who had been invited to share
information and participate in dialogues with the
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
4-7
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
members of the subcommittee. In particular,
Professor Yale Rabin, author of "Expulsive Zoning:
the Inequitable Legacy of Euclid" and professor
emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
had been invited to share his insights in the area of
actions that can be taken when land use issues arise
and Federal and state agencies seem to operate
from an "it is not our jurisdiction" or "it is not our fault"
mentality. Mr. Steve Herman, Assistant
'Administrator, EPA OECA, had been invited to share
information about EPA's enforcement activities and,
in particular, to provide comments on the
"enforcement report card" that the Enforcement
Subcommittee had prepared. That document
"graded" EPA headquarters and each EPA region for
its enforcement activities.
3.1 Dialogue With Professor Yale Rabin, Author
of "Expulsive Zoning: The Inequitable
Legacy of Euclid" and Professor Emeritus at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Professor Rabin presented his knowledge of and
experience with low-income and minority
communities that have been adversely affected by
land use decisions to the members of the
Enforcement Subcommittee. See Section 3.5.1 of
the meeting summary of the Executive Council for a
summary of his observations and recommendations.
3.2 Dialogue With the Assistant Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Off ice
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
and the Director, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Regulatory
Enforcement
The subcommittee's discussion with Mr. Herman
and Mr. Eric Schaeffer, EPA Office of Regulatory
Enforcement (ORE), focused on the "enforcement
report card" the subcommittee had prepared in 1999,
in which EPA headquarters and each EPA region
were assessed in various areas for their
enforcement performance. Mr. Cole explained that
one of the areas of greatest concern to members of
the subcommittee is ensuring that the communities
having the greatest need are receiving protection,
through such means as "targeting" enforcement
efforts in those areas. He added that prior reports,
such as a document prepared by EPA in 1998 to
summarize its enforcement efforts, did not identify
clearly where enforcement efforts were, occurring.
and where they were not. In addition, prior reports
did not indicate whether enforcement actions were
being initiated in communities that exhibited the
greatest need, including those visited during fact-
finding tours conducted by the NEJAC and testimony
offered during public comment periods conducted by
the NEJAC.
For those reasons, Mr. Cole explained, the
subcommittee had developed a methodology for
"grading" EPA's enforcement performance in a
manner that would allow comparisons among
regions. After reviewing the methodology, Mr. Cole
stated that the results showed that (1) each region
has strengths; (2) no region is a "star;" and (3) some
regions function very well in some areas, while other
regions accomplish nothing in those same areas.
Mr. Herman shared his reaction to the report card,
offering the following specific comments:
• Mr. Herman expressed doubt about the report
card's usefulness in comparing the performance
of one region with that of another. (Other EPA
staff present during the meeting also expressed
that concern.)
« Mr. Herman questioned and expressed concern
about the methodology used to develop the
report card. He asked whether "apples were
being compared with apples." (Mr, Herman
suggested that members of the subcommittee
and EPA staff engage in further discussion of
the methodology "to make sure that everybody
is on the same page.")
• Mr. Herman stated that the inclusion of a
discussion of the reasons EPA either is taking or
is not taking certain enforcement actions, as well
as discussion of EPA's use of resources, would
be helpful.
e Mr. Herman explained that, with respect to
targeting its efforts, EPA attempts to "get the
biggest bang for the buck" and, in the process,
tradeoffs must be made, such as taking on
certain "big" cases and subsequently not taking
on certain "smaller" cases; he added that
inclusion of that information would be helpful.
• Mr. Herman pointed out that EPA attempts to
measure success in ways other than the
assessment of fines and penalties (he
specifically identified facility audits and shut-
downs as examples).
• Mr. Herman said that "judicial penalties under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)" had
been included erroneously among performance
factors rated in the report card; he pointed out
that judicial penalties are not sanctioned under
TSCA.
4-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,19S9
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
In response to Mr. Cole's comment that the
assignment of grades of "F on the report card
should "raise a red flag," Mr. Schaeffer commented
that "as written," the report card would not
necessarily affect or have any influence on EPA's
behavior. However, he said that he "welcomes
criticism" because it "helps EPA argue for resources
and bring problems to the forefront." He explained
that, with respect to targeted enforcement efforts,
EPA had attempted to spend the majority of its
resources to identify priorities. One of those
priorities, Mr. Schaeffer pointed out, is taking
enforcement actions against nitrogen oxide- and
sulfurdioxide-emitting "grandfathered" refineries and
facilities that are subject to regulations under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) but have been "avoiding
pollution control for 25 years." He added that other
priorities include pollutants that contribute to asthma;
problems associated with power plants; air toxic
standards; "wet weather problems" such as sanitary
sewer overflows and combined sewer overflows; hog
farms; and unpermitted operations that generate
hazardous wastes, such as foundry sands. Mr.
Herman pointed out that the regions have a
responsibility to notify EPA headquarters of issues of
regional concern. Those issues, Mr. Herman added,
are 'lacked on" to national priorities.
Turning his attention to supplemental environmental
projects (SEP), Mr. Schaeffer declared that
"significant local impact" can be derived from them.
He distributed a brochure that explains what SEPs
are, set forth legal requirements governing SEPs,
identifies categories of acceptable SEPs, and
describes opportunities for community involvement.
Exhibit 4-5 summarizes the categories of SEPs. Mr.
Schaeffer informed the members of the
subcommittee that EPA was to issue guidance on
ways to expand community involvement during the
processes of obtaining approval of a SEP. He
agreed that he would distribute the guidance to
members of the subcommittee for comment. In
response to Mr. Dubois' question about how
communities can obtain information about SEPs, Mr.
Schaeffer stated that information about "large" SEPs
is maintained on an EPA data base and that, if the
Agency is requested to do so, EPA should be able to
provide information about SEPs in a particular
geographical area.
Several members of the subcommittee expressed
the opinion that communities had not been allowed
to participate in decision-making processes related
to SEPs, and that such community involvement that
did occur had not been effective or meaningful. Mr.
Schaeffer pointed out that determining how to
involve communities more effectively is a priority for
EPA. However, he added, "one reason why
Exhibit 4-5
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECTS
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) are
environmentally beneficial projects which a
defendant agrees to undertake in settlement of an
environmental enforcement action, but which the
defendant is not otherwise legally required to
perform. In return^ some percentage of the cost of
the project is considered as a factor in establishing
the final penalty to be paid by the defendant.
SEP can fall into one of the following categories:
• Public Health — projects which provide
diagnostic, preventative, or remedial health care
related to actual or potential damage caused by
the violation.
• Pollution Prevention — projects that reduce the
amount of contamination being released into the
environment.
• Pollution Reduction — projects that reduce the
amount or toxicity of contaminants released into
the environment by a means other than pollution
prevention.
* Environmental Restoration and Protection —
projects that enhance the condition of the
ecosystem beyond repairing damage caused by
the violation.
• Assessment and Audits — projects to identify
opportunities to reduce emissions and improve
environmental performance.
• Environmental Compliance Promotion —
projects to provide training or technical support
to other members of the regulated community.
• Emergency Planning and Preparedness —
projects to provide technical assistance and
training to enable state and local organizations to
prepare for and respond to chemical
emergencies.
bureaucrats' answers seem insufficient is that they
have to balance priorities." Mr. Schaeffer explained
that "realities," such as budget curtailments, often
affect the extent to which optimal, desired outcomes
can be achieved. One objective, he explained, is to
determine how to provide communities sufficient
time to fully understand all relevant issues so the
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
4-9
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
communities can maximize the effectiveness of their
involvement, while simultaneously ensuring that all
other objectives are met.
Mr. Cole opened the floor to members of the
audience who had indicated a desire to comment,
and the following statements were offered:
• Ms. Gail Ginsberg, EPA Region 5 Office of
Regional Counsel (ORC), informed participants
that Region 5 attempts to target its enforcement
efforts in five geographic initiative areas (GIA)
which, she said, are primarily urban areas. The
GIAs, she explained, were identified through a
process that involved ranking areas throughout
the region according to a number of criteria,
including TRI data, rates of noncompliance, and.
other factors. For example, the greater Chicago
area, northwest Indiana, and St. Louis, Missouri
are designated GIA areas in the region, she
continued, noting that all those areas include
minority and low-income communities. Ms.
Ginsberg explained that use of the approach
helps the region address issues of
environmental justice. She also explained that
the region attempts to use SEPs particularly in
low-income and minority communities. She
described as an example a case involving an
incinerator located on the west side of Chicago
and operated by the city.. Ms. Ginsberg
explained that the incinerator was in violation of
CAA regulations. EPA referred the case to the
U.S. Department of Justice and, ultimately, the
city shut down the incinerator. However,
because of accrued penalties from years of
violations under the CAA, a SEP was
implemented for the benefit of the community.
• Ms. Samantha Fairchild, EPA Region 3, Office
of Enforcement Cpmpliance and Environmental
Justice, urged members of the subcommittee to
keep in mind that SEPs are voluntary and that
EPA "cannot make violators implement SEPs."
Ms. Fairchild explained that during its
negotiations with regulatory violators, EPA spells
out the violations and requests that the violator
initiate a SEP as an element of the total relief.
Companies can refuse and are not required to
agree to initiate the SEP, she added. Ms.
Fairchild informed the participants that Region 3
had developed a SEP library as a tool to be used
in attempts to identify the types of SEP projects
that can be initiated.
4.0 RESOLUTIONS
This section summarizes the resolutions discussed
by the Enforcement Subcommittee and forwarded to
the Executive Council of the NEJAC for
consideration.
Opening the discussion of resolutions to be
forwarded to the Executive Council of the NEJAC for
approval, Mr. Cole reminded members of the
subcommittee that they had discussed three
resolutions during conference calls held throughout
the year. Those three resolutions had been
forwarded to the Executive Council of the NEJAC for
review and approval by mail ballot. The resolutions
were not discussed at length during the
subcommittee's deliberations on December 1;
however, the subcommittee met in San Diego,
California, on August 21,1999; during that meeting,
members of the subcommittee discussed and
approved the resolutions. The pending resolutions
before the Executive Council include:
• The NEJAC recommends that EPA adopt a
national policy to prohibit Federal recognition of
state-issued variances that allow facilities to
deviate from the requirements of CAA permits,
except those variances that result in more
stringent levels of control at a facility. The
NEJAC resolution also urges EPA to consult
with members of the NEJAC before considering
or approving a policy on addressing variances.
The resolution asserts that variances raise
serious health concerns and can contribute to
disproportionate adverse effects of air emissions
on communities of color. (Variances essentially
allow a polluter that is operating in violation of its
permit requirements to continue in violation for a
specified period of time. Although'the polluter
admits to a violation of permit requirements, it is
shielded from enforcement action once the
variance has been issued and is allowed to
continue operating legally in a mode of
noncompliance for the specified time.)
• The NEJAC recommends that EPA's policies on
determining appropriate penalties for
noncompliance require that these penalties
reflect the economic benefit of noncompliance
enjoyed by violating facilities. ("Capturing the
economic benefit" refers to the process of (1)
calculating the costs avoided by violators by
operating in a state of noncompliance, including
interest earned, and (2) factoring those costs
into the total amount of monetary penalties, or
fines, the violators are required to pay. For
example, a facility may decide to delay the
installation of pollution control equipment on the
4-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
basis of the assumption that it can save money
now, and, if it "gets caught" later, the money
saved will have outweighed the amount of the
penalty.) The resolution recommends that
several steps be taken to ensure that the
economic benefit of noncompliance is fully
captured in assessed penalties, including: (1)
the policy of capturing economic benefit should
be applicable on national, regional, and state
levels; (2) technical assistance should be
provided to all enforcement authorities that
"assert that they don't know how" to perform the
calculations; (3) a "model penalty policy" should
be made available to all enforcement authorities
that claim that they do not have such a policy;
(4) enforcement authorities that assert that their
laws prevent them from capturing economic
benefit should ' be required to provide
documentation to that effect to the Attorney
General's office or its equivalent; (5) EPA
regional offices should consider taking
independent enforcement actions against
facilities in cases in which penalties assessed by
the state do not capture the economic benefits
of noncompliance; (6) memoranda of agreement
between EPA and its regional offices and
performance partnership agreements between
EPA and agencies that have delegated authority
should include requirements for capturing
economic benefit; and (7) agencies to which
EPA has delegated authority should not be
allowed to "sink below" minimum pollution
control requirements.
The NEJAC recommends that EPA amend the
Agency's EIP guidance to include considerations
and requirements related to environmental
justice. (The 1990 amendments to the CAA
authorized the use of EIPs. In short, EIPs are
market-based regulations that allow facilities to
engage in "pollution trading" activities through
which facilities that reduce their emissions of
pollutants receive pollution credits that they can
sell to facilities that wish to increase or sustain
their emissions of pollutants.) Before the
December 1999 meeting, the Executive Council
of the NEJAC had adopted a resolution asking
EPA to revise its EIP regulations to incorporate
"environmental justice safeguards" and to
address specific areas of concern to the NEJAC;
however, that resolution did not suggest specific
amendments. The current resolution requests
that EPA revise the EIP regulations to reduce
the likelihood of negative effects on low-income
or minority communities from "pollution trading."
The regulations should forbid the trading of toxic
substances. Specific requests in the resolution
include: (1) to reduce the risk of the creation of
toxic "hot spots" that can result from "pollution
trading,"the regulations should forbid the trading
of credits for toxic substances; (2) EPA should
forbid "pollution trading" that affects low-income
or minority communities that already are
overburdened with pollution, using a cumulative
threshold index to assess collective risks posed
by facilities in a particular community; (3) EIP
regulations should be revised to require a
demographic analysis before the approval of any
trading program and to prohibit trading programs
that are projected to have a disproportionate
adverse effect on communities of color; (4)
trading should not be allowed as a substitute for
the use of reasonably available technology (that
is, companies should not be allowed to engage
in "pollution trading" to avoid installing feasible
technologies to safeguard public health); (5)
cross-pollutanttrading should be prohibited (that
is, facilities should not be allowed to increase
emissions of toxic chemicals because they
generate credits by reducing emissions of less
. toxic chemicals); (6) public participation
components should be included in the
regulations to allow affected communities an
opportunity to review and comment on proposed
trades; and (7) "mobile to stationary source"
trading should be banned because that type of
trading presents particular risks of the creation
of toxic hot spots in low-income or minority
communities and can result in the undercounting
of emissions. ;
In addition, the members discussed a proposed
resolution in which the NEJAC recommends that
EPA focus additional resources to address and
remedy pollution and environmental justice problems
related to CAFOs located in low-income,
communities and on Indian reservations.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
4-11
-------
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 1,1999
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Lawrence Martin
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
Chen Wen
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Designated Federal Official
Marine!le Payton
Chair
-------
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
MEETING OF THE
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Health and Research Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a one-day meeting on
Wednesday, December 1,1999, during a three-day
meeting of the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Dr.
Marinelle Payton, Harvard School of Public Health,
continues to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. Lawrence Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development
(ORD), and Mr. Chen Wen, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPT), continue
to serve as the co-Designated Federal Officials
(DFO) for the subcommittee. Exhibit 5-1 presents a
list of the members who attended the meeting and
identifies the member who was unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, is organized in five sections,
including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks,
summarizes the opening remarks of the chair.
Section 3.0, Activities of the Subcommittee Related
to Community-Directed Environmental Health
Assessment, summarizes the discussions about the
activities of the subcommittee related to developing
a decision tree framework for environmental health
assessment. Section 4.0, Presentations and
Reports, provides an overview of each presentation
and report, as well as a summary of questions and
comments by members of the subcommittee.
Section 5.0, Significant Action Items, summarizes •>
the significant action items adopted by the
subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Dr. Payton opened the subcommittee meeting by
welcoming the members present, as well as Mr.
Martin and Mr. Wen. Dr. Payton introduced Ms.
Peggy Shepard, West Harlem Environmental Action,
Inc., and Mr. Lawrence Dark, Urban League of
Portland, new members of the subcommittee. Mr.
Dark previously had served as a member of the
Public Participation and Accountability
Subcommittee of the NEJAC and Ms. Shepard
formerly had served as a member of the
Enforcement Subcommittee of the NEJAC.
Exhibit 5-1
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 1,1999
Dr. Marinelle Payton, Chair
Mr. Lawrence Martin, co-DFO
Mr. Chen Wen, co-DFO
Mr. Don Aragon
Ms. Rose Augustine
Mr. Lawrence Dark
Dr. Michael DiBartolomeis
Ms. Rosa Franklin
Mr. Carlos Porras
Ms. Peggy Shepard
Ms. Jane Stahl
Ms. Margaret Williams
Member
Who Was Unable To Attend
Mr. Philip Lewis
Dr. Payton also welcomed Mr. Daniel Wartenberg,
Rutgers University; Ms. Gretchen Latowsky, JSI
Center for Environmental Health Studies; Ms.
Barbara Sattler, University of Maryland; and Ms.
Pamela Kingfisher, Shining Waters, to the
subcommittee meeting. Dr. Payton explained that
those individuals were members of the Working
Group on Community Environmental Health
Assessment, a working group established by the
Health and Research Subcommittee of the NEJAC.
3.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
RELATED TO COMMUNITY-DIRECTED
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This section discusses the activities of the
subcommittee, which included a review of the
background of the subcommittee initiative on the
community-directed decision tree framework for
environmental health assessment; discussion of the
decision tree framework; and a report from the
subcommittee's Working Group on Community
Environmental Health Assessment.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
5-1
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
3.1 Background of the Decision Tree Framework
for Community-Directed Environmental
Health Assessment
Dr. Payton reviewed the history of the community-
driven decision tree framework for environmental
health assessment. The decision tree framework
was developed under an initiative of the
subcommittee to provide communities with atangible
tool to be used in identifying, preventing, and
resolving direct and indirect environmental health
problems that affect their communities.
Dr. Payton stated that the members of the
subcommittee voted in October 1998 to combine two
top initiatives of the subcommittee, community-
based research and a decision tree framework, to
develop the community-directed decision tree
framework for community environmental health
assessment. Dr. Payton stated that, on several
occasions, she met with the management and staff
of the sponsoring EPA program offices for the
subcommittee, OPPT and ORD, to introduce,
present, and gain support of the concept of a
decision tree framework for community-based
environmental health assessment.
Continuing, Dr. Payton stated that at the
subcommittee meeting on community-based
assessment and decision tree applications, held in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana in December 1998, marked
the beginning of the development of the structure of
the framework. The establishment of the Working
Group on Community Environmental Health
Assessment was identified as an action item at that
meeting, she said. The working group was adopted
formally in June 1999, to recommend and advise the
Health and Research Subcommittee on the
development of the decision tree. Subsequently the
decision tree was introduced to several members of
the staff of ORD, OPPT, other EPA program offices,
and representatives from the International
City/County Management Association who helped to
shape the structure of the decision tree framework,
Dr. Payton explained.
Continuing, Dr. Payton stated that the subcommittee
adopted a goal statement and identified objectives
for the decision tree framework at a meeting of the
subcommittee, held in Chicago, Illinois in September
1999.
Dr. Payton stated that the next phase in the
development of the framework is the identification of
community tools and resources to be included in the
framework and to apply the decision tree to a
community. She stated that the Working Group on
Community Environmental Health Assessment
currently was engaged in those efforts. Dr. Payton
added that she hopes the subcommittee will have a
prototype of the decision tree framework for
community trials during Summer 2000.
3.2 Discussion . of the Framework for
Community-Directed Environmental Health
Assessment
Mr. Martin gave a brief demonstration of the draft
software model for the decision tree framework. He
added that the Working Group on Community
Environmental Health Assessment had reviewed the
draft software model at the work group meeting on
November 30, 1999. In addition, he reported, the
working group had developed a matrix that displays
potential information and links between the
information that could be included in the software
model.
Dr. Hal Zenick, EPA ORD, gave a brief presentation
on his recommendation for the focus of the decision
tree framework. Dr. Zenick urged that the
subcommittee remain focused on the environmental
issues that contribute to the development of issues
related to environmental health problems when
developing the decision tree framework for
community-driven environmental health assessment.
Then as other factors that contribute to the
development of such health problems (such as
socioeconomic factors or issues related to health
care) are identified, the subcommittee should invite
representatives of other Federal agencies to identify
areas in the decision tree framework in which they
have expertise and can provide assistance, he
continued. Dr. Zenick urged that the subcommittee
build partnerships with other Federal entities to
strengthen the process of community-driven
environmental health assessment.
Dr. Zenick also informed the subcommittee about
activities ORD had undertaken that are relevant to
community assessment of environmental health and
to the development of the decision tree framework.
First, he stated, ORD is working with EPA regional
offices to (1) identify the types of questions
communities most commonly ask of EPA related to
environmental health issues; (2) determine the types
of information EPA regional offices must have to
answer those questions, as well as whether such
information is readily available; and (3) identify data
gaps in information relevant to community
environmental assessments. He stated that, while
ORD has information that could assist communities,
ORD is challenged to develop more efficient
mechanisms for distributing the products to
communities and must work to make the products
S-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
more user-friendly for community leaders and
members.
In closing, Dr. Zenick stressed that concerns related
to environmental justice is not an issue that only EPA
must address. He stated that environmental justice
is an issue related to dealing with all disparities that
threaten populations, wherever they exist, and that
other government agencies have contributions to
make in addressing such disparities. Dr. Zenick
suggested that representatives of other Federal
agencies be invited formally to the May 2000
meeting of the subcommittee to discuss how their
agencies are addressing issues that contribute to
disparities among communities. He added that the
insight provided by other agencies can be
incorporated into the decision tree framework for
community-driven environmental health assessment.
The members of the subcommittee agreed to invite
representatives of other Federal agencies to the May
2000 meeting of the subcommittee.
3.3 Environmental Justice as a Component of
Environmental Decision-Making
Dr. Michael DiBartolomeis, California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, gave a
presentation on environmental justice as a
component of environmental decision-making. He
commented that the traditional approach of
government to environmental decision-making uses
risk assessment as the primary means of supporting
decisions about mitigation, control, enforcement, or
regulation of environmental contamination. He
stated that many factors other than risk should be
considered when making decisions about
environmental contamination. Dr. DiBartolomeis
also commented that although government recently
had begun to address pollution prevention more
frequently than in the past, pollution abatement,
rather than pollution prevention, continues to be the
dominant mandate of the governmental approach to
environmental decision-making.
Dr. DiBartolomeis stated that a common complaint
about the use of the risk assessment process as the
foundation for environmental decision-making is that
risk assessment disempowers the public and that
the process often neglects public participation
opportunities and the consideration of social values
necessary to make good decisions about
environmental priorities. Other complaints about
risk assessments are (1) that risk assessments slow
the regulatory process; (2) that risk assessments are
not purely "science-based," but incorporate
judgments and values of the risk assessor that are
highly uncertain; and (3) that the concept of risk
assessment validates the concept that a certain
amount of pollution of the environment is acceptable.
Dr. DiBartolomeis stated that, if risk assessments
are to remain a key factor in environmental decision-
making, 'Value" choices in the risk evaluation
process must be made explicit, and the design and
results of the risk assessments must be described
clearly in the context of the environmental problem.
In other words, he continued, the context within
which the "science" of the risk assessments are
performed should shape how scientific information is
used and interpreted. Methods by which the
problems are defined, the data are collected and
analyzed, and the scientific findings are translated
into public policies should incorporate the social,
political, and economic, as well as the scientific,
aspects of risk assessments, he added.
Dr. DiBartolomeis also made the following
recommendations for incorporating the principles of
environmental justice into environmental decision-
making:
• Promote broad public participation in all aspects
of environmental decision making.
• Seek mechanisms to improve outreach to and
education of communities.
• Develop pollution prevention plans to guide
environmental protection programs.
• Provide legislative and legal remedies to
environmental problems.
• Conduct research in minority and low-income
communities; conduct research in partnership
with those communities.
Commenting on the ethical considerations related to
the conduct of research in low-income communities
and communities of color, Dr. DiBartolomeis stated
that researchers are obliged to obtain the informed
consent of the communities and to provide the best-
known treatment, intervention, or mitigation. Further,
researchers should inform communities of findings
that affect the well-being of individuals in those
communities, he said.
Mr. Don Aragon, Wind River Environmental Quality
Commission for the Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes, moved that the subcommittee
should draft a resolution related to ethics in
community research. The subcommittee voted to
draft such a resolution.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
5-3
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Kingfisher stated that the Akwesasne (Mohawk)
Tribe had developed a document, Good Mind
Protocol for Research. She stated that the protocol
presents key points of ethical consideration in
community research. Ms. Kingfisher agreed to
provide copies of the document to the members of
the subcommittee.
3.4 Report from the Working Group on
Community Environmental Health
Assessment of the Health and Research
Subcommittee
Ms. Kingfisher reported on the recommendations for
the decision tree framework that the Working Group
on Community Environmental Health Assessment
had developed. She explained that the members of
the working group had met on November 30,1999 in
Arlington, Virginia, to begin to work on and to
develop their recommendations for the decision tree
framework. •
Ms. Kingfisher explained that the working group" first
had considered and discussed the following
questions about community assessment and the
decision tree framework:
• How can the decision tree tool provide for
community action to resolve an environmental
health problem?
• Who will be using the tool?
• How can the decision tree tool help community
members determine whether a community
health assessment is necessary to address an
environmental health problem?
Ms. Kingfisher stated that the working group also
had developed the following general
recommendations related to the decision tree
framework:
• The target audience of the decision tree
framework should be defined as any person who
is not fully informed about the community
assessment process.
• The decision tree framework should provide
consistency in community environmental health
assessments.
• The decision tree framework should allow
flexibility in application.
• The decision tree framework should provide
users with an understanding of how the
assessment is related to community action.
• The decision tree framework should be designed
for use as an educational tool and as a resource
to support legal and regulatory activities.
•. Early in the process, the decision tree
framework should educate users about what
they can reasonably expect to achieve through
the assessment process.
• The decision tree framework should provide
users with an understanding of the roles of and
limitations upon EPA and other Federal
agencies.
Ms. Kingfisher stated that the working group made
the following recommendations about the structure
of the decision tree framework:
• The framework should function as a matrix that
will provide information that describes the
appropriate tools for each combination of
problem formulation and assessment strategy.
• The framework should highlight the utility of the
information to be provided by the assessment
and should explain the scientific limits of the
tools provided, including level of certainty,
resources necessary to complete the
assessment, and examples of how communities
have used such information.
• Segments of the decision tree framework should
be made optional, depending on the needs of a
community.
Ms. Kingfisher stated that the next steps of the
working group include the drafting of a formal letter
to the subcommittee about the group's
recommendations for the decision tree framework
and working to find a community to include in a pilot
study of the use of the decision tree framework in a
community-directed environmental health
assessment.
Mr. Dark stressed that the issue of key importance
in developing the decision tree framework is that the
framework should be user-friendly; otherwise, he
stated, the work of the subcommittee will have been
a waste of time.
Mr. Carlos Porras, Communities for a Cleaner
Environment, also stressed that the subcommittee
should support "community-directed" rather than
"community-based" environmental health
5-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
assessment. He stated that communities should
have the power to direct the assessments. Mr.
Porras also suggested that the subcommittee draft
a resolution requesting that EPA and other Federal
agencies implement plans for community-directed
research and to set priorities among research topics
identified by communities that are weighted toward
community-directed environmental health research.
After some discussion, the subcommittee agreed to
draft such a resolution after the decision tree
framework has been completed.
Dr. Zenick reiterated his recommendation that
representatives of other agencies, such as the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), be invited to
attend the subcommittee meeting, so that the
subcommittee and other agencies can work together
to eliminate disparities and, perhaps, pool resources.
He offered to coordinate the effort, should members
of the subcommittee adopt the recommendation.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Health and Research
Subcommittee of the NEJAC.
4.1 Activities of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development
Dr. Dorothy Patton, Office of Sciency Policy, EPA
ORD, began the agency presentations by giving a
general presentation on the role and functions of
ORD. During her presentation, Dr. Patton described
activities of ORD that are fundamental to health and
research and shared her perspective on new
directions for ORD for the near future.
Dr. Patton explained that ORD is responsible for (1)
development of scientific data; (2) technical support
for EPA program offices; and (3) provision of
scientific expertise, both within and outside EPA.
She stated that ORD operates three national
laboratories, five national research centers, and 13
office locations. Continuing, she said that ORD
employs toxicologists, environmental monitoring
experts, and engineers who work with environmental
control mechanisms. ORD, therefore, provides
sound science to the Agency's customers, she
explained. She stated that ORD also serves EPA
offices and regions, other government agencies and
policy partners, the academic community, and
providers of environmental technologies.
Dr. Patton stated that the fundamental activities of
ORD are the development of multiple research plans
and strategies. For example, she continued, ORD is
working to develop a strategy for research on
arsenic in drinking water that will include the
development of an associated environmental
monitoring and assessment program (EMAP), a
pollution prevention strategy, a human health risk
assessment component, an ecological research
strategy, and research on global change and
particulate matter. Other research plans currently
under development, she continued, include target
microbial pathogens and disinfectant byproducts in
drinking water and endocrine disrupters. She added
that the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA), an ORD research center, is
taking the lead in developing strategies for research
on environmental risks to children, oxygenates in
water, and mercury. Dr. Patton noted that many of
the activities she had described are related to
environmental justice issues.
Dr. Patton then stated that improved risk
assessment and risk management are major goals
of ORD's research. She added that risk assessment
is the basis for both policy and technical decisions
that determine priorities for risk management and
guide the process of managing risks. Dr. Patton
explained that the assessment of risk follows a
widely accepted paradigm developed by the National
Academy of Science (N AS) in 1983 and reiterated by
MAS in 1994. Continuing, she said that the risk
assessment paradigm is a framework for organizing
analyses of data in a way that emphasizes the
interdisciplinary nature of the work. The four major
components of the framework are (1) hazard
identification, (2) dose-response assessment, (3)
exposure assessment, and (4) risk characterization,
she explained. Dr. Patton stated that ORD does not
make policy decisions but pursues research on all
aspects of the risk assessment paradigm to support
the development and improvement of the risk
assessment and risk management process.
Dr. Patton then briefly discussed the assessment of
cumulative risks to human health and the
environment. She explained that at one end of the
spectrum of cumulative risk assessment lies a
multiplicity of health or ecological endpoints,
environmental stressors, and pathways of exposure.
At the other end of the spectrum, she continued, lay
people, communities, and socioeconomic issues,
such as environmental justice. Dr. Patton stated that
ORD would focus on problem formulation for
cumulative risk assessment that incorporates
principles of environmental justice and other
socioeconomic issues.
Dr. DiBartolomeis asked whether ORD conducts
specific projects that focus on environmental justice
issues. Dr. Patton responded that ORD does
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
5-5
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
conduct such programs and activities. She added
that ORD does not have a specific strategy for
environmental justice. Dr. Patton also noted that she
had designed her presentation to the subcommittee
to inform its members about overall activities at
ORD.
4.2 Activities of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
Dr. William Sanders, Director of EPA OPPT, Office
of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS), gave a presentation on EPA chemical
right-to-know program and community assistance
technical team. He first informed the subcommittee
that the preparation on the proposed rule on lead
and lead compounds under Section 403 of the Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) was on schedule.
Exhibit 5-2 provides information on the proposed
rule. Dr. Sanders also informed the subcommittee
about two other proposed rules. The renovation and
reframeworking rule, which sets standards for those
activities, currently was before a panel of the Small
Business Administration, he said. The development
process had begun, he continued, for a rule on
standards for abatement of lead on bridges and
structures. . .
Exhibit 5-2
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY PROPOSED LEAD STANDARDS
On June 3,1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed standards for identifying
lead-based paint hazards under section 403 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended
by the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 (also known as Title X). The
proposal would establish standards to identify
hazards from lead-based paint in most housing built
before 1978 and in child-occupied facilities such as
day-care centers. The rule identifies when lead-based
paint, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated
soils are hazards. It also establishes residential lead
dust cleanup levels and revises dust and soil sampling
requirements. These standards can be used as a tool
to prevent childhood lead poisoning by identifying
properties that contain hazards before children are
harmed.
Dr. Sanders then turned to his presentation. He
began by explaining briefly that the OPPT chemical
right-to-know program challenges industry to
improve the quality of the information available about
2,800 major chemicals in use in the chemical
industry. He stated that 350 companies had
volunteered to "sponsor" 1,100 major chemicals;
sponsorship involves publishing data that describe
the toxicity of the chemicals and conducting research
on chemical toxicity, if necessary. Dr. Sanders
stated that OPPT hopes that the information
eventually will help bring about the replacement of
harmful chemicals currently used in the industry with
safer substitutes.
Dr. Sanders then provided information about OPPT's
community assistance technical team. He stated
that the OPPT community assistance technical team
provides tools and technical assistance to help
communities understand and use environmental
data related to the environmental risk assessment
process. He explained that the goals of the OPPT
team are:
• To provide accessible tools for community
assessments and for interpretation of data from
the chemical right-to-know program.
• To provide training to EPA regional offices and
other organizations in the conduct of community
assessments and the interpretation of
community data.
• To develop a partnership for community
assistance with other EPA programs and
regional offices and with other agencies and
organizations to avoid duplication of efforts and
help link the agencies' expertise to community
needs.
Dr. Sanders then distributed copies of the case study
for the Baltimore Community Environmental
Partnership Air Committee Technical Report, a risk-
based air screening report prepared by the OPPT
team and the Community Environmental Partnership
(CEP) Air Committee, located in Baltimore City and
Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Exhibit 5-3 defines
CEP and provides information on the case study. He
stated that the completion of the Baltimore Air
Committee project was an example of the types of
projects the OPPT team pursues. Dr. Sanders did
not discuss the Baltimore Air Committee report in
detail, but offered to make a presentation on the
project at a future meeting of the subcommittee.
5-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
Exhibit 5-3
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL
PARTNERSHIP (CEP) AND COMMUNITY
RISK-BASED AIR SCREENING: A CASE
STUDY IN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
The community environmental partnership (CEP)
started as a pilot for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) new community-based
approach to environmental protection and economic
development. This new approach is an effort to
address environmental issues from the perspective of
a neighborhood. The approach incorporates the local
community's knowledge and allows for the
consideration of a detailed level of information often
missed when policy is made at the national or state
level. The community-based approach changes the
roles of the community and government. It
empowers the community to take the lead in the
decisions affecting their environment, and it puts
government in the role of an advisor, providing the
information and technical assistance not available in
the community.
On May 3,1996, the residents, businesses, and
organizations of five Baltimore area neighborhoods
joined with local, state, and Federal governments
formed the Air Committee CEP to improve the local
environment and economy. The case study describes
the results of a risk-based air screening project
conducted by the CEP Air Committee. The results
provide preliminary answers to questions raised by
community members about air quality in their
neighborhoods.
4.3 Presentations by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry
This section summarizes presentations made by
representatives of the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
4.3.1 The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry's Approach to
Conducting Community Environmental
Health Assessments
Dr. Henry Falk, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), made a presentation on
the approach ATSDR takes to conduct community
environmental health assessments. Dr. Falk
stressed that the first step in working with a
community on an environmental health assessment
is to determine ho\* a community believes the
assessment should be focused and what information
the members of the community believe they need to
resolve their questions. After making that
determination, Dr. Falk explained, ATSDR can
assess what segments of the agency should be
involved in the community assessment.
Dr. Falk stressed that ATSDR's approach is based
on the kinds of questions communities pose to
ATSDR. Such questions, he explained, usually are
related to the assessment of environmental
exposure, such as "Are we exposed to harmful
chemicals?" and to concern about disease and
illness, such as "Am I sick?" and "What can I do if I
am sick because of exposure to chemicals?" Dr.
Falk stated that ATSDR's approach urges the
community to develop specific and precise questions
before determining what types of environmental data
will be collected, explaining that the more specific
questions about exposure and illness the more
effectively they can be related to environmental data.
Continuing, Dr. Falk stated that, after environmental
data have been collected, the community also must
be involved in decisions about how to assess the
environmental data, whether by traditional risk
assessment, surveys, or registries of illness and
disease.
Dr. Falk stated that ATSDR provides consultation
services and outreach to communities, beyond the
assistance it provides for community environmental
health assessments. Examples, he continued, are
the maintenance of a web site that promotes public
awareness of the activities of the agency and an
increase in the number of responses it provides to
inquiries from Congress. The web site address is
.
4.3.2 The Link Between Birth Defects, Toxic
Waste, Drinking Water, and Economic
Burden
Dr. Frank Bove, ATSDR, followed Dr. Falk's
presentation in which he summarized the findings of
studies on the possible link between birth defects
and "maternal residence" near hazardous waste
sites. Dr. Bove stated that six studies conducted by
ATSDR over the past decade had provided
reasonable evidence to establish an association
between maternal residential proximity to hazardous
waste sites and increased risks of particular birth
defects diagnosed within the first year of life, such as
central nervous system defects, musculoskeletal
defects, and heart defects. Dr. Bove explained that,
while the studies provided reasonable evidence to
establish an association between residential
proximity to hazardous waste sites and the
occurrence of such birth defects, the studies have
methodologic limitations. One limitation was that the
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
5-7
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
assessments of potential for exposure at each site
were based on sampling data that differed widely in
quality orthat had been collected for other purposes,
such as support for remediation or enforcement
decisions, he said. For some sites included in the
studies, no sample data were available to assess
exposure potential, said Dr. Bove. Another major
limitation of some of the studies, he added, was the
crude manner in which exposure potential at each
site was determined (for example, assuming a
mother residing within three kilometers of a site at
the time of birth or assuming a resident consumes
water from a public system).
Dr. Bove stated that, to strengthen the evidence for
the association between exposure to hazardous
waste sites and increased risks of specific birth
defects, future studies must determine more
precisely the exposures attributable to hazardous
waste sites. One approach, he continued, is to
include in a study only those sites that have
adequate off-site sample data and that are highly
likely to cause exposure to surrounding populations.
He added that sites at which similar exposure
pathways or contaminants are present could be
grouped together in a study. Dr. Bove noted that,
while that approach may restrict the number of sites
evaluated in a study, it also would reduce
considerably the amount of exposure
misclassification bias that is included in the study.
He then stated that another approach is to focus on
a known, complete exposure pathway-for example,
public drinking water contaminated by pollutants
from industrial facilities, agricultural runoff, or
hazardous waste sites.
Dr. Bove then commented briefly on an analysis
conducted recently by ATSDR and the Joint Institute
for Energy and Environment (JIEE) to estimate some
of the medical and lost-productivity costs resulting
from health conditions that occur in communities
located near Superfund sites that are contaminated
with volatile organic compounds (VOC). The
analysis estimated the total medical, long-term care,
and lost-productivity costs of selected health
conditions for 258 Superfund sites to be
approximately $330 million dollars per year. The
results of the analysis are published in
Environmental Research (79; 9-19), he said.
Ms. Rose Marie Augustine, Tusconans for a Clean
Environment, asked whether any of the studies
included an evaluation of psychological effects,
commenting that the psychological effects of living
near hazardous waste sites can affect health. Dr.
Bove responded that psychological effects were not
included in any of the studies he had discussed. He
agreed that such effects should be evaluated in
future studies.
Ms. Kingfisher asked how available registries can be
improved to include more types of toxicity data. Dr.
Falk responded that ATSDR was to sponsor a
workshop in January 2000 to address the types of
data that should be added to registries. He added
that ATSDR plans to begin to research major toxic
substances and to predict the types of diseases that
may be associated with such substances.
Mr. Porras commented on a chromium facility in his
community that is located adjacent to a school
playground. He asked how his community can
prevent such a situation from happening again. Dr.
Falk responded that ATSDR, in an effort to help
communities actively protect their health, had
developed educational materials for communities
and conducts training of community and medical
officials. Dr. Bove added that communities also can
petition ATSDR for a consultation on possible
environmental health effects.
Ms. Jane Stahl, State of Connecticut, asked what
use state or local agencies can make of such
information. Dr. Falk responded that ATSDR should
coordinate future studies that would consider how
state and local agencies and communities can use
the results of such studies effectively.
Dr. DiBartolomeis commented that both EPA and
ATSDR have developed new standards for the
ingestion of methyl mercury. He stated that,
although the standards established by the two
agencies are based on the same data, they differ. In
response, Dr. Falk explained that the agencies'
standards for methyl mercury differ because the two
agencies interpreted the data on which the standards
are based differently. He added that NAS will
pubjish additional data in the near future and that
ATSDR will reevaluate its standard for ingestion of
methyl mercury after reviewing the additional data.
Dr. Sanders then noted that the difference between
the two agencies' standards is relatively minor.
4.4 Presentation on the Environmental Justice
Standard of the City of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Mr. Jerome Baiter, Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, made a presentation on
a framework used by the city of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in evaluating permit applications to
support, if necessary, a finding of discrimination
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VI). The framework, compares various county
demographic and epidemiological information
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
available from . the state health department of
Pennsylvania to determine and support a finding of
environmental discrimination. Mr. Baiter explained
that the concept of cumulative risk assessment is
complex and costly; therefore, he said, it is out of the
reach of many communities that have environmental
justice concerns. The framework used by the City of
Philadelphia provides communities that have
environmental justice concerns with a more simple,
effective, and usable avenue of action to fight
environmental discrimination, he said. The benefits
the framework offers, he said, are: (1) the
framework is based on age-adjusted information
available from the state health department, (2) the
framework is based on simple logic that communities
can understand easily, and (3) the use of the
framework requires only a limited amount of human
and financial resources.
In closing, Mr. Baiter commented that the framework
has the advantage of putting into the hands of the
community the power to challenge permit
applications on the basis of environmental justice.
He added that citizens can evaluate the results of the
evaluation completed through application of the
framework and vote on whether to file an
administrative complaint under Title VI.
Mr. Porras asked whether the framework was
available to other cities. Mr. Baiter stated that he
would provide the framework to Dr. Payton, who
could make the framework available to members of
the subcommittee.
Ms. Shepard cautioned that a low-income
community often will choose economic gains
despite adverse health effects, even when provided
with information that supports a finding of
environmental injustice.
Dr. Zenick asked what number of cancer cases are
needed to demonstrate differences among various
areas in a community. Mr. Baiter responded that the
study is based on rates (that is, mortality rates and
cancer rates), rather than numbers of cases.
Mr. Martin Halper, EPA Office of Environmental
Justice (OEJ), commented that communities can
have similar morbidity rates but different mortality
rates because of limited access to health care and
medical facilities. Communities that have
environmental justice concerns are more sensitive
and susceptible to additional health stressors, he
said.
4.5 Presentation on Disproportionate Effects
Ms. Anne Goode, Director of EPA Office of Civil
Rights (OCR), discussed the key aspects of the Title
VI Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI
Administrative Complaints Which Challenge
Permitting Decisions. She stated that OCR was
revising the interim guidance, which provides a
framework by which OCR processes complaints that
allege discrimination in the environmental permitting
context that are filed under Title VI. She noted that
EPA plans to publish a revised version of the interim
guidance early in 2000. She added that the revised
version would be made available on the Internet at
.
Ms. Goode explained that the process of pursuing
complaints filed under Title VI that is outlined in the
draft interim guidance began with an assumption that
adverse effects exist in a community; however, the
draft guidance did not include a methodology for
effectively determining that there were, in fact,
adverse or harmful effects in a community. To
address that issue, OCR requested the assistance of
ORD in developing methodologies that could serve
as screening devices in identifying adverse effects in
a community, explained Ms. Goode. As a result of
the collaborative efforts of OCR and ORD, in
summer 1998, OCR submitted three methodologies
for identifying .adverse or harmful effects to the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) of EPA. Exhibit 5-4
describes the SAB and Exhibit 5-5 describes the
methodologies OCR submitted. The methodologies,
she said, would be included in the revised guidance.
Exhibit 5-4
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
In 1978, the U.S. Congress established the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) by the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act to provide independent scientific
and engineering advice to the Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency related to the
technical nature of its regulations. The SAB
functions as a technical peer review panel. The SAB
also conducts its business in public view and benefits
from receiving public comments during its
deliberations.
The Integrated Human Exposure Committee (IHEC)
is a subcommittee of the SAB that addresses issues
related to how to measure the rate and amount of
exposure on humans by environmental
contamination.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
5-9
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 5-5
METHODOLOGIES DEVELOPED BY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is charged with responding to
complaints filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that allege discriminatory effects from the issuance of
pollution control permits by states or other governmental bodies that received financial assistance from EPA. To
address such complaints, OCR has collaborated with several other EPA offices to develop two methodologies for
performing analyses of disproportionate impacts. The first methodology, Relative Burden Analysis (RBA), was
developed by EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the second methodology, the Cumulative
Outdoor Air Toxics Concentration Exposure Methodology (COATCEM) was developed jointly by EPA Office of
Policy and the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR).
The RBA methodology estimates differential "burdens" to various populations from air emissions from-stationary
point sources. RBA consists of two versions, the basic RBA (BRBA) and the enhanced RBA (ERBA), and uses as
the starting point of the analysis the annualized estimates of emissions reported to the Toxics Release Inventory by
specific facilities. The methodology employs the toxicity weights for individual chemicals from the EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT) Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) methodology to generate
a "pseudo-chemical" for the facilities of concern. The RBA uses the calculated burdens for specific populations to
generate rough indications of risk. The RBA has been applied on a trial basis to the proposed Shintech poly vinyl
chloride facility in Convent, Louisiana.
The COATCEM methodology is designed to estimate risks from three sources of air emissions, stationary, area, and
mobile sources. COATCEM uses air dispersion modeling to develop exposure concentrations from these sources to
populations at specific locations. The methodology includes three measures of different impacts among populations,
cancer risk, non-cancer toxicity hazard ratio, and total benchmark exceedances. COATCEM evaluates hazardous air
pollutants with known toxicity values (such as cancer slope factors and reference concentrations) indiviudally. OCR
used the COATCEM methodology during its investigation of the Select Steel case in Flint, Michigan.
Ms. Goode stressed OCR's commitment to
investigating administrative complaints filed under
Title VI through sound science.
Commenting on the framework presented by Dr.
•Baiter, Ms. Goode stated that the approach is
"interesting," but warned that such an .approach
lacks legal defensibility because it does not allow a
community to prove a direct link between the
decision to issue a permit and health effects on the
nearby community. She added that her staff had
evaluated the framework for its effectiveness in
strengthening OCR's argument in Title VI cases.
Her staff, she said, had identified several limitations
to the approach of supporting Title VI cases with
health department data. Examples of such
limitations include the lack of information at the tract
level and the lack of age-adjusted information at the
zip code level in many communities, she said.
Mr. Porras warned against using purely science-
based methodologies because, often, "the science is
not there." For example, he explained, little toxicity
information is available about children than it is for
adults. Ms. Goode expressed her appreciation for
that comment and expressed her hope that better
tools and information would be available in the
future. But, she added, she believed the tools
currently available are applicable and effective for
OCR's current cases.
Ms. Shepard stated that a lack of appropriate data or
research often slows or hinders Title VI cases. She
asked whether OCR had considered collecting
toxicity or health data in Title VI cases or requiring
that permit applicants provide monitoring data. Ms.
Goode responded that there are issues related to the
collection of data for such cases, such as funding for
the collection of new data and the authority of OCR
to require permit applicants to provide monitoring
data. In the case of the latter issue, she explained,
the burden of proof in Title VI cases lies on EPA.
Ms. Goode added that she plans to develop a
protocol for "lumping" similar cases together. Then,
she continued, with sensitivity to chronology, she will
pursue the best representative case that, if
successful, will set the path for similar cases.
Dr. DiBartolomeis commented that there always will
be major gaps in reliance on science to support Title
VI cases. He asked why a common-sense
approach, such as a policy of "do no harm," was not
5-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
applied in the evaluation of permit applications for
new facilities. Continuing, he asked whether EPA
programs will ever adopt a policy of "do no harm" or
whether they would continue to perform abatement
measures. Ms. Goode responded that, in her
opinion, communities that have environmental justice
concerns are helping the agencies to see the "big
picture." She then stated her belief that the agencies
eventually would focus on such a policy."
Ms. Augustine asked that Ms. Goode explain the
responsibility of OCR in the area of environmental
justice. Ms. Goode responded that OCR has the
responsibility to process and review administrative
complaints filed under Title VI.
Mr. Baiter commented that EPA has no power in the
area of Title VI because EPA does not examine
complaints filed under Title VI until a facility has been
granted a permit by a state.
Dr. Zenick commented that OCR's development of
science-based tools for supporting Title VI cases
provides a tremendous opportunity for EPA to
combat environmental injustice because the tools
can provide cumulative, multimedia information. He
explained that, because EPA, as a permitting
authority, continues to take a single-media,
enforcement type of approach to environmental
problems, such information had not been available.
4.6 Presentation on Chemical Accident
Prevention: New Initiatives
Dr. Jerry Poje, Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board (CSB), made a presentation on
new initiatives in chemical accident prevention. Dr.
Poje explained that the mission of CSB is to promote
safety and prevent releases of chemicals. He stated
that the activities of CSB include (1) investigation of
chemical incidents, analysis of causal factors, and
provision to chemical facilities of recommendations
about prevention of accidents; (2) the provision of
advice to Congress about the effectiveness of the
efforts of Federal agencies to prevent chemical
accidents; (3) the establishment of requirements for
reporting such incidents by chemical facilities; and
(4) the conduct of research and special studies.
Dr. Poje also discussed briefly the status of Year
2000 (Y2K) alerts for computer systems in the
chemical industry. He stated that, over the
preceding three years, CSB had conducted a special
study of Y2K issues in the chemical industry. Dr.
Poje said that early computer program designs had
been flawed but had become standard in the
chemical industry, and larger computer systems had
been developed around older, flawed systems; He
explained that updating older, embedded systems is
a costly process; many facilities, he pointed out, had
not updated their systems because of lack of
financial resources or skilled personnel. Dr. Poje
stated .that CSB had collaborated with the
President's Council Roundtable and the Senate Y2K
Committee to address Y2K alerts for computer
systems in the chemical industry. Dr. Poje stated
that more information about CSB is available on the
Internet at .
Dr. Payton 'asked whether chemical accident
prevention could be incorporated into the permitting
process for chemical facilities. Dr. Poje responded
that, in his opinion, permitting agencies should
consider the record of chemical accidents at a facility
when making permitting decisions.
4.7 Presentation on Chemicals In Your
Community: What Does It Mean?
Dr. David Speights, EPA Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO),
made a presentation on EPA's risk management
program, a new program aimed at reducing the risks
posed by the release of chemicals at the local level.
He explained that, when Congress passed the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), it required
EPA to publish regulations and guidance for
chemical accident prevention at facilities that use
extremely hazardous substances. Dr. Speights
stated that regulation under the risk management
program builds upon existing industry codes and
standards and requires that companies of all sizes
that use certain flammable and toxic substances
develop facility risk management programs that
include: .
• A hazard assessment that identifies in detail the
potential effects of an accidental release,
provides an accident history over the preceding
five years, and presents an evaluation of worst-
case and other accidental releases.
• A prevention program that includes safety
precautions and measures for maintenance,
monitoring, and employee training.
• An emergency response program that defines
emergency health care, establishes employee
training measures, and sets forth procedures for
informing the public and response agencies (for
example, the fire department), should an
accident occur.
Dr. Speights stated that the Chemical Safety
Information Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief
Act establishes new provisions for reporting and
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
S-11
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
disseminating information under Section 112(r) of
CM. Under those new provisions, he pointed out,
facilities are required to submit risk management
plans (BMP) to EPA-. The RMP summarizes
information about a facility's risk management
program. Information in the RMP helps local fire,
police, and emergency response personnel prepare
for and respond to chemical accidents and is useful
to citizens to support their understanding of the
chemical hazards in their community, he said. Dr.
Speights stated that an estimated 64,000 facilities
were required to submit RMPs by June 21,1999. He
added that facilities will be required to update their
RMPs at least every five years.
Dr. Speights added that RMPs are available on the
Internet at .
Mr. Halper asked how EPA defines a chemical
"accidenf in terms of the risk management program.
Dr. Speights responded that a chemical accident is
defined as any death, injury, or off-site consequence
that results from a chemical incident.
5.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the action items adopted
by the Health and Research Subcommittee of the
NEJAC.
The members of the Health and Research
Subcommittee of the NEJAC adopted the following
action items:
/ Recommend to the NEJAC and OEJ that the
May 2000 meeting of the NEJAC focus on
environmental and public health issues by
requesting that Federal agencies with related
health concerns work cooperatively with the
NEJAC to coordinate a comprehensive
response to environmental and public health
concerns of environmental justice communities.
/ Draft a resolution that requests that EPA and
other Federal agencies to pool their resources to
award grants to conduct community-directed
environmental health research on topics
identified by communities.
/ Develop prototype community-directed
environmental health assessment decision tree
for community trials.
/ Draft a resolution that recommends guidelines
for ethical considerations related to
environmental health research.
«/" Plan a risk assessment forum in partnership with
community.
«/ Devise a strategy to include a public health-
based guidance into decision-making.
/ Consider strategies to incorporate chemical
accidents and community right-to-know into the
decision-making process.
5-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 1,1999
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Daniel Gogal
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Acting Designated Federal Official
Anthony Hanson
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alternate Designated Federal Official
Brad Hamilton
Proxy Chair
-------
-------
CHAPTER SIX
MEETING OF THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a one-day meeting on
Wednesday, December 1,1999, during a three-day
meeting of the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Mr.
Brad Hamilton, Director, Native American Affairs
Office, Department of Human Resources, State of
Kansas, served as the proxy chair of the
subcommittee in the absence of Mr. Tom Goldtooth,
Indigenous Environmental Network. Mr. Daniel
Gogal, Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
continues to.serve as the Acting Designated Federal
Official (DFO) for the subcommittee, and Mr.
Anthony Hanson, American Indian Environmental
Office (AIEO), Office of Water (OW), EPA, continues
to serve as the alternate DFO. Exhibit 6-1 presents
a list of the members who attended the meeting and
identifies those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, is organized in six sections, including
this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes
the opening remarks of the chair. Section 3.0,
Presentations and Reports, presents an overview of
each presentation and report received by the
subcommittee, as well as a summary of the
questions and comments of the members of the
subcommittee. Section 4.0, Draft Recommendations
on Integrating the Concerns of Indigenous Peoples,
provides a description of draft recommendations for
integrating the concerns of indigenous peoples into
permitting decisions. Section 5.0, Action Items,
summarizes the action items adopted by the
subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Mr. Hamilton opened the meeting of the
subcommittee by welcoming the members present
and Mr. Gogal and Mr. Hanson. Mr. Hamilton then
asked Mr. Moses Squeochs, Confederated Tribes
and Bands of Yakama Indian Nation of the Yakama
Reservation, Washington, Yakama National
Environmental Program, to provide the invocation to
begin the meeting. Mr. Squeochs offered a Yakama
prayer, which he sang in the traditional manner.
Exhibit 6-1
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
SUBCOMMITTEE
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 1,1999
Mr. Brad Hamilton, Proxy Chair
Mr. Daniel Gogal, Acting DFO
Mr. Anthony Hanson, Alternate DFO
Mr. Dwayne Beavers
Ms. Nancy Howard
Ms. Jennifer Hill-Kelley
Ms. Sarah James
Mr. Gerald Prout
Mr. Moses Squeochs
Mr. Dean Suagee
Members Who Were
Unable To Attend
Mr. George Godfrey
Mr. Tom Goldtooth, Chair
Mr. Charles Miller
3.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and the reports submitted to the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee.
3.1 Update on U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Proposed Core Water Quality
Standards for Indian Tribes
Mr. Fred Leutner, Chief, Water Quality Standards
Branch, OW, EPA, began his presentation by
defining water quality standards (WQS). Exhibit 6-2
describes WQSs. He explained that WQSs are the
foundation for the water-quality based approach to
pollution control and are a fundamental component
of watershed management.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
6-1
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 6-2
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), water quality
standards (WQS) are established to:
• Protect the public health and welfare.
• Enhance the quality of water.
• Serve purposes of the CWA that include
restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of state and tribal waters.
• Provide, whenever attainable, protection of water
quality; propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife; and promotion of recreation in and on
the water.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgates WQSs under the CWA in cases in which
EPA determines that standards adopted by states and
eligible tribes are not consistent with the
requirements of the CWA or in which EPA
determines that standards are necessary to meet the
requirements of the CWA.
Mr. Leutner emphasized that tribes and EPA have
worked diligently over the past several years to
protect the waters of Indian country from pollution;
however, most of the waters in Indian country still
are not protected by WQSs under the Clean Water
Act (CWA). He pointed out that, as of September
1999, 14 tribes have their own approved WQSs in
place; in addition, one tribe has Federally
promulgated standards in place, he said. Without
WQSs, Mr. Leutner explained, many of the tools
available underthe CWA to protect waters located in
Indian country from sources of pollution are limited,
whether the sources are within or upstream from
Indian country.
Continuing, Mr. Leutner stated that EPA is
committed to working with tribes to support the
establishment of their own water quality programs.
The Agency's primary preference, he emphasized, is
that the tribes establish and implement their own
water quality programs under the CWA. To protect
existing water quality and ensure progress in
improving water quality, he continued, EPA believes
it is necessary to adopt an interim approach that will
protect water quality in Indian country. Therefore,
EPA is considering whether to promulgate a national
rule establishing core Federal WQSs to support
tailored, site-specific decisions about all waters
located in Indian country for which tribal standards
approved by EPA have not been established, he
said.
Mr. Leutner stated that he wished to make clear to
the subcommittee that EPA is contemplating that
rule as a first step toward ensuring that the "core"
CWA framework is applied to protect water quality
for all such waters. A Federal promulgation, he
informed the subcommittee, would not prevent tribes
from developing their own standards for approval
under the CWA. Tribes that do not wish to be
included in the Federal promulgation would have
several options for pursuing other approaches, he
said.
The proposed core standards, Mr. Leutner
explained, have three basic components:
• Use designations consistent with those set forth
in section 101 (a) of the CWA to protect public
health and welfare and enhance the quality of
water.
• Establish narrative water quality criteria for
protecting designated uses.
Establish an antidegredation policy designed to
protect existing uses of water.
Mr. Leutner then explained that the proposed WQSs
for Indian country are general and that EPA plans to
provide several ways in which the particular
circumstances of each tribe can be accommodated.
EPA, he stated, in consultation with the affected
tribe, would be able to implement the core WQSs in
a manner that would account for different
environmental conditions, the priorities of the tribe,
and treaty and other rights of the tribe related to
environmental protection. He stated again that the
proposed core Federal WQSs would provide an
important tool for tribes and EPA to use in making
defensible, site-specific decisions that protect tribal
waters.
Concluding his presentation, Mr. Leutner provided
highlights of other benefits of the core WQSs:
Ensure that all areas of Indian country for which
tribal standards currently lacking approval by
EPA are provided quality-based protection under
the CWA.
• Provide a basis for EPA to exert control over
discharges .occurring upstream from tribal
waters, and provide a legally enforceable basis
for including water quality-based limitations or
conditions in permits.
6-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Provide a basis on which EPA can establish total
maximum daily loads (TMDL) for waters located
in Indian country. Exhibit 6-3 provides a
description of TMDLs.
Exhibit 6-3
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD
A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a calculation
of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and continue to meet water
quality standards, accompanied by. an allocation of
that amount to the sources of the pollutant.
A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a
single pollutant from all contributing point and
nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a
margin of safety to ensure that the waterbody can be
used for the purposes the state, tribe, or territory has
designated. The calculation also must account for
seasonable variation in water quality.
Source: Section 303 of the Clean Water Act
establishes water quality standards and TMDL
programs.
Mr. Dean Suagee, Vermont Law School, then
explained to the members of the subcommittee that
the advantage of establishing TMDLs is that the
standards consider a basin as a whole and then
allow for appropriate allocation of responsibility for
pollution. Mr. Suagee then expressed concern that
the CWA views fish consumption in the United
States as a whole; therefore, the CWA does not
protect the portion,of the population that practices
subsistence fishing. Mr. Suagee then stated that the
proposed core WQSs should be supported, but he
expressed concern about the adoption of TMDLs
before a tribe .has adopted its own WQSs. Mr.
Suagee then stated that an additional concern about
the CWA is that the act does not take into
consideration certain provisions of the National
Historic Preservation Act, which states that if a
Federal action affects places of cultural significance
that may or may not be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, tribal consultation must
occur.
Mr. Bill Swaney, Environmental Division Manager,
Confederated Salish and Kootnai Tribes, also made
a presentation to the subcommittee about WQSs
that his tribe developed. He stated that, after his
tribe adopted its WQSs, which are more stringent
than is required under the CWA, EPA Region 8 had
begun to issue one permit per facility on the basis of
WQSs adopted by the tribe. One problem, however,
is that many facilities are discharging pollutants into
unclassified waters, he said.
Mr. Swaney then expressed his concern about
EPA's ability to implement the proposed Federal
core WQSs because of the lack of resources
available to evaluate the current state of water
bodies, establish designated uses, and determine
numeric degradation criteria. He added further that
his tribe still was negotiating an antidegradation
policy because the views the tribe and EPA on
"mixing zones" differ widely. He explained that his
tribe's WQSs do not allow a "mixing zone." Mr.
Swaney then stated that he believes EPA's proposed
core WQSs are a worthwhile undertaking because
they provide a way for tribes to maintain their
sovereignty and still allow EPA to step in and meet
its obligations to tribes; however, he stated that he
also believes that the undertaking may prove too
ambitious. Mr. Leutner then noted that if the core
WQS program is promulgated, that promulgation
would be carried out in phases to allow tribes time to
adopt their own standards.
Mr. Squeochs expressed concern about the
language used in drafting the core WQSs related to
tribes that have exterior reservation boundaries and
stated the opinion that the language places too many
constraints on tribes. He recommended that the
wording be altered to "on-and-off reservation
interests."
Ms. KathyGorospe, Director, EPA AIEO, expressed
her appreciation to the members of the
subcommittee for the work they have accomplished
and stated that the discussions about WQSs had
been very informative. She stated further that the
level of sophistication and education of tribes had
grown considerably and that EPA will involve tribes
in the development of the core WQSs. The issue of
jurisdiction is a serious problem and is at the top of
the priority list at EPA, she added. She urged the
members of the subcommittee to give the proposed
.core WQSs serious and thoughtful consideration.
She further urged the members of the subcommittee
not to focus on the WQSs from a resources point of
view but to consider them from the standpoint of
merit - that is, will the WQSs accomplish the goal of
protecting water quality in Indian country.
3.2 Presentation on Issues Related to the Clean
Air Act
Mr. Dwayne Beavers, Program Manager, Office of
Environmental Services, Cherokee Nation, began
the discussion of issues related to Indian country and
the Clean Air Act (CAA). He stated that an issue
related to the CAA is that a tribe is treated as a
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
6-3
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
public participant unless the tribe has been granted
eligibility to be treated in the same manner as a
state. Exhibit 6-4 describes treatment in the same
manner as a state. Mr. Beavers acknowledged that
EPA Region 6 is working with the tribes to enable
them to examine the conditions included in new air
permits before those permits are issued.
Exhibit 6-4
TREATMENT IN THE SAME MANNER
AS A STATE
The phrase, "treatment in the same manner as a state"
(TAS) was used in reference to the status of tribes in
relation to Federal programs for the first time in the
1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SWDA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
amendments directed that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) develop a process by which
tribes could apply for grants and program authority.
EPA established a TAS process for establishing
eligibility under various programs, according to the
criteria identified in SWDA and CWA. In 1990,
Congress also included TAS provisions in the Clean
Air Act Amendments. Generally, the criteria are:
• The tribe must be Federally recognized.
• The tribe must have or be able to exercise
substantial governmental powers.
• The tribe must have or have been delegated
jurisdiction over the area in question.
• The tribe must be reasonably expected to have
the financial, physical, and human resource
capability to implement a program effectively.
'Treatment as states," the original term for the
process, was revised to "treatment in the same
manner as a state" because many tribes objected to
the original phrase. Many tribes commented that they
are not states; rather, they have a unique relationship
with the government of the United States.
Mr. Bob Kellam, EPA Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR), began his discussion by stating that the
Tribal Air Rule (TAR), which was promulgated on
February 12,1998, identifies those, provisions of the
CAA under which it is appropriate to treat tribes in
the same manner as states. He explained that the
TAR lays out the eligibility requirements for a number
of CAA programs, including attainment and
maintenance strategies for achieving and protecting
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),.the Title V operating permit program, and
requirements for control of air toxics. In addition, he
noted, the TAR describes the types of financial
assistance available to tribes interested in pursuing
air quality programs. Continuing, Mr. Kellam
explained that, in the CAA, Congress provided to
tribes that have approved CAA programs authority
over all air resources within exterior boundaries of a
reservation, including fee lands that are not owned
by the tribe. However, for nonreservation areas, he
pointed out, tribes must demonstrate the basis for a
claim of jurisdiction.
Mr. Kellam then stated that, there have been many
jurisdictional disputes about who has the authority
under the CAA to issue permits related to Indian
country. He stated that the current situation, in
which state governments assume authority until a
tribe can qualify for delegation, is not acceptable and
that EPA is working to make the Federal government
responsible until tribes can qualify for delegated
authority. Mr. Beavers noted that, in Oklahoma, the
state has agreed to partial delegation. Mr. Beavers
stated that, as more tribes begin applying for
treatment in the same manner as states, training in
how to review permits effectively should be offered
to such tribes. Mr. Kellam stated that such a course
had been developed.
3.3 Presentation
Pollutants
on Persistent Organic
Ms. Amy Fraenkel, Office of International
Environmental Policy (OIEP), Office of International
Activities (OIA), EPA, began her discussion of
persistent organic pollutants (POP) by explaining the
progress made on the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) Global Treaty on POPs. Exhibit
6-5 describes POPs. On June 29 through July 3,
1998, she stated, EPA, together with the UNEP, and
other international organizations, convened the first
session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee (INC-1) in Montreal, Canada.
The INC-1, she continued, provided the initial
framework for the international mandate to eliminate
twelve POPs: aldrin, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyl -
trichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, dioxins, endrin,
furans, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and toxaphene.
In addition, she continued, the INC-1 established two
groups: a Criteria Experts Group to focus on
scientific criteria and procedures for identifying
additional pollutants for possible inclusion under the
treaty and an Implementation Group to focus on
technical and financial assistance issues related to
the treaty.
6-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Exhibit 6-5
PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS
Persistent organic pollutants (POP) are highly stable
organic compounds used as pesticides. They also are
generated unintentionally as the byproduct of
combustion and industrial processes. POPs are a
significant problem because they persist in the
environment, accumulate in the fatty tissues of most
living organisms, and are toxic to humans and
wildlife.
Because POPs are persistent and semivolatile, they
are prone to long-range transport, moving great
distances around the globe. Their chemical makeup
also gives them an affinity for colder temperatures,
an attribute known as "cold-fractionation." That
phenomenon leads to a general migration of
substances from the warmer equatorial regions
northward and southward toward the poles. POPs
therefore have been detected at undefined levels in
the Arctic, far removed from any geographic region
in which the compounds were used.
Ms. Fraenkel then explained that a notice issued by
the UNEP on October 5, 1998, alerted parties
involved in negotiations for the development of a
treaty on POPs about the need to include new
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT)
chemicals in such treaties. On November 4,1999,
she added, EPA had issued its final policy statement
on PBT chemicals. The policy is the Agency's first
formal statement of a national policy on POPs, she
said, and it builds on existing EPA commitments
related to priority PBTs such as the 1997 Canada -
U.S. Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS), the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation,
and EPA's Clean Water Action Plan. This policy,
she commented, also requires significant
involvement of stakeholders, including international,
state, local, and tribal organizations; the regulated
community; environmental groups; and private
citizens. The issuance of EPA's policy statement,
she stated, will reaffirm U.S. leadership on the issue
and provide a model for other countries in taking
steps to discourage the introduction of POPs by
reducing the use of chemicals and pesticides.
Ms. Janice Jensen, EPA Office of Pesticide
Programs, then discussed the actions taken to
eliminate the use of all pesticides that are POPs.
She began her presentation by identifying measures
in the Global Treaty to reduce or eliminate releases
of POPs, which include prohibiting the production
and use of certain POPs, she stated. She then
stated that the production and use of all pesticides
that are POPs, except heptachlor, already have been
phased out in the United States. From a global
perspective, she continued that, three of the twelve
POPs, including aldrin, endrin, and toxaphene, in the
UNEP mandate are slated for elimination without any
exceptions; another five POPs, including chlordane,
dieldrin, heptachlor, mirex, and hexachlorobenzene
are set for elimination with country-specific
exemptions; DDT production has been limited to
vector control; production of PCBs has been
eliminated and use of PCBs in equipment currently
is being phased out; and more research is necessary
on the sources of dioxins and furans, which are
unintentionally produced in developing countries to
reach elimination of these POPs.
Members of the subcommittee then viewed a
videotape on POPs. The videotape was produced
by the Indigenous Peoples Network and
GreenPeace. The purpose of the video was to
enhance understanding of what POPs are and how
they affect the health and cultures of indigenous
peoples.
4.0 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON
INTEGRATING THE CONCERNS OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The NEJAC, in its continuing efforts to provide
independent advice to the EPA Administrator on
areas related to environmental justice, focused its
fourteenth meeting on a specific policy issue -
permitting and environmental justice. Forthat effort,
members of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
discussed at length recommendations to EPA on
integrating concerns related to indigenous peoples
into the decision-making process for permits. The
following list outlines the recommendations.
Enhance Regulator and Regulated Community
Understanding of Tribal Interests
• Recommend that EPA educate representatives
of the regulated community (such as business;
industry; and Federal, state, and local
governments) on indigenous cultural and
religious values to ensure that the potential
effects of proposed permits on those values are
understood and mitigated. For example, offer
EPA's "Working Effectively with Tribal
Governments" training regularly to regulated
communities and provide copies of "Guide on
Consultation and Collaboration with Indian Tribal
Governments and the Public Participation of
Indigenous Groups and Tribal Citizens."
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
6-5
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Recommend that EPA use performance
partnership agreements with states to enhance
the oversight of permits in "usual and
accustomed" and "ceded lands reserved rights"
areas to ensure protection of indigenous values
and culture.
Awareness of Permit Programs and Permits
• Recommend that EPA provide to tribes direct
notification of opportunities to review permits
when an application is submitted and encourage
on-going consultation with potentially affected
tribes by the permitting agency throughout the
process.
• Recommend that EPA provide training for
citizens and tribal governments on the permitting
process; the training should provide participants
with the ability to understand technical aspects
of permits (described in lay terms) so that they
can review and comment on such permits more
effectively.
• Recommend that EPA require direct notification
to citizens of opportunities for reviewing permit
applications at the time of application.
• Request that EPA consult with tribes when
issuing a permit off reservation in "usual and
accustomed areas" or treaty rights areas.
Issuance of Permits Under the CAA
• Recommend that EPA require states or tribes to
notify tribes of applications filed under Title V of
the CAA when a permit application is considered
or initially sent to the delegated authority.
• Request that EPA require states or tribes to
notify a tribe(s) that may be affected by the
issuance of a proposed permit at the point of
application under Title V of the CAA, to allow
time for review and comment on the proposed
permit.
Issuance of Permits Under the CWA
• Request that, within the process of identifying
TMDLs, EPA fulfill its responsibilities for
consultation with tribes, in accordance with
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
• Recommend that EPA ensure that the core
WQSs account for tribal uses and interests and
ensure notification to tribes under 401
certification of permits of the CWA issued by
EPA.
• Recommend that EPA establish TMDLs that are
not predicated on authorization of tribes under
the TMDL rule (tribes that have WQSs) and that
include requirements for the participation of
tribes.
• Recommend that EPA continue its effort to
develop core WQSs for Indian country, with the
understanding that consultation must be
conducted with each Federally recognized tribe
to ensure complete understanding of the
purpose and effects of the core standards and
that EPA use the consultation period as an
opportunity to provide technical expertise to
enhance capacity-building.
Issuance of Permits Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• Recommend that EPA amend RCRA to provide
for delegation of authority to tribes under the
Federal program.
Issuance of Permits Under the National
Environmental Policy (NEPA)
• Request that EPA recognize that Federal and
tribal governments can use NEPA as a decision-
making tool because NEPA has become a
."defacto permit program" under which the full
effects of proposed projects on indigenous
values and interests have not been assessed.
• Recommend that EPA, within its discretionary
authority to review environmental assessments
(EA), assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and other
Federal agencies in determining when an
environmental impact statement (EIS) is
necessary and when an EA is sufficient.
• Request that EPA improve opportunities for
public involvement in the conduct of EAs and
determinations of significant impact.
Other Recommendations
• Recommend that tribal governments actively
protect their treaty rights and their usual
accustomed areas and uses. They should also
ask for assistance from the Federal government
when those rights are threatened, rather than
depend on the Federal government alone to
protect those rights.
6-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
• Recommend that EPA require that applicants
seeking permits to discharge into or on
reservations, usual and accustomed tribal areas,
ceded lands, reserved rights areas, or treaty
rights areas assess the current status of the
quality of water and air in Indian country. EPA
should provide the opportunity for tribes to
ensure that decisions that affect Indian country
and Alaskan Native communities are informed
and effective, and that such opportunities are
extended as well to non-Federally recognized
indigenous communities, such as Native
Hawaiians and state-recognized tribes.
• Request that EPA review the memorandum of
understanding (and other legal agreements) to
ensure that all delegated permitting authority is
protective of tribal interests, including those
outside of Indian country (for example, "usual
and accustomed areas," traditional cultural
properties, and Alaska Native accustomed and
traditional areas).
• Request that the provisions of section i 06 of the
National Historic Preservation Act be
implemented properly by EPA and state and
tribal agencies that administer the authorized
program. For example, the issuance of permits
and the assessment of the effects of proposed
activities on the historic and traditional resources
of tribes. Recommend that performance
partnership agreements be used to clarify EPA's
responsibility under the National Historic
Preservation Act and review potential effects on
historic places that have cultural and religious
significance for tribes and other indigenous
peoples.
• Request that EPA recapture the permits issued
on Indian reservations under "state authority"
and reissue them under Federal or tribal
authority to ensure that all permits for activities
conducted on or affecting reservations are legal
and to ensure there is no further
misunderstanding about the fact that only the
Federal or delegated tribal governments have
authority to issue permits on reservations,
except those permits issued under RCRA.
5.0 ACTION ITEMS
This section provides a list of action items adopted
by the subcommittee.
/ Request that, the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee review a proposed resolution
prepared by the Enforcement Subcommittee of
the NEJAC related to- concentrated animal
feeding operations.
/ Consider developing a resolution about the
location of telescopes that impede access to
cultural and religious resources at Mount
Graham, Arizona.
/ Complete the development of recommendations
for improving existing environmental permit
programs to more effectively protect the health,
welfare, arid environment of indigenous peoples
and Alaskan Natives, as well as non-Federally
recognized tribes, such as Native Hawaiians and
state-recognized tribes.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
6-7
-------
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 1,1999
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Wendy Graham
Office of International Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
Arnoldo Garcia
Chair
-------
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
SUMMARY OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The International Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 1, 1999, during a three-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Mr. Arnoldo
Garcia, Urban Habitat Program, continues to serve
as chair of the subcommittee. Ms. Wendy Graham,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office
of International Activities (OIA), continues to serve
as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 7-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the International Subcommittee, is
organized in five sections, including this Introduction.
Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes the opening
remarks of the chair. Section 3.0, Update on the
Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the
U.S./Mexico Border, summarizes the discussions
about the recommendations and activities arising
from the roundtable. Section 4.0, Presentations and
Reports, presents an overview of presentations and
reports received by the subcommittee. Section 5.0,
Resolutions and Significant Action Items,
summarizes the resolutions forwarded to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC for consideration,
as well as the significant action items adopted by the
subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Mr. Garcia opened the subcommittee meeting by
welcoming the members present and Ms. Graham.
He then briefly summarized the recommendations
generated by the participants of the Roundtable on
Environmental Justice on the U.S./Mexico Border,
commenting that he was pleased that EPA had
prepared its "30-Day Response" in both English and
Spanish.
Exhibit 7-1
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 1,1999
Mr. Arnoldo Garcia, Chair
Ms. Wendy Graham, DFO
Mr. Fernando Cuevas
Ms. Beth Hailstock
. Mr. Robert Holme's
Ms. Janet Phoenix
Mr. Alberto Salamando
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. Albert Adams
Ms. Maria del Carmen Libran
Ms. Caroline Hotaling
Mr. Tseming Yang
3.0 UPDATE ON THE ROUNDTABLE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ON THE
U.S7MEXICO BORDER
The subcommittee members discussed follow-up
activities to the Roundtable on Environmental Justice
on the U.S./Mexico Border held in San Diego,
California on August 19 through 21, 1999.
Recommendations arising from the conference on
which the subcommittee had agreed to take action
included:
• Establishing an environmental justice border
commission.
• Identifying vacancies within border advisory
committees.
• Applying the EPA Region 9 Campo Tribal model
to other areas.
• Increasing the participation by local.
governments and community groups in the
decision-making process.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
7-1
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Increasing the awareness of the concept of
environmental justice.
• Ensuring the treatment of hazardous waste.
• Formalize relationships with Mexico.
Mr. Garcia opened the discussion with a brief review
of the conference. He explained that an important
part of the roundtable conference was the concurrent
work group sessions which focused on
environmental justice and labor justice; immigration,
trade, and environment; indigenous peoples and
border justice; and environmental health issues
along the U.S./Mexico border. At the conclusion of
the roundtable, he reported, each work group
described and presented to EPA approximately 100
recommendations, commitments, and action items
discussed and adopted during the sessions. Mr.
Garcia added that EPA agreed to explore these
recommendations and report back to the NEJAC in
a timely manner. In particular, he noted, EPA
agreed to respond to three major requests of
community participants: 1) create an environmental
justice border commission to address environmental
justice concerns of communities located along the
U.S./Mexico border; 2) clean up three contaminated
sites; and 3) address all the recommendations and
issues listed by the communities. Mr. Garcia added
that EPA has committed to address all issues where
possible, and work with the government of Mexico to
address the issues related to that country. Exhibit
7-2 describes a similar conference held in 1998.
3.1 Updates from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
This section provides updates from various EPA
offices related to the roundtable.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
International Activities
Mr. Alan Hecht, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA OIA, explained that in order for
EPA be able to effect change, priorities must be set
among the recommendations from the roundtable
and mutually agreed upon by EPA and the members
of the subcommittee. He commented that several
recommendations appear to be outside of EPA's
mandate. For example, while Border XXI, he
pointed out, is viewed as an umbrella organization
under which EPA may be able to address all issues,
despite inherent limitations. Most importantly, he
urged, that the subcommittee focus their ideas into
concrete, long-term goals, and then to work
backward to figure out the "in-between steps" that
need to be taken to achieve the desired outcomes.
Exhibit 7-2
THE U.SJMEXICO BORDER ENVIRONMENT:
A ROAD MAP TO A SUSTAINABLE 2020
CONFERENCE
The U.S./Mexico Border Environment: A Road Map
to a Sustainable 2020 Conference was held in Rio
Rico, Arizona on December 7 through 9,1998.
Several of the recommendations identified by
participants of the conference parallel the issues
being discussed by the International Subcommittee of
the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council:
• The U.S./Mexico region needs to be recognized
as special; it is unique in terms of culture,
history, peoples, and the physical environment.
There also is a need to be sensitive to preserving
regional qualities, to preserve the "sense of
place" that has been established. Solutions to
problems of the border region should be
resolved through border institutions, cultures,
and political will. Consequently, these
approaches will be unique to the region.
• It is important to recognize that there are
regional differences along the border and that
local areas are unique. For example, El Paso,
Texas, is not Nogales, Mexico. Solutions and -
opportunities must be locally-based to be
effective. In addition, the region will have to
learn how to more effectively transfer
knowledge from locale to locale.
• The role of state and local actors must increase
in decisions about policies affecting the border
region, as well as in crafting state-to-state and
relations between binational twin cities.
Mr. Hecht concluded his remarks by outlining the
upcoming events that will have an effect on the
border region: .
• Completion of progress report as part of
planning cycle, March 2000.
• Binational coordination meeting before June
2000, with Mexico (as per Mexico's request).
• Mexico's upcoming election in June 2000, which
is anticipated to slow down progress.
• U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report to
be completed by February 2000.
7-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
• Report on the Southwest Task Force, created
November 1998, is in draft form.
• Border XXI Program restructuring and planning.
• Planning mechanism with (SCERP) to focus on
stimulating economic growth, April 17-19,2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6, began his comments by acknowledging
that some of the institutions created to address
issues related to the border do not discuss the
issues that the communities would like to see
addressed. He also stressed that these institutions
were set up in an attempt to address a specific set of
issues, but, he added, they are by no means perfect
and can be modified.
Referring to site cleanups, which Mr. Cooke referred
to as international brownfields sites," he explained
that there is no existing agreement with Mexico to
perform the cleanups. However, he reported that in
the months since the roundtable meeting, Mr. Cooke
has met with representatives of the Mexican
government to discuss informally the two sites
adjoining Region 6. He noted that his efforts were
"not met with enthusiasm." Mr. Cooke remarked that
agreements to perform emergency response
agreements in Mexico exist between the U.S. and
Mexico; however, the agreements only specify
actions of an emergency response nature and do not
extend to analysis of closed sites, he said.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9
Mr. Enrique Manzanilla, Director of Cross Media
Division, EPA Region 9, commented that the new
Executive order on the border is an excellent
platform from which to address quality of life issues
along the border, and which can serve as a tool to
influence other agencies and Federal agencies to
affect change. Great attention should be given to
integrating environmental justice principles with the
application of the Executive order to the border
region, he said. However, even before the
implementation of the Executive order, steps should
be taken toward compiling an inventory of the
activities of all agencies to aid with identifying and
leveraging available resources to the communities,
he urged.
Mr. Manzanilla identified other organizations that can
serve as models to implement change by listening to
community needs. For example, the Southwest
Strategy, Mr. Manzanilla remarked, can serve as a
liaison to aid in the implementation of the social and
economic issues raised by participants of the
roundtable meeting. Similarly, a multi-agency
committee formed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL), and the U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT),
to address poverty issues on the border area is
another mechanism available to affect change
through local efforts, he said. In addition, Mr.
Manzanilla commented that the development of pilot
projects within communities which have developed
response teams serve as another mechanism to
identify concerns of the community.
Ms. Wendy Laird-Benner, EPA Region 9, reported
on the environmental education grant awarded to the
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians. She stated that
the grant supports efforts by the tribe to increase
environmental awareness to members of the tribe
residing in an area stretching more than 50 miles
from northern San Diego County, California to Baja,
Mexico. Mr. Hecht remarked that models similar to
the Region 9 model could be used to implement
change in other areas. EPA Region 9, Ms. Laird-
Benner commented, has held discussions with
Mexico's Secretariat de Medio Ambiente Recursos
Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP), adding that
SEMARNAP is interested in talking about the
concepts behind this model and the capacity for
implementation. Again, she reiterated, Border XXI
provides the capability to be able to formulate the
structural pieces for change. See Exhibit 7-3 for a
description of the grant.
Exhibit 7-3
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION GRANT
CAMPO BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS
The Campo Indian Reservation is Ipcated'in
southeastern San Diego County atop the Laguna
Mountains. The Campo people are part of the
Kumeyaay Indian Tribe whose historic territory
reached from northern San Diego County, California
to the Salton Sea and SO miles into Baja California.
Traditionally, marine resources and dry fanning
supported the people of the Campo Band.
The Environmental Education Grant awarded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 9 supports a model process targeted toward
increasing environmental awareness among
communities located on both sides of the border.
The model is set up in a way that strongly reinforces
the participation of tribes.
According to EPA, this model has proven successful
on a binational level. Similar models can be used to
implement change in other areas.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
7-3
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Dr. Clarice Gaylord, Special Assistant to the
Regional Administrator, San Diego Border Liaison
Office, EPA Region 9, discussed the changing role
of the Border Liaison Office and its recent activities.
Initially, she commented, the Border Office viewed
itself as an outpost, but major changes have been
made in the way of serving the community as a
repositoryofinformationtothecommunity. Currently
the office has monthly open houses and has been
more effective in communicating at the community
level, she said, by preparing fact sheets, videotapes,
and newsletters to provide technical information to
the communities; staffing a toll-free telephone line;
and assisting with providing and exploring grant
opportunities.
3.2 Community Responses Related to the
Roundtable Meeting
Mr. Jose Bravo, Southwest Network for
Environmental and Economic Justice and former
member of the International Subcommittee, reported
that there are gaps in the communication between
the community representatives who attended the
roundtable meeting and EPA. Mr. Bravo remarked
that EPA's response to follow-up items identified at
the roundtable meeting fails to mention the words
"environmental justice." Mr. Bravo called for steps to
be taken toward educating people on environmental
justice issues, especially the Mexican government.
He said it is imperative that EPA begin to use the
term "environmental justice." The Mexican
government is at the point where EPA was 10 years
ago when the Federal government did not initially
recognize the term, "environmental justice"; now, he
said, the Agency has come to understand the
concept.
Mr. Bravo explained the distinction between
grassroots organizations and professional
environmentalists working on the border.
Professional environmentalists do not come from the
community, he noted, while grassroots organizations
comprise people from the border region who live
daily with these issues. Consequently, he added,
professional environmentalists do not have a deep
understanding of the quality of life issues faced by
local communities. Mr. Bravo emphasized that
community participation is lacking on the Mexican
side, not because community groups do not exist,
but because their participation is not encouraged by
the Mexican government.
Community groups continue to believe that they are
excluded from the planning of agreements, such as
the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), Mr. Bravo continued. Because of this
systematic exclusion, it has become increasingly
difficult to promote Border XX! as a tool for the
community members to voice their opinions, he said.
That is why, he explained, the participants strongly
recommended the formation of an environmental
justice border commission to ensure that community
voices are heard on both sides of the border.
Community members believe that something new
must be created to allow their voices to be heard,
Mr. Bravo emphasized.
3.3 Update on Specific Recommendations
Related to the Roundtable Meeting
The following summarizes the deliberations of the
subcommittee about specific concerns and
recommendations of the participants of the
roundtable meeting.
Environmental Justice Border Commission
Members discussed the purpose an environmental
justice border commission would serve and how to
implement such a commission. Mr. Hecht asked the
members of the subcommittee to consider what was
needed in the border region to ensure public
participation and to determine whether existing
institutions could address those issues. Mr. Hecht
posed many questions on the function of the
proposed environmental justice border commission
and again stressed the need for continued
communication between EPA regions 6 and 9;
EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ); and
the International Subcommittee of the NEJAC. Once
the goal is determined and agreed upon, EPA can
begin to help lay the groundwork and influence
Mexico in appropriate ways, he said. Without a clear
picture of the function of the commission,
implementation is difficult, he noted.
To create a binational commission, Mr. Hecht
remarked that implementation must occur at the
state level. He identified Border XXI as the only
flexible mechanism currently available. Another
approach, Mr. Hecht proposed, would be to begin
with the implementation of a national commission by
focusing on the U.S. side to develop community-to-
community communication within the regions and
involve Mexico at a later stage, once the commission
is established. In response, many members stated
that the commission should be implemented on a
binational basis to encourage community groups in
Mexico to participate and to give them a voice in the
planning process. Mr. Manzanilla urged the
members and representatives of EPA to begin
thinking about a more regional approach to the
implementation of a commission, commenting that
they shou|d look at such institutions as the Binational
7-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Health Coalition, to serve as models for
implementation.
Although the members of the subcommittee did not
recommend a specific mode for implementation,
several members expressed hesitation about using
Border XXI as a model for the new commission.
They questioned what would happen if the
commission made recommendations or decisions
contrary to the programs and policies promulgated
by Border XXI. They also expressed concern that
the mission of the commission might be restricted by
the Border XXI program. After much debate and
encouragement from EPA representatives that the
'Voices of local communities would be listened to,"
the members agreed to continue discussions about
the commission.
Mr. Charles Lee, Associate Director of Policy and
Interagency Liaison, EPA OEJ, commented that
initial exploratory conversations with Mr. Garcia and
Mr. Bravo about the formation of an environmental
justice border commission were productive.
Explaining that these were only the first of many
conversations, he acknowledged that there were
agencies, institutions, and communities that still
needed to be included in these discussions. One
issue that needed further attention is how to define
the "commission" from a Federal perspective, he
added.
Site Cleanup
Mr. Hecht identified two approaches to addressing
the cleanup of contaminated sites identified by
participants of the roundtable meeting. First,
continue to pursue the cleanups by legal methods
and hope for extradition and prosecution of polluters,
he said. However, he commented, such an
approach would be ineffective without cooperation
from the Mexican government. A second approach
would entail the creation of economic incentives with
the help of organizations such as the North
American Development (NAD) Bank or other private
sector organizations to restore the land until it is
commercially viable. Mr. Hecht emphasized that the
two methods cannot be done independently, as the
polluter must eventually be held accountable and
responsible, and that economic incentives are not a
substitute for enforcement actions. Commenting on
the creation of economic incentives to cleanup the
sites, Mr. Cooke predicted that there might be public
opposition against the use of NAD Bank money to
address the cleanup of private sites. NAD Bank
money is appropriated to addressing public sites, he
explained. While this might be the only means for
addressing the public health issues created by the
contamination at private sites, it might bring public
criticism, he warned.
Mr. Hecht mentioned that implementation of the
"Seven Principles of Environmental Stewardship,"
which was signed in 1998 by representatives of EPA
and its Mexican counterpart, the U.S./Mexico
Chamber of Commerce, and the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), will
be a segue into dealing with site assessment and
remediation issues. This document, he explained,
involves industry both internally and externally as
part of the planning for sustainable development.
Exhibit 7-4 describes the new initiative.
Exhibit 7-4
SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission,
(BECC), U.S./Mexico Chamber of Commerce, and
environmental authorities from Mexico joined to
promote a new mechanism for enhanced industry
participation in binational environmental protection
efforts. The U.S./Mexico Binational Commission
agreed on a set of "Seven Principles of
Environmental Stewardship for the 21st Century"
aimed toward integrating environmental stewardship
at all levels in the day-to-day operations of business
organizations by voluntarily intensifying their
commitment to pollution prevention, energy
efficiency, improved overall environmental
performance, public accountability, and their
adherence to international environmental standards.
The principles identify a range of tools to achieve
these goals, and encourage flexible application of
these tools and other programs that measure
environmental performance and tie results to action.
In furtherance of the goals of the Border XXI
Environmental Framework, these Seven Principles
have been developed through a public/private
partnership to promote sustainable development in
the U.S./Mexico border area.
Vacancies within Border Advisory Committees
Mr. Alberto Saldamando, General Counsel,
International Indian Treaty Council, commented that
several border advisory committees currently have
vacancies for members. Now would be a good time
to nominate members from grassroots organizations
that could make significant contributions on behalf of
the community members to fill these positions, he
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
7-5
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
noted. Mr. Cooke agreed and remarked that he
already had identified vacancies within these
advisory committees, some of which need to be filled
by December 24, 1999, and that with immediate
attention these positions could provide more
opportunities to increase the participation of local
communities in decisions. Mr. Robert Holmes,
Director, Southern Center for Studies in Public
Policy, Clark Atlanta University, asked whether
quotas for representatives of communities could be
set to ensure community representation. Mr. Hecht
explained that while EPA will investigate the
identification of representatives of grassroots
organizations to fill these positions, appointment to
some of these positions are made by presidential
decision and are therefore, outside of EPA's direct
sphere of influence.
Lack of Local Government Participation
Ms. Beth Hailstock, Environmental Justice Center,
Cincinnati Health Department, expressed concern
regarding the lack of local government participation
at meetings of the NEJAC, and asked that more
emphasis be placed on encouraging local
government participation, because, she explained, it
is easier for local government agencies to
restructure their programs and policies than
agencies olthe Federal government.
Exclusion of Community Groups
Members spent considerable time discussing what
they defined as the exclusion of community groups
from planning and decision-making processes,
particularly the planning process for implementing
NAFTA. Many subcommittee members stated that
community groups try to participate, but are
systematically excluded and left out of the
information network. Mr. Garcia commented that
because members of community groups speak a
different language and have their own processes for
making decisions, they are not considered "power
brokers" in decisions that affect their lives. Citing
personal experience, many subcommittee members
expressed the fear of being excluded and
commented that it is becoming increasingly more
difficult to trust the government. In response, Mr.
Hecht remarked that communities should empower
themselves to become "power brokers," noting that
computers could be provided if that was what is
needed to increase the transfer of information within
community groups.
Mr. Saldamando added that the Mexican
government vehemently denies that adverse
environmental conditions exist. He cited an incident
when a representative of the Mexican government
denied that Alco Pacifico, a former lead smelter
facility, was contaminated, bragging rather that the
site was clean. Mr. Bravo commented that although
the site possibly could be clean, the local community
was not free from associated risks to public health.
Mr. Saldamando further expressed concern that the
Mexican government can be heavy handed in these
situations and said that an alternative might be to
create counterparts in Mexico who could stand up to
the Mexican government. This strategy of denial,
Mr. Saldamando continued, is not unique and it is
important to search for methods to begin promoting
community participation on the Mexico side of the
border rather than waiting for Mexico to change its
attitudes.
Concept of Environmental Justice
The discussion of the members focused on how to
integrate the concept of environmental justice into
binational discussions. Mr. Lee commented that
there is a need for clarification and common
understanding on what environmental justice means
from the bigger picture. The concept is new, Mr. Lee
remarked and is constantly evolving; in the months
since the roundtable meeting, the concept has
grown, he said. Mr. Garcia stressed that the
concern for environmental justice should not be
subordinate to the push for sustainable
development. Several members of the
subcommittee commented that the failure to include
in binational documents the phrase "environmental
justice" reflects a lack of concern for such issues.
They emphasized the need to begin using the term
to educate people, especially the Mexican
government, on the nature of the concept.
Treatment of Hazardous Waste
Mr. Hecht acknowledged protests about NAFTA,
saying that the common issue raised by opponents
to NAFTA has been the concern about the treatment
and disposal of hazardous waste. NAFTA rules will
have some effect to reaffirm the repatriation of
hazardous waste, he announced. Although a
standard has been affirmed, currently however, no
hazardous waste facilities have adopted it. Growth
will continue in the maquiladora sector, Mr. Hecht
continued, acknowledging however, that with the
potential growth, infrastructure will be challenged.
Relationships with Mexico
Mr. Bravo remarked that relationships with people in
the Mexican Congress already exist. Mr. Hecht
commented that individual members of the
International Subcommittee may explore options of
7-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Internationa) Subcommittee
formalizing relationships with the Mexican
government.
4,0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the International
Subcommittee.
4.1 Update on Activities Related to South Africa
The members of the subcommittee received an
update on the activities of the South Africa Working
Group (SAWG) of the subcommittee, which included
discussions about the Thor Chemical Site; 'several
projects, including risk assessment training and solid
waste and pollution prevention initiatives; NEJAC
responses to the recommendations proposed by the
working group; and the proposed study tour from
South Africa.
4.1.1 Update on the Thor Chemical Site
Mr. Reginald Harris, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, EPA Region 3, reported that in
September 1999, he spoke with Ms. Muriel Dubay
about examining South Africa's regulations on air
permitting and environmental compliance to
determine whether existing legislation was sufficient
to address the performance of risk-based
evaluations at the Thor Chemical Site. He said that
he found that language did exist to address the
situation at Thor; however, he added, the standards
used by South- Africa to develop risk-based
evaluations calculates the potential risk to public
health for a white male weighing 70 kilograms.
These standards, Mr. Harris explained, which are
comparable to standards employed in the U.S., are
not representative of most population groups in
South Africa. He suggested that the working group
explore developing country-specific guidelines for
conducting risk assessments and establishing a
team to perform risk assessments.
4.1.2 Updates on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Initiatives Related to
South Africa
Mr. John Armstead, Associate Director of
Environmental Services Division, EPA Region 3, and
Mr. Arthur Totten, EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), reported on various
initiatives undertaken by EPA in South Africa.
Environmental Impact Risk Assessment Training
Mr. Armstead and Mr. Totten first discussed their
success in performing risk assessment training in
Pretoria. Mr. Armstead commented that the training
was critical and timely as many current projects in
South Africa involve construction activities. Mr.
Totten agreed and further elaborated that with the
new governor entering off ice, the new administration
is in need of direction and construction projects are
on-going and people need training. The idea is that
once people are taught then they can teach others,
hie pointed out. The training included committee
members of the National South African Government;
the hope is to expand the training to include other
provincial areas.
Solid Waste Program, East London
Mr. Armstead reported on the success of the
recycling program in East London, South Africa,
commenting that the goal of the program was to
decrease solid waste from the surrounding areas of
the community. He noted that the model is at the
point where it can be implemented in another
community. Mr. Armstead explained that the project
included the design and implementation of a
composting and recycling facility. He stated that the
project provided economic benefit to workers
displaced by the closure of the landfill; with the
opening of the recycling center, more jobs were
created, he remarked. Other potential economic
benefits of the project focuses on selling the
resulting compost. Ideally, he said, the community
would like to be able to sell the compost as fertilizer
to help re-vegetate the local community and in turn,
generate money for economic development.
Pollution Prevention Initiatives
Mr. Armstead mentioned that the planning stages for
the pollution prevention project are still being
developed. The working group currently is
identifying the target industry audience.
4.1.3 Update on Responses to
Recommendations by the
Subcommittee's South Africa Working
Group
Dr. Mildred McClain, Executive Director, Citizens for
Environmental Justice, reported that in August 1998,
the SAWG submitted to the Executive Council of the
NEJAC a report of a trip to South Africa taken by Dr.
McClain and Ms. Hailstock during the meeting of the
Gore-Mbeki Binational Commission: (BNC) in
February 1998. The purpose of the visit was to
participate in activities associated with the BNC and
to meet with the communities and environmental
justice organizations in an effort to identify possible
areas of work and collaboration, she explained. Dr.
McClain stated that the 1998 report contained
Arlington, Virginia, December 1, 1999
7-7
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
recommendations that reflected the concerns of
local environmental justice communities in South
Africa. In December 1999, the NEJAC responded to
the recommendations; however, the members of the
work group have not had a chance yet to fully review
the responses, she added. The SAWG will continue
participating in conference calls with its South
African counterparts to determine the adequacy of
the responses made by the NEJAC, she said. Dr.
McClain also noted the need to review the mission
statement of the work group to determine whether or
not it remains "on target" with its initial goals.
4.1.4 South Africa Study Tour
Mr. Mark Kasman, EPA OIA, reported that the
planning for the proposed study tour has been
postponed until funding has been secured. He
commented that until funds are obtained, he does
not want anyone to make an investment of time, nor
does he want anyone to feel excluded from the
planning of the tour. He also added that a
conference call had been scheduled for December
16, 1999, on which representatives of the South
Africa Network Party is expected to join.
4.2 Presentation on the United Nations Draft
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples
Mr. Saldamando provided a brief review of the
history to the United Nations (UN) Draft Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 1982r he
said, a working group for indigenous peoples was
formed under the auspices of the UN. In 17 years,
discussions in the UN Working Group on Indigenous
Populations and other human rights bodies indicate
that, despite certain progress, a great deal remains
to be done to resolve outstanding issues that are
driving a wedge between the interests, livelihoods,
and lifestyles of indigenous peoples and national or
private development and public policies and projects.
The UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples contains 41 articles, the
strongest part, Mr. Saldamando remarked, is the
section on land rights with regard to the development
of natural resources. The land issue remains
crucial, he said, explaining that as national economic
development generates pressure on territory still in
the hands of indigenous peoples, these barren
wastelands or forested hinterlands once thought to
have little economic, political, or military value have
been identified as areas of vital importance. These
developments could affect the economies and
habitats, and the social, religious and cultural
systems of indigenous peoples, he continued, adding
that indigenous people are not being treated as
people, but rather as minorities who have been
"robbed" of their land.
Mr. Saldamando commented that the draft
declaration does not incorporate concepts spelled
out in the U.S. Presidential Executive Order 13141
which requires environmental review of trade
agreements to facilitate responses into impacts of
transboundary processes. Nor does the draft reflect
EPA policy to recognize tribes on a government-to-
government basis, he said. No revisions to
incorporate such language are being proposed, he
stated. Mr. Saldamando urged the recognition of
environmental review and public comment on
transboundary impacts. This would be a step
forward, he said.
5.0 RESOLUTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT
ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the resolutions discussed
by the International Subcommittee and forwarded to
the Executive Council of the NEJAC for
consideration, as well as the significant action items
adopted by the subcommittee.
The members discussed a resolution in which the
NEJAC urges EPA to request that the Secretary of
State and the United States Trade Representative
comply with the provisions expressed in Executive
Order 12898 on environmental justice.
The members discussed a resolution in which the
NEJAC requests that EPA support the 'Technical
Review of the United Nations Draft of Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."
The members of the International Subcommittee
agreed to adopt the following actions:
/ Establish by December 2000 priorities among
the recommendations developed at the
Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the
U.S./Mexico Border.
/ Agree to identify candidates from grassroots
community-based organizations to apply for
vacancies at the border agency.
/ Request that EPA regions 6 and 9 continue to
follow-up on recommendations identified at the
Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the
U.S./Mexico Border.
7-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
In addition, representatives of EPA asked members
of the International Subcommittee to consider:
y Examining the need for a binational
environmental justice commission, including
exploring existing mechanisms established to
address environmental justice issues along the
U.S./Mexico border and to make use of existing
resources.
/" Reviewing existing committees and programs
that address environmental justice issues along
the U.S./Mexico border to determine whether
these existing programs and institutions can be
improved before establishing new committees
and programs.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
7-9
-------
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 1,1999
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Kent Benjamin Vernice Miller-Travis
Office of Solid Waste and Chair
Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
-------
-------
CHAPTER EIGHT
MEETING OF THE
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a one-day meeting on
Wednesday, December 1,1999, during a three-day
meeting of the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Ms.
Vernice Miller-Travis, Partnership for Sustainable
Brownfields Redevelopment, continues to serve as
chair of the subcommittee. Mr. Kent Benjamin,
Environmental Justice Coordinator,
Outreach/Special Projects Staff (OSPS), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)' Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER),
continues to serve as the Designated Federal Official
(DFO) for the subcommittee. Exhibit 8-1 presents a
list of the members who attended the meeting and
identifies those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, is organized in six sections, including
this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes
the opening remarks of the chair and the DFO.
Section 3.0, Updates on the Work Groups of the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, provides
updates on the activities of the subcommittee's work
groups. Section 4.0, Presentations and Reports,
presents an overview of each presentation and
report, as well as a summary of questions posed and
comments made by members of the subcommittee.
Section 5.0, Summary of Public Dialogue,
summarizes comments offered during the public
dialogue period provided by the subcommittee and
discussions prompted by those comments. Section
6.0, Resolution and Action Items, summarizes the
resolution forwarded to the Executive Council of the
NEJAC for approval and the action items adopted by
the subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Mr. Benjamin opened the subcommittee meeting by
welcoming the members of the subcommittee who
were present, as well as Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator, EPA OSWER, and Mr.
Michael Shapiro, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA OSWER. When Mr. Benjamin
concluded his remarks, Mr. Fields paid tribute to two
departing members of the subcommittee, Ms. Sue
Briggum, Waste Management, Inc., and Mr. Mathy
Stanislaus, Enviro-Sciences, Inc. Ms. Briggum and
Exhibit 8-1
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING
SUBCOMMITTEE
Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 1,1999
Ms. Vernice Miller-Travis, Chair
Mr. Kent Benjamin, DFO
Ms. Sue Briggum
Ms. Denise Feiber
Ms. Lorraine Granado
Mr. Michael Holmes
Mr. Neftali Garcia Martinez
Mr. Mathy Stanislaus
Mr. Michael Taylor
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. David Moore
Ms. Brenda Lee Richardson
Mr. Meryn Tano
Mr. Johnny Wilson
Mr. Stanislaus were presented plaques in recognition
of their hard work and dedication to the
subcommittee and to the NEJAC.
Ms. Miller-Travis questioned Mr. Fields and Mr.
Shapiro about proposed cuts in the OSWER budget.
Mr. Fields responded that, while the budget had
been cut by $100 million, funds would be available to
continue activities related to brownfields
redevelopment, waste transfer stations (WTS),
corrective actions under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other programs.
Mr. Shapiro informed the subcommittee that the
operating plan for OSWER had not yet been made
final. Ms. Miller-Travis asked to be kept informed
about budget issues.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
8-1
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
3.0 UPDATES ON THE WORK GROUPS OF
THE WASTE AND FACILITY SITING
SUBCOMMITTEE
This section discusses the activities of the Work
Groups of the Waste and Facility Siting Committee.
3.1 Waste Transfer Stations Work Group
Representing the WTS Work Group, Mr. Stanislaus
described the history and the goals of the work
group. Exhibit 8-2 describes the purpose of the work
group and defines the term WTS.
Exhibit 8-2
THE WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS WORK
GROUP OF THE WASTE AND FACILITY
SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
The Waste Transfer Stations (WTS) Work Group of
the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
NEJAC is charged with conducting fact-finding
activities and issuing recommendations to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to a
national approach to addressing the effects on low-
income communities and communities of people of
color of the siting and operation of WTSs. A WTS .
serves as a temporary storage facility at which waste
can be stored for no more than 10 days while it is
being transported to a permanent disposal facility.
The disproportionate effects of clustered siting of
WTSs in a number of municipalities, including New
York City and Washington, D.C. were1 brought to the
attention of the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC) in May 1997. The
NEJAC had been advised that certain communities
in New York City suffer adverse health,
environmental, and economic effects due to
disproportionate concentrations of WTSs. In
addition, the city's current regulatory process does
not address such concerns adequately. The NEJAC
had been advised further that representatives of such
communities feared that those conditions would be
exacerbated by the impending closure of Fresh Kills
Landfill, New York City's only remaining landfill.
Mr. Stanislaus stated that since the previous meeting
of the NEJAC in December 1998 the work group had
held fact-finding meetings in New York City and
Washington, D.C. on November 10, 1998 and
February 17,1999, respectively. The meetings, he
explained, consisted of the following three
components:
• Tours of the communities most strongly affected
by the clustering of WTSs.
• Participation of the work group in a training
course conducted by the Solid Waste
Association of North America (SWANA) on
effective approaches minimizing the effects of
WTSs on nearby communities and the
environment.
• Participation of representatives of community
groups, environmental justice organizations, the
waste industry, and local and state government
in panel sessions.
Continuing, Mr. Stanislaus explained that the tours
had been led by members of the affected
communities, so that the residents of those
communities could point out the proximity of WTSs
and how the WTSs affected the quality of life in the
community. Mr. Stanislaus then stated that the
information gathered during the fact-finding meetings
had been augmented with additional information
about the effects of WTSs and possible means of
mitigating those effects. That additional information,
he said, had been gathered from individuals
throughout the country. Mr. Stanislaus then
highlighted a number of problems related to health
and safety, quality of life, traffic, local economy, the
cumulative effects of WTSs and other urban sources
of contamination (such as sewage facilities, scrap
yards, and sludge plants), permitting, enforcement,
regulatory authority, and community participation.
Using the information collected during the fact-
finding meetings, Mr. Stanislaus continued, the work
group drafted a report, A Regulatory Strategy for
Siting and Operating Waste Transfer Stations, that
presents preliminary recommendations to the EPA
Administrator for alleviating problems caused by
WTSs. The report, he said, had been sent to
89 reviewers throughout the country. After receiving
responses from the reviewers, he continued, the
work group had decided to clarify its
recommendations on WTSs. Mr. Stanislaus pointed
out that there are limitations to the conclusions
drawn by the work group - for example, the work
group did not address differences among WTSs
located in rural, tribal, and suburban communities.
The work group, he stated, had endeavored to
outline a national baseline that would be consistent
with "good practices in place" throughout the country
and that would upgrade standards in cities that face
problems similar to those of New York and
Washington, D.C. Among the recommendations, he
noted, that EPA exert regulatory authority under
RCRA and Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA); that
greater consideration be given to the establishment
of marine WTSs as alternatives to land-based
WTSs; that the facility siting process be improved;
that community participation be facilitated; and that
8-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
best management practices and waste reduction
strategies be developed.
Noting that the District of Columbia is not a State,
Ms. Miller-Travis asked how the recommendations
would apply to that city. Mr. Stanislaus replied that,
even though the District had not yet developed a
solid waste management plan, it is subject to the
federal requirements governing WTSs. Ms. Miller-
Travis stated that the work group should ensure that
the District is not outside the scope of the
recommendations. set forth in its report.
Ms. Miller-Travis then asked whether the
recommendations in the report are applicable to
marine WTSs. Mr. Stanislaus replied that the report
addresses effects on water bodies, such as
deterioration of water quality. He then stated that
issues related to marine WTSs are addressed under
the best management practices (BMP) section of the
report and the basic criteria set forth in the WTSs
section of the draft report.
Ms. Miller-Travis stated that the report had been
reviewed not only by members of the work group, but
also by representatives of academia, waste
companies, local and state governments, and
residents of affected communities; thorough peer
review had been conducted, she observed. She
noted further that it is not known commonly that the
members of the NEJAC are concerned about other
stakeholder groups, in addition to communities. Ms.
Miller-Travis recommended that a vote be taken on
the draft document. She then proposed that the
subcommittee approve the document as presented
to the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee and
forward the report to the Executive Council of the
NEJAC for consideration. Ms. Briggum seconded
the motion. All members present then voted to
adopt the report.
Ms. Nancy Wilson, EPA OSPS, spoke briefly about
the development, of the report. She stated that
additional comments had been received after the
deadline for submittal of comments. Changes
necessary in response to those comments were to
be incorporated into the report as an appendix to the
final report, she said. Ms. Miller-Travis asked how
the comments in the appendix were to be handled.
Ms. Wilson replied that a matrix had been developed
to identify the type of organization that submitted
each comment and sets forth the comment itself.
She stated that once the NEJAC has adopted the
report and forwarded a copy to the EPA
Administrator, the report was to be distributed and
placed on EPA OSPS' Internet home page. Ms.
Miller-Travis asked about the time line for distribution
of the report. Ms. Wilson replied that Mr. Benjamin
would be more knowledgeable in that area. Mr.
Benjamin then stated that, "in theory," if the NEJAC
were to approve the report during its current session,
the report should be available by the end of January
2000.
Mr. Steven Levy, EPA OSWER, provided a
presentation on the development of a BMP manual
for WTSs, as identified in the WTS Work Group's
draft report, A Regulatory Strategy for Siting and
Operating Waste Transfer Stations. He stated that,
in anticipation that the development of such a
manual would be recommended, EPA had held
focus group sessions to receive comments from
those areas of the country (such as rural, tribal, and
suburban communities) that were not represented in
the report. He informed the members that two
meetings with members of the focus groups had
been held in the summer of 1999. The manual, Mr.
Levy explained, was to-target decision makers and
managers of WTSs. A shorter booklet was to be
developed for citizens, he added. The citizen's
booklet will provide general definitions, offer direction
on how to participate in the siting process, and
outline the effects of WTSs on communities,
continued Mr. Levy. Information provided by EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) also was to be
incorporated into the BMP manual, he noted.
. The first draft of the manual, Mr. Levy continued,
would be available in early 2000. Once the manual
has been reviewed by the focus groups, Mr. Levy
stated, it would be made available for public
comment and announced in the Federal Register.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked whether further participation
on the part of the subcommittee would be necessary.
Mr. Levy replied that he would like the subcommittee
to review the draft manual. Ms. Miller-Travis noted
that Ms. Melva Hayden, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, Office of the Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 2, was present. Ms. Miller-Travis then
asked that the focus groups work directly with EPA
Region 2 and that the work group's report and EPA's
draft BMP manual are distributed, when available, to
the targeted audiences in Region 2. Ms. Hayden
replied that Region 2 would develop a strategy to
ensure that both documents are distributed to the
appropriate audiences. Ms. Hayden also stated that
she would report on the 'distribution strategy
developed to the subcommittee during its next
meeting.
3.2 Brownfields Work Group
Mr. Taylor, presented information about the
subcommittee's Brownfields Work Group. He
focused his discussion on sustainable brownfields
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
8-3
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
redevelopment processes related to implementing
institutional controls. He expressed concern about
a lack of a uniform policy on institutional controls at
EPA. Mr. Taylor informed the subcommittee that the
work group is unsure how to address the issue of
stakeholder involvement in the process of
determining whether institutional controls are
appropriate for a given site. Mr. Stanislaus then
observed that institutional controls are not being
used correctly. How communities redevelop
property should be taken into consideration before
institutional controls are implemented, he said.
Mr. Taylor stated that the work group was
considering the question, "How does one bring about
incremental changes in poor communities?" Ms.
Lorraine Granado, Cross Community Coalition,
stated that the "buck stops" at zoning. She
expressed her belief that progress will not be made
until cities rethink zoning practices. The federal
government has no authority to direct local
governments in the matter of zoning, she said. Ms.
Miller-Travis stated that the work group should
develop "concrete" recommendations on zoning and
the use of institutional controls related to the
brownfields redevelopment process and should
provide those recommendations to OSWER.
Members of the subcommittee also noted that
zoning and local land use laws should be taken into
consideration when the siting of a WTS is planned.
Ms. Miller-Travis then suggested that a work group
be established to address issues related to land use.
Mr. Benjamin then pointed out that a resolution must
be drafted and forwarded to the Executive Council of
the NEJAC for consideration before a work group
can be established. Mr. Neftali Garcia Martinez,
Scientific and Technical Services, added that the
work group should address issues beyond zone and
permitting, including allowing public participation in
the preparation of environmental documents.
3.3 Recycling Superfund Sites; Work Group
Ms. Denise Feiber, Environmental Science &
Engineering, Inc., updated the members of the
subcommittee on the activities of the Recycling
Superfund Sites Work Group. The work group, she
said, was planning to participate in the development
of EPA's policy on the redevelopment of Superfund
sites. (Section 4.2.1 of this chapter provides a
description of EPA's Superfund Redevelopment
Initiative.) Ms. Feiber recommended that the name
of the work group be revised to the Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative Work Group to reflect the
name of the EPA initiative. The members of
subcommittee agreed to adopt that
recommendation. Ms. Feiber stated that the work
group was to propose a resolution that will address
EPA's statutory authority related to redeveloping
Superfund sites and training such EPA personnel as
remedial project managers (RPM) about sustainable
brownfields redevelopment initiatives. One of the
major goals of the work group, Ms. Feiber noted, is
to bring EPA and other federal agencies to the table
to discuss issues. Ms. Briggum recommended that
a representative of a potential responsible party
(PRP) be included in the work group. Ms. Granado
stressed the importance of involving community
members in the activities of the work group.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee of the NEJAC.
4.1 Issues Related to Redevelopment of
Brownfields Properties
The members of the subcommittee received
presentations about and discussed issues related to
the redevelopment of brownfields properties.
4.1.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Brownfields Pilots and National
Partnership
Ms. Linda Garczynski, Director, OSPS, EPA
OSWER, reported that legislation supported by the
Clinton administration to provide a statutory program
for brownfields redevelopment that is separate from
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) program
had failed on the last day of the previous session of
Congress. She stated her hope that the bill would be
revised and passed during the next session. She
then reported that the current budget for brownfields
redevelopment activities was protected from cuts.
Ms. Garczynski also noted that EPA currently was
under a hiring freeze; hiring new staff to support
OSPS, she pointed out, would be difficult, if not
impossible.
The Council of Urban Economic Development
(CUED), Ms. Garczynski noted, had developed 107
case studies related to the types of properties that
are redeveloped. Ms. Garczynski stated that she
would forward copies of the CUED report to the
members of the subcommittee. She then informed
the subcommittee that the Brownfields '99
Conference was to be held in Dallas, Texas on
December 6 through 8,1999, and that approximately
100 scholarships had been awarded to participants
who otherwise would not have been able to attend.
8-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Ms. Garczynski also discussed the Drinking Water
Revolving Fund that was established under
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996
to make funds available to develop drinking water
systems and to finance improvements in
infrastructure. She announced that the state of Ohio
had been successful in using funds to clean up
brownfields properties. In addition, she reported,
EPA's Brownfields Work Group was considering
working with EPA's Office of Wetlands because that
office is attempting to encourage cities to look at
"greenspace" initiatives.
Ms. Garczynski also reported on the Brownfields
Title VI Case Studies: Summary Report that was
developed to determine whether EPA's Interim
Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative
Complaints Challenging Permits would "stifle"
redevelopment initiatives in urban areas in which
discriminatory effects could be alleged. Exhibit 8-3
provides background information about the case
studies. Ms. Garczynski reported that the overall
findings illustrated that the guidance does not
impede redevelopment efforts.
Exhibit 8-3
BROWNFIELDS TITLE VI CASE STUDIES
In February 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued its Interim Guidance for
Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints
Challenging Permits for public comment. The
guidance is intended to assist EPA's Office of Civil
Rights (OCR) in processing complaints filed under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging
discriminatory intent or effect based on race, color,
or national origin resulting from the issuance of
pollution control permits by state or local
government agencies that receive funding from EPA.
Brownfields stakeholders asserted that the guidance
would stifle redevelopment in inner-city areas in
which discriminatory effects could be alleged. In
response to that criticism, the EPA Administrator
promised to undertake case studies of brownfields
pilot projects as a first step in determining whether
the guidance hinders redevelopment of brownfields
properties.
For more information, refer to the report on the case
studies that can be found on EPA's Internet home
page at:
4.1.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Brownfields Prevention Initiative
Ms. Marjorie Buckholtz, OSPS, EPA OSWER,
presented information about EPA's RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative. Exhibit 8-4
describes the initiative. The initiative, Ms. Buckholtz
explained, was launched because more than
95 percent of all applications for the brownfields pilot
project program refer to challenges to
redevelopment related to RCRA and state that
redevelopers and localities face multimedia
problems at properties that are not addressed under
CERCLA. In 1998, a work group was established at
EPA to overcome challenges related to RCRA, she
said. The work group, Ms. Buckholtz explained, is
composed of participants representing all 10 EPA
regions and EPA headquarters. The primary goal of
the work group, she continued, is to serve as a
problem-solving arena. Ms. Buckholtz then said that
states soon would be involved and that, eventually,
regional waste managers would be involved, as well.
Information about RCRA brownfields properties is
available on EPA's Internet home page at:
Exhibit 8-4
RESOURCE CONSERVATION RECOVERY
ACT BROWNFIELDS PREVENTION
INITIATIVE
Under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative, EPA created a work group to resolve
challenges at brownfields properties related to
provisions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The goals of the work group
include:
• Identify and advertise good work that already is
being done in the EPA regions and states.
• Focus on several important efforts, including
training, outreach, and the conduct of monthly
information-sharing meetings.
• Coordinate issues related to the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative and develop
tools, issue papers, and guidance for the
consideration of EPA decision makers.
EPA will announce four pilot projects to "showcase"
flexibility under RCRA and to help model future
innovations for cleanup and redevelopment at sites
regulated under RCRA.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
8-5
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Michael Taylor, Vita Nuova, asked what types of
sites were to be involved in the initiative.
Responding, Ms. Buckholtz stated that the focus
would be on smaller facilities that can work more
effectively with the nearby community than some
larger facilities might find possible. It is a problem
for urban communities, Mr. Taylor said, that there
are many small parcels of land in those communities
that major companies have no desire to redevelop.
Ms. Miller-Travis suggested that the work group
investigate whether funds might be available to
address the issue. Ms. Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA
OSWER, then informed the subcommittee about
innovative ways to deal with larger parcels of land on
which there are some clean areas. She observed
that each site is unique. She then identified the
Bethlehem Steel site, located in Lackawanna, New
York, as an example of a pilot site. Exhibit 8-5
describes the Bethlehem Steel site.
Exhibit 8-5
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT BROWNFIELDS
PREVENTION INITIATIVE PILOT PROJECT
The Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC) facility in
Lackawanna, New York, has been selected as a
RCRA Brownfields Prevention Pilot. The site
formerly contained an integrated steel plant
occupying approximately 2.5 square miles (1,600
acres) and extending one'mile along the eastern
shoreline of Lake Erie. Steel was manufactured on
the site from the early 1900s until 1983. Since that
year, manufacturing operations have been reduced
significantly. In August 1990, an administrative
order on consent (AOC) was issued to BSC to
perform a RCRA facility investigation (RH).
The goal at this site is to remove approximately
600 acres of the site from the RFI AOC for
redevelopment. As the RCRA Brownfields Pilot is
implemented, it has the potential to showcase several
regulations, as well as policy. Actions that may be
highlighted include risk-based corrective action at
RCRA facilities, flexibility of land disposal
restriction (LDR) soil cleanup standards, and media
regulations under the hazardous waste identification
rule (HWIR).
Under BSC's proposed redevelopment plan, the
existing property would house a gateway trade center
and port, a medium industrial and transshipment
distribution center; a business and commercial
center; light industrial areas; and recreational areas,
such as a marina open buffer space, fishing areas,
and trails.
Mr. Taylor then asked what would be the role of the
work group initiative. Ms. Buckholtz responded that
the work group would serve as technical advisors
and provide a clearinghouse for pilot projects.
4.1.3 Minority Worker Training Program of the
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences
Ms. Sharon D. Beard, National Institute of
Environmental Health Services (NIEHS), provided an
update on the accomplishments of the Brownfields
Minority Worker Training Program (MWTP) of the
NIEHS Worker Education and Training Program.
Exhibit 8-6 describes the Brownfields program. Ms.
Beard announced that the Brownfields MWTP to
date had provided training at more than 20 sites in
11 of 16 Brownfield Showcase Communities. During
the first year of the Brownfields MWTP, reported Ms.
Beard, 405 students were trained, and approximately
225 students have been placed in jobs, a 64 percent
job placement rate. She noted that the gender
breakdown is 86 percent male and 14 percent
female. The NIEHS received $3 million frdm EPA to
implement the Brownfields MWTP. Ms. Beard
stated that the goal of the Brownfields MWTP is to
replicate the NIEHS' original MWTP model in order
to: (1) target Brownfields showcase communities;
(2) train residents 18 and older to enter
environmental career fields; (3) provide life skills
training, including literacy training; and (4) provide
the option of enrolling in apprenticeship programs.
Mr. Taylor asked what types of certification training
the program provides. Ms. Beard replied that the
certification training provided varies according to the
needs of the pilot cities. In the near future, she
added, a study was to be conducted to identify the
accomplishments of the overall MWTP over the past
five years.
Mr. Michael K. Holmes, Northside Education Center,
praised Ms. Beard for her work at NIEHS.
4.2 Issues Related to the Superfund Program
The members of the subcommittee received
presentations about and discussed issues related to
the Superfund Program conducted by EPA under the
authority of CERCLA: an update on EPA's
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative and a status
report on the policy under Superfund on relocation.
4.2.1 Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
Ms. Susan Sladek and Mr. Paul Nadeau, EPA Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR),
updated the subcommittee on EPA's Superfund
8-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
Hationaf Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Exhibit 8-6
Exhibit 8-7
BROWNFIELDS MINORITY WORKER
: TRAINING PROGRAM
Under the commitment of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Brownfields
National Partnership Agenda, the National Institute for
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has provided
support for the establishment of the Brownfields
minority worker training programs (MWTP) that
target Brownfields Showcase Communities. The
showcase communities are 16 model communities
selected to demonstrate a collaborative effort between •
government agencies and representatives of
communities to promote environmental protection,
economic redevelopment, and community
revitalization through the assessment, cleanup, and
sustainable reuse of brownfields. The strategy of the
initiative is to broaden the MWTP to include a
component of Brownfields worker training, addressing
'the need for a more comprehensive training program to
foster economic and environmental restoration of
identified brownfields sites.
Through an interagency agreement with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NIEHS has
awarded $3 million dollars for the development of
brownfields environmental job training programs that
target people of color at 11 of 16 Brownfields
Showcase Communities. The 1-1 communities are
Lowell, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Kansas City,
Missouri; Baltimore, Maryland; southeast Florida;
Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; East Palo Alto,
California; Portland, Oregon; St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Salt Lake City, Utah. Recipients of MWTP grants
include: Clark Atlanta University, DePaul University,
The Laborers-Associated General Contractors of
America (AGC) Education and Training, and the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America. '
Redevelopment Initiative. Exhibit 8-7 describes the
initiative. Elements of the initiative, explained Mr.
Nadeau, include pilot projects, policy refinements,
partnerships, and promotion. Mr. Nadeau informed
the subcommittee that, currently, 171 sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL) have been reused or
will be reused. Mr. Nadeau then explained that 10
sites had been selected for the first round of pilot
projects under the initiative. All the sites, with the
exception of one, are at the stage of pre-f inal record
of decision (ROD). He announced that a second
round of pilot projects would identify an additional 40
sites to participate in the initiative. Mr. Stanislaus
asked whether EPA will reopen RODs to apply the
SUPERFUND REDEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE
On July 23,1999, the U.S.^Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) announced the Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative, a coordinated national
effort to help communities redevelop formerly
contaminated Superfund sites and return them to use
as new parks, retail operations, and industrial
facilities.. Through the initiative, EPA will help
communities^convert environmental liabilities into
community assets. At every cleanup site, EPA will
ensure that there is an effective process and the
necessary tools and information needed to fully
explore future reuse before EPA implements a
cleanup remedy.
EPA has begun to implement the initiative on a
pilot-project basis to demonstrate and improve the
techniques it has developed after having studied the
redevelopment process at sites at which reuse
already has occurred. The Agency also is refining
policies; building partnerships; sharing information
about successful reuse; and informing local
governments, community groups, developers, and
other affected stakeholders about options available
in the redevelopment of Superfund sites.
For more information about the initiative, visit
EPA's Internet home page at
.
principles of the initiative. Mr. Nadeau replied that
EPA currently did not intend to do so. Mr. Stanislaus
then suggested the Superfund Redevelopment
Initiative Work Group of the subcommittee address
the issue of reopening RODs. Ms. Miller-Travis
agreed, suggesting that Mr. Nadeau and Ms. Sladek
communicate with Ms. Feiber to follow up on the
issue.
Ms. Sladek then informed the subcommittee that
round two of applications for pilot projects was
undergoing final internal review and was to be
released in the near future. She stated that March
10, 1999 is the deadline for proposals and
applications. Ms. Miller-Travis suggested that
application documents be distributed more widely to
include venues other than the Federal Register.
Arlington, Virginia, December 7, 1999
8-7
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
4.2.2 Status Report on Policy on Relocation
Under Superfund
On June 30, 1999, Mr. Fields issued an OSWER
directive, Interim Policy on the Use of Permanent
Relocations as Part of Superfund Remedial Actions,
announced Ms. Sladek. More than 400 copies of the
document, she stated, had been distributed to
various stakeholders, and the policy was published
in the Federal Register on July 8, 1999. To date,
only four comments on the document had been
received, she noted. At the present time, she
explained, no deadline had been established for the
receipt of comments. Mr. Holmes asked about the
status of the relocation effort for communities near
the Escambia Superfund Site in Pensacola, Florida,
expressing particular concern about the property
values of homes. At previous meetings of the
NEJAC, Mr. Holmes reminded the members of the
subcommittee, the residents of the Escambia
community had expressed concern about the true
property value of their homes. Mr. Holmes then
suggested that issues related to relocation may have
racial overtones. Ms. Suzanne Wells, EPA OERR,
replied that this is not the case. She then stated that
the people in Pensacola had received monetary
adjustments above the determined property values
of their homes. A web site related to this issue can
be found at .
Ms. Wells then announced that EPA plans to. hold a
multi-stakeholder meeting in March 2000 in
Washington, D.C., to discuss further EPA's interim
policy related to the conduct of relocation under
Superfund remedial actions and to discuss the
Uniform Relocation Act. Ms. Wells requested the
assistance of the members of the subcommittee in
developing the agenda for that meeting.
After receiving the report on issues related to
relocation, the members of the subcommittee viewed
a 10- minute videotape titled "New Tools to Enhance
Community Involvement in Superfund Risk
Assessment." The videotape, presented by Ms.
Jane Michaud, EPA OERR, presented information
about four elements of the risk assessment process:
data collection, exposure assessment, toxicity
assessment, and risk characterization. Those four
elements are defined as follows:
• Data collection: Collection of samples of
contaminated media.
• Exposure Assessment: Evaluation of the link
between contaminants and targets.
• Toxicity Assessment: Determination of the
degree of harm the contaminant causes.
• Risk characterization: Identification of chemicals
of concern and uncertainties.
After the videotape presentation, Ms. Miller-Travis
asked whether the videotape was to be translated
into other languages. Ms. Michaud replied that EPA
does intend to translate the videotape.
4.3 Update on Environmental Justice Activities
Related to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
The members of the subcommittee received
presentations about and discussed issues related to
environmental justice activities related to RCRA
conducted by EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW):
an overview of activities at OSW and the EPA
brochure Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous
Waste Facilities.
4.3.1 Update on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste
Ms. Toshia King, Environmental Justice Coordinator,
EPA OSW, presented an overview of the projects of
OSW's environmental justice team. The team's
current projects, she reported, include:
• Regional beginning-of-year plan (BYP) and
follow-up conference calls to ensure public
participation and concerns related to
environmental justice are addressed and
considered throughout the permitting process.
• Public involvement conference calls to be held
by members of OWS environmental justice team
with their regional counterparts to discuss issues
related to the enhancement of public
participation in the permitting program under
RCRA. '
• The RCRA Environmental Justice Network,
under development by OSW, to establish a
stronger relationship between headquarters and
regional offices to ensure that environmental
justice concerns related to RCRA are handled
consistently nationwide.
• Technical Outreach Services for Communities
(TOSC) to provide technical assistance to
communities that have long-term concerns
about the effects of chemical releases from
8-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
regulated under RCRA.
• Environmental justice home page on OSW's
I nternet home page at
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Foster maximum use of program flexibility
through training, outreach, and the use of
enforcement tools.
• Enhance community involvement.
Mr. Hall then stated that all guidance developed will
be distributed to the public for comment and
announced in the Federal Register.
To foster maximum use of program flexibility, a
Corrective Action Workshop was developed. The
workshop is offered at various locations around the
country and is open to all stakeholders. To enhance
community involvement, an Internet home page has
been created at
to provide links to site-specific information.
4.3.2 Review and Discussion of the Draft
Brochure on Social Aspects of Siting
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Hazardous Waste Facilities
Ms. Freya Margand, EPA OSW, discussed the
status of the EPA draft brochure Social Aspects of
Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities. The
brochure provides information about the concerns of
communities related to quality of life before, during,
and after the siting and permitting of hazardous
waste facilities, as defined under RCRA. The
brochure outlines the definition of quality of life
concerns, how to identify quality of life concerns, and
how to conduct effective communication with
stakeholders, she said. One section of the brochure,
Ms. Margand stated, discusses issues related to
environmental justice. Ms. Margand pointed out that
the document currently was under revision. Ms.
Miller-Travis asked whetherthe subcommittee would
have the opportunity to provide comments on the
environmental justice section of the brochure. Ms.
Margand replied that the subcommittee could
provide comments, but cautioned that there was a
need for a short turnaround time.
4.4 Update on Calcasieu Parrish, Louisiana by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Ms. Pamela Phillips, Superfund Division, EPA
Region 6, discussed the estuaries in the Lake
Charles area of Louisiana. She announced that EPA
Region 6 had established an outreach office in Lake
Charles that is open three days per week and offers
computers for public use, adding as well that
information had been placed on the Internet. The
Internet home page can be found at
.
Ms. Phillips then reported on the status of
groundwater sampling of private wells located in the
vicinity of the North Ryan Street Superfund Site in
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. She stated that EPA
had met with the PRP to negotiate the removal of
soil and sediment.
Ms. Phillips informed the subcommittee that EPA
Region 6 also had conducted an evaluation of the
Mossville, Louisiana public water system. The water
system was evaluated from "well to tap," to
determine its performance, she said. The Mossville
public water system was found to be in compliance
with all the regulatory requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act; she noted; however, EPA and
the state of Louisiana will continue to provide
oversight to ensure that the regulatory compliance of
the water system is sustained.
Mr. Samuel J. Coleman, Director, Compliance
Assurance and Enforcement Division, EPA Region
6, stated that approximately 30 enforcement actions
had been taken in the Calcasieu Parish area. In
1998, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) collected blood samples
(confirmation sampling) from 28 residents and
analyzed the samples for dioxin. Of the 28 samples,
12 showed high levels of dioxin contamination, he
said. Mr. Coleman also announced that EPA Region
6 "had been holding quarterly meetings with the
community. Mr. Coleman requested that members
of the subcommittee participate in the quarterly
meetings. He also asked that the subcommittee
carefully track the progress of the cleanup of the
community.
5.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DIALOGUE
Ms. Miller-Travis opened the floor to public dialogue.
5.1 Concerned Citizens of Iberville Parish,
Louisiana
Mr. Edgar J. Mouton, Mossville Environmental Action
Now (M.E.A.N), addressed the subcommittee. Mr.
Mouton asked why his community is not receiving
more help from EPA. He stated that groundwater
and air problems, as well as high levels of dioxin
contamination, affect his community. He
recommended that the government or private
industry fund a health clinic to help school children
who have learning disabilities. Mr. Mouton also
recommended that local medical personnel be
trained to treat illnes'ses caused by chemical
poisoning. There also is a need, he pointed out, for
air monitoring and cleanup of surface water. The
parish also would like a Superfund site identified in
the area, he said in conclusion. Ms. Miller-Travis
8-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
replied that the subcommittee had been assigned to
develop, in consultation with the community, EPA
Region 6, and the state of Louisiana, a plan of action
for addressing the ongoing environmental
contamination problems that affect the Mossville
community. That action plan is due by the next
meeting of the NEJAC, she said.
5.2 Westside Homeowners Protective
Association
Mr. Pierre Hollingsworth, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), called to
the attention of the subcommittee a community at
risk in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The South Jersey
Transportation Authority (SJTA), in conjunction with
the New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT), is building a tunnel (the Atlantic
City/Brigantine Connection Tunnel) to be located in
a stable African-American community, he said.
According to Mr. Hollingsworth, construction of the
tunnel will expose residents to noise pollution, soil
contamination, and harmful dust particles. He
pointed out that levels of contamination in soil
exceed health-based standards established by the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP). Most of the soil excavated for the tunnel
will be reused on the site, he noted. Mr.
Hollingsworth also noted that some residents of the
community live within 25 feet of the location of the
tunnel. In addition, residents have been complaining
of respiratory ailments, he said.
The residents sued the developers of the project
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a
settlement agreement, Mr. Hollingsworth pointed out,
the residents were allotted funds to pay for an
independent consultant to monitor the site for health
and safety problems. However, all the
recommendations the independent consultant made
to the project developers have been rejected, he
declared. Mr. Hollingsworth noted that the area in
which the tunnel is located alsp has a shallow
groundwater table. Mr. Hollingsworth then stated
that he was requesting "direct federal intervention
now." He requested that officials of EPA Region 2
facilitate the bringing together of all parties to
address the issues of concern. Mr. Hollingsworth
stated his belief that EPA's presence is necessary if
the issues of the concerned area are to be resolved.
He recommended that EPA immediately convene a
meeting, in consultation with NJDOT and the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) to address the
long-term air quality issues associated with the
tunnel.
Ms. Miller-Travis then requested that the
subcommittee draft a resolution that outlines the
concerns explained by Mr. Hollingsworth.
Ms. Miller-Travis asked Mr. Hollingsworth whether
any residents would be displaced because of the
construction of the tunnel. Mr. Hollingsworth replied
thata number of residents, including himself .already
had been displaced. Approximately 11 houses had
been removed, he added. Even though homes had
been demolished, he continued, other homes remain
within 25 feet of the tunnel, he said. With the storm
water problem present at the site, remaining
residents are placed in a dangerous situation, he
pointed out. Remaining residents are finding cracks
in the foundations of their homes, the rodent
population is increasing, and rates of illness are
rising, he told the subcommittee.
Addressing Ms. Hayden, Ms. Miller-Travis asked
whether EPA Region 2 could intervene on behalf of
the community and arrange a meeting of the
appropriate parties, such as NJDEP, NJDOT, DOT,
and SJTA. Ms. Hayden stated that she would follow
up on the issues Mr. Hollingsworth had raised. Ms.
Hayden then requested help from the subcommittee
in the form of a written request related to the issues.
Mr. Stanislaus stated that he would draft a resolution
on the issue to be forwarded to the Executive
Council of the NEJAC for consideration. Mr.
Hollingsworth expressed his gratitude to the
subcommittee and stated that he would tell the
residents of west Atlantic City that "help is on the
way."
6.0 RESOLUTION AND ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the resolution forwarded to
the Executive Council of the NEJAC for
consideration and the action items adopted by the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
NEJAC.
The members of the subcommittee discussed a
resolution in which the NEJAC recommends that
EPA Region 2 facilitate.a meeting among the
following parties: the Westside Homeowners
Protective Association, the Venice Park Civic
Association, DOT, SJTA, and NJDEP to address the
issue of exposure of community residents to
contaminated soil, long-term air quality issues, and
the potential adverse effects (such as flooding and
other threats to public safety) on the residents of the
community that are anticipated as a result of the
construction of the Atlantic City/Brigantine Connector
Tunnel.
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1999
8-11
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
The members of the subcommittee also adopted the
following action items:
• Recommend thatthe NEJAC approve the report
of the Waste Transfer Station Work Group of
the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee, A
Regulatory Strategy for Siting and Operating
Waste Transfer Stations, and present its
recommendations to the EPA Administrator.
• Request that the NEJAC establish a work group
to review EPA's proposed Land Use Guidance
for Local Governments Regarding
Environmental Justice Considerations for
Permitting and Siting of Waste Facilities.
• Request that the members of the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee participate in
quarterly meetings conducted by EPA Region 6
to address issues of concern in Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana.
8-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 1,1S99
-------
APPENDICES
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
FULL TEXT OF APPROVED
RESOLUTIONS
-------
-------
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN AUDIT OF
LOUISIANA PERMITTING PROGRAMS =
WHEREAS, public participation in environmental decision-making is fundamental to environmental justice,
as it allows those affected by decisions to take part in them;
WHEREAS, all major environmental laws contain legally binding public participation requirements;
WHEREAS, EPA offices with permitting authority further agreed to and embraced the NEJAC Public
Participation Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the right to legal representation is indispensable for public participation and essential to the
viability of citizen suit provisions of said federal environmental laws;
WHEREAS, public participation and speech on environmental decisions is constitutionally protected by the
1st Amendment;
WHEREAS, NEJAC has heard testimony at each of its last five meetings from residents of Louisiana, who
have presented substantial evidence indicating a pattern of intimidation by the State of Louisiana of
citizens engaged in public comment, leading to the curtailing of citizens' right to free speech in .
environmental permitting processes;
WHEREAS, the State of Louisiana has moved to abridge citizens' rights to legal representation in
environmental decision-making;
WHEREAS, the failure to guarantee public participation represents dereliction of the State of Louisiana's
delegated and authorized environmental permitting programs;
WHEREAS, implementation failures and delegated programs undermine the federal government's
authority for those programs at the national level;
WHEREAS, such threats to federal authority, if confirmed, provide grounds for the revocation of the State
of Louisiana's permitting authorities;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the NEJAC recommends that the Administrator direct the
Inspector General to conduct a full audit of the State of Louisiana's permitting programs with particular
attention to violations of the Agency's public participation regulations, the NEJAC's public participation
guidelines, and the U.S. Constitution.
RESOLUTION ON POLLUTION CAUSED BY THE PUERTO RICO
ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY (PREPA) •
WHEREAS, the Puerto Rico State Implementation Plan Revision of 1993 to reduce PM10 has failed to
obtain attainment in the Guaynabo non attainment area
WHEREAS, NAAQS exceedances have occurred for four consecutive years
WHEREAS, these exceedances were predicted in the modeling process of the 1993 SIP revision
WHEREAS, exceedances in Puerto Rico during dust migration episodes from the Sahara dust and the
Monserrate volcano eruptions are always predictable by the available satellite technology
WHEREAS, the state cannot control non anthropogenic emissions, it can control anthropogenic '
emissions from point sources such as power plants stacks to ensure NAAQS compliance
WHEREAS, the use of a fuel with a sulfur content of 1.5% as a control strategy to minimize the impact of
the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) in the non attainment area in Cata-Guaynabo has failed
to obtain attainment in the area
A-1
-------
WHEREAS, PREPA has no pollution control in its stacks
WHEREAS, a residual oil with 1.5% of sulfur content is considered a dirty fuel
WHEREAS, the particulate emission limitation (mass emission) of .3lbs/lbs/MBU is less restrictive than
the federal standard of 0.1 Ibs/MBTU
WHEREAS, the state mass emission standard of 0.3 Ibs/MBTU has never been proven by the state to be
equivalent to 20% opacity,
WHEREAS, the PR state mass emission limitation of .3lbs/MBTU has been identified by EQB officials as
a "typographical error'
WHEREAS, the state emission standard cannot be less restrictive than the federal particulate standards,
WHEREAS, PREPA has been identified as egregious opacity violator while firing 1.5% sulfur fuels since
1993,
WHEREAS, the use of a fuel with 1.5% sulfur content has failed to sustain a dean emission in PREPA's
stacks, -
WHEREAS, relying in opacity as the only federally emission standard to protect the health of the people
from excessive sulfur dioxide emissions from a dirty fuel results in an unequal protection of law to
residents,
WHEREAS, PREPA has been convicted of criminal environmental actions in a federal Court as is under
certain strict probation terms,
WHEREAS, eliminating the mass emission limitation in a non attainment area for particulates,
in the Catafto-Guaynabo area, contravenes the Clean Air Act
WHEREAS, PREPA is the second Public Utility with the highest revenues in the USA,
WHEREAS, PREPA has a monopoly in energy sales, even in the presence of other cogenerators
WHEREAS, PREPA is included by EPA as one of the 100 dirtiest power plants in terms of sulfur dioxide
and particulate emissions,
WHEREAS, the installment of appropriate enforceable limitations is the only mechanism available in
Puerto Rico to protect its citizens from acid rain and sulfur dioxide emissions because PREPA is
exempted to comply with the tittle IV program provisions
WHEREAS, PREPA has made significant modifications and capital investments and no longer qualifies to
be exempted to comply with the New Source Performance Standards,
WHEREAS, Puerto Rico must be treated as a state,
Be it resolved that EPA should take the following actions,
1. To request the Puerto Rico Commonwealth State to revise its State Implementation Plan in order
to establish the .1lbs/BMTU Federal emission limitation of particulate, and the appropriate sulfur
dioxide emission limitation for the entire island including the non attainment area,
2. To request PREPA to establish a continuous SOx emission monitoring mechanism
3. To request PREPA to fire a residual oil with a sulfur content no higher than .5 percent in all of its
plants.
A-2
-------
RESOLUTION ON "CREDIBLE DETERRENCE" CIVIL PENALTIES:
CAPTURING THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE =
Whereas, "Capturing the Economic Benefit" means that when a penalty is assessed against an
environmental violator, a significant part of the assessment is calculating the costs avoided as a result of
non-compliance, plus the interest earned on money as a result of delayed compliance; and
Whereas, Examples of economic benefit from noncompliance include delayed and avoided pollution
control expenses, delayed and avoided installation, operation, and maintenance costs of pollution control
equipment, and delayed and avoided costs of one-time acquisitions needed for compliance; and
Whereas, under U.S. EPA Policy and many federal environmental laws and regulations, one of the major
considerations in calculation of any proposed penalty assigned to a violator is the question of what the
economic benefit was to the violator; and
Whereas, the underlying policy consideration is that the penalty burden must be at least as great as the
benefit of the violation or there would be no reason to comply;
and
Whereas, the EPA Strategic Plan, Goal 9, calls for the Agency to provide a "credible deterrent to pollution
and greater compliance with the law";
We hereby resolve that:
» EPA Penalty Policy which requires that penalties should include the component of economic
benefit should be complied with at the national, regional, and state level. .
•• Technical assistance in calculating the economic benefit (EBN calculation training) should be
provided to all enforcement authorities who assert that they can't do it because they don't know
how.
- A model penalty policy that includes providing for the calculation of economic benefit should be
made available to all enforcement authorities who assert that they can't do it because they don't
have such a penalty policy.
- Any enforcement authority asserting that their laws prevent them from calculating the economic
benefit should be required to provide an Attorney General's (or the equivalent) certification to that
effect.
- EPA Regional Officials should consider taking independent enforcement actions against facilities
in cases where state assessed penalties do not recover substantial economic benefits of
noncompliance.
»• A requirement of capturing the economic benefit should be incorporated as part of the
Memoranda of Agreement with the Regions, or EPA's Performance Partnership Agreements with
the delegated agencies, or through any other delegation agreements.
" To establish credible deterrence it should be made clear that agencies are delegated legal
authority to establish general pollution control requirements consistent with federal statutory
mandates and EPA policies and that as to capturing the economic benefit, they will not be allowed
to sink below the minimum. .
A-3
-------
RESOLUTION ON EPA TO AMEND ITS ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAM (EIP)
REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS
AND REQUIREMENTS -
WHEREAS, the EPA is advocating both environmental justice as a means to reduce pollution in
communities of color and pollution trading as a cost-effective method to reduce pollution.
WHEREAS, the EPA has adopted Economic Incentive Program (EIP) regulations which establish
approvability requirements for pollution trading programs.
WHEREAS, the EIP regulations currently do not include safeguards sufficient to prevent adverse
environmental justice impacts, including the creation of toxic hot spots in communities of color.
WHEREAS, the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) has met with the NEJAC
Enforcement Subcommittee to discuss environmental justice concerns related to emissions trading, and
appeared generally receptive to the concerns raised by the NEJAC.
WHEREAS, the NEJAC recognizes the willingness of EPA OAR to continue to have a dialogue with the
NEJAC until these issues are resolved. <
WHEREAS, certain pollution trading programs have the potential to create, perpetuate or exacerbate air
pollution toxic hot spots in communities of color by allowing facilities in those communities to increase or
continue emissions.
WHEREAS, certain pollution trading programs allow facilities to increase or continue emissions of highly
toxic chemicals, due to offsets obtained from decreases in less toxic chemical emissions, thereby
resulting in a net increase in airborne toxicity.
WHEREAS, since stationary source polluters are often disproportionately located in communities of color.
while mobile source pollution is widely distributed geographically, mobile to stationary source pollution
trading has the potential to create or exacerbate toxic hot sports.
WHEREAS, pollution trading programs require accurate quantification of emissions reduced and
increased through the program, and such quantification is particularly difficult in the case of mobile source
trading programs.
WHEREAS, pollution credits should only be granted for emission reductions that are real, surplus, and
quantifiable, and pollution credits should therefore not be granted for emission reductions that would have
resulted even in the absence of the pollution trading program.
WHEREAS, economic modeling tools exist that allow agencies to predict the probable geographic and
demographic impact of pollution trading programs, including the location of probable pollution credit
purchasers and sellers.
WHEREAS, a fundamental principle of the environmental justice movement is that communities affected
by pollution must be allowed to participate in decisions affecting their environment.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT NEJAC urges EPA to Amend the EIP Regulations to:
>• Prohibit the trading of toxic air pollutants, as defined in the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act if the result would be adverse health or environmental impact(s) in an
environmental justice community, and unless EPA requires the states to develop adequate
quantification protocols that must be reviewed and approved by EPA info an enforceable state
implementation plan (SIP) prior to trading plan implementation to ensure accurate quantification of
pollutants to be traded and to ensure enforceabilitv and verifiabilitv.
•• If trading of toxic chemicals is allowed, prohibit emissions trading that will result in an increase in
toxic chemical pollution in already overburdened communities, taking into account cumulative
A-4
-------
pollution risks. If trading of toxic chemicals is allowed, require implementing agency to consider
selective toxicitv of specific chemicals being traded, and to prohibit trading that will expose the
public to unacceptable risk.
«• Prior to approval of any pollution trading program, require the agency proposing the program to
conduct an economic analysis simitar comparable to the model prepared by the Regional
Economic Modeling, Inc. (REMI) to determine the location of probable emission credit purchasers
and sellers. Require the agency to overlay the REMI analysis with demographic information to
determine whether the proposed trading program will have an adverse impact on communities of
color. Prohibit emissions trading programs that are predicted to have an adverse impact on
communities of color.
«• Require that at a minimum, all facilities must- install technology-based controls defined as
reasonably available control technology (RACT) under the Clean Air Act, and prohibit trading that
allows companies to avoid installing RACT.
»• Require all emissions trading programs to incorporate public participation components that
include notification to affected communities of any trade that will result in an increase or
continuation of toxic chemical pollution, and allow the affected communities a reasonable
opportunity to review and comment upon said adverse impacts. Require the responsible agency
to retain discretion to revise or reject the proposed pollution trade based upon comments
received.'
» Prohibit mobile-to-stationary source trading where the result would be adverse health or
environmental impact(s) in an environmental justice community, and unless EPA requires the
states to develop adequate quantification protocols that must be reviewed and approved by EPA
into an enforceable state implementation plan (SIP) prior to trading plan implementation to ensure
accurate quantification of pollutants to be traded and to ensure enforceability and verifiability.
•• EPA should retain requirements in found in the emissions trading policy statement regulation
requiring a portion of the economic benefit resulting from pollution trading to benefit the public
through increased emission reductions.
RESOLUTION ON EPA TO ADOPT A NATIONAL POLICY PROHIBITING
FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF STATE-ISSUED VARIANCES =
WHEREAS, the Region IX of the EPA is considering whether to grant federal recognition of state-issued
variances from Title V permit requirements, and has proposed to recognize such variances in cases of
malfunction, start-up, shut-down, and maintenance;
WHEREAS, the federal recognition of these variances would preclude both federal and community
enforcement of the federal Clean Air Act where violations have been documented, and thus provide a
disincentive to compliance with Clean Air Act requirements;
WHEREAS, since stationary source polluters are disproportionately located in communities of color,
issuance of variances to stationary sources will result in a disproportionate impact on these communities;
WHEREAS, the issuance of variances can result in increased impacts to public health from emissions of
air toxics at levels above permit requirements and above those levels which have been analyzed for their
impact to public health;
WHEREAS, the issuance of variances could impede reasonable further progress on attainment of federal
air quality standards;
WHEREAS, Clean Air Act case law only allows for permit modifications after amendment to the
appropriate State Implementation Plan;
WHEREAS, EPA enforcement policy takes into consideration problems such as malfunction, start-up, and
shutdown procedures as mitigating factors to penalties assessed for violations;
A-5
-------
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
NEJAC urges EPA to adopt a national policy which:
•• Prohibits federal recognition of variances from Clean Air Act requirements, except for variances
resulting in more stringent levels of control at the facility;
»• Acknowledges that existing federal enforcement policies consider the nature of a violation and
factors such as malfunction, start-up, shut-down, and maintenance as mitigating factors in
determining the appropriate federal enforcement response.
> Requires consultation with NEJAC before consideration or approving any variance
policy, by EPA or any of its regions.
RESOLUTION ON THE UNITED NATIONS DRAFT DECLARATION
ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES =====
WHEREAS Executive Order 12898 establishing the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) recognizes that Indigenous Peoples as a group are especially vulnerable to disproportionate
impacts of environmental despoliation;
WHEREAS Executive Order 13107 of December 15,1998, requires all Executive Departments and
Agencies to respect United States human rights international obligations relevant to their functions, and to
perform such functions so as to respect and implement those obligations fully;
WHEREAS the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is an international human
rights obligation of the United States, which recognizes the right of all Peoples to Self-DeJermination,
including the right of Peoples to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development and to
freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources;
WHEREAS, the ICCPR also provides that Peoples may not be deprived of their own means of
subsistence;
WHEREAS, The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, also applicable to the United States:
»• Reaffirmed that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated;
» Reaffirmed the commitment of the International Community to ensure the enjoyment of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous Peoples and to respect and value the diversity of
their cultures and identities;
>• Considered the denial of the right of self determination as a violation of human rights and
underlined the importance of the effective realization of this right;
•• Called for concerted, positive steps from the international community to ensure respect for all
human rights of Indigenous Peoples on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, recognizing
the value of their distinct identities, cultures and social organization;
WHEREAS, the international community has recognized the spiritual relationship between Indigenous
Peoples and their lands and territories, notably through International Labor Organization Convention no.
169 and numerous special studies;
WHEREAS, other United Nations studies have found that Indigenous lands are being subjected to
unprecedented development and frequently resultant irreparable environmental damage;
WHEREAS, the Right to Development is a right of Peoples in which the enjoyment of self determination
and full sovereignty over all natural wealth and resources is fundamental;
A-6
-------
WHEREAS, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is presently considering a Draft declaration
on the rights of Indigenous Peoples;
WHEREAS, the present draft of the declaration before the Human Rights Commission was elaborated
with the full and ample participation of hundreds of Indigenous Nations and thousands of their
representatives before the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations over a 12 year
period;,
WHEREAS, recognizing and underscoring, that these Indigenous participants found that the present draft
before the Commission on Human Rights is a minimal standard to ensure the survival of Indigenous
Peoples and their environment;
WHEREAS, the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized in the present draft of the UN
declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples are universal, interdependent, indivisible and interrelated
to the achievement of Environmental Justice for Indigenous Peoples;
WHEREAS, recognition and observance of the right of Self Determination is a necessary element of
Environmental Justice for Indigenous Peoples, and further, is a pre-requisite for their enjoyment of all
other human rights;
WHEREAS, the NEJAC recognizes that the United Nations Draft declaration on the rights of indigenous
peoples as an urgent Environmental Justice issue for Indigenous Peoples in the United States;
BE IT RESOLVED:
That NEJAC request the EPA Administrator to immediately communicate to the Secretary of State
that the United States support the adoption of the present draft declaration on the rights of
Indigenous Peoples before the United Nations, as presented by the Working Group on Indigenous
Populations, without change or amendment, as an urgent Environmental Justice concern; and,
• That EPA and the Administrator request a timely response to her communication from the
Secretary of State, to be transmitted in full to NEJAC and its Subcommittees.
RESOLUTION TO URGE EPA TO REQUEST THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE UNITED
STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
12898 AND THAT THEY PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ISSUES RAISING TRANSBOUNDARY AND INTERNATIONAL ISSUES '
WHEREAS, Presidential Executive Order 12898, entitled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," directs that "each Federal agency shall
make achieving 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 in the United States and its territories and
possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of
Mariana Islands;" and
WHEREAS, some international border areas, including areas of the U.S./Mexico border, are heavily
populated on both sides of the border; and
WHEREAS, victims of disproportionate pollution impacts and environmental injustice resulting from
international trade and commerce along the border area include American citizen people of color, poor
people, Indigenous Peoples as well as other residents of the United States; and
WHEREAS, public comments and discussions at a recent "Roundtable on Environmental Justice Issues
A-7
-------
on the U.S./Mexico Border" (Border Roundtable), sponsored by the NEJAC International Subcommittee
and EPA in San Diego, California (April 19-21), have made clear that there are significant pollution and
other environmental issues affecting low-income, minority, and indigenous populations along the
U.S./Mexico border area; and
WHEREAS, the political disenfranchisement of and environmental burdens on low-income, minority, and
indigenous populations residing in border areas, such as the U.S./Mexico border region, are exacerbated
by the lack of political and legal accountability of polluting facilities located outside of the United States;
and
WHEREAS, Executive Order 12898 does not specifically mention the State Department and the U.S.
Trade Representative's Office as Federal agencies within the scope of the Executive Order; and,
WHEREAS, some of the potential impacts of programs, policies, and activities of the State Department
and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office clearly fall within the scope of the activities that Executive
Order 12898 was intended and designed to address; and
WHEREAS, Executive order 13141 entitled Environmental Review of Trade Agreements, specifically calls
for careful assessment and consideration of the environmental impacts of trade agreements such as those
disproportionate impacts contemplated by Executive Order 12898; and,
WHEREAS, Executive Order 13141 requires environmental reviews and public comment on the
environmental impacts of trade agreements in the United States, and where appropriate and prudent, on
global and transboundary impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the NEJAC believes that it is imperative for all agencies whose programs, policies, and
activities with a potential impact on low-income, minority, and indigenous populations engage in
discussions about and substantively work on efforts to achieve the President's expressed goal of
promoting environmental justice for such populations; and
WHEREAS, the State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office can incorporate
environmental justice concerns into their missions through existing environmental and human rights
offices;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
NEJAC urges the EPA Administrator to:
- Request that the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative comply with and
further the provisions of and policies expressed in Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order
13141; and
> Request participation, in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898, by the
Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative in the Interagency Working Group
on Environmental Justice; and
- Request the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative to prepare an
Environmental Justice Strategy, in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898; and
> Seek designation by the President, in accordance with Sections 1-102 and 6-604 of Executive
Order 12898, of the State Department and the United States Trade Representative's Office as
agencies participating in the Interagency Working Group under Executive Order 12898 and
covered by its provisions; and •
A-8
-------
» Develop, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, the United States Trade Representative, and
the Council for Environmental Quality, criteria and methodologies for considering the
transboundary environmental impacts on racial minority, low-income, and indigenous populations
in the areas covered by Executive Order .12898 by the international activities of Federal agencies,
including negotiation of international trade and other agreements.
•• Request assistance from the Secretary of State in resolving concerns, such as the ones raised by
various community organizations at the "Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S./Mexico
Border" (August 19-21, 1999, San Diego, California), concerning environmental degradation and
pollution at the border as well as transboundary impacts of pollution.
RESOLUTION TO ADDRESS COMMUNITIES AT RISK FROM THE ATLANTIC CITY/
BRIGANTINE CONNECTOR TUNNEL PROJECT, ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY ' ——
WHEREAS, South Jersey Transportation Authority, in conjunction with the New Jersey Department of
Transportation is constructing the Atlantic City/Brigantine Connector Tunnel.
WHEREAS, the Atlantic City Tunnel, will bisect the Atlantic City communities of the First Ward, Second
Ward, Third Ward, Fourth Ward, and Venice Park area of Atlantic City, all of which consists of
predominantly African-American residents.
WHEREAS, the Atlantic City Tunnel route has resulted in the relocation and displacement of homeowners
that resided on the selected route.
WHEREAS, the Atlantic City Tunnel route traverses within 25 feet of the remaining residents.
WHEREAS, soils that will be excavated for the construction of the Atlantic City Tunnel are contaminated
with heavy metals, petroleum-related compounds, and other organic and inorganic substances at levels in
excess of health-based standards established by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and 152,000 cubic yards of these soils will be reuse on site.
WHEREAS, the South Jersey Transportation Authority has rejected the request of community residents
for controls ensure that contaminants in the soils do not migrate to the adjacent communities, such as air
monitoring - on-site and off-site - of the contaminants found in the soils, continuous engineering controls,
and covering of the soils.
WHEREAS, excavation of has continued for 9 months and community residents have begun to complain
of respiratory difficulties since the beginning of construction - including the triggering of dormant asthma.
WHEREAS, analysis performed by South Jersey Transportation Authority and the New Jersey Department
of Transportation acknowledge the possibility that there could be hot spots of carbon monoxide,
particulates and sulfur dioxide in areas adjacent to the tunnel.
WHEREAS, the South Jersey Transportation Authority and the New Jersey Department of Transportation
have rejected the request of community residents to install air control devices to address the emissions
from vehicles using the tunnel and air monitoring of the emissions for a short time period after the tunnel
is constructed to ensure local air quality does not create risk to the adjacent communities.
WHEREAS, South Jersey Transportation Authority has failed to address numerous other issues identified
by community residents, including the potential for flooding, safety, and structural damage to homes.
WHEREAS, the Atlantic City Tunnel is funded by the State of New Jersey, administered by one of its
agencies, and is to serve a casino that is supported by and would directly benefit the City of Atlantic City
and the State of New Jersey.
A-9
-------
WHEREAS, the unresponsiveness by all state agencies requires the intervention by the USEPA to prevent
irreversible damage to health of community residents and the local communities.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council calls upon
USEPA to IMMEDIATELY, through its Region II Offices, facilitate the convening of all parties, including the
South Jersey Transportation Authority, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the New
Jersey Department of Transportation, to address the immediate issues of exposure of community
residents to contaminated soil during construction, activities, and other issues of potential impact to the
community residents after construction, such as flooding, and safety.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council calls upon
USEPA, in consultation with the US Department of Transportation, to convene a meeting of N J
Department of Transportation and South Jersey Transportation Authority, to address the long term air
quality issues associated with tunnel.
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
-------
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Alphabetical List of Members
1999
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
Charles Lee
Associate Director
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202/564-2597
Fax: 202/501-1163
E-mail: king.marva@epamail.epa.gov
CHAIR
Haywood Turrentine - 2 years
Executive Director
Laborers' District Council of Education & Training
Trust Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity
500 Lancaster Pike
Exton, PA 19341
Phone: 610X524-0404
Fax: 610X524-6411
E-mail: woodtur@aol.com
Other Members
Don J. Aragon - 2 years
Wind River Environmental Quality Commission
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
P.O. Box 217
FortWasakie, WY82514
Phone: 307/332-3164
FAX' 307/332-7579
E-mail:WREQC-TWE@WYOMING.COM
Rose Marie Augustine - 3 years
Tucsonans for a Clean Environment
7051 West Bopp Road
Tucson, AZ 85735-8621
Phone: (520) 883-8424
Fax:
E-mail:
Leslie Beckhoff Cormier - 1 year
DuPont Specialty Chemicals
Barley Mill Plaza
Yorklyn Mill, Building 23, Room 1113
P.O. Box 80023
Wilmington, DE 19880-0023
Phone: (302) 992-4273
Fax: (302)992-4316
E-mail: leslie.a.beckhoff@usa.dupont.com
Sue Briggum -1 year
Waste Management
North Building #300
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202)628-3500
Fax: (202)628-0400
E-mail: sue_briggum@wastemanagement.com
Dwayne Beavers -1 year
Cherokee Nation/OES
P. O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0671
Phone: (918)458-5496
Fax: (918)458-5499
E-mail: dbeavers@netsites.net
Luke W. Cole - 2 years
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environ.
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
631 Howard Street, Suite 330
San Francisco, CA 94105-3907
Phone: (415)495-8990
Fax: (415)495-8849
E-mail: luke@crpesf.org
Fernando Cuevas, Sr. - 3 years
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
326 East Maple Street
Winter Garden. FL 34787
Phone: (407) 877-2949
Fax: (407) 877-0031
E-mail:
Rosa Franklin -1 year
Washington State Senate
409 Legislative Building
P. O. Box 40482
Olympia, WA 98504-0482
Phone: (360)786-7656
Fax: .(360)786-7524
E-mail: franklin_ro@leg.wa.gov
Arnoldo Garcia - 2 years
Development Director
Urban Habitat Program
2263 41 st Avenue.
Oakland, CA 94601
Phone: (415)561-3332
Fax: (415)561-3334
E-mail: agarcia@igc.apc.org
Michel Gelobter - 3 years
Rutgers University
Department of Public Administration
360 Martin Luther King Boulevard, 7th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 353-5093, ext. 18
Fax: (781) 394-4774 or (209) 927-4574
E-mail: gelobter@newark.rutgers.edu
-------
Tom Goldtooth - 2 years
Indigenous Environmental Network
P. O. Box 485
Bemidji, MN 56619-0485
Phone: (218)751-4967
Fax: (218)751-0561
E-mail: ien@igc.apc.org
Jennifer Hill-Kelly - 3 years
Oneida Environmental Health &
Safety Depf.
P. O. Box 365, 3759 West Mason Street
Oneida, Wl 54155
Phone: (920)497-5812
Fax: (920) 496-7883
E-mail: jhillkel@oneidanation.org
Annabelle Jaramillo - 2 years
Office of the Governor
Room 160, State Capitol
Salem, OR 97310
Phone: (503)378-5116
FAX: (503)378-6827
E-mail: annabelle.e.jaramillo@state.or.us
Vernice Miller Travis - 2 years
Director
Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields Development
104 Jewett Place
Bowie. MD 20721
Phone: (301)218-3528
Fax: (202)289-1060
E-mail: vernice@africana.com
David Moore - 3 years
Mayor, City of Beaumont
Office of City Manager
P. O. Box 3827
Beaumont, TX 77704
Phone: (409)880-3716
Fax: (409)880-3112
E-mail:
Marinelle Payton - 2 years
Harvard School of Public Health
134 Marlborough
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 375-5793
Fax: (617)247-2147
E-mail: remar@gauss.bwh.harvard.edu
Gerald Prout -1 year
FMC Corporation
1667 K Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202/956-5209
Fax: 202/956-5238
E-mail: jerry_prout@fmc.com
Rosa Hilda Ramos - 2 years
Community of Catafio Against Pollution
La Marina Avenue .
Mf 6, Marina Bahia .
Catano, Puerto Rico 00962
Phone: (787)788-0837
Fax: (787)788-0837
E-mail: rosah@coqui.net
Peggy Shepard -3 years
West Harlem Environmental Action
271 West 125lh Street, Suite 211
New York, NY 10027
Phone: (212)961-1000
Fax: (212)961-1015
E-mail:
Jane Stahl - 3 years
Assistant Commissioner
State of Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
Phone: (860)424-3009
Fax: (860)424-4054 •
E-mail: jane.stahl@po.state.ct.us
Gerald Torres - 2 years
University of Texas Law School
727 East Dean Keeton, Room 3.266
Austin, TX 78705
Phone: (512)471-2680
FAX: (512)471-0577
E-mail: gtorres@mail.law.utexas.edu
Damon P. Whitehead - 2 years
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1450 G St., NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 662-8600
Fax: (202)783-5113
E-mail: dwhitehe@lawyerscomm.org
Margaret L. Williams -1 year
Citizens Against Toxic Exposure
6400 Marianna Drive
Pensacola, FL 32504
Phone: (850)494-2601
Fax: (850) 479-2044
E-mail: none
Tseming Yang - 3 years
Vermont Law School
Chelsea Street, Whitcomb House
South Royalton, VT 05068
Phone: (802) 763-8303 ext 2344
Fax: (802) 763-2663
E-mail: tyang@vermontlaw.edu
Expiration Dates:
1 year =12/31/1999
2 year = 12/31/2000 3 years= 12/31/2001
-------
0>
a
o
u
DC
§
HIDE
UUI
OO
0
§
Q
UJ
oc
ffl
oc
III
o
UJ
!
o
1
UJ
*A ~*
2 8
s
111
Zo-
as c
« o
2(31
fl) »—' 3
1*8
S§2
EEO
w £.£>
To6
o
u
« =
• 'i.
f|
f£l
11*
!
i
O
O
ii
—. o
C - •- 3 °
|8^5|*
iSoail
(8 2 .2 £ C O §
3'i» Q) ._ ^* C
5™«-i^'ig5il I
m-^mTn^-^^ofe O
Z22:oooo» =^
> o o
) O O
o o
0) (D 0)
1-1-1-
i- CM CO
Q.
^
^
a
c
•S p
§ o
"S'S
4J.5
u n
o>
•q;Uj
<= — S
3 g&
10 -2,0
1, £6
tr c"5
O JK
^ Ss
~
-------
NEJAC AIR AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
1998-1999
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIALS
Alice Walker (co-DFO)
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC 4102)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)260-1919
Fax: (202) 269-3597
E-mail: walker.alice@epa.gov
Wil Wilson (co-DFO)
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC 6103)
Phone: (202) 564-1954
Fax: (202) 564-1549
E-mail: wilson.wil@epa.gov
Elaine Barren - 3 years (CG)
Paso del Norte Air Quality Task Force
2400 Trawood, Suite 204
El Paso, TX 79936
Phone: (915) 592-0088
Fax: (915)592-7705
E-mail:
Bunyan Bryant - 2 years (AC)
University of Michigan
Dana Building, 430 East University
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-1115
Phone: (734) 769-4493
Fax: (734) 998-0071
E-mail: bbryant@umich.edu
Daisy Carter - 3 years (CG)
Project Awake
Route 2, Box 282
Coatopa, Alabama 35470
Phone: (205) 652-6823
Fax: (205) 652-6823
E-mail:
Clydia Cuykendall - 2 years (IN)
J.C. Penney Co., Inc.
MS1104LegalDept.
6501 legacy Drive
Piano, Texas 75024-3698
Phone: (972)431-1290
Fax: (972)431-1133/1134
E-mail: cjcuyken@jcpenney.com
CHAIR
Michel Gelobter - 3 years
Rutgers University ,
Department of Public Administration
360 Martin Luther King Boulevard, 7th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 353-5093, ext. 18
Fax: (781) 394-4774 or (209) 927-4574
E-mail: gelobter@newark.rutgers.edu
Other Members
Daniel S. Greenbaum - 3 years (NG)
Health Effects Institute
955 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: (617) 876-6700 ext. 331
Fax: (617)876-6709
E-mail: dgreenbaum@healtheffects.org
Kathleen Shaye Hill -1 year (AC)
Humbolt State University
Native American Studies Department
Arcata, CA 95521
Phone: (707) 826-4322
Fax: (707) 826-4418
E-mail: ksh7@axe.humboldt.edu
Annabelle Jaramillo 2 years (SL)
Office of the Governor
State of Oregon
Room 160, State Capitol
Salem, OR 97310
Phone: (503) 378-5116 (Office)
Fax: (503) 378-6827
E-mail: annabelle.e.jaramillo@state.or.us
Rosa Hilda Ramos -1 year (CG)
Community of Catano Against Pollution
La Marine Avenue
Mf 6, Marine Bahia
Catano, Puerto Rico 00962
Phone: (787) 788-0837
Fax: (787)788-0837
E-mail: rosah@coqui.net
* Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member
AC=Academia CG=Community Group EV=Environmental Group IN=lndustry
SL=State/Local Government NG=Non-governmental Organization T/l=Tribal
-------
Mr and Water Subcommittee
List of Members for 1998 -1999
Page 2
Leonard Robinson - 2 years (IN)
TAMCO
12459 Arrow Highway
P.O. Box 325
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Phone: (909) 899-0631 ext. 203
Fax: (909)899-1910
E-mail: tamcosteel @ worldnet.att.net
Marianne Yamaguchi - 2 years (SL)
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
101 Center Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: (213)576-6614
Fax: (213)576-6646
Email: myamaguc@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov
Damon P. Whitehead - 2 years (NG)
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1450 G Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Phone :(202) 662-8600 ext. 332 or (202) 662-8332
Fax: (202)783-5113
E-mail: dwhite@lawyerscomm.org
* Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member
AC=Academia CG=Community Group EV=Environmental Group IN=lndustry
SL=State/Local Government NG=Non-governmental Organization T/l=Tribal
-------
NEJAC ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
1999
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
Shirley Pate
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (2201 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2607 ,
Fax: (202)501-0284
E-mail: pate.shirley@epa.gov
Lament Byrd -1 year (NG)
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 624-6960
Fax: (202) 624-8740
E-mail: Ibyrd60933@aol.com
Leslie Cormier-1 year (IN) *
Dupont Specialty Chemicals
Barley Mill Plaza
Routes 48 & 141
Bldg. 23, Room 1359
Wilmington, DE 19805
Phone: (302) 992-4273
Fax: (302)892-1135
, E-mail: leslie.a.cormier@usa.dupont.com
Richard T. Drury -1 year (NG)
Communities for a Better Environment
500 Howard Street, Suite 506
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 243-8373
Fax: (415)243-8980
E-mail: cbelegal@igc.apc.org
Delbert Dubois - 2 years (CG)
Four Mile Hiberian Community Assoc., Inc.
2025 Four Mile Lane
Charleston, SC 29405
Work Phone: (843) 792-2878
Fax: (843) 792-1741
Rita Harris-2 years (CG)
Community Living in Peace, Inc.
1373 South Avenue
Afe/77p/ws,TN38106
Phone: (901) 948-6002
Fax: (901) 948-6002
E-mail: xundu@usa.net
CHAIR
Luke Cole - 2 years (EV) *
Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
631 Howard Street, Suite 330
San Francisco, CA 94105-3907
Phone:(415)495-8990
Fax: (415)495-8849
E-mail: luke@crpesf.org
Other Members
Savonala Home - 3 years (EV)
Land Loss Prevention Project
P.O. Box 179
Durham, NC 27713
Phone: (800) 672-5839 or (919) 688-5969
Fax: (919) 688-5596 or 929-2878
E-mail: savillpp@mindspring.com
Zulene Mayfield - 3 years (CG)
Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living
2731 West 3rd Street
Chester, PA 19013
Phone: (610)485-6683
Fax: (610)485-5300
E-mail: crcqh @ aol.com
Lillian Mood - 2 years (SL)
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803)898-3929
Fax: (803) 898-3942
E-mail: moodlh @ columb30.dhec.state.sc.us
Gerald Torres - 2 years (AC) *
University of Texas Law School
727 East Dean Keeton, Room 3266
Austin, TX 78705
Phone: (512)471-2680
Fax: (512)471-0577
E-mail: gtorres@mail.law.utexas.edu
Lillian Wilmore -1 year (T/l)
Native Ecology Initiative
P.O. Box 470829
Brookline Village, MA 02147
Phone:(617)232-5742
Fax: (617)277-1656
E-mail: NAEcology@aol.com
* Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member
AC=Academia CG=Community Group EV=Environmental Group IN=lndustry
SL=State/Local Government NG=Nongovernmental Organization T/l=Tribal
-------
NEJAC HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
1999
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIALS
Lawrence Martin
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC 8105)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-6497
Fax: (202)565-2926
E-mail: martin.lawrence@epamail.epa.gov
Chen Wen
Office of Toxic Substances
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC 7409)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4109
Fax: (202) 260-0178
E-mail: wen.chen@epa.gov
CHAIR
Marinalle Payton - 2 years (AC)*
Harvard School of Public Health
134 Marlborough Street
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 525-2731
Fax: (617) 731 -1541 or (617) 247-2147
E-mail: remar@gauss.bwh.harvard.edu
Other Members
Don J. Aragon - 2 years (T/l) *
Wind River Environmental Quality Commission
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
P.O. Box 217
Fort Wasakie, WY 82514
Phone: (307) 332-3164
Fax: (307) 332-7579
E-mail: wreqc-twe@wyoming.com
Rose Marie Augustine - 3 years (CG)*
Tucsonans for a Clean Environment
7051 West Bopp Road
Tucson, AZ 85735-8621
Phone: (520) 883-8424
Fax:
E-mail:
Lawrence J. Dark - 3 years (NG)
Urban League of Portland
5236 North East Cleveland
Portland, OR 97211
Phone: (503)318-5432
Fax: (503)249-1926
E-mail:
Michael DiBartolomeis - 2 years (SL)
California Environmental Protection Agency
Health Hazard Assessment
2151 Berkeley Way, Annex 11, Room 721
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone:(510)540-2665
Fax: (510) 540-3063
E-mail: mdibarto@oehha.ca.gov
Rosa Franklin -1 year (SL) *
Washington State Senate
409 Legislative Building
P.O. Box 40482
Olympia, WA 98504-0482
Phone: (360) 786-7656
Fax: (360) 786-7524
E-mail: franklin_ro@leg.wa.gov
f
Philip G. Lewis- 3 years (IN)
Rohm and Haas Company
100 Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106-2399
Phone: (215) 592-3594
Fax: (215) 592-3665
E-mail: malt57l@rohmhaas.com
Carlos Porras - 2 years (EV)
Communities for a Better Environment
605 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Phone: (213) 486-5114, x109
Fax: (213)486-5139
E-mail: cbela@igc.org
Peggy Shepard - 3 years (CG)
West Harlem Environmental Action
271 West 125th Street, Suite 211
New York, NY 10027
Phone: (212) 961-1000
Fax: (212) 961-1015
E-mail: wheact@igc.apc.org
* Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member
AC=Academia CG=Community Group EV=Environmental Group IN=lndustry
SL=State/Local Government NG=Non-Governmental Organization T/l=Tribal
-------
NEJAC Health and Research Subcommittee
List of Members for 1999
Page 2
Jane Stahl- 3 years (SL)*
Assistant Commissioner -
State of Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
Phone: (860) 424-3009
Fax: (860) 424-4054
E-mail: jane.stahl@po.state.ct.us
Margaret Williams -1 year (CG)
Citizens Against Toxic Exposure
6400 Marianna Drive
Pensacola, FL 32504
Phone: (904)494-2601
Fax: (904)479-2044
E-mail:
" Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member
AC=Academia CG=Community Group EV=Environmental Gro'up IN=lndustry
SL=State/Local Government NG=Non-Governmental Organization T/l=Tribal
-------
NEJAC INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
1999
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
Daniel Gogal
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC 2201-A)
Washington, DC 204'60
Phone: (202)546-2576
Fax: (202)501-0740
E-mail: gogal.danny@epamail.epa.gov
CHAIR
Tom Goldtooth - 2 years (T/l)
Indigenous Environmental Network
P. O. Box 485
Bemjidi, MN 56619-0485
Phone: (218)751-4967
Fax: (218)751-0561
E-mail: ien@apc.ipc.org
Alternate Designated Federal Official
Tony Hanson, American Indian Environmental Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW (MC 4104), Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (202) 260-8106: Fax: (202) 260-7509; E-mail:
hanson.anthony@epamail.epa.gov ,
Dwayne Beavers -1 year (T/l)*
Cherokee Nation/OES
P.O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0671
Phone: (918)458-5496
Fax: (918)458-5499
E-mail: dbeavers @ Cherokee org
Nancy Howard -1 year (SL)
Newport News Waterworks
2600 Washington Avenue. 10'" Floor
Newport News, VA 23607
Phone: (757)926-7172
Fax: (757)926-7179
E-mail: nhoward@ci.newportrnews.va.us
George Godfrey -1 year (AC)
Haskell Indian Nations University
155 Indian Avenue
Lawrence, KS 66046
Phone: (785) 749-8428
Fax: (785)832-6613
E-mail: ggodfrey@rossl.cc.haskell.edu
Brad Hamilton - 2 years (SL)
State of Kansas
Office of Native American Affairs
1430 SW Topeka Boulevard
Topeka, KS66612
Phone: (785)368-7319
Fax: (785)296-1795
E-mail: bbhamilt@hr.state.ks.us
Jennifer Hill-Kelly - 3 years (T/l)*
Oneida Environmental Health & Safety Department
P. O. Box 365
3759 West Mason Street
Oneida, Wl 54155
Phone: (920)497-5812
Fax: (920) 496-7883
E-mail: jhillkel@oneidanation.org
Sara/7 James (Tribal Elder) - 2 years (T/l)
Council of Athabascan Tribal Government
P.O. Box 51
Arctic Village, Alaska 99722
Phone: H (907) 587-5315, W (907) 587-5999
Fax: H (907) 587-5316, W (907) 587-5900
E-mail:
Charles Miller - 2 years (NG)
Law Office of Charles Miller
PMB80, 1442 A Walnut
Berkeley. CA 94709
Phone: (510)549-3933
Fax: (510)549-3733
E-mail: cms@charles-m-miller-aty.com . .
Gerald R. Prout-1 year (IN)*
FMC Corporation
1667 K Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202)956-5209
Fax: (202)956-5238-
E-mail: jerry_prout@fmc.com
Moses Squeochs - 3 years (T/l)
Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama Nation
Yakama Nation Environmental Program
P.O. Box 151, Fort Road
Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone: (509) 865-5121 Ext. 659
Fax: (509)865-5522
E-mail: mose@yakama.com
Dean B. Suagee - 3 years (AC)
Vermont Law School
First Nations Environmental Law Program
Chelsea Street
South Royalton, VT 05068
Phone: (802) 763-8303 Ext. 2341
Fax: (802)763-2940
Email: dsuagee@vermontlaw.edu
-------
NEJAC INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
1999
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
Wendy Graham
Office of International Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC 2670R)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-6602
Fax: (202) 565-2408
E-mail: graham.wendy@epamail.epa.gov
CHAIR
Arnoldo Garcia - 2 years (EV)*
Development Director
Urban Habitat Program
2263 41st Avenue
Oakland, CA 94601 '
Phone: (415)561-3332
Fax: (415)561-3334
E-mail: agarcia@igc.apc.org
Other Members
Maria del Carmen Libran - 2 years (AC)
Department of Horticulture
University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez
G.P.O. Box 5000 College Station
Mayaguez, PR 00681-5000
Phone: (787) 832-4040, x2088
Fax: (787) 265-0860
E-mail: mjibran@rumac.upr.clu.edu
Beth M. Hailstock - 2 years (SL)
Cincinnati Department of Health
3101 Burnet Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45229
Phone: (513)357-7206
Fax: (513)357-7290
E-mail: Beth.Hailstock@chdburn.rcc.org
Fernando Cuevas - 3 years (NG)*
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
326 East Maple Street
Winter Garden. FL 34787
Phone: (407) 877-2949
Fax: (407) 877-2949
• E-mail:
A. Caroline Hotaling - 3 years (CG)
Border Ecology Project
P.O. Drawer CP
Bisbee, AZ 85603
Phone: (520)432-7456
Fax: (520)432-7473
E-mail: bep@primenet.com
Alberto Saldamando - 3 years (NG)
International Indian Treaty Council
2390 Mission Street, Suite 301
San Francisco, CA 94110
Phone: (415)641-4482
Fax: (415)641-1298
Email:
* Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member
AC=Academia CG=Community Group EV=Environmental Group
SL=State/Local Government NG=Nongovernmental Organization
Albert P. Adams - 3 years (IN)
Piquniq Management Corporation
8221 Summerset Drive
Anchorage, AK 99801
Phone: (907)522-9313
Fax: (907) 349-2814
Janet Phoenix - 1 year (NG)
Public Health Programs
National Lead Information Center
1025 Connecticut Ave, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20036
Phone: (202) 974-2474
Fax: (202)659-1192
E-mail: phoenixj@nsc.org
Robert Holmes - 2 years (AC)
The Community Center for Studies in Public
Policy
Clark Atlanta University
James P. Brawley Drive at Fair Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Phone: (404) 880-8089
Fax: (404) 880-8090
E-mail: scspp@cau.edu
Tseming Yang - 3 years (AC)
Vermont Law School
Chelsea Street, Whitcomb House
South Royalton, VT 05068
Phone: (802) 763-8303 ext 2344
Fax: (802) 763-2663
E-mail: tyang@vermontlaw.edu
T/l=Tribal
IN=lndustry
-------
NEJAC PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY WORKGROUP
List of Members
1999
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
Renee L Gains
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street. SW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2598
Fax: (202)501-0740
E-mail: goins.renee@epamail.epa.gov
CHAIR
Rosa Hilda Ramos - 2 years (CG)*
Community of Catano Against Pollution
La Marine Avenue
Mf 6, Marine Bahia
Catano, Puerto Rico 00962
Phone: (787)788-0837
Fax: (787)788-0837
Other Members
Lawrence J. Dark • 3 years (NG)
Urban League of Portland
5236 North East Cleveland
Portland, OR 97211
Phone: (503)318-5432
Fax: (503)249-1926
E-mail:
Delbert Dubois - 3 years (CG)
Four Mile Hibberian Community Association
Four Mile Lane
Charleston, SC 29405
Phone: (843)853-4548
Fax: (843)792-1741
E-mail:
Robert Holmes - 3 years (AC)
Southern .Center for Studies in Public Policy
Clark Atlanta University
James P. Brawley Drive at Fair Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Phone: (404) 880-8089
. Fax: (404) 880-8090
E-mail: scspp@cau.edu
Denise D. Feiber- 3 years (IN)
Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc.
404 SW 140lh Terrace
Newberry, FL 32669-3000
Phone: (352) 333-2605
Fax: (352)333-6633
E-mail: ddfeiber@esemail.com
Annabelle Jaramillo - 3 years (SL) *
Office of the Governor
Room 160, State Capitol
Salem, OR 97310
Phone: (503)378-5116
FAX: (503) 378-6827
" Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member " Denotes NEJAC Chair
AC-Academia Co-Community Group EV-Environmental Group IN-Industry
SL-State/Local Government NG-Nongovernmental Organization TR-Tribal
-------
NEJAC WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
1998-1999
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
Kent Benjamin
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-2822
Fax: (202) 260-6606
E-mail: benjamin.kent@epa.gov
CHAIR
Vernice Miller- 2 years (EV)
Partnership for Sustainable Brownfields
Redevelopment
104 JewettPI.
Bowie, MD 20721
Phone: 301-218-3528 .
fax: 202-289-1060
E-mail: vernice@africana.com
Other Members
Sue Briggum -1 year (IN) *
WMX Technologies,.Inc.
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
North Building #300
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 628-3500
FAX: (202)628-0400
E-mail: sbriggum@wm.com
Denise D. Feiber - 3 years (IN)
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.
404 SW 140Ih Terrace
Newberry, FL 32669-3000
Phone: (352) 333-2605
Fax: (352) 333-6633
E-mail: ddfeiber@esemail.com
Neftali Garcia Martinez - 3 years (EV)
Scientific and Technical Services
RR-2 Buzon
1722 Cupey Alto
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00926
Phone: (787) 292-0620
Fax: (787) 760-0496
E-mail: sctinc@caribe.net
Lorraine Granado - 3 years (CG)
Cross Community Coalition
2332 E. 46th Avenue
Denver, CO 80216
Phone: (303) 292-3203
Fax: (303) 292-3341
E-mail:
Michael Holmes - 2 years (AC)
St. Louis Community College
Northside Education Center
4666 National Bridge
St. Louis, MO 63115
Phone: (314)381-3822
Fax: (314)381-4637
E-mail: mholmes@ccm.stlcc.cc.mo.us
David Moore - 3 years (SL)*
Mayor, City of Beaumont
Office of City Manager
P.O. Box 3827
Beaumont, TX 77704
Phone: (409) 880-3716 (Barbara)
Fax: (409)880-3112
E-mail: giglio@capitoledge.com
Brenda Lee Richardson - 2 years (NG)
Women Like Us
P.O. Box 31003
3008 24th Place
Washington, DC 20030
Phone: (202)678-1978
Fax: (202)889-1917
E-mail:
Mathy Stanislaus -1 year (NG)
Enviro-Sciences/MELA -
199 Arlington Place
Staten Island, NY 10303
Phone: (718) 448-7916 (v)
Fax: (718) 448-8666 (fax)
, E-maJI: mstanisl@enviro-sciences.com
Mervyn Tano - 3 years (T/l)
International Institute for Indigenous Resource
Management
444 South Emerson Street
Denver, CO 80209-2216
Phone: (303) 733-0481
Fax: (303) 744-9808
E-mail: mervtano@aol.com
Michael Taylor- 3 years (IN)
Vita Nuova
97 Head of Meadow
Newtown, CT 06470
Phone:(203)270-3413
Fax: (203) 270-3422
E-mail: taylorm@pcnet.com
* Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member
AC=Academia CG=Community Group EV=Environmental Group IN=lndustry
SL=State/Local Government NG=Non-governmental Organization T/l=Tribal
-------
UE.J&C Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
List of Members for 1998 -1999
Page 2
Johnny Wilson - 2 years (AC)
Clark Atlanta University
2518 Springdale Road, SW
Atlanta, GA 30315
Phone: (404) 880-8245
Fax: (404)880-8717
E-mail: jwilson1@cau.edu
* Denotes NEJAC Executive Council Member
AC=Academia CG=Community Group EV=Environmental Group IN=lndustry
SL=State/Local Government NG=Non-governmental Organization T/l=Tribal
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
-------
-------
Total: 407
December 1999 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
List of Attendees
Marilyn Ababio
326 Pagosa Court
Palmdar, CA 93551
Phone: 661-273-7874
Fax: 661-273-0593
E-mail: marabio@aol.com
Julian Agyeman
Editor
Department of Urban and Environmental Policy
Tufts University
Local Environment
97 Talbot Avenue
Medford, MA 02155
Phone: 617-627-3394
Fax: 617-627-3377
E-mail: Julianagyeman@tufts.edu
Abena Ajanaku
Community Involvement
Coordinator/Environmental Justice Coordinator
Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street SE Suite 1162
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: 404-657-8688
Fax: 404-651-9425
E-mail: abena_ajanaku@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
Rich Albores
Counsel
Environmental Appeals Board
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1103b)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-501-7060
Fax: 202-501-7580
E-mail: albores.richard@epa.gov
Mustafa AM
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2606
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: ali.mustafa@epa.gov
Mike Allen
Office of General Counsel
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2313A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-5404 „
Fax: 202-564-5412
E-mail: allen.mike@epa.gov
John Alter
Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 7404)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-4315
Fax: 202r260-1096
E-mail: alter.john@epa.gov
Don Aragon
Executive Director
Wind River Environmental Quality Commission
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
PO Box 217
FortWashakie.WY 82514
Phone: 307-332-3164
Fax: 307-332-7579
E-mail: wreqc-twe@wyoming.com
Thomas M Armitage
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4305)
Washington, DC 20004 .
Phone: 202-260-5388
Fax: 202-260-9380
E-mail: armitage.thomas@epa.gov
John A Amnstead
Deputy Director
Environmental Services Division
Region 3
US Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Phone: 215-814-3127
Fax: 215-814-2782
E-mail: armstead.john@epa.gov
Warren Arthur
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dalla's, TX 76133
Phone: 214-665-8504
Fax: 214-665-7264
E-mail: arthur.warren@epa.gov
Michele Aston
Office of Reinvention Policy
Office of the Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW(MC 1803)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-8767
Fax: 202-260-1812
E-mail: aston.michele@epa.gov
Shirley Augurspn
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6RA-DJ)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-7401
Fax: 214-665-7446
E-mail: augurson.shirley@epa.gov
Rose M Augustine
President
Tucsonans for A Clean Environment
7051 West Bopp Road
Tucson, AZ 85735-8621
Phone: 520-883-8424
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Cecil C Bailey
Program Analyst
Environmental Justice Grants
Region 7
US Environmental Protection Agency
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, MO 66101
Phone: 913-551-7462
Fax: 913-551-7941
E-mail: bailey.cecil@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 2
Kathleen Bailey
Senior Management Analyst
Office of the Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC1802)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-3413
Fax: 202-401-2474
E-mail: bailey.kathleen@epa.gov
Bov Baker
Environmental Scientist
CBPO
US Environmental Protection Agency-
410 Severn Avenue Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 20912
Phone:410-267-5772
Fax: 410-267-5777
E-mail: baker.beverly@epa.gov
Olivia Balandran
Regional Administrators Office
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue (6RA-DJ)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-7257
Fax: 214-665-6648
E-mail: balandran.olivia@epa.gov
Fannie Ball
.Score
109 Houston Avenue
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Phone: 423-483-6073
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Jerome Baiter
Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia
125 South Ninth Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-627-7100
Fax: 215-627-3183
E-mail: Not Provided
Elvie Barlow
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Justice/Community Liaison
Program
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Phone: 404-562-9650
Fax: 404-562-9664
E-mail: barlow.elvie@epa.gov
Elaine Barren
Paso del Norte Air Quality Task Force
1717 Brown Street Bldg 1-A
El Paso, TX 79936
Phone: 915-533-3566
Fax: 915-533-6102
E-mail: embarronmd@usa.net
Elizabeth Bartlett
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-9122 .
Fax: 404-562-9095
E-mail: bartlett.elizabeth@epa.gov
Rolando Bascumbe'
Associate Regional Counsel
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Phone: 404-562-9562
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Sharon Beard
, Industrial Hygienist
Worker Education and Training Program
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
US Department of Health and Human Services
PO Box 12233 (MD EC-25)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233
Phone: 919-541-1863
Fax: 919-558-7049
E-mail: beard1@niehs.nih.gov
Dwayne Beavers
Program Manager
Office of Environmental Services
Cherokee Nation
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0671 .
Phone: 918-458-5496
Fax: 918-458-5499
E-mail: Not Provided
Jay Benforado
Deputy Associate Administrator
Office of Policy Economics and Innovation
Office of Policy
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1803A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-4332
Fax: 202-260-1812
E-mail: Not Provided
Kent Benjamin
Program Analyst
Outreach and Special Projects Staff
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-2822
Fax: 202-260-6606
E-mail: benjamin.kent@epa.gov
Pamela Bingham
Research Engineer
Bingham Consulting Services
PO Box 8248
Silver Spring, MD 20907
Phone: 703-922-8870
Fax: 301-585-8911
E-mail: bingham.pamela@epa.gov
Debbie Bishop
Office of International Activities
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 261 OR)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6437
Fax: 202-565-5412
E-mail: bishop.debbie@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 3
Shelly Blake
Office Manager
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2633
Fax: 202-501-1079
E-mail: blake.shelley@epa.gov
Gale Bonanno
Special Assistant
Office of Environmental Compliance
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2243
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Robert W Bookman
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-9169
Fax: 404-562-9164
E-mail: bookman.robert@epa.gov
Frank Bove
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
1600 Clifton Road NE (MS E31)
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: (404)639-5126
Fax: (404)639-6219
E-mail: fjbO@cdc.gov
Gina Bowler
Program Analyst
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5304W)
Washington; DC 20004
Phone: 202-308-7279
Fax: 703-308-0522
E-mail: bowler.gina@epa.gov
Doris Bradshaw
Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee
Concerned Citizens Committee
1458 East Mallory Avenue
Memphis, TN 38106
Phone: 901-942-0329
Fax: 901-942-0800
E-mail: ddmtccc411@aol.com
Kenneth Bradshaw
Program Director
Defense Depot Memphis Tennessee
Concerned Citizens Committee
1458 East Mallory Avenue
Memphis, TN 38106
Phone: 901-942-0329
Fax: 901-942-0800
E-mail: ddmtccc411@aol.com
Jose T Bravo
Southwest Network for Environmental and
Economic Justice
1066 Larwood Road
San Diego, CA 92114
Phone: 619-461-5011
Fax: 619-461-5011
E-mail: tonali@pacbell.net
Marc Brenman
Senior Policy Advisor
Departmental Office of Civil Rights
Office of the Secretary
US Department of Transportation
400 7th Street SW Room 10217 S-30
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-1119
Fax: 202-366-9371
E-mail: marc.brenman@ostdot.gov
Robert Brenner
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4103A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-1668
Fax: 202-505-0394
E-mail: brenner.robert@epa.gov
SueBriggum
Director
Government Affairs
Waste Management Inc
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 300 North
Bdlg
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-628-3500
Fax: 202-628-0400
E-mail: sue_briggum@wastemanagement.co
m
Jeanette Brown
Director
Small Business Administration
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1230A)
Washington, DC 20004 >
Phone: 202-564-4100
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: brown.jeanette@epa.gov
Rosalind Brown
Chief
Office of Customer Services
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Phone: 404-562-8633
Fax: 404-562-8628
E-mail: brown.rosalind@epa.gov
Carol Browner
Administrator
Office of the Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1101)
Washington, DC 20004 '
Phone: 202-260-4700
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: browner.carol@epa.gov
Mark Brownstein
Public Service Enterprise Group
Address Not Provided
, U.S.
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 4
Bunyan Bryant
Professor
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
430 East University Dana Building
Ann Arbor. Ml 48109-1115
Phone: 734-763-2470
Fax: 734-963-2470
E-mail: bbryant@umich.edu
Lakeisha Bryant
Attorney/Advisor
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2399A)
Washington. DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-5616
Fax: 202-564-5442
E-mail: bryant.lakeisha@epa.gov
Marjorle Buckholtz
Brownflelds Team Leader
Outreach and Special Projects Staff
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5103)
Washington. DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-9605
Fax: 202-960-6754
E-mail: Not Provided
Jan Buhrmann
Environmental Justice Program
Region 8
US Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Phona: 303-312-6557
Fax: 303-312-6409
E-mail: buhrmann.jan@epa.gov
William Burkhart
Manager, Environmental Government
Relations
Corporate Health, Safety, and Environment
The Procter & Gamble Company
11310 Cornell Park Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: 513-626-4411
Fax: 513-626-1678
E-mail: burkhart.wt@pg.com
Alice Cage •
Member
North Baton Rouge Environmental Association
525 Rafe Meyer Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70807
Phone: 225-775-6554
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Mike Callahan
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 8623-D)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-3201
Fax: 202-565-0077
E-mail: callahan.michael@epa.gov
Barry K Campbell
The EOP Group Incorporated
819 Seventh Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-833-8940
Fax: 202-833-8945
E-mail: bkcampbell@819eagle.com
Bradley Campbell
Associate Director
White House Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place NW
Washington, DC 20503
Pfcone: 202-395-5750 , ;
Fax: 202-456-0753
E-mail: Not Provided
Pat Carey
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5204G)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-603-8772
Fax: 703-603-9100
E-mail: carey.pat@epa.gov
Connie Carr
Region 3
US Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-814-3147
Fax: 215-814-30001
E-mail: carr.cornelius@epa.gov
Gary Carroll
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2404
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: Not Provided
Daisy Carter
Director
Project Awake
Route 2 Box 282
Coatopa, AL 35470
Phone: 205-652-6823
Fax: 205-652-6823
E-mail: Not Provided
Ellen Case
Office of the Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1102)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-4712
Fax: 202-260-3412
E-mail: Not Provided
Larry Charles, Sr.
Executice Director
ONE/CHANE Inc
2065 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06120
Phone: 860-525-0190
Fax: 860-522-8266
E-mail: lcharles@snet.net
Jerry Clifford
Deputy Regional Administrator
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2100
Fax: 214-665-6648
E-mail: clifford.jerry@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
PageS
Luke Cole
General Counsel
Center on Race Poverty and the Environment
631 Howard Street Suite 330
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-495-8990
Fax: 415-495-8849
E-mail: luke@crpesf.org
Samuel J Coleman
Director
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement
Division (6EN)
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 (6EN)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2210
Fax: 214-665-7446
E-mail: coleman.sam@epa.gov
Monica Abreu Conley
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road Room 611
Albany, NY 12233-1040
Phone: 518-457-6558
Fax: 518-457-6996
E-mail: mlconley@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Gregg A Cooke
Regional Administrator
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-2100
Fax: 214-665-6648
E-mail: cooke.gregg@epa.gov
Tiffany Cooper
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-0859
Fax: 202-260-6606
E-mail: cooper.tiffany@epa.gov
Michael Corbin
Attorney at Law
The Corbin Law Firm PC
1718 M Street NW Suite 299
Washington, DC 20036 -
Phone: 703-897-1577
Fax: 703-897-9767
E-mail: mcorbin@cpcug.org
Leslie Cormier
Public Affairs Director
DuPont Specialty Chemicals
Barley Mill Plaza Building 23 Room 1359
Routes 48 & 141
Wilmington, DE 19805
Phone: 302-992-4273
Fax: 302-892-1135
E-mail: leslieaconnier@usadupont.com
Elizabeth A Cotsworth
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5301W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-308-8895
Fax: 703-308-0513
E-mail: cotsworth.elizabeth@epa.gov
Ann Coyle
Office of Regional Counsel
Region 5
US Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard (C-14J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-2248
Fax: 312-886-0747
E-mail: coyle.ann@epa.gov
Martin Coyne
Air Daily
1800 Massachusetts Avenue
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-775-0240 ext. 351
Fax: 202-872-8045
E-mail: mcoyne@energyargus.com
Jenny Craig
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 6103A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-1674
Fax: 202-564-1557
E-mail: craig.jeneva@epa.gov
Elizabeth Crowe
Chemical Weapons Working Group
PO Box 467
Berea, KY 40403
Phone: 859-986-0868
Fax: 859-986-2695-
E-mail: kefcrowe@acs.eku.edu
Fernando Cuevas
Vice President
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
326 East Maple Street
Winter Garden, FL 34787
Phone: 407-877-2949
Fax: 407-877-0031
E-mail: flocflorida@aol.com
Erin Curran
Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Address Not Provided
,U.S.
Phone: 202-265-7337
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Vernell Cutter
CFEJ
1115 Habersham Street
Savannah, GA 31401
Phone: 912-236-6479
Fax: 912-236-7757
E-mail: v_cutter@yahoo.com
Clydia J Cuykendall
Associate General Counsel
Legal Department
JC Penney
6501 Legacy Drive (MS 1104)
Piano, TX 75024-3698
Phone: 972-431-1290
Fax: 972-431-1133
E-mail: cjcuyken@jcpehney.com
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 6
Lottie Dalton
Member
North Baton Rouge Environmental Association
PO Box 781
Baker. LA 70704
Phone: 225-775-3794
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Dagmar M Darjean
Mossvilie Environmental Action Now (MEAN)
Inc
4117 Perkins Avenue
Sulphur-Mossville, LA 70663
Phone: 337-882-7476
Fax: 337-882-7476
E-mail: delilith@aol.com
Lawrence Dark
Columbia Willamette Area Health Education
Center
19365 SW 65th Avenue Suite 204
Tualatin, OR 97062
Phone: 503-318-5432
Fax: 503-691-9588
E-mail: ldark@orednet.org
Rebecca Davidson
Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma .
PO Box 825
Anadarko, OK 73009
Phone: 405-247-2448
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: aapanahkih@tanet.net
Katharine Dawes
Evaluation Support Division
Office of Policy, Economies, and Innovation
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1802)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-8394
Fax: 202-260-3125
E-mail: dawes.katherine@epa.gov
Joanne Dea
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4305)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-0180
Fax: 202-260-4580
E-mail: deajo.anne@epa.gov
Carol Dennis
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street NW Room 8026
Washington, DC 20503
Phone: 202-395-4822
Fax: 202-395-5836
E-mail: carol_r_dennis@omb.eop.gov
Michael J DiBartolomeis
Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
1515 Clay Street 16th Floor
Oakland; CA 94612
Phone: 510-622-3164
Fax: 510-622-3218
E-mail: mdibarto@oehha.ca.gov
Trevor Smith Diggins
Vice President ,
Frontline Corporate Communications Inc
22 Frederick Street Suite 910
Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6M6
Phone: 888-848-9898
Fax: 519-741-9323
E-mail: diggins@onthefrontlines.com
Debra Dobson
Four Mile Hibernian Community Association
Inc
2025 Four Mile lane
Charleston, SC 29405
Phone: 843-853-4548
Fax: 843-792-3757 • .,
E-mail: Not Provided
Nancy Draper
Newport News Waterworks
2600 Washington Avenue 6th Floor
Newport News, VA 23607
Phone: 757-247-8597
Fax: 757-247-2424
E-mail: ndraper@cinewport-newsva.us
Richard T Drury
Legal Director
Communities for a Better Environment
500 Howard Street Suite 506
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-243-8373
Fax: 415-243-8930
E-mail: richarddrury@hotmail.com
Delbert DuBois
Four Mile Hibernian Community Association
Inc
2025 Four Mile Lane
Charleston, SC 29405
Phone: 843-607-3319
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Josephine DuBois
Four Mile Hibernian Community Association
Inc
2025 Four Mile lane
Charleston, SC 29405
Phone: 843-853-4548
Fax: 843-792-3757
E-mail: Not Provided
Frances Dubrowski
Attorney At Law
Law Offices of Frances Dubrowski
1320 19th Street NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-667-5795
Fax: 202-667-2302
E-mail: dubrowski@aol.com
Veronica Eady, Esq
Executive Of/ice of Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
Phone: 617-626-1053
Fax: 617-626-1180
E-mail: veronica.eady@.state.ma.us
T Eaport
EDU
1010 Massachusettes Avenue NW
Washngton, DC 20001
Phone: 202-289-4435
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Jeannie Economos
Farm Worker Association of Florida
815 South Park Avenue
Apopka, FL 32703
Phone: 407-886-5151
Fax: 407-884-6644
E-mail: Not Provided
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page?
Carl Edlund
• Planning and Permitting Division
j Region 6 •
; US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200
:. Dallas, TX 75202-2733
'' Phone: 214-665-7200
Fax: 214-665-6660
! E-mail: edlund.carl@epa.gov
; ChebryllC Edwards
Environmental Engineer/EJ Coordinator
Office of Air and Radiation
; Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
: MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-5428
; Fax: 919-541-3470
: E-mail: edwards.chebryll@epa.gov
Jim Eichner
! Environment & Natural Resources Division
• US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Room 8036
, Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-514-0624
Fax: 202-514-4231
E-mail: james.eichner@usdot.gov
Natalie Ellington
i Water Management Division
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
: 61 Forsyth Street SW
' Atlanta, GA 30303
: Phone: 404-562-9453
Fax: 404-562-9439
E-mail: ellington.natalie@epa.gov.
Samahtha Phillips Fairchild
Director
' Office of Enforcement Compliance and
Environmental Justice
\ Region 3
US Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
; Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-814-2106
. Fax: 215-814-2905
E-mail: fairchild.samantha@epa.gov
Caron Falcouer
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsythe Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-8451
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Henry Falk
Assistant Administrator
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
1600 Clifton Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 404-639-0700
Fax: 404-639-0744
E-mail: hxf1@cdc.gov
Joan Harrigan Farrelly
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4606)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-6672
Fax: 202-260-0732
E-mail: farrelly.joan@epa.gov
Denise Feiber
Environmental Science &"Engineering Inc
404 SW 140th Terrace
Newberry, FL 32669-3000
Phone: 352-333-2605
Fax: 352-333-6633
E-mail: ddfeiber@esemail.com
Nigel Fields
Environmental Health Scientist
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 8723E)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6936
Fax: 202-565-2448
E-mail: fields.negel@epa.gov
Timothy Fields Jr
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-4610
Fax: 202-260-3527
E-mail: fields.timothy@epa.gov
LaTonya Flint
Public Affairs Specialist
Region 7
US Environmental Protection Agency
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-7555
Fax: 913-551-7066
E-mail: flint.latonya@epa.gov
Terry Flynn
Frontline Corporate Communications
Incorporated
22 Federick Street Suite 910
Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6M6
Phone: 519-741-9011
Fax: 519-741-9323
E-mail: flynn@onthefrontlines.com
Paula Forbis
Environmental Health Coalition
1717 Kettner Boulevard Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-235-0281
Fax: 619-232-3670
E-mail: Not Provided
Catherine Fox
Environmental Accountability Division
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-9634
Fax: 404-562-9598
E-mail: fox.catherine@epa.gov
Jeanne M Fox
Regional Administrator
Region 2
US Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway 26th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Phone: 212-637-5000
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: fox.jeanne@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
PageS
Amy Fraenkel
Office of International Environmental Policy
Office of International Activities
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2660R)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6482
Fax: 202-565-2412
E-mail: fraenkel.amy@epa.gov
Rosa Franklin
Washington State Senator
409 Legislative Building
PO Box 40482
Oiympia.WA 98504-0482
Phone: 360-786-7656
Fax; 360-786-7524
E-mail: franklln_ro@legwa.gov
Anna Frazler
Coordinator
DINE CArE
HC-63 Box 263
Winslow.AZ 86047
Phone: 602-657-3291
Fax: 602-657-3319
E-mail: dinecare@cnetco.com •
Myra Frazler
Office of Policy
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2175)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-2784
Fax: 202-260-6405
E-mail: frazier.myra@epa.gov
Katharine Fredrlksen
Public Affairs
Koch Industries Inc
1450 G Street NW Suite 445
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-737-1977
Fax: 202-737-8111
E-mail: fredrikk@kochind.com
Jennifer Friday
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
1090 Vermont Avenue NW Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-789-3500
Fax: 202-789-6390
E-mail: jfriday@jointcenter.org
Gregory Fried
Manufacturing Energy and Transportation
Division
Office of Environment and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2223A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-7016
Fax: 202-564-0050
E-mail: fried.gregory@epa.gov
James Friloux
Ombudsman
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
PO Box 82263
Baton Rouge, LA 70884
Phone: 225-765-0735
Fax: .225-765-0746
E-mail: jim_f@deq.state.la.us
Jan Fritz
School of Planning
University of Cincinnati
7300 Aracoma Forest Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45237
Phone: 513-556-0208
Fax: 513-556-1274
E-mail: jan.fritz@uc.edu
Arnita Gadson
Environmental Justice Project Manager
University of Louisville
West Co Environmental Task Force
2900 West Broadway
Louisville, KY 40211
Phone: 502-852-4609
Fax: 502-852-4610
E-mail: ahgads01@gwise.lou.edu
Arnoldp Garcia
Regional Community Organizer
Urban Habitat Program
2263 41st Avenue
Oakland, CA 94601
Phone: 415-561-3332
Fax: 415-561-3334
E-mail: agarcia@igc.apc.org
Linda Garczynski
Director
Outreach and Special Projects Staff
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5105)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-1223
Fax: 202-260-6606
E-mail: garczynski.linda@epa.gov
Eileen Gauna
Professor of Law
Southwestern University School of Law
675 South Westmoreland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90005
Phone: 213-738-6752
Fax: 213-383-1688
E-mail: egauna@swlaw.edu
Clarice Gaylord
Special Assistant to the Regional Administrator
San Diego Border Liaison Office1
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
610 West Ash Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-235-4767
Fax: 619-235-4771
E-mail: gaylord.clarice@epa.gov
Michel Gelobter
Graduate Department of Public Administration
Rutgers University
360 Martin Luther King Boulevard 7th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: 209-353-5093 ext. 18
Fax: 209-927-4574
E-mail: gelobter@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Michael Gerrard
Arnold & Porter
399 Park Avenue 35th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-715-1000
Fax: 212-715-1399
E-mail: michael_gerrard@aporter.com
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 9
Gail C Ginsberg
Office of Regional Counsel
; Region 5
US Environmental Protection Agency
' 77 West Jackson Boulevard
' Chicago, IL 60640
Phone: 312-886-6675
Fax: 312-886-0747
; E-mail: ginsberg.gail@epa.gov
i
Myles Glasgow
Attorney
4465 Greenwich Road NW
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-625-6233
Fax: 202-625-6914
E-mail: nvleopard@aol.com
; Daniel Gogal
Office of Environmental Justice
! Office of Enforcement and Compliance
: Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
; Phone: 202-564-2576
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: gogal.danny@epa.gov
; Renee Coins
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance,
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20004
i Phone: 202-564-2598
'. Fax: 202-501-0740
, E-mail: goins.renee@epa.gov
Rhonda Colder
i Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
; US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2222A)
Washington, DC 20004
. Phone: 202-564-5088
Fax: 202-501-0411
'. E-mail: golder.rhonda@epa.gov
Ann Goode
Director
Office of Civil Rights
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1201)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-7272
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: goode.ann@epa.gov
Kathy Gorospe
Director
American Indian Environmental Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4104)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: gorospe.kathy@epa.gov
Wendy Graham
Office of International Activities
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 261 OR)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6602
Fax: 202-565-2407
E-mail: graham.wendy@epa.gov
Lorraine L Granado
Cross Community Coalition
2332 East 46th Avenue
Denver, CO 80216
Phone: 303-292-3203
Fax: 303-292-3341
E-mail: lorrgranado@yahoo.com
Running Grass'
Environmental Justice Specialist
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1205
Fax: 415-538-5062
E-mail: grass.running@epa.gov
Richard Green
Director
Waste Management Division
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Phone: 404-562-8651
Fax: 404-562-8063
E-mail: green.dick@epa.gov
Daniel Greenbaum
Health Effects Institute
955 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617-876-6700
Fax: 617-876-6709
E-mail: dgreenbaum@healtheffects.org
Jamie Grodsky
Senior Advisor to the General Counsel
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 231OA)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-8039 ext.'
Fax: 202-260-8046
,E-mail: Not Provided
Richard Grow
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1203
Fax: 415-744-1076
E-mail: grow.richard@epa.gov
J Grumet
North East States for Coordinated Air Use
Management
129 Portland Street
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: 617-367-8540
Fax: 617-742-9162
E-mail: jgrumet@nescaum.org
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 10
Tony Guadagno
Assistant General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (NIC 2322)
Washington, DC 20004
Phono: 202-564-5537
Fax: 202-564-5541
E-mail: guadagno.tony@epa.gov
James Habron, Jr
Penn State University
736 Maple Road
Pleasantvilie, NJ 08232
Phone: 609-645-1921
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: jwh17@earthlink.net
George Hagevik
National Conference of State Legislatures
1560 Broadway Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-830-2200
Fax: 303-863-8003
E-mail: george.hagevik@ncsl.org
Beth Hailstock
Director
Environmental Justice Center
Cincinnati Department of Health
3101 Bumet Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45229
Phone: 513-357-7206
Fax: 513-357-7262
E-mail: bethhailstock@chdbumrcc.org
Loren Hall
Office of Civil Rights
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-7289
Fax: 202-501-1836
E-mail: hall.loren@epa.gov
Robert W Hall
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5303W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-308-8432
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: hall.robert@epa.gov
Martin Halper
Senior Science Advisor
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2601
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: halper.martin@epa.gov
Brad Hamilton
Director
Kansas Native American Affairs Office
1430 SW Topeka Boulevard
Topeka, KS 66612-1853
Phone: 785-368-7319
Fax: 785-296-1795
E-mail: bbhamilt@hr.state.ks.us
Denise Hamilton
Environmental Engineer-NPDES Permitting
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1446 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: 214-665-2775
Fax: 214-665-2191
E-mail: hamilton.denise@epa.gov
James Hamilton
Associate Professor .
Duke University
Box 90245 Duke
Durham, NC 27708
Phone: 919-613-7358
Fax: 919-681-8288
E-mail: jayth@ppsduke.edu
Anthony Hanson
Policy Analyst
American Indian Environmental Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4104)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-8106
Fax: 202-260-7509
E-mail: hanson.anthony@epa.gov
William Harnett
Acting Director
Office of Air and Radiation
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-4979
Fax: 919-541-4028
E-mail: harnett.bill@epa.gov
Alisa Harris
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
400 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Phone: 717-783-9731
Fax: ,717-783-8926
E-mail: harris.alisa@dep.state.pa.us
Nona A Hariris
Mossville Environmental Action Now (MEAN)
Inc
905 Mary Street
Sulphur, LA 70663
Phone: 318-882-1730
Fax: 318-436-9541
E-mail: meanmoss@yahoo.com
Reginald Harris
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Region 3
US Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street (3ECOO)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone:' 215-814-2988
Fax: 215-814-2905
E-mail: harris.reggie@epa.gov
Rita Harris
Environmental Justice Organizer
Community Living in Peace Inc / Sierra Club
1373 South Avenue
Memphis, TN 38106
Phone: 901-948-6002
Fax: 901-948-6002
E-mail: xundu@usa.net
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 11
: Stuart Harris
Department of Natural Resources
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
! PO Box 638
: Pendelton, OR 97801
Phone: 541-276-0105
; Fax: 541-278-5380
; E-mail: Not Provided .
RoseHarvell
Environmental Justice Coordinator
i Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
' Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (NIC 2273A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6056
• Fax: 202-564-0074
, E-mail: harvell.rose@epa.gov
Albertha D Hasten
1 Concerned Citizens of Iberville Parish
, 32365 Doc Dean Street
' White Castle, LA. 70788
Phone: 225-545-1034
Fax: 225-545-1034
E-mail: Not Provided
Melva J Hayden
: Environmental Justice Coordinator
Office of the Regional Administrator
Region 2
, US Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway Room 2637
'. New York City, NY 10007
: Phone: 212-637-5027
Fax: 212-637-4943
, E-mail: hayden.melva@epa.gov
Peter Hayes
, Associate Editor
Superfund Report
Inside Washington Publishers
'. 1225 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 703-416-8518
' Fax: 703-416-8543
E-mail: superfundreport@yahoo.com
Stephen Heare
Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5303 W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-308-8801
Fax: 703-308-8617
E-mail: heare.stephen@epa.gov
AlanHecht
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of International Activities
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2670R)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6600
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: hect.alan@epa.gov
. Judy Hecht
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4102)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-5682
Fax: 202-401-3372
E-mail: hecht.judy@epa.gov
Jody Henneke
Director
Office of Public Asistance
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
State of Texas
PO Box 13087 (MC 108)
Austin, TX 73087
Phone: 512-239-4085
Fax: 512-239-4007 .
. E-mail: jhenneke@tnrcc.state.tx.us.com
Steven Herman •
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2440
Fax: 202-501-3842
E-mail: herman.steven@epa.gov
Ivie Higgins
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible
Economies
11 Arlington Street 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: 617-247-0700
Fax: 617-267-5400
E-mail: higgins@ceres.org
Barry Hill
Director
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 22460
Phone: 202-564-2515
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: hill.barry@epa.gov .
Jennifer Hill-Kelley
Oneida Nation of Wisconsin
PO Box 365
3759 West Mason Street
Oneida, Wl 54155
Phone: 920-497-5812
Fax: 920-496-7883
E-mail: jhillkel@oneidanation.org
Kendolyn Hodges-Simons
Attorney Advisor
Office of Enforcement and Regulatory
Compliance
Environmental Health Administration
DC Department of Health
51 N Street NE 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-535-2609
Fax: 202-535-1359
£-/na//: Not Provided
Pierre Hollingsworth
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People
526 Pacific Avenue (TH-4)
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
Phone: 609-345-5298
Fax: 609-345-5230
E-mail: Not Provided
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 12
Mike Holloway
Program Analyst
Indoor Environments Division
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 6609J)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-9426
Fax; 202-565-2039
E-mail: ho!loway.mike@epa.gov
Michael K Holmes
Northside Education Center
St Louis Community College
4666 Natural Bridge Road
St Louis, MO 63115
Phone: 314-381-3822
Fax: 314-381-4637
E-mail: mholmes@ccm.stlcccc.mo.us
Robert Holmes
Director
Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy
Clark Atlanta University
James P Brawley Drive at Fair Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Phone: 404-880-8089
Fox: 404-880-8090
E-mail: bholmes@cau.edu
Brian Holtzclaw
Environmental Justice Waste Management
Division
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-8684
Fax: 404-562-8628
E-mail: holtzclaw.brian@epa.gov
Savonala "Savl" Home
Staff Attorney
Land Loss Prevention Project
North Carolina Central University
1512 South Alston Avenue Room 205
Durham, NC 27707
Phone: 919-682-5969
Fax: 919-688-5596
E-mail: savillpp@mindspring.com
Nancy Howard
Water Resources Planner
Newport News Waterworks
2600 Washington Avenue
Newport News, VA 23607
Phone: 757-926-7177
Fax: 757-926-7179
E-mail: nhowardocinewport-newsva.us
Matthew Huntes
The EOP Group Inc
819 7th Street NW '
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-833-8940
Fax: 202-833-8945
E-mail: mfhuntes@819eagle.com
Daniel Isales
Office of Environmental Justice
Region 3
US Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Phone: 215-814-2647
Fax: 215-814-2905
E-mail: isales.daniel@epa.gov
Ken Israels
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1194
Fax: 415-744-1076
E-mail: israels.ken@epa.gov
Rose Jackson
Public Affairs Specialist
Waste Management Division
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-562-8602
Fax: 404-562-8655
E-mail: jackson.rose@epa.gov
Sarah James
Tribal Member
Council of Aphabascan Tribal Governments
PO Box 51
Artie Village, AK 99722
Phone: 907-587-5315
Fax: 907-587-5900
E-mail: Not Provided
Annabelle E Jaramillo
Citizens' Representative
Oregon Office of the Governor
160 State Capitol
Salem, OR 97310
Phone: 503-378-5116
Fax: 503-378-6827
E-mail: annabelle.e.jaramillo@state.or.us
Janice Jensen
Field and External Affairs Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 7506C)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-305-7706
Fax: 703-308-1850
E-mail: jensen.janice@epa.gov
Michael Johnson
Real Estate Investor
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People
1619 Columbia Avenue
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
Phone: 609-345-5298
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Sabrina Johnson
Policy Analyst
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 6103A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-1173
Fax: 202-564-1554
E-mail: johnson.sabrina@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 13
' Khanna Johnston
' Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
! 1445 Ross Avenue (6RA-DJ)
Dallas, TX 75202
] Phone: 214-665-2716
Fax: 214-665-6490
E-mail:. Johnston, khanna@epa.gov
Carolyn Jones-Gray
; Frederick Douglas Community Improvement
Council
: 2009 18th Street SE
i Washington, DC 20020
' Phone: 202-678-3532
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
' Teresa Juarez
New Mexico Alliance
'PO Box 759
; Chimayo, NM 87522
.Phone: 505-351-2404
'•Fax: 505-351-1031
E-mail: tjuarez@la-tierra.com
Rochele Kadish
Office of the Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency .
; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1108)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-3106
Fax: 202-501-0062
i E-mail: kadish.rochele@epa.gov
Ntale Kajumba
; Environmental Justice Team
Region 4
, US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
; Atlanta, GA 30310
Phone: 404-562-9620
'• Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: kajumba.ntale@epa.gov
! Mark S Kasman
1 Senior International Information Officer
Office of International Activities
US Environmental Protection Agency
\ 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Me 2670R)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6112
Fax: 202-565-2411
i E-mail: kasman.mark@epa.gov
Robert Kellam
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-4028
Fax: 919-541-4028
E-mail: kellam.bob@epa.gov
JeffKeohane
Attorney Advisor
Office of General Counsel
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2322A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-5548
Fax: 202-260-5541
E-mail: keohane.jeffrey@epa.gov
Derrick Kimbrough
Community Involvement Coordinator
Office of Public Affairs
Region 5
US Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard (P-19J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-9749
Fax: 312-353-1155
E-mail: kimbrough.derrick@epa.gov
Daphne King
Office Automation Clerk
Region 7
US Environmental Protection Agency
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-7815
Fax: 913-551-7941
E-mail: king.daphne@epa.gov
Karen King
Policy Analyst
MBD Inc
1100 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-429-1800
Fax: 202-429-8655
E-mail: karking@worldnet.att.net
Marva E King
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2599 ,
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: king.marva@epa.gov
Michelle W King
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-4287
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: king.michelle-w@epa.gov
Toshia King
Office of Waste
Office of Solid Waste And Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5303W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-308-7033
Fax: 703-308-8617
E-mail: Not Provided
Pamela J Kingfisher
-Director
Shining Waters
Box 182
Rowe, NM 87562
Phone: 505-757-3382
Fax: 505-757-3382
E-mail: pamejean@roadrunner.com
Monica Kirk
Special Counsel to the Regional Administrator
Office of Oregon Operations
Region 10
US Environmental Protection Agency
811 SW 16th Avenue 3rd Floor
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: 503-326-3269
Fax: 503-326-3399
E-mail: kirk.monica@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 14
Jackie Klttrell
General Counsel
Environmental Health Network
318 Lynnwood
Knoxville.TN 37918
Phone: 423-522-1139
Fax: 423-689-8297
E-mail: jackieo@mindsf>ring.com
David Klauder
Director Regional Staff
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 8103R)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-584-6496
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
MIchole L Knorr
Office of General Counsel
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2333A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-5631
Fax: 202-564-5644
E-mail: knorr.michele@epa.gov
Robert Knox
Associate Director
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2604
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: knox.robert@epa.gov
Myron O Knudson
Director
Superfund Division
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-6701
Fax: 214-665-7330 ,
E-mail: knudson.myron@epa.gov
Cassandra Koutalidis
Alternative Resources Inc
9 Pond Lane
Concord, MA 01742
Phone: 978-371-2054
Fax: 978-371-7269
E-mail: ckoutalidis@alt-res.com
Andrea Kreiner
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
Phone: 302-739-4403
Fax: 302-739-6242
E-mail: akreiner@.state..de.us
Arnold Kuzmack
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4301)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-5821
• Fax: 202-260-5394
E-mail: kuzmack.arnold@epa.gov
Wendy Laird-Benner
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street WTR-4
Sari Francisco, CA 94105-3901
Phone: 415-744-1168
Fax: 415-744-1078
E-mail: laird-benner.wendy@epa.gov
Brad A Lambert
Harris DeVille and Associates Inc
307 France Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone: 225-344-0381
Fax: 225-336-0211
E-mail: blambert@hdaissues.com
Wesley Lambert
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
3446 Rock Creek Drive
Rex, GA 30273
Phone: 770-968-3270
Fax: 404-562-8835
E-mail: lambert.wesley@epa.gov
David LaRoche
Senior Advisor-Tribal Programs
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 6604J)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-7652
Fax: 202-260-8509
E-mail: laroche.david@epa.gov
Gretchen Latowsky
Project Manager
JSI Center for Environmental Health Studies
44 Farnsworth Street
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: 617-482-9485
Fax: 617-482-0617
E-mail: glatowsky@jsi.com
Richard Lazarus
Professor
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-662-9129
Fax: 202-662-9408
E-mail: lazarusr@law.georgetown.edu
Adora Iris Lee
Minister for Environmental Justice
United Church of Christ
5113 Georgia Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20011
Phone: 202-291-1593
Fax: 202-291-3933
E-mail: adoracrj@aol.com
Charles Lee
Associate Director
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2597
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: lee.charles@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
. List of Attendees
iPage 15
Carol Leftwich
Project Manager
Environmental Council of the States
,444 North Capitol Street NW Suite 445
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-624-3677
'Fax: 202-624-3666
'E-mail: leftwich@sso.org-
I Jacqueline Lescott
Regulatory Representative
Associated Builders & Contractors
1300 North 17th Street Suite 800
Rosslyn.VA 22209
Phone: 703-812-2036
Fax: 703-812-8202
E-mail: lescott@abc.org
Michael Letourneau
'Region 10
;US Environmental Protection Agency.
1200 Sixth Avenue (CEJ-163)
' Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-553-1687
.Fax: 206-553-7176
E-mail: letourneau.mike@epa.gov
Frederick Leutner
Chief Water Quality Standards Branch
.Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4305)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-1542
Fax: 202-260-9830
E-mail: leutner.fred@epa.gov
Steven Levy
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5306 W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-308-7267
:Fax: 703-308-8686
E-mail: levy.steve@epa.gov
Sheila Lewis
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-0163
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: Not Provided
Sarah Lile
Director of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Affairs
City of Detroit
660 Woodward Avenue Suite 1650
Detroit, Ml 48226
Phone: 313-237-3092
Fax: 313-224-1547
E-mail: Not Provided
Benjamin Lim
Chemist
Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 7404)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-1509
Fax: 202-260-3453
E-mail: lim.benjamin@epa.gov
L Diane Long
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-2601
Phone: 919-715-4195
Fax: 919-715-3060
E-mail: dianelong@ncmail.net
Sylvia Lowrance
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2101A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-7960
Fax: 202-501-3842
E-mail: lowrance.sylvia@epa.gov
Zack Lyde
Director
Save the People
PO Box 1994
Brunswick, GA 31521
Phone: 912-265-1275
Fax: 912-265-7008
E-mail: Not Provided
Pamela Lyons
Director
Office of Equal Opportunity Contract
Assistance and Environmental Equity
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
CN 402
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: 609-984-9742
Fax: 609-984-9789
E-mail: plyons@dep.state.nj.us
Michael J Lythcott
TAG Advisor
Citizens Against Toxic Exposure
6 Julian Way '
Marlboro, NJ 07746-1615
Phone: 723-617-2076
Fax: 723-617-2071
E-mail: adeyemi@world.oberlin.edu
Jim MacDonald
Trustee
Pittsburg (California) Unified School District
274 Pebble Beach Loop
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Phone: 925-439-7665
Fax: . 925-473-1886
E-mail: jmacdonald@pittsburg.k12.ca.us
Alfonse Mannato
Senior Regulatory Analyst
American Petrolem Institute
1220 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005-4070
Phone: 202-6828325
Fax: 202-682-8031
E-mail: mannatoa@api.org
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 16
Enrique Manzanilla
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (CMD-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1015
Fax: 415-744-1598
E-mail: manzanil1a.enrique@epa.gov
Freya Margand
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Solid Waste/PSPD
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5303W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-605-0633
Fax: 703-308-8638
E-mail: margand.freya@epa.gov
Jerry Martin
The DOW Chemical Company
2030 Dow Center
Midland, Ml 48674
Phone: 517-636-8790
Fax: 517-636-0389
E-mail: jbmartin@dow.com
Lawrence Martin
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 8103R)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6497
Fax: 202-564-2926
E-mail: martin.lawrence@epa.gov
Neftali Garcia Martinez
Scientific and Technical Services
RR-9 Buzon
1722 Cupey Alto
San Juan, PR 00926
Phone: 787-292-0620
Fax: 787-760-0496
E-mail: sctinc@caribe.net
Richard Mason
Shintech Inc
24 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-965-0713
Fax: 713-965-0629
E-mail: dmason@shin-tech.com
Alicia Matlcardi
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development
451 7th Street SW Room 5249
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202-708-0614 ext. 7069
Fax: 202-708-1425
E-mail: alicia_maticardi@hud.g9v
Paul Matthai
Environmental Protection Specialist
Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 7409)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-3385
Fax: 202-260-0178
E-mail: matthai.paul@epa.gov
Doris Maxwell
Management Analyst
Office of Air and Radiation
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-5312
Fax: 919-541-0072
E-mail: maxweli.doris@epa.gov
Lisa Maybee
Environmental Director
1508 Route 438
Irving, NY 14081
Phone: 716-532-0024
Fax: 716-532-0035
E-mail: sniepd1@aol.com
Zulene Mayfield
Chair
Chester Residents Concerned for Quality
Living
2731 West Third Street
Chester, PA 19013
Phone: 610-485-6683
Fax: 610-485-5300
E-mail: crcql1@aol.com
John McCarroll
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street WST-4
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2064
Fax: 415-744-1044
E-mail: mccarroll.john@epa.gov
Mildred McClain
Executive Director
Citizens for Environmental Justice
1115 Habersham Street
Savannah, GA 31401
Phone: 912-233-0907
Fax: 912-233-5105
E-mail: cfej@bellsouth.net
Keith McCoy
Director Environmental Quality Resources
Environment & Regulation
National Association of Manufacturers
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20004-1790
Phone: 202-637-3175
Fax: 202-637-3182
E-mail: kmcoy@nam.org
Donna Gross McDaniel
Program Coordinator
Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund
37 Deerfield Road
PO Box 37
Pomfret Center, CT 06259
Phone: 860-974-0800 ext. 109
Fax: 860-974-3157
E-mail: dmcdaniel@laborers-agc.org
Kate McGloon
Director External Relations
Chemical Manufacturers Association
1300 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 703-741-5812
Fax: 703-741-6812
E-mail: kate_mcgloon@cmahq.com
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 17
Laura McKelvey
Environmental Scientist
Emissions Standards Division
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-5497
Fax: '919-541-9240
E-mail: mckelvey.laura@epa.gov
Kara McKoy-Belle
Environmental Justice Office
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 (6EN)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-8337
Fax: 214-665-6660
E-mail: mckoy.kara@epa.gov
Brian McLean
Acid Rain Division
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 6204J)
Washington, DC 20004'
Phone: 202-564-9150
Fax: 202-565-2141
E-mail: mclean.brian@epa.gov
Tanya J Meekins
Media Relations Office
Office of the Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1703)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-1387
Fax: 202-260-3522
E-mail: meekins.tanya@epa.gov
Jayne Michaud
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5204G)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-603-8847
Fax: 703-603-9104
E-mail: michaud.jayne@epa.gov
Sherry Milan
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2619
Fax: 202-501-0284
E-mail: milan.sherry@epa.gov
Vernice Miller-Travis
Program Officer for Environmental Justice
Ford Foundation
, U.S.
Phone: 212-573-4641
Fax: 410-338-2751
E-mail: v.miller-travis@fordfound.org
Dana Minerva
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4101)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-5700
Fax: . 202-260-5711
E-mail: minervadana@epa.gov
Marsha Minter
Special Assistant
Office of the Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1101)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6982
Fax: 202-501-1480
E-mail: minter.marsha@epa.gov
Cristina Miranda
Intern
Office of Environmental Justice •
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2636
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: miranda.cristina@epa.gov
Harold Mitchell
Director
RE-GENESIS
101 Anita Drive
Spartanburg, SC 29302
Phone: 864-542-8420
Fax: 864-582-4062
E-mail: regenesis50@hotmail.com
Rita M Monroy
COSSMHO
1501 Sixteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-797-4334
Fax: 202-797-4353
E-mail: rmpnroy@cossmho.org
Lillian Mood, RN
Community Liaison
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: 803-898-3929
Fax: 803-898-3931
E-mail: moodlh@columb30.dhec.state.sc.us
John R Moody
Waste Management Division
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (WST-4)
San Francisco; CA 94105-3901
Phone: 415-744-2058
Fax: 415-538-1044
E-mail: moody.john@epa.gov
Alma Black Moore
Frontline Corporate Communications Inc
2163 Airways Boulevard
Memphis, TN 38114
Phone: 901-544-0613
Fax: 901-544-0639
E-mail: ablack1@midsouthrr.com
Anthony Moore
Director of Policy
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
PO Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
Phone: 804-698-4484
Fax: 804-698-4346
E-mail: aumoore@deq.state.va.us
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 18
Althea M Moses
Program Manager
Office of Environmental Justice
Region 7
US Environmental Protection Agency
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-7649
Fax: 913-551-7941
E-mail: moses.althea@epa.gov
Edgar JMouton
President
Mossville Environmental Action Now (MEAN)
Inc
3608 East Burton
Sulphur, LA 70663
Phone: 337-625-8414
Fax: 337-882-7476
E-mail: focusonmossville@aol.com
Kathryn Mutz
Natural Resources Law Center
University of Colorado School of Law
Campus Box 401
Boulder, CO 80309-0401
Phone: 303-492-1293
Fax: 303-492-1297
E-mail: kathrynmutz@colorado.edu
Mildred Myers
South Carolina Envrionmental Watch
PO Box 373
Gadsden, SC 29052
Phone: 803-353-8423
Fax: 803-353-8427
E-mail: Not Provided
Olada Myers
South CarolinaEnvironmental Water
PO Box 372
Gadsden, SC 29052
Phone: 803-353-8423
Fax: 803-353-8427
E-mail: omyers3@bellsouth.net
Vernon Myers
Permits
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5305W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-308-8660
Fax: 703-308-8609
E-mail: myers.vernon@epa.gov
Paul Nadeau
Senior Process Manager for Reforms
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5204G)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-603-8794
Fax: 703-603-9104
E-mail: nadeau.paul@epa.gov
Tia Newman-Fields
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2622
Fax: 202-505-0740
E-mail: newman-fields.tia@epa.gov
David Nicholas
Policy Analyst
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and.Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5103)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-4512
Fax: 202-401-1496
E-mail: nicholas.david@epa.gov
William Nitze
Assistant Administrator
Office of International Activities
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2670R)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Kojo Nnamcli
Host Public Interest
National Public Radio
Address Not Provided
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Duncan Norton
General Counsel
Texas National Resource Conservation
Commission
12100 North Park 35 Circle
Austin, TX 78711
Phone: 523-239-5525
Fax: 512-239-5533
E-mail: Not Provided
Davy Obey
Associate Editor
Clean Air Report
1225 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 703-416-8516
Fax: 703-416-8543
E-mail: sunrd@aol.com
Joyce Olin
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2261 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2582
Fax: 202-501-0644
E-mail: olin.joyce@epa.gov
Juan Orozco
Northwest Community Education Center
PO Box 800
Granger, WA 98932
Phone: 509-854-2222
Fax: 509-854-2223
E-mail: Not Provided
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 19
Richard B Ossias
Air and Radiation Law Office
Office of Air and Radiation
. US Environmental Protection Agency
: 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2344)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-7984
Fax: 202-260r0586
E-mail: ossias.richard@epa.gov
- James T Owens
Deputy Director
Office of Administration/Resources Mgmt
Region 1
US Environmental Protection Agency
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100 (MIO)
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Phone: 617-918-1911 ext. or 1900
Fax: 617-918-1929
E-mail: owens.james@epa.gov
Karla Owens
Environmental Justice Regional Team
: Manager
Region 5
US Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard (T-16J)
' Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-5993
Fax: 312-886-2737
i E-mail: johnson.karla@epa.gov
Bill Painter
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4503F)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: Not Provided
' Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
• Quentin Pair
Trial Attorney
Environmental Enforcement Section
Environment & Natural Resources Division
US Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20005
! Phone: 202-514-1999
Fax: 202-514-2583
E-mail: quentin.pair@usdoj.com
Luis E Palacios
Vice.President
Creative Concepts Environmental Research &
Development
613 AvenuePonce de Leon Suite 206
San Juan, PR 00917-4801
Phone: 787-763-9013
Fax: 787-763-9013
E-mail: lcdoluispalacios@abanet.org
Sonia Palacios
Creative Concepts Environmental Research &
Development
San Juan, PR 00917
Phone: 787-760-5665
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Louis Paley
Office of Planning and Policy Analysis
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW(MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2613
Fax: 202-501-0284
E-mail: paley.louis@epa.gov
Romel L Pascual
Regional Enviornmental Justice Team Leader
Environmental Justice Office
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (CMD-6)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1212
Fax: 415-744-1598
E-mail: pascual.romel@epa.gov
Manuel Pastor
Universtiy of California at Santa Cruz
Address Not Provided
Santa Cruz, CA
Phone: 831-459-5919
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Shirley Pate
Office of Enforcement Capacity and Outreach
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2607
Fax: 202-501-0284
E-mail: pate.shirley@epa.gov
Dorothy Patton
Office of Science Policy
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 8105)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: 202-564-6705
E-mail: Not Provided
Marinelle Payton
Chair, Department of Public Health
Jackson Medical Mall
School'of Allied Health Sciences
Jackson State University
350 West Woodrow Wilson Avenue
Suite 3430
Jackson, MS 39213-7681
Phone: 601-364-2580
Fax: 601-982-3127
E-mail: mpayton@mail1 jsums.edu
Sonia Peters
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2634
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: peters.sonia@epa.gov
Erika Petrovich
Special Assistant
Region 2
US Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Phone:- 212-637-5036
Fax: 212-637-5024
E-mail: Not Provided
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 20
Pamela Phillips
Deputy Director
Superfund Division
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 12QO
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-6701
Fax.' 214-665-7330
E-mail: phillips.pam@epa.gov
Janet Phoenix
Manager
Northeast Environmental Justice Network
1025 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-974-2474
Fax: 202-659-1192
E-mail: phoenixj@nsc.org
Victoria Plata
Region 10
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue (CEJ-163)
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-553-8580
Fax: 206-553-7151
E-mail: plata.victoria@epa.gov
Jerry Poje
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board
Address Not Provided
Washington, DC
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Carlos Porras
Communities for a Better Environment
5610 Pacific Boulevard Suite 203
Huntington Park, CA 90255
Phone: 323-826-9771 ext. 109
Fax: 323-588-7079
E-mail: lacausala@aol.com
Gerald Prout
Director
Regulatory Affairs
FMC Corporation
1667 K Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-956-5209
Fax: 202-956-5235
E-mail: jerry_prout@fmc.com
Idaho Puree
INEEL Health ES
448 North 6th Street
Pocatello, ID 83201
Phone: 208-232-8297
Fax: 208-232-0768
E-mail: johnpurce@aol.com
Yale Rabin
Yale Rabin Planning Consultant
6 Farrar Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: 617-661-0037
Fax: 617-661-8697
E-mail: Not Provided
Connie Raines
Manager
Environmental Justice and Community Liaison
Program
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Phone: 404-562-9671
Fax: 404-562-9664
E-mail: raines.connie@epa.gov
Oscar Ramirez, Jr
Deputy Director
Water Division
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 (6WQ-D)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-665-7390
Fax: 214-665-7373
E-mail: ramirez.oscar@epa.gov
Rosa Ramos
Community Leader
Community of Catano Against Pollution
La Marina Avenue Mf 6 .Marina Bahia
Catano, PR 00962
Phone: 787-788-0837
Fax: 787-788-0837
E-mail: rosah@coqui.net
Karen Randolph
Permits and State Programs Division
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5303W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-308-8651
Fax: 703-308-8617
E-mail: randolph.karen@epa.gov
Arthur Ray
Deputy Secretary
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Phone: 410-631-3086
Fax: 410-631-3888
E-mail: aray@mde.state.md.us
Doretta Reaves
Public Liaison Specialist
Office of Communications Education and
Public Affairs
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1702)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-7829
Fax: 202-501-1773
E-mail: reavesdoretta@epa.gov
Deldi Reyes
Region 8
US' Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: 303-312-6055
Fax: 303-312-6409
E-mail: reyes.deldi@epa.gov
Margie F Richard
President
Concerned Citizens of Norco
'28 Washington Street
Norco, LA 70079
Phone: 225-764-8135
Fax: 225-488-3081
E-mail: Not Provided
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 21
John Ridgway
Washington State Department of Ecology
PO Box 47659
Olympia.WA 98504-7659
Phone: 360-407-6713
Fax: 360-407-6715
E-mail: jrid461@ecywa.gov
Clifford Roberts
St James Citizens for Jobs and the
Environment
PO Box 162
Convent, LA 70723
Phone: 225-562-3671
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: pacellnp@eatel.net
Dennis Roberts, II
Business Development Manager
Advanced Resources Technologies Inc
105 Oronoco Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-836-8811
Fax: 703-683-8055
E-mail: dennisroberts@team-arti.com
Gloria W Roberts
St James Citizens for Jobs and the
Environment
PO Box 162
Convent, LA 70723
Phone: 225-562-3671
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: pacellnp@eatel.net
Avis Robinson
Deputy Office Director
Office of Policy and Reinvention
Office of Policy
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2841)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-9147 '
Fax: 202-401-0454
E-mail: robinson.avis@epa.gov
Leonard Robinson
TAMCO
12459 Arrow Highway
PO Box 325
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Phone: 909-899-0631 Ext203
Fax: 909-899-1910
'E-mail: robinsonl@tamcbsteel.com
James Rollins
819 7th Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-833-8940
Fax: 202-833-8945
E-mail: jerdlins@819eagle.com
Angela Rooney
Ward 5 Coalition for Environmental Justice
3425 14th Street NE
Washington, DC 20017
Phone: 202-526-4592
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Caren Rothstein
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 7405)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-0085
Fax: 202-260-1847
E-mail: rothstein.caren@epa.gov
Margaret Round
Consultant
Clean Air Task Force.
104 Farquhar Street
Roslindale, MA 02131
Phone: 617-325-4974
Fax: 617-325-7384
E-mail: margaretround@prodigy.net
Jeffrey Ruch
Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility
2001 S Street NW Suite 570
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-265-7337
Fax: 202-265-4192
E-mail: jruch@peer.org
Carol Rushin
A.RA-ECEJ
Region 8
US Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: 303-312-7028
Fax: 303-312-6191
E-mail: rushin.carol@epa.gov
Alberto Saldamando
General Counsel
International Indian Treaty Council
2390 Mission Street Suite 301
San Francisco, CA 94110
Phone: 415-641-4482
Fax: 415-641-1298
E-mail: iitc@igc.apc.org
J Gilbert Sanchez
Executice Director
Tribal Environmental Watch Alliance
Route 5 Box 442-B
Espahola, NM 87532
Phone: 505-747-7100
Fax: 505-747-7100
E-mail: tewawn@msn.com
Mavis M Sanders
Office of Civil Rights
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1201)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-5356
Fax: 202-260-4580
E-mail: sanders.mavis@epa.com
William H Sanders, III
Director
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 7401)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-3810
Fax: 202-260-0575
E-mail: sanders.william@epa.gov
Sonya Sasseville
Permits and State Programs Division
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5303W)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-308-8648
Fax: 202-308-8638
E-mail: sasseville.sonya@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 22
Barbara Saltier
University of Maryland - School of Nursing
655 West Lombard Street Room 665
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: 410-706-1849
Fax: 410-706-0295
E-mail: bsattler@ehecu.maryland.edu
Maria Sayoe
Office of International Affairs
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 20460)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6433
Fax: 202-565-2412
E-mail: sayoe.maria@epa.gov
Eric Schaeffer
Director & Dean
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1502)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: schaeffer.erik@epa.gov
Jim Schulman
Executive Director
SCI
631 East Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-544-0069
Fax: 202-544-9460
E-mail: jschulman@igc.org
Antoinette G Sebastian
Senior Environmental Policy Analyst
Community Planning and Development
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development
451 7th Street SW Room 7248
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202-708-0614 ext. 4458
Fax: 202-708-3363
E-mail: antoinette_sebastian@hud.gov
Mary Settle
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2594
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: settle.mary@epa.gov
Michael Shapiro
Deputy Assistant Adminisrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-4610
Fax: 202-260-3527
E-mail: shapiro.mike@epa.gov
Sally L Shaver
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency • -
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-5572
Fax: 919-541-0072
E-mail: shaver.sally@epa.gov
Christian Shaw
Legislative Assistant
NPRADC
1899 L Street NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-457-0480
Fax: 202-457-0486
E-mail: christian_shaw@npradc.org
Peggy M Shepard
Executive Director
West Harlem Environmental Action Inc
271 West 125th Street Suite 211
New York, NY 10027
Phone: 212-961-1000 ext. 303
Fax: 212-961-1015
E-mail: wheact@igc.org
Wendy Shepherd
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: 919-733-0692
Fax: 919-733-4810
E-mail: wendyshepherd@ncmail.net
Robert Shinn
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Justice
New Jersey Department of Environment
Protection
401 East State Street PO Box 402 7th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: 609-292-2885
Fax: 609-292-7695
E-mail: rshinn@dep.state.nj.us
Kris Shurr
Region 8
US Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: 303-312-6139
Fax: 303-312-6064
E-mail: shurr.kris@epa.gov
Virinder Singh
Renewable Energy Policy Project
1612 K Street NW Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-293-1197
Fax: 202-293-5857
E-mail: virinders@repp.org
Susan Sladek
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5204C)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-603-8848 '
Fax: 703-603-9100
E-mail: sladek.susan@epa.gov
Damu Imara Smith
Campaigner
Greenpeace Inc
1436 U Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-319-2410
Fax: 202-462-4507
E-mail: damu.smith@udc.greenpeace.org
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 23
Linda K Smith
Associate Director For Resources
Management
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2602
Fax: 202-501-1162
E-mail: smith.linda@epa.gov
Robert Smith
Program Analyst
American Indian Environmental Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4104)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-8202
Fax: 202-260-7509
E-mail: smith.bob-nmi@epa.gpv
Joe Soils
Region 7 ,
US Environmental Protection Agency
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 64108
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Scot Spencer
Transportation Specialist
Environmental Defense Fund
1875 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 1016
Washington, DC 21016
Phone: 202-387-3500
Fax: 202-234-6049
E-mail: scot_spencer@edf.org
David Spikes
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
Prevention Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8600
Fax: 202-260-8600
E-mail: spikes.david@epa.gov
Moses Squeochs
Yakama Nation
PO Box 151 Fort Road
Toppenish.WA 98948
Phone: 509-865-5121
Fax: 509-865-5522
E-mail: mose@yakama.com
Jane Stahl
Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
Phone: 860-424-3009
Fax: 860-424-4054
E-mail: janestahl@po.state.ct.us
Mathy V Stanislaus
Director
Environmental Compliance
Enviro-Sciences Inc
199 Arlington Place
Staten Island, NY 10303
Phone: 718-448-7916 ext. 1246
Fax: 718-448-8666
E-mail: mstanisl@concentric.net
John Stanton
Associate Editor
Inside EPA
1225 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 703-416-8536
Fax: 703-416-8543
E-mail: john.stanton@iwpnews.com
Michael Steinberg
Morgan Lewis and Bockius
1800 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-467-7000
Fax: 202-467-7176
E-mail: stei7141@mlb.com
Juanita R Stewart
President
LEAN
North Baton Rouge Environmental Association
PO Box 781
Baker, LA 70704-0781
Phone: 225-774-7143
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Lora Strine
Policy and Program Evaluation Division
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2273A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-6077
Fax: 202-564-0074
E-mail: strine.lora@epa.gov
Dean Suagee
First Nations Environmental Law Program
Vermont Law School
Chelsea Street
South Royalton, VT 05068
Phone: 802-763-8303 ext. 2341
Fax: 802-763-2940
E-mail: dsuagee@vermontlaw.edu
Bill Swaney
Environmental Division Manager
Confederated Salish and Kootnai Tribes
PO Box 278
Pablo, MT 59855-0278
Phone: 406-675-2700
Fax: 406-675-2713
E-mail: billys@cskt.org
Charles Swiden
President of Board
Environmental Crisis Center
1936 East 30th Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
Phone:410-235-7110
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Nicholas Targ
Counsel
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2201 A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-2406
Fax: 202-501-0740
E-mail: targ.nicholas@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 24
Michael Taylor
Vita Nuova
97 Head of Meadow
Newtown,,CT 06470
Phone: 203-270-3413
Fax: 203-270-3422
E-mail: taylorm@pcnet.com
Christopher P Thomas
Environmental Engineer
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Environmental Justice
Region 3
US Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: 215-814-5555
Fax: 215-814-3172
E-mail: thomas.chris@epa.gov
Doroen E Thompson
Chief
Office of Enforcement and Regulatory
Compliance
Office of Enforcement and Compliance .
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
51 North Street NE 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: 202-535-2505
Fax: 202-535-1359
E-mail: Not Provided
James L Thompson, Jr
Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Region 3
US Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street (3CEOO)
Philadelphia, PA 19107-2029
Phone: 215-814-2374
Fox: 215-814-2383
E-mail: thompson.james@epa.gov •
Joan Thurman
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4305)
Washington. DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-4497
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Francisco A Tomei-Torres
Minority Health Program Specialist
. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
1600 Clifton Road NE (MS E28)
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 404-639-5060
Fax: 404-639-5063
E-mail: fbt3@cdc.gov
Gerald Torres
Vice Provost / Professor of Law
University of Texas Law School
727 East Dean Ke'eton Room 3266
Austin, TX 78705
Phone: 512-232-1368
Fax: 512-232-3310
E-mail: gtorres@mail.law.utexas.edu
Arthur A Totten
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 2252A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-7164
Fax: 202-501-0072
E-mail: totten.arthur@epa.gov
Connie Tucker
Executive Director
Southern Organizing Committee for Economic
and Social Justice
PO Box 10518
Atlanta, GA 30310
Phone: 404-755-2855
Fax: 404-755-0575
E-mail: socejp@igcapc.org
Robin Turner
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
1090 Vermont Avenue Northwest
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-789-3500
Fax: 202-789-6390
E-mail: rturner@jointcenter.org
Haywood Turrentine
Laborers Education Training Trust Fund
500 Lancaster Pike
Exton, PA 19341
Phone: 610-524-0404
Fax: 610-524-6411
E-mail: hlj1@aol.com
Delta Enid Valente
Project Manager
Farm Worker Health
Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 7506C)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-305-7164
Fax: 703-308-2962
E-mail: valente.delta@epa.gov ,
Alice Walker
Senior Program Analyst
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4102)
Washington, DC 20004 ,
Phone: 202-260-1919
Fax: 202-269-3597
E-mail: walker.alice@epa.gov
Nathalie Walker
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
400 Magazine Street Suite 401
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: 504-522-1394
Fax: 504-566-7242
E-mail: nwalker@earthjustice.org
Matt Ward
National Assocication of Local Government
Environmental Professionals
1350 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-879-4093
Fax: 202-393-2866
E-mail: mattward@spiegelmcd.com
Roger K Ward
Office of the Secretary
Louisiana Department of Environmental.
Qualilty
PO Box 82263
Baton Rouge, LA 70884
Phone: 225-765-0741
Fax: 225-765-0746
E-mail: roger_w@deq.state.la.us
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 25
Oliver L Warnsley
Superfund Division
Region 5
US Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard (SR-6J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-0442
Fax: 312-886-4071
E-mail: warnsley.oliver@epa.gov
Barbara Warren
Consumer Policy Institute of the Consumers
Union
101 Truman Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10703
Phone: 718-984-6446
Fax: 718-984-0500
E-mail: warrenba@emailmsn.com
Joan Warren
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 4503F)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Daniel Wartenberg
Professor
EOHSI
170 Frelinghousen House
Piscataway, NJ 08859
Phone: 732-445-0197
Fax: 732-445-0784
E-mail: dew@eohsirutgers.edu
David Wawer
Chemical Manufacturers Association
1300 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 703-741-5161
Fax: 703-741-6161
E-mail: david_wawer@cmahq.com
Suzanne E Wells
Director
Community Involvement and Outreach Center
Superfund Program
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5204G)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 703-603-8863
Fax: 703-603-9100
E-mail: wells.suzanne@epa.gov
Chen H Wen
Program Analyst
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 7404)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-4109
Fax: 202-260-0178
E-mail: .wen.chen@epa.gov
Frank Wennin
Consultant
Environment Crisis Center
2541 St Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
Phone: 410-662-7758
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Carol A Wettstein
Environmental Justice Coordinator
US Forest Service
US Department of Agriculture
PO Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
Phone: 202-205-1588
Fax: 202-205-1174
E-mail: cwettstein/wo@fsf.edus
Angele White
International City/County Management
Association
777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-962-3563
Fax: 202-962-3500
E-mail: awhite@icma.org
Amina Wilkins
Environmental Scientist
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 8623)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-3256
Fax: 202-565-0076
E-mail: wilkins.amina@epa.gov
Margaret Williams
President
Citizens Against Toxic Exposure
6400 Marianna Drive
Pensacola, FL 32504
Phone: 850-494-2601
Fax: 850-479-2044
E-mail: Not Provided
Lillian A Wilmore
Director
(Kiowa heritage)
Native Ecology Initiative
PO Box 470829
Brookline Village, MA 02447-0829
Phone: 617-232-5742
Fax: 617-277-1656
E-mail: naecology@aol.com
Mary Wilson
Region 6
US Environmental Protection Agency
14*45 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 (6MD-D)
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: 214-665-6439
Fax: 214-665-8072
E-mail: m.wilson@epa.gov
Nancy Wilson
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5104)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
E-mail: Not Provided
Anna Marie Wood
Senior Regulatory Impact Analyst
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Office of Air and Radiation
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 6103A)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-564-1664
Fax: 202-564-1554
E-mail: wood.anna@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
December 1999 NEJAC Meeting
List of Attendees
Page 26
Pat Hill Wood
Senior Manager
Federal Regulatory Affairs
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
1875 Eye Street NW Suite 775
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-659-3600
Fax: 202-223-1398
E-mail: pkwood@gapac.com
James Woolford
Director Federal Facilities Restoration and
Reuse Office
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-1606
Fax; 202-260-3527
E-mail: Not Provided
Linda Woolley
Principal
LegisLaw
1115 Connecticut Avenue NW 500
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-466-4840
Fax: 202-466-4841
E-mail: legislaw@aol.com
Eddie L Wright
Environmental Analyst
Waste Management Division
Region 4
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Phone: 404-562-8669
Fax; 404-562-8628
E-mail: wright.eddie@epa.gov
George Wyeth
Senior Counsel
Office of Reinvention Policy
Office of the Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 1803)
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-260-7726
Fax; Not Provided
E-mail: wyethge.orge@epa.gov
Michelle Xenos
Shundahai Network
5007 Elmhurst Lane
Las Vegas, NV 89108
Phone: 702-647-3095
Fax; 702-547-9385
E-mail: shundahai@shundahai.org
Gerald H Yamada
Attorney
Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker LLP
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-508-9573
Fax; 202-508-9700
E-mail: ghyamada@phjw.com
Marianne Yamaguchi
Director
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
320 West 4th Street Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: 213-576-6614
Fax; 213-576-6646
E-mail: myamaguc@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov
Tseming Yang
Vermont Law School
Chelsea Street Whitcomb House
South Royalton, VT 05068
Phone: 802-763-8303 ext. 2344
Fax; 802-763-2663
E-mail: tyang@vermontlaw.edu
Harold Yates
Senior Community Involvement Coordinator
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Region 3
US Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-814-5530
Fax; 215-814-5518
E-mail: yates.hal@epa.gov
Bill Yellowtail
Regional Administrator
Region 8
US Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: 303-312-6308
Fax; 303-312-6882
E-mail: yellowtail.bill@epa.gov
Laura Yoshii
Deputy Regional Administrator
Region 9
US Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1001
Fax; 415-744-2499
E-mail: yoshii.laura@epa.gov
James Younger
Region 1
US Environmental Protection Agency
One Congress Street Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Phone: 617-918-1061
Fax; 617-918-1029
E-mail: younger.james@epa.gov
Final: September 12, 2000
-------
APPENDIX D
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT
STATEMENTS
-------
-------
2:59PM ' TETRA TECH EM INC
NO. 2490- P. 3
Mary Anne Holman
292417* Street
Orange, Texas 77630
November IS, 1999
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
401M. Street SW
Room 2226 Mail Code 2201A
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am interested in knowing, where in the United State, does one go for
Environmental Justice.?
Who acts on behalf of the citizen that are being exposed to harmful chemical, from
the refineries in iheir communities?
What type of protection is offered to us, and who offer this protection?
For almost three years I have been seeking, for justice, and through many of the state
and local agencies I have found no solutions, only a lot of "I don't knows", and try
this number, or we are not able to handle that type of situation. So therefore
companies are being allowed to subject citizen to these harmful, and toxic
chemicals without any repercussions.
What does it take for these so called Environmental Organization and Statues to
listen to the voice of citizens that have been harmed? Is one person health not
noteworthy enough to take any kind of action, or does ii take the lives and health of
a mass number of citizens, to realize that this type of negligence is happening
everyday, and there is no means of protection or assistance coming from any of the
environmental organization.
When there are large facilities, with their own legal firm, and crooked lawyers and
physicians that aide them in keeping their secrets, many more citizen could be at
risk for future health problems and are not aware of the contributing factors that
promoted these health problems.
I would like the opportunity to explain my situation, and why 1 feel that justice
needs be sought in this case.
Correspondence can be sent to the address above. Peel free to telephone me at this
number (409) 886-5260
202
MO1 1-29-1959
p'.as
-------
£0'd IbiOl
Sincerely,
MaiyA. Holman
T0S
NOU-29-19SS 14=04
97X
666t-6S-riQN
P. 04
-------
LAND LOSS
PREVENTION
PROJECT
November 29, 1999
NCCU School of Law
Room 205
MAILING ADDRESS:
Post Office Box 179
Durham, NC 27702
(919) 682-5969
1-800-672-5839 (free call)
Fax (919)688-5596
E-mail
HN I080@handsnet.org
Satellite Offices:
D Legal Services of
the Coastal Plains
610 East Church Street
MAILING,ADDRESS:
Post Office Box 564
Ahoskie, NC 27910
(919)332-5124
1-800-682-0010 (free call)
Fax (919) 332-3317
D Eastern Carolina
Legal Services
409 North Goldsboro Street
MAILING ADDRESS:
Post Office Box 2688
Wilson, NC 27893
(919) 291-6851
1-800-682-7902 (free call)
Fax (919) 291-6407
TO: NEJAC COUNCIL
FROM: LAND LOSS PREVENTION PROJECT
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE IN HOLLY SPRINGS,
NORTH CAROLINA. STOP THE SITING OF LANDFILLS IN
AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES
In the early 1990s, the governing body of Wake County, N.C. decided to
expand a solid waste landfill to meet the county's growing need to find more
space to dispose of its garbage. The landfill to be expanded was the Feltonsville
landfill on the outskirts of Holly Springs, NC. Feltonsville is predominantly
African-American community and Holly Springs is a predominantly African-
American town. The Feltonsville landfill was an unlined landfill which was
suspected of having leaked leachate into the groundwater. Because it was
unlined, the Feltonsville landfill had to be closed, and was closed in 1998,
because of Subtitle D regulations. Wake County, therefore, needed a new place
to put its trash. Wake County chose to put its trash in the Feltonsville expansion
area, but soon learned that the expansion area wasn't large enough/Consequently,
Wake County decided to purchase substantially more land and create a massive,
new landfill in an area adjacent to Feltonsville called Easton Acres. Easton Acres
is a predominantly low^income to working-class African American neighborhood.
This new landfill would be called the South Wake landfill. The siting of the
South Wake landfill represents the second instance in which Wake County placed
the county's main depository of trash in the same predominantly African-
American community.
The South Wake landfill will be huge. Once completed, the South Wake
landfill will spread across 471 acres and will be approximately 280 feet high. At
no time during the siting process for the new landfill did the governing body.of
Wake County consider alternative sites. Furthermore, Wake County never took
into consideration the obvious disparate racial impact that the South Wake landfill
will have on the African-American populations in nearby Easton Acres and
Feltonsville.
A member oft
;,
\ NORTH CAROLINA
COMMUNITY
SHARES
-------
Oii February 18, 1999 the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) issued a final construction permit for Wake County to begin construction of
the South Wake landfill. The Land Loss Prevention Project initiated state administrative
proceedings challenging the issuance of the permit. One of the issues being litigated is whether
Wake County and NC DENR were required to comply with a North Carolina statute (popularly
referred to as the North Carolina Environmental Justice Act) that mandates county governments
to consider socio-economic and demographic data, hold public hearings and consider alternative
sites before siting a landfill within one mile of a pre-existing landfill, as is the case here, before
NC DENR could issue a construction permit. We bring this issue to your attention because the
North Carolina statute in many respects seeks to serve the same purpose of Title VI, which is to
have local governments adopt policies which have no or little discriminatory effect. Here, Wake
County did not consider socioeconomic and demographic data, hold public hearings or consider
alternative sites before siting the South Wake landfill next to Easton Acres and Feltonsville.
Therefore, in order to successfully defend the permit, Wake County and NC DENR must argue
that the North Carolina Environmental Justice Act does not apply to this particular landfill siting
decision.
NC DENR and Wake County vigorously argued that the North Carolina Environmental
Justice Act did not apply to their permit and that the siting of the facility did not violate Title VI.
Fortunately, an impartial administrative law judge agreed with the community and
recommended that the permit be withdrawn for a myriad of legal reasons, including that the state
and county failed to comply with North Carolina's environmental justice laws. A copy of the
judge's decision is enclosed.
The evidence of the racialized siting decision regarding the South Wake Landfill is
overwhelming. We have enclosed materials which clearly demonstrate our position. Those
materials include a map of the affected area, NC DENR's response to public comments regarding
Title VI concerns, a master thesis by Martin Bruggerman which argues that the siting of the
landfill is an example of "environmental racism and a newspaper article which reports claims by
local residents that the landfill represents "environmental racism," and of course, the judge's
decision. It may be of some interest to the council that LLPP was able to obtain the assistance of
Dr. Robert Bullard of Clark-Atlanta University Environmental Justice Resource Center and Dr.
Steve Wing, University of North Carolina School of Public Health, in our fight against the South
Wake Landfill. Dr. Bullard is considered one of the nation s pre-eminent experts on issues of
environmental justice and has written several books on the topic. Dr. Wing examines
environmental issues from a public health point of view and has published numerous academic
articles on the public health consequences associated with environmental justice issues. These
highly respected professionals agreed to lend their services to this cause because they believe
that examples of environmental injustice are pervasive in our society and that the South Wake
Landfill represents just one more example of this insidious social problem.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
-------
-------
-------
• r
{
i -
#.!,-
t 1
JiS"!,
t \
-------
------- |