A Report by a Panel of the
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
for the United States Environmental Protection Agency
December 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN EPA PERMITTING:
REDUCING POLLUTION IN HIGH-RISK
COMMUNITIES IS INTEGRAL TO
THE AGENCY'S MISSION
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
-------
ABOUT THE ACADEMY
The National Academy of Public Administration is an independent, nonprofit organization
chartered by Congress to improve governance at all levels—local, regional, state, national, and
international. The Academy's membership of about 400 Fellows includes current and former
members of Congress, cabinet-level appointees, senior federal executives, state and local
practitioners, businesspeople, nonprofit leaders, and scholars with distinguished records in
public management. Since its establishment in 1967, the Academy has assisted hundreds of
federal agencies, congressional committees, state and local governments, civic organizations,
and institutions overseas through problemsolving, research, analysis, information sharing,
developing strategies for change, and connecting people and ideas.
Most reports and papers issued by Academy panels respond to specific requests and needs of
public agencies. Projects also address governmentwide and broader societal topics identified
by the Academy. In addition to government institutions, the Academy is also supported by
businesses, foundations, and nonprofit organizations.
-------
A Report by a Panel of the
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
for the United States Environmental Protection Agency
December 2001
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN EPA PERMITTING:
REDUCING POLLUTION IN HIGH-RISK
COMMUNITIES IS INTEGRAL TO
THE AGENCY'S MISSION
Panel
Philip Rutledge, Chair
James Barnes
Jonathan Howes
Valerie Lemmie
James Mora
James Murley
Eddie Williams
-------
Officers of the Academy
Mortimer Downey, Chair of the Board
Robert J. O'Neill, Jr., President
Carl Stenberg, Vice Chair
Cora Prifold Beebe, Secretary
Sylvester Murray, Treasurer
Project Staff
Suellen Terrill Keiner, Director, Center for Economy and Environment
William Shields, Editor
Lee Paddock, Senior Consultant
Richard J. Lazarus, Senior Consultant
Ann E. Goode, Senior Consultant
Mark Hertko, Research Assistant
Stacey Keaton, Research Assistant
Veronica Lenegan, Research Assistant
Charlene Walsh, Administrative Assistant
The views in this document are those of the Panel alone. They do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Academy as an institution.
This document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative
Agreement Number EQ-82906401-0.
Academy Project Number 1969
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Complete Findings 2
Complete Recommendations 4
CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION 13
CHAPTER 2 - LEADING CHANGE AT EPA: STRONG LEADERSHIP
CAN PRODUCE RESULTS 17
Findings 17
Introduction 17
Background 18
General Counsel Conclusions 20
Accountability Mechanisms and Measures of Progress for Addressing
Environmental Justice 21
EPA Activities Addressing Environmental Justice Issues 22
Closing the Loop on Implementing Environmental Justice 26
Changing EPA's Culture to Incorporate Environmental
Justice Concerns 26
Recommendations 28
CHAPTER 3 - PRACTICAL TOOLS FOR PERMIT WRITERS TO
ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS 33
Findings 33
Background 33
Authorities for Individual Permits 36
Recommendations 40
CHAPTER 4 - PERMITTING AS AN ELEMENT OF EPA'S STRATEGY
TO PREVENT POLLUTION AND REDUCE RISK 45
Findings 45
Background 45
The Need to Evaluate Cumulative Reduce Risks 46
Efforts to Evaluate Cumulative Exposures 46
Current EPA Tools and Approaches to Reduce Risks 47
Monitoring Exposures 47
iii
-------
Modeling Exposures 50
Analyzing and Reducing Cumulative Exposures 52
Reducing Pollution in Specific Communities 53
Recommendations 56
CHAPTER 5 - EQUIPPING COMMUNITIES AND EPA STAFF
FOR BETTER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PERMITTING 61
Findings 61
Background 61
Building Community Capacity to Participate 63
Increasing EPA's Resources for Community Assistance 63
Providing Earlier Opportunities to Participate 63
Building Community Relationships and Trust 64
Improving Staff Outreach Skills 66
Providing Technical Support for Public Participation 68
Offering Facilitated Dialogues 70
Encouraging Regulated Entities to Expand Their Outreach 70
Communicating Information to the Community 72
Recommendations 74
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Washington State Department of Ecology Checklist 79
Appendix B: Panel and Staff 85
BIBLIOGRAPHY 87
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 95
IV
-------
FOREWORD
Like efficiency and economy, social equity is integral to the effective administration of
public policies and programs. The National Academy of Public Administration (the
Academy) believes that social equity issues represent a central element of its work in
this new century and a critical aspect in delivering public services for this country. In
February 2000, the Academy's Board of Trustees created the Standing Panel on Social
Equity in Governance. The Standing Panel defines social equity as, "the fair, just and
equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract and
the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services and implementation of public
policy." Among its goals is to "review and evaluate developments in public
administration that have to do with critical matters in social equity."
This report, "Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting: Reducing Pollution in High-
Risk Communities Is Integral to the Agency's Mission," is the Standing Panel's first
research and evaluation project since the creation of the Academy's Standing Panel. It
represents an important opportunity for the Panel members to assess the efforts of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in addressing the widely recognized fact
that some low-income and people of color communities are exposed to significantly
greater environmental and public health hazards than other communities. This report is
designed to help those community members and other stakeholders gain a better
understanding of how they can more effectively bring environmental justice concerns to
the attention of EPA's permitting programs.
The Academy's Panel for this project recommends changes to EPA in four distinct
areas of environmental justice: leadership, permitting procedures, priority setting, and
public participation.
Leadership. The Panel recommends that EPA build on the solid policy
foundation underlying its environmental justice programs to ensure that these
considerations are integrated into the agency's core mission. This change will
require sustained leadership, clearer performance goals, improved outcome
measures, stronger accountability mechanisms, and better training.
Permitting Procedures. The Panel recommends that EPA use fully its existing
legal authorities to ensure that its permitting programs can more effectively
address environmental justice concerns. EPA should provide simpler tools that
enable permit writers to identify and address exposures in high-risk
communities, expand monitoring to provide these writers with better
information, and focus more enforcement resources on communities that are
disproportionately impacted by pollution.
-------
Priority Setting. The Panel recommends that EPA work with state and local
authorities to identify high-risk communities and prioritize them for pollution
reduction efforts using various tools, including the permitting process.
Public Participation. Public participation is critical to a credible permitting
program. The Panel recommends that EPA provide more resources to aid
participation by historically underrepresented groups, create new opportunities
for them to participate earlier in the process, and use informal dispute resolution
processes more frequently.
The Academy hopes that this study will contribute to a better public understanding of
how EPA can more effectively address environmental justice concerns in its permitting
programs. At the same time, it understands that states carry out most environmental
permitting. This report, combined with the Academy's next project which will examine
how some states deal with environmental justice issues, should provide the public and
states with additional information about how permitting practices and related programs
can be improved so they better address environmental justice concerns.
In conducting this study, the Academy Panel has received excellent assistance from
EPA headquarters and regional officials, as well as from representatives of community
groups, regulated industry, and state environmental agencies. We are most grateful to
all those interviewed who so generously contributed their time and views to help the
staff conduct this study. We are also grateful to EPA's Office of Environmental Justice
for its financial support and to our Panel members who worked diligently to produce
this report.
Robert]. O'Neill, Jr.
President
National Academy of Public Administration
VI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Office of Environmental Justice at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in June 2001 asked the National Academy of Public Administration (the
Academy) to study EPA's programs for issuing air, water, and waste permits. The
project's goal is to determine how environmental justice could be incorporated into
these three permitting programs as a practical matter of public administration. The
study is also designed to contribute to the Office's five-step strategy for integrating
environmental justice into EPA's permitting processes. The five steps are seeking
advice and recommendations on the issue, securing legal and administrative analyses,
developing training, ensuring implementation, and assessing results.
As defined by EPA,
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no
group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear
a disproportionate share of the negative consequences resulting from industrial,
municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local,
and tribal environmental programs and policies. Meaningful involvement means
that: (1) potentially affected community residents have an appropriate
opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect
their environment and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the
regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will
be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek
out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.1
This Academy study is intended to help the public better understand how EPA can
incorporate environmental justice concerns into its permitting programs under existing
legal authorities contained in the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. The Academy Panel has recommended improvements
to the agency's efforts to address environmental justice through its site-specific permits.
It also has examined ways for EPA to reinforce these efforts through:
• strengthening leadership
• better integrating environmental justice into its core mission
• improving the training and tools made available to permit writers
• increasing permit writers' awareness of environmental justice concerns and
what can be done about them
• identifying high-risk communities so the agency can focus its limited resources
on the highest priority problems
• improving monitoring to identify emissions that cause the most concern
-------
• increasing the resources available for communities to participate in the
permitting process
• providing more timely public notice of permit applications
• working more closely with communities
• using neutral third parties more frequently to facilitate dialogues about disputed
permits
The Academy's Panel has found that EPA's environmental justice efforts need to be
better integrated into all of its programs and implemented as part of the agency's core
mission. Like prior Academy studies,2 this report stresses that EPA should establish
clear accountability for results and use appropriate public administration techniques to
ensure that its managers and staff are receptive to, and willing to execute fully, their
responsibilities for achieving environmental justice.
COMPLETE FINDINGS
Finding 1: EPA's leadership has articulated a clear commitment to environmental
justice that predates the 1994 Executive Order and continues into the current
administration.
Finding 2: Despite the commitment of senior EPA leadership, environmental justice
has not yet been integrated fully into the agency's core mission or its staff functions.
Expectations for specific outcomes have not accompanied these commitments, nor has
the agency adopted methods for measuring progress in achieving them or accountability
to ensure that EPA managers and staff work toward implementing environmental justice
policies.
Finding 3: EPA has significant statutory and regulatory authority, as well as numerous
opportunities for exercising discretion, to incorporate environmental justice
considerations into its air, water, and waste permitting programs.
Finding 4: The existing agency culture is one barrier to incorporating environmental
justice into EPA's permitting programs. This culture does not treat environmental
justice as a central element of the agency's core programs.
Finding 5: A recent General Counsel's legal opinion makes it clear that the Clean Air
Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Recovery and Conservation Act provide ample
authority for EPA's permitting staff to address high-risk community concerns when
developing the terms and conditions of individual facility permits. EPA Administrator
Christine Todd Whitman has reaffirmed this opinion in her August 9, 2001
memorandum to senior EPA officials.3
Finding 6: EPA managers have not routinely provided straightforward, practical tools
and procedures to their permitting staff for incorporating community concerns into
-------
permits, nor have they directed the staff to ensure that environmental justice concerns
are systematically considered in EPA's permitting programs.
Finding 7: Many EPA permit writers have not had an opportunity to learn how they
can contribute to resolving environmental justice concerns by obtaining more
information about the community that may be affected by a proposed permit; the nature
of the risks that the community faces; community concerns related to the proposed
facility; the community's capacity to participate in the permitting process; and the best
methods for communicating with the community.
Finding 8: Given that its legal authority to issue permits for particular facilities is
based on the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Resource Recovery and Conservation
Act, EPA has limited ability to deal with other common concerns in high-risk
communities, such as noise, traffic, and odor.
Finding 9: EPA's credibility relating to permitting programs in high-risk communities
depends upon timely and rigorous review of permit renewals for existing facilities and
on using opportunities to enforce visibly their permit conditions, including increased
inspections and local monitoring of environmental conditions.
Finding 10: EPA does not now have a routine process for identifying high-risk
communities and giving them priority attention to prevent pollution and reduce existing
public health hazards.
Finding 11: Many parties support the need for EPA to conduct cumulative risk
assessments when evaluating permit applications, but the current state of this science
has not advanced sufficiently to conduct these assessments. However, EPA has efforts
underway to improve the science so that it will be more feasible and practical. While
waiting for cumulative risk assessment science to advance, EPA, several states, and
citizen groups have developed and applied other tools that analyze exposures of
disproportionately impacted communities to actual or potential amounts of multiple
pollutants. More frequent and comprehensive environmental monitoring in these
communities can help EPA to determine whether they need priority attention.
Finding 12: Limited environmental data, and their lack of accuracy, are barriers to
risk reduction, particularly when analyzing very localized, community-level
environmental conditions and impacts.
Finding 13: Absent a consistent, national approach for assessing risks, several EPA
regional offices have developed tools for evaluating disproportionate impacts from
pollution. These tools, combined with EPA regional experiences, have created an
important body of practical experience. Yet, EPA has not evaluated or catalogued them
so that the agency's permitting programs can learn about best practices, the elements
needed to develop a national guidance document on analyzing cumulative risks, or any
potential concerns about the scientific validity of the tools.
-------
Finding 14: Many government officials, business representatives, and community
activists believe that EPA's formal avenues for public participation in the permitting
process are inadequate to address the concerns of disproportionately impacted
communities. The public remains uninvolved until EPA has negotiated with applicants
and resolved most of the permit questions.
Finding 15: To have a more effective voice in permit decisions, community group
members need better training on how to participate in the process, resources to obtain
technical help for more effective participation, and earlier notice about the proposed
permit application. The last would allow them to become involved in negotiations with
the applicant at the same time as EPA.
Finding 16: EPA has experimented with various ways of enhancing public
participation, but these techniques are not yet standard operating procedure for the
agency's permitting processes in the air, water, and waste programs.
Finding 17: Facilitated dialogues, using well-trained neutral third parties, can make
significant contributions to resolving many community concerns about permitting,
especially if they are conducted very early in the process.
Finding 18: Giving early notice t> local officials about permit applications can enable
them to consider such community concerns as odor, noise, traffic, and other issues that
are outside EPA's jurisdiction, but that local agencies may have authority to address.
Finding 19: EPA technical assistance and facilitated dialogue resources for community
groups regarding permitting are quite limited except in the Superfund program.
Finding 20: Disproportionately impacted community members want better access to
technical information that will enable them to participate more effectively in
negotiations about permit terms and conditions.
COMPLETE RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 2
• Building on Administrator Whitman's recent environmental justice
memorandum, the Assistant Administrators for Air, Water, and Waste, and
the Regional Administrators should reinforce the importance of this policy,
its role in implementing EPA's core mission, and the expectation that their
managers and staff will implement environmental justice in their projects and
activities.
-------
• EPA should finalize its draft national environmental justice guidance and
develop practical tools for permit writers to identify and address
environmental justice issues arising in air, water, and waste permits.
• The Offices of Air, Water, and Waste should develop strategic plans
demonstrating how environmental justice will be integrated into the
substance and procedures of their permitting programs, and they should
carefully examine how they can use the authorities set forth in the General
Counsel's legal opinion dated December 1, 2001, to incorporate
environmental justice concerns into permits for new and ongoing projects.
• Each office's plan for incorporating environmental justice in its permitting
programs should include goals, measures of performance, expected
outcomes, accountability mechanisms, and time frames for meeting the
goals.
• EPA should establish an accountability process that includes clear
performance measures for evaluating how well employees - both managers
and staff - are able to incorporate environmental justice into air, water, and
waste permits.
• EPA should identify disproportionately impacted and other adversely
affected communities and establish explicit goals for reducing risks there.
The agency should set clear expectations for producing results that are
directly linked to the agency's mission and give staff an important
performance measure that they can support in a whole-hearted fashion.
These tasks could also provide measures of EPA's progress in implementing
environmental justice and could be reinforced by agency-wide reporting that
tracks their progress.
• EPA should develop a communication mechanism for sharing information
with all air, water and waste programs, regional offices, and states about
effective tools for addressing environmental justice, including descriptions of
best practices and lessons learned. This mechanism should coordinate EPA's
activities for incorporating environmental justice into permitting, so that
permit writers in all the air, water, and waste programs and regional offices
can become more effective and gain greater efficiency and effectiveness in
responding to environmental justice concerns.
• EPA should evaluate the effectiveness of its national workshop on the
Fundamentals of Environmental Justice to determine how well it meets its
intended objectives, including the effective implementation of environmental
justice in permitting.
-------
EPA should develop a program for rewarding employees' extra efforts to
address environmental justice in permitting, through recognition in existing
national awards and development of headquarters and regional office
recognition programs.
Chapter 3
• In the short-term, EPA should determine whether it can provide
communities with earlier notice of permit applications, at least as soon as
agency staff determine the applications to be complete. This would provide
more opportunities for the public to interact directly with the agency's
permit writers and allow consideration of community information and
concerns during the drafting and negotiation stages.
• In the long-term, EPA should revise its permitting regulations to ensure that
nearby communities are notified of a permit application as early as possible,
and certainly as soon as the application is complete.
• EPA should revise its public notification practices to ensure that notices are
provided in languages common to affected communities and placed at
libraries, churches, community centers, and other locations where many
community residents can see them.
• EPA managers should provide their permit writers with checklists or similar
tools, to aid them in identifying and considering potential environmental
justice concerns.
• EPA budget and administrative staff should recognize the additional time and
effort that permit writers need to develop permit conditions for
environmental justice issues and to work more closely with community
groups. They should adjust the agency's workload models as appropriate to
determine the average number of permits that each writer is expected to
handle.
• EPA's air, water, and waste programs should ensure that their permits fully
implement current environmental standards and should modify or add
standards, if necessary, to ensure that pollution levels are reduced to better
protect public health.
• EPA's air, water, and waste programs should place high priority on the
elimination of permit renewal backlogs to ensure that facilities have
conditions that are as up-to-date and protective as possible, especially for
those affecting high-risk or disproportionately impacted communities.
-------
• EPA's air, water, and waste programs should develop specific guidance
documents on the legal requirements and discretionary authorities that permit
writers have to require additional monitoring and public reporting in
disproportionately impacted communities.
• EPA should consider using facilitated dialogues as part of its permitting
process, at least in some cases, by creating and utilizing a decision-tree
approach. This approach could help to incorporate environmental justice
concerns in EPA permits by: (1) preparing permit conditions that address
community concerns; (2) facilitating interactions between permit applicants
and affected residents; (3) providing an opportunity for local authorities to
address such issues as noise, odor, and traffic that EPA cannot resolve; and
(4) crafting voluntary agreements among permit applicants, the community,
EPA, and relevant state or local agencies.
• EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) should
use environmental justice as a criterion for deciding the locations and types
of facilities targeted for inspections and other enforcement actions. When it
chooses these targets, OECA should analyze patterns that have generated
Title VI complaints.
• OECA should move rapidly to add enforcement information to EPA's
Geographic Information Systems, such as "Windows on My Environment,"
so that high-risk community residents can learn when nearby facilities are
inspected or involved in an enforcement action.
• OECA should strengthen its targeting of enforcement efforts through
increased toxics monitoring in disproportionately impacted communities, and
should expand the use of funds recovered under Supplemental
Environmental Projects for this monitoring.
• EPA program managers should ensure that their permit writers are
adequately trained to recognize permit applications involving
disproportionate impacts on low-income and people of color communities,
be alert to facility applications that may affect these communities, and know
how to address these impacts using the agency's legal authorities.
• For permit applications involving issues beyond EPA's jurisdiction, such as
noise, traffic, and odor concerns, permitting staff should notify local
authorities early and work with local zoning and health agencies on
developing solutions for these concerns.
• Regarding permit applications that may affect low-income and people of
color communities, EPA permit writers should:
-------
urge permit applicants to discuss their proposals with the affected
community as early as possible
consider whether the affected community has been designated as
high priority or high-risk, whether it may be exposed to specific
hazardous emissions according to monitoring data, or whether it is
burdened by high levels of pollution or significant discharge levels
take into account community characteristics - such as demographics,
language, local institutions, and familiarity with governmental
processes - when selecting communication methods and working
with the affected public
choose carefully the arrangements for public meetings - including
time, place, meeting room set-up, and agency representatives - to
ensure that community members can easily and comfortably
participate
identify ways to mitigate or reduce emissions and other
environmental and public health impacts of proposed facilities, such
as requiring pollution prevention and implementing environmental
management systems
make full use of all legal requirements and discretionary authorities
to consider a community's high risk and disproportionate impacts
when developing permit conditions designed to reduce pollution
burdens there
use facilitated dialogues if the suggested decision tree indicates that a
neutral third party could produce better results that are acceptable to
all parties
help communities identify technical support and other resources,
such as Technical Outreach Services for Communities, that may help
them participate more meaningfully during permit negotiations
give early notice of a permit application to local authorities,
especially when there are indications that zoning, health, and other
issues may cause community concern about a permit application
-------
Chapter 4
• EPA should consult with state and local health and environmental agencies
to address environmental justice concerns and identify high-priority areas
where residents are exposed to large amounts of pollution.
• EPA should collect monitoring data from high-risk areas, and use this
information as a tool for identifying potential health hazards aid helping
permit writers to develop appropriate terms and conditions for permits that
will address environmental justice concerns. Where monitoring is not
practical due to cost or other factors, modeling should be used to estimate
impacts on high-priority areas, understanding that modeling is less precise
than monitoring. Upon scientific peer review, EPA should utilize the
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment as a screening tool to identify
potential high-priority areas where the agency will conduct a thorough
examination of pollution sources.
• EPA should evaluate tools that have been developed by its regional and
program offices, as well as by the Offices of Policy, Civil Rights, and
Environmental Justice. From these evaluations, the agency should identify
potential best practices to recommend when developing practical guidance
documents about how permitting staffs can incorporate environmental justice
into EPA permits nationwide. EPA's Science Advisory Board should review
the most useful tools, once they are available, to ensure that the agency's
approaches apply good science.
• EPA should work to ensure the accuracy of data on emissions and exposures
in specific communities. The accuracy of all data, especially point-source
location data for facilities, is critical given that the agency uses this
information to analyze very localized pollution impacts, typically the
primary concern of high-risk communities.
Chapter 5
• EPA should expand its Technical Assistance Grants and Technical Outreach
Services for Communities programs to offer more timely and accessible
technical assistance to communities that need this support. This help would
allow communities to participate effectively in EPA's air, water, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permitting processes, and in
efforts to mitigate environmental risks in high-risk communities.
• Using its discretionary authority, EPA should adopt early notice procedures
for communities once permit applications are complete, providing the name
of an agency community liaison and soliciting community comments prior to
9
-------
negotiating the permit terms and conditions. EPA should expand these
efforts beyond an experimental stage and should make them standard
operating procedure.
• EPA should use community liaisons in some high-priority communities to
assess how such an approach could improve communications and
relationships with those communities.
• EPA should expand its public involvement training and offer significantly
more training opportunities so that managers, permit writers, and other staff
can develop stronger skills in outreach and public involvement techniques.
This training is especially important for those who interact with, or make
decisions about, the public.
• EPA's public participation resources, including staff training and technical
assistance funding, should be expanded to provide greater balance in the
amount of EPA support made available for assisting community groups and
regulated businesses.
• EPA should use its facilitation and mediation experiences to create, publish,
and widely disseminate a decision tree to help EPA staff decide when and
under what circumstances dispute resolution and dialogue tools may be
useful when dealing with environmental justice concerns. The agency also
should make funding available in each region for the sole purpose of
providing community and EPA access to facilitation/mediation resources.
The decision tree can indicate when such approaches might be helpful in
resolving permit controversies.
• EPA should continue to encourage regulated facilities and permit applicants
to work with affected communities early in the permitting process, including
publishing case studies that demonstrate the value of community
involvement, offering outreach training as part of business assistance
programs, and other techniques.
• EPA should use various mechanisms to provide information to communities
about permit applications, such as more prominent newspaper notices;
notices posted in local institutions including libraries, schools, and churches;
establishment of a community liaison person; and web-based information.
Also, EPA should expand its efforts to provide information in other
languages as appropriate, and in easily understandable formats.
10
-------
ENDNOTES
Office of Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance to Assessing and
Addressing Allegations of Environmental Injustice, Working Draft (January 10, 2001) 7.
2 National Academy of Public Administration. Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental
Protection for the 21st Century November 2000; Washington, DC (November 2000); Evaluating
Environmental Progress: How EPA and the States Can Improve the Quality of Enforcement and
Compliance In formation Washington, DC (2001).
3 Christine Todd Whitman to Assistant Administrators, et al, memorandum, EPA's Commitment to
Environmental Justice (August 9, 2001).
11
-------
12
-------
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Congress has passed significant environmental laws over the past 30 years, and EPA and state
environmental agencies have implemented them by establishing elaborate permit application
and review procedures, including opportunities for public comments. These are designed so
that regulatory officials can make informed decisions about whether to allow the emission of
specified amounts of pollution that facilities propose. For many years, however, those
permitting decisions have failed to account fully for the potential adverse environmental and
health impacts on neighborhoods, many of which have already been disproportionately exposed
to environmental harms and risks by facility emissions. These highly impacted neighborhoods
frequently are home to low-income and people of color residents. These areas are often called
"environmental justice communities," but this report uses the terms "disproportionately
impacted" or "high-risk" communities to refer to them.
Disproportionately impacted communities have not participated fully or effectively in EPA and
state decision-making processes for issuing new facility permits or renewals. Their residents
have lacked this capacity because they have had inadequate opportunity for early involvement
and little access to direct technical assistance, an important element given the highly complex
nature of permitting issues. Consequently, many urban or rural facilities have obtained
operating permits while residents in these areas have been less able to voice opposition,
monitor the facilities' compliance with conditions of their permits, or take action if emissions
exceed allowable levels.
In June 2001, EPA's Office of Environmental Justice asked the Academy to study the agency's
programs for issuing air, water, and waste permits. The project's goal is to determine how
environmental justice could be incorporated into EPA's permitting programs. The study is
also designed to contribute to the office's five-point strategy for integrating environmental
justice concerns into the permitting process. The five steps include seeking advice and
recommendations on the issue, securing legal and administrative analyses, developing training,
ensuring implementation, and assessing results.
This Academy study is intended to help the public better understand how EPA can incorporate
environmental justice concerns into its permitting programs under existing legal authorities
contained in the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. The study has evaluated the agency's efforts to address environmental justice
through its permits and has examined ways that EPA can strengthen this effort through
improved accountability, community-wide risk reduction efforts, and public outreach.
The Academy Panel and project team have used as their starting point an EPA legal opinion
dated December 1, 2000, which concluded that numerous statutes and regulations confer
authorities upon the agency to address environmental justice issues within the context of air,
13
-------
water, and waste permits. This study has explored how EPA can incorporate environmental
justice concerns into the daily activities of its permitting programs. In addition to these statutes
and regulations, the agency has very clear responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.1 Moreover, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is responsible
for federal compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the 1994 Executive
Order on environmental justice, issued guidance in 1997 to ensure that environmental justice
concerns are appropriately identified and addressed "in every recommendation or report on
proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment."2 Although EPA may not be required to prepare environmental
impact statements for most permits that it issues, CEQ's guidance is instructive in this
instance; it establishes an expectation that agency actions will consider environmental justice
and that agencies will take steps, such as improved public participation and mitigation of
environmental impacts, to address environmental justice issues.3
EPA asked the Academy to focus specifically on its direct permitting responsibilities; at the
same time, it recognized that state and local agencies issue most permits through their
delegated programs. In Fiscal Year 2000, EPA directly issued only 47 air permits - or 1% -
of a total of approximately 3,400 permits under the New Source Review, Part 71, and Title V
programs. Furthermore, that year EPA issued approximately 4% of the National Pollution
Discharge and Elimination System water permits for major and minor individual sources,
primarily in states that have not sought EPA's approval for issuance. EPA issued only two of
the total 100 waste permits in Fiscal Year 2000.
Nonetheless, it is important to examine the extent to which EPA has incorporated
environmental justice into its permitting programs, and how it has done so. These efforts are a
valuable indicator of whether the agency has integrated environmental justice into its core
mission and key operations. As EPA has encouraged states and the regulated community to
address environmental justice concerns in their own permitting programs, it should be a model
for demonstrating how this effort can succeed. In fact, states are required to operate their
federally delegated programs in a manner that is "at least equivalent to the requirements
established by federal law."4 Recognizing the states' important role in permitting for air,
water, and waste programs, EPA's Office of Environmental Justice has asked the Academy to
conduct an additional study examining several states' approaches to incorporating
environmental justice into their programs.
The Academy Panel evaluated how environmental justice has been incorporated into EPA's
permitting programs and considered prior Academy studies of EPA that recommended
performance-based management as a way to produce results for achieving the agency's core
mission to improve environmental quality.5 In addition to this study, these Academy studies
have stressed the need for EPA to establish clear accountability for results and use appropriate
public administration techniques to ensure that its managers and staff are receptive to, and
willing to execute fully, its responsibilities in this important area. Reducing pollution burdens
on the public is the heart of environmental justice concerns, and EPA's permitting programs
can address these problems. At the same time, implementing performance-based management
14
-------
is vital to protecting public health and the environment. Thus, EPA's environmental justice
efforts can and should be integrated into all of its programs and its core mission.
A seven-member Panel of Academy Fellows has guided this study. The Panel has provided
important oversight and guidance for the project and has formulated its findings and
recommendations based on the extensive research conducted by a project team over a five-
month period. The research entailed collecting and reviewing available literature on the legal,
administrative, and practical aspects of environmental justice and related fields. The project
team also conducted extensive interviews with EPA officials and permitting staffs in six
program offices at EPA headquarters and five regional offices, as well as with nine state
environmental agencies, community and environmental justice group representatives, and
regulated industry managers. During its meetings, the Panel received presentations from
community groups, state officials, senior EPA managers, industry representatives, academics,
and civil rights and environmental lawyers.
For the purposes of this study, the Academy relied upon EPA's definition of environmental
justice:
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income with respect to
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations,
and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or
socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative
consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the
execution of federal, state, local, and tribal environmental programs and policies.
Meaningful involvement means that: (1) potentially affected community residents have
an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will
affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the
regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will be
considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek out and
facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.6
This report is organized in five chapters. Chapter Two examines the role of EPA's leadership
and top managers in ensuring that the principles of environmental justice are actually
embedded within the agency's day-to-day operations. Chapter Three describes EPA's current
air, water, and waste permitting programs, identifies opportunities for inclusion of
environmental justice concerns, and suggests tools and techniques for implementation. Chapter
Four places environmental justice in the context of EPA's mission and overall program
responsibilities. It also identifies existing tools and approaches for addressing environmental
justice concerns in a proactive manner. Chapter Five examines EPA's mandates and
opportunities for public participation in the permitting process, the barriers and issues arising
from the environmental justice context, and the strategies and approaches to address issues of
concern.
15
-------
ENDNOTES
1 Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S.C. 42, Sec 2000d et seq.
2 Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy
Act (December 10, 1997), 7-8.
3 Ibid.
4 National Academy of Public Administration, Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the
21st Century, (2000), 12.75.
5 National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy), Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental
Protection for the 21st Century, Research Papers 11-17, Volume III, (2000); the Academy, Resolving the
Paradox of Environmental Protection: An Agenda for Congress, EPA, & The States (1997); and the Academy,
Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction For EPA (1995).
6 U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice, Guidance to Assessing and Addressing Allegations of Environmental
Injustice: Working Draft (January 10, 2001), 7.
16
-------
CHAPTER TWO
LEADING CHANGE AT EPA: STRONG LEADERSHIP CAN PRODUCE RESULTS
FINDINGS
Finding 1: EPA's leadership has articulated a clear commitment to environmental justice that
predates the 1994 Executive Order and continues into the current administration.
Finding 2: Despite the commitment of senior EPA leadership, environmental justice has not
yet been integrated fully into the agency's core mission or its staff functions. Expectations for
specific outcomes have not accompanied these commitments, nor has the agency adopted
methods for measuring progress in achieving them or accountability to ensure that EPA
managers and staff work toward implementing environmental justice policies.
Finding 3: EPA has significant statutory and regulatory authority, as well as numerous
opportunities for exercising discretion, to incorporate environmental justice considerations into
its air, water, and waste permitting programs.
Finding 4: The existing agency culture is one barrier to incorporating environmental justice
into EPA's permitting programs. This culture does not treat environmental justice as a central
element of the agency's core programs.
INTRODUCTION
President Clinton's Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice,1 as well as policy
statements by Administrator Christine Todd Whitman2 and former EPA Administrators Carol
M. Browner3 and William K. Reilly,4 have clearly articulated to agency staff the importance of
achieving environmental justice. Top-level EPA regional managers have also emphasized
environmental justice issues. This senior-level support, however, has not yet consistently
translated into changes in how many program managers and regional staff, including permit
writers, conduct their daily work.
There may be many reasons why this has not occurred, including inadequate tools and training,
workload burdens, and a lack of understanding among most EPA staff that environmental
justice is vital to their activities. One senior EPA official noted that it must be made clear to
all staff that environmental justice is integral to EPA's core mission; the fact that
environmental justice problems still exist demonstrates that EPA has not succeeded in
addressing environmental issues as well as it might have otherwise.
Overall, the primary reason this translation has not occurred is because top EPA managers
have not established clearly expected outcomes for addressing environmental justice. Nor have
they measured the progress of their programs in achieving these outcomes, or held other
managers and staff accountable for producing reasonable progress. Although the agency has
17
-------
initiated many environmental justice activities over the last decade, it still has not integrated
environmental justice into fundamental agency operations, including permitting.
To ensure that environmental justice becomes embedded in EPA's core programs, functions,
and culture, the agency requires:
• clearer risk reduction goals for disproportionately impacted communities
• consistent and sustained leadership attention at every level, to ensure the
agency's progress in meeting these goals and to incorporate environmental
justice considerations into daily EPA activities
• appropriate program accountability measures to achieve desired outcomes
• practical tools that staff can use when responding to environmental justice
concerns
• training for staff that will allow them to gain a fuller understanding of
environmental justice issues, appreciate the direct relationship to EPA's mission,
and acquire skills for working more effectively with the public
• adequate time and resources so staff can carry out their responsibilities for
protecting public health, including addressing environmental justice concerns
• rewards and performance evaluation mechanisms that recognize the importance
of this work and the staff who make special efforts to promote these goals
BACKGROUND
Over the past decade, EPA has demonstrated a commitment to achieving environmental justice
through a number of actions, such as:
• adopting environmental justice as one of its seven guiding principles
• issuing clear policy statements that require staff to integrate environmental
justice into every EPA program, policy, and activity
• developing and staffing agency offices to support implementation of
environmental justice goals
• providing financial support for community-based projects
• engaging visible support among political and career managers for environmental
justice
Current EPA leadership strengthened this commitment when Administrator Christine Todd
Whitman issued an August 9, 2001 memorandum that reaffirmed the agency's determination to
promote environmental justice. She required EPA staff to incorporate environmental justice
considerations into their policies, programs, and activities, including both memoranda of
agreement between air, water, and waste programs and EPA's regional offices, and National
Environmental Performance Partnership Agreements with the states.
EPA's work on environmental justice issues began with a 1990 meeting of the Congressional
Black Caucus, academics, social scientists, and political activists. The parties shared
information and concerns about EPA's inconsistent enforcement and inspections, allowing
18
-------
excessive environmental risks in minority and low-income communities. EPA leadership
responded by establishing the Environmental Equity Workgroup shortly thereafter, and it
issued a 1992 report entitled Reducing Risks in All Communities.5 The report validated
concerns raised at earlier meetings and found that people of color communities and low-income
neighborhoods were often exposed to greater environmental pollution and public health risks
than the general population. Based on this finding, the workgroup recommended that EPA
adopt a nationwide policy on environmental justice and that it establish an office within EPA to
ensure that the policy would be integrated into normal EPA operations. The Office of
Environmental Equity, established in November 1992, was renamed the Office of
Environmental Justice (OEJ) two years later. In 1994, EPA created the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) to provide advice and recommendations to
the Administrator on environmental justice matters and their integration into EPA's core
programs; measurement and evaluation of progress; existing and future data systems
assessment, technologies, and data collection; and education, training, and outreach activities. 6
In 1995, EPA issued its first environmental justice strategy to implement President Clinton's
Executive Order.7 The strategy required the agency to develop a plan to incorporate
environmental justice into the core aspects of every EPA program, policy, and activity. To
implement the strategy, a network of environmental justice coordinators at the headquarters
and regional levels was created, and special groups were established to provide oversight of
how environmental justice was implemented by air, water, and waste program staff. For
instance, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) established an
Environmental Justice Coordinating Council to ensure that environmental justice became an
integral part of its operations;8 and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) developed a strategic plan to guide its efforts.9
Moreover, EPA began to offer technical and financial support to communities to address their
environmental justice concerns.10 In 1994, OEJ inaugurated the Environmental Justice Small
Grants Program. For the past eight years, grants totaling over $12 million have been provided
to more than 900 recipients that have implemented community-based projects to remedy
environmental justice problems and to promote education and outreach on avoiding or reducing
environmental hazards in specific neighborhoods."
In 1996, NEJAC's Enforcement Subcommittee asked how EPA had integrated environmental
justice considerations into its permits. It determined that unexplored opportunities existed for
EPA to apply its authorities for environmental justice issues for permitting decisions.12 That
same year, the subcommittee developed a recommendation that EPA use its existing authorities
to respond to environmental justice concerns in its permitting actions.13 In 1999, NEJAC held
a three-day meeting that produced a report entitled Environmental Justice in the Permitting
Process.u The report principally recommended that the Administrator should:
• clarify EPA's legal authority to deny, condition, or require additional
procedures for a permit on environmental justice grounds
• provide leadership to create a better understanding of cumulative impacts,
degree and disproportionality of risk, and community demographics and how
they might relate to the permit process
19
-------
• strengthen and highlight public participation requirements in the permitting
process
• ensure the equitable enforcement of federal laws
• provide guidance to state, regional, local, and tribal governments on the
environmental justice implications of facility siting and local zoning
ordinances for permitting decisions15
On December 1, 2000, EPA's General Counsel issued a legal opinion that analyzed agency
authorities under current air, water, and waste statutes. It found that many programs can
appropriately incorporate environmental justice concerns in their permits.16 In addition, EPA's
statutory authorities for air, water, and waste contain similar provisions for addressing
environmental justice procedurally through various public participation requirements.17
GENERAL COUNSEL CONCLUSIONS
The General Counsel's opinion found that environmental justice authorities in EPA's water
statutes and regulations focus on reducing water pollution from industrial sources and
preventing the possible health effects from eating contaminated fish. Many Clean Water Act
provisions address these concerns, including water quality standards, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and Section 404 permits for dredging and
filling, as do the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act. Specific authorities available to EPA include approving or disapproving state
water quality standards, adopting conditions for NPDES permits, and denying permits if
underground injection of fluids may endanger public health.
Regarding waste disposal, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes
EPA to condition or even deny permits "if EPA determines that operation of the facility would
pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and that there are not
additional permit terms or conditions that would address such risk."18 The agency has
interpreted this provision to include consideration of "cumulative risks due to exposure from
pollution sources in addition to the applicant facility; unique exposure pathways and scenarios
(e.g., subsistence fishers, ... etc.); [or] sensitive populations (e.g., children with levels of lead
in their blood, individuals with poor diets)."19 RCRA also allows EPA to address
environmental justice concerns when processing permits for hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities, including incinerators and landfills. EPA may apply conditions
to RCRA permits that incorporate environmental justice concerns, such as requirements for
reasonable monitoring, minimum buffer zones from sensitive areas - including schools and
residential neighborhoods - and, in the case of land disposal permits, health assessments.
RCRA further authorizes EPA to consider such factors as cumulative risks, unique exposure
pathways, and sensitive populations when establishing permitting or clean-up priorities.20
EPA has numerous authorities under the Clean Air Act to consider environmental justice when
issuing various air permits. For example, under the New Source Review program, a permit
applicant in an area that has not attained air quality standards must perform an analysis of
"alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques."21 The
agency must then consider the possible benefits of the proposed source, and whether the
20
-------
environmental and social costs imposed on the community would outweigh them if the permit
is approved. The NSR program appears to be unique in allowing EPA to grant permits only if
applicants can demonstrate, through evaluation of the environmental effects on a community,
that a facility's benefits outweigh the costs. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board has affirmed
the agency's authority to consider environmental justice for air permits.22 EPA's other air
permitting programs generally require consideration of environmental justice issues, but these
primarily involve procedural requirements for public comment and review of proposed
permits.
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS AND MEASURES OF PROGRESS FOR
ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Following issuance of its environmental justice strategic plan in 1995, EPA adopted
environmental justice as one of its guiding principles,23 attempting to make it an element of all
agency programs and decisions. EPA's strategy includes five major elements: 24
1. public participation, accountability, partnerships, outreach, and communication with
stakeholders
2. research on public health and environmental impacts
3. data collection, analysis, and stakeholder access to public information
4. protecting Native Americans and other indigenous groups
5. enforcement, compliance assurance, and regulatory reviews
Nonetheless, EPA has not established performance, outcome, or accountability measures for
these five elements, making it extremely difficult to determine whether the agency has made
any progress in implementing its strategy. Although EPA committed to issuing biennial
reports on environmental justice activities, the most current report was prepared in 1998. Thus
the agency lacks an ongoing record of accomplishments and a current listing of its recent
activities to address environmental justice. N/breover, the last report only documented EPA
activities, not their relevance to desired outcomes.
Academy research indicates that EPA has not established clear mechanisms for holding its
managers and staff accountable for implementing the agency's environmental justice strategy.
Instead, it shows that performance for programs of particular interest and concern to the
environmental justice community - like air, water, and waste permitting - has not been tracked
or evaluated to determine if or how EPA staff has integrated these concerns into EPA
activities. This lack of accountability creates many problems and sends a message to managers
and staff that the agency does not really place a high priority on environmental justice issues.
One interviewee stated that EPA staff would pay attention to environmental justice if their
managers expected them to focus on these issues. Other interviewees enumerated the reasons
why they did not consider environmental justice in their programs. At the end of the interview
session, they confirmed that there might be opportunities in their programs to address these
concerns, creating greater inclusiveness in their public participation efforts at a minimum.
21
-------
EPA ACTIVITIES ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES
Despite the lack of accountability mechanisms and performance measures, EPA has undertaken
numerous environmental justice activities. It has addressed these concerns in various ways,
generally and specifically for air, water, and waste permits. The Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) launched several important projects that implement specific
requirements of EPA's 1995 environmental justice strategy and the office's own strategic plan,
which incorporates environmental justice into its public participation procedures for siting and
permitting hazardous waste facilities. OSWER's permitting-related initiatives include:
• a policy directive from OSWER's Assistant Administrator requiring that all office
policies, guidance, and regulations be reviewed for environmental justice
considerations25
• publishing Social Aspects of Siting a Hazardous Waste Facility,26 which encourages
facility managers to consider the potential impact on nearby communities when they
evaluate various locations for new or expanded operations
• issuing Waste Transfer: Involved Citizens Make a Difference27 to explain how
citizens can influence regulatory decisions about waste facilities
• distributing Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide,28
which provides guidance to regulators and others on how the public can be more
effectively involved in the permitting process for waste facilities, for air, and for
water permitting decisions.
OSWER has provided technical assistance to communities through several mechanisms and has
trained EPA staff on more effective ways to involve community groups in program decisions,
including its annual community involvement conference on public participation best practices.29
EPA's waste program made an initial $50,000 investment to the Technical Outreach Services
to Communities program.30 This contribution was intended to help residents of high-risk
communities gain access to technical experts who can advise on specific waste facilities and
potential permit conditions. The solid waste program also has developed a community
outreach toolkit and extensive public participation guidance for its permit writers and other
staff.31 In addition, the office has established an annual employee award process to recognize
staff who have conducted special effective public outreach. Through its innovative approaches
to public participation, the office has gained the reputation as a leader in public participation
and addressing environmental justice concerns.
The Office of Air and Radiation also has undertaken specific activities to address permit-
related environmental justice concerns. It sponsored national programs like Title V permit
training for citizen groups that is provided in each EPA region, and citizen training on urban
air toxics and improving the capacity of urban communities to reduce exposure to air toxics.32
The office also offers scholarships to community group members so they can participate in
training opportunities. One community source interviewed gave high marks to the Title V
training, both for its content and for the air office's involvement with community people during
the course design.
22
-------
In addition, the air office has conducted special outreach and communications for high-risk
communities under the Tier II/Gasoline Sulfur Rule and permitting.33 It has incorporated
environmental justice criteria in its Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs
guidance document34 for air emissions trading. Environmental justice criteria also have been
included in its urban air toxics strategy, and pilot programs have begun to test methodologies
for reducing overall toxic burdens in urban communities. One such program was initiated in
Puerto Rico as part of its Pollution Prevention and Permitting Program (P4) (See Textbox, P4
Permit for Merk Pharmaceuticals). The air office has developed a best practices guide for
reducing air emissions from waste transfer stations. Working with the waste and water offices,
it also spearheaded the development of a draft guidance document on toxics reduction,
providing a compendium of techniques and strategies for reducing toxic loadings in local areas,
a particular concern to environmental justice communities.
23
-------
P4 PERMIT FOR MERCK PHARMACEUTICALS
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) has issued a number of innovative, flexible air permits
as part of its Pollution, Prevention and Permitting Program (P4). The main tools used in P4
permitting include advance approvals for predetermined changes to be made at a facility under a
Title V operating permit, as well as the use of cap permits and plant-wide applicability limits
(PALs).
A good example of how flexible permits work is the P4 permit that Region II developed for
Merck Pharmaceuticals, in cooperation with the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
(EQB). EPA used a plantwide applicability limit, coupled with advanced approvals, to provide
Merck with the flexibility and streamlined administrative requirements it needed to respond
quickly to market demands.
Additionally, Merck committed to report regularly to the community about its pollution
prevention activities and to provide additional recordkeeping, reporting, and emissions data.
EPA, Puerto Rico EQB, and Merck held meetings with local community groups (several
meetings were conducted in Spanish) and industry to explain the innovative features of the
permit and how it reflected the total air emissions associated with the facility. Puerto Rico EQB
provided financial resources for the community to hire its own consultant to review and explain
the permit to local groups.
The flexibility associated with the P4 process allowed the community to obtain a better picture of
facility-wide operations and to receive more comprehensive emissions data for the Merck
facility. Overall, the community was assured that the total air emissions associated with the
Merck facility would not increase above the levels provided in the P4 permit without further
public participation opportunities.
Upon completion of the public comment period, local community representatives did not file
adverse comments about the public participation or innovative features associated with the
Merck permit.
Source: U.S. EPA, Region II Air Program.
The Office of Water sponsored a 1998 meeting with environmental justice stakeholders to
address issues arising from the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Eleven cities
participated in the meeting via video conferencing, and they suggested that the office make
greater efforts to reach minority communities and to provide understandable information to the
public on a more timely basis. Also, the office issued EPA's first federal Fish Consumption
Advisory in 1997,35 an especially important document for subsistence communities that have
low-income, Native American, and/or people of color residents, who depend upon fish as a
major source of protein in their diets. However, Academy research for this study did not elicit
any permit-related efforts by the water office to address environmental justice concerns.
24
-------
EPA regions and program offices have taken other important steps that are directly related to
the environmental justice issues arising from permitting. These include regional development
of policies, guidance documents, training, and tools to address disproportionate impact and
public participation issues of concern to environmental justice communities. EPA regions have
crafted various local Geographic Information System (CIS) tools to incorporate data, such as
information on emissions and emission sources, demographics, housing, and health conditions,
for use in environmental justice assessments. The Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) also
has developed The Environmental Justice Query Mapper, as part of a joint project with the
Office of Environmental Information.36 The Mapper is the only agency-centered, Internet-
based CIS for evaluating environmental justice issues. The office now co-chairs a national
project designed to create a uniform, national approach for using CIS to conduct environmental
justice assessments.37
OEJ also has developed a national environmental justice training program, a workshop on the
Fundamentals of Environmental Justice. This workshop was designed in collaboration with
EPA staff; other federal, state, and tribal agencies; community, labor, and faith-based
organizations; industry; and academia. It provides historical background on environmental
justice, analytic tools, and examples of how this issue can be integrated into EPA programs.
The program will train 3,000 people from EPA, states, tribes, communities, and industry
during the next year.38
Other EPA offices have significantly contributed to addressing environmental justice issues
associated with permitting, such as research on cumulative impact assessment and advice on
more effective public participation. The Office of Research and Development has sponsored
workshops to clarify community-assessment needs and identify the tools needed to address
them, as part of the office's effort to use science to address critical agency concerns. The
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation has developed a community-specific study to test
a method for assessing cumulative exposures at the community level and to gain a better
understanding of how such assessments can be done in such a site-specific way. The office
recently developed EPA's new Public Involvement Policy,39 which provides information on
how EPA can conduct outreach about environmental justice concerns. This policy is designed
to produce a robust yet consistent approach to public participation across the agency. The
innovation office has also developed Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.40 These
guidelines explain how EPA can analyze the economic impacts of its program regulations and
policies, and how it can assess costs and benefits among various segments of the population,
focused especially on disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.
The EPA activities described above are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. Although
EPA has conducted significant activities to incorporate environmental justice concerns into its
air, water, and waste permits, Academy research shows that the agency has not fully integrated
these concerns into its day-to-day operations.
25
-------
CLOSING THE LOOP ON IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The issues identified in EPA's 1995 environmental justice strategy remain as relevant today as
they were when the strategy as created.41 For instance, there is widespread consensus that
more effective and timely public involvement in the permitting process is critical to ensure that
the agency identifies and addresses environmental justice concerns. The 1995 strategy called
for EPA to guarantee active citizen involvement in its programs by utilizing participation
models such as the one developed by the NEJAC, offering training for citizens, and publishing
public notices in languages other than English, when possible and appropriate. Interim
performance measures also could be established for the percentage of permits in which citizens
are given early notice of permit applications. Similar performance measures could be
established for every other area identified in the 1995 strategy.
Academy research revealed the difficulties in determining what EPA offices have done to
implement the 1995 strategy. The agency's 1998 Environmental Justice Biennial Report:
Moving Towards Collaborative and Constructive Problem-Solving42 is the most current
compilation of EPA's environmental justice activities, yet it is more than three years old. The
activities of various regions and offices are listed in that report's chapter on public
participation, outreach, and training. The entries do not, however, explain whether these
initiatives have been integrated into such core program functions as permitting, or whether
EPA's environmental justice objectives have been achieved as a result of these activities.
Academy research suggests that EPA is not yet able to demonstrate how or whether its
environmental justice projects are producing the intended outcomes for achieving
environmental justice issues. Attempts to gather more information on the results of these
efforts have been made even more difficult because EPA programs do not normally keep basic
and coherent information about their environmental justice activities, either at office or agency-
wide levels.
CHANGING EPA'S CULTURE TO INCORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE CONCERNS
Several of those interviewed for this study identified the change-resistance of EPA's culture as
a significant obstacle to incorporating environmental justice into the agency's routine activities,
including permitting. Culture change requires a demonstrated commitment to environmental
justice at every level of EPA leadership. Several interviewees reported that one major agency
program has no interest in working on these issues.
To ensure real culture change, staff at all agency levels must understand that environmental
justice embodies every major element of EPA's core mission. Indeed, environmental justice
concerns encompass citizens' rights to equal environmental protection, communities' right-to-
know, informed public participation, risk reduction, protecting the most susceptible
populations, and reducing cumulative exposure. Connecting these issues with EPA's core
mission is an important undertaking that should be a high priority among EPA's leadership and
management. One senior manager stated that it is a challenge to help all EPA employees
perceive environmental justice as part of their jobs. This manager pointed out that this change
is difficult because the concept of environmental justice is ambiguous to many people.
26
-------
To change EPA's culture, agency employees must clearly understand and respect the fact that
residents of disproportionately impacted communities frequently possess valuable information
that EPA needs to make well-informed decisions. Thus, communities can help the agency
build effective solutions. One community activist noted that her community's relationship
with EPA changed when EPA staff "learned to listen." Agency appreciation that community
participation adds value can produce institutional changes, improving the flow of important
information between EPA and the community.
EPA's waste office is the agency leader in public participation, in part because it has chosen to
exceed its minimum regulatory requirements and to provide more effective public input and
involvement through numerous techniques. This strategy has been driven by program needs
and top-level commitment to ensuring that staffs offer meaningful public involvement
supported by the requisite resources.
Leadership is critical to changing EPA's culture by demonstrating the importance of
environmental justice. That can be accomplished by establishing clear expectations and
insisting that agency managers and employees not treat environmental justice as an optional
exercise. Setting expectations includes making policy decisions, such as those needed for
guidance on how environmental justice will be treated in the context of EPA's permitting
programs, that make the agency's commitment operational day-to-day. It also means setting
consistent, uniformly applied expectations, allowing reasonable flexibility for program
differences, and providing additional time for employees to learn how to incorporate these
issues into their daily work. For instance, the agency can allow for some variation in
approaches to public participation for air, water, and waste permits, yet still expect permit
writers in those programs to demonstrate that they are considering environmental justice
issues.
EPA also can facilitate culture change by making it easier for its employees to incorporate
environmental justice into their day-to-day activities. Interviewees stated repeatedly that EPA
staff have a real need for tools and guidance documents that are practical and sensitive to
workload realities for staff who are on the agency's front line for implementing environmental
justice, such as permit writers. Encouraging creativity and flexibility can help EPA employees
to address important issues like environmental justice, even within workload constraints.
Identifying every possible efficiency, however, still may not address the very real need for
employees to have adequate time for doing this work.
Evaluating EPA employees on whether they produce positive results for environmental justice
can be an important way of motivating the agency's program offices, regions, and individual
employees to remain focused on meeting these goals. Evaluations aimed at producing specific
results should be combined with a system of rewards that recognizes managers and staff who
make special efforts to address environmental justice concerns through permits and who reach
out to communities before making agency decisions. One EPA office found that awards are an
important incentive for staff to give environmental justice issues appropriate attention.
27
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Building on Administrator Whitman's recent environmental justice memorandum,
the Assistant Administrators for Air, Water, and Waste, and the Regional
Administrators should reinforce the importance of this policy, its role in
implementing EPA's core mission, and the expectation that their managers and staff
will implement environmental justice in their projects and activities.
• EPA should finalize its draft national environmental justice guidance and develop
practical tools for permit writers to identify and address environmental justice issues
arising in air, water, and waste permits.
• The Offices of Air, Water, and Waste should develop strategic plans demonstrating
how environmental justice will be integrated into the substance and procedures of
their permitting programs, and they should carefully examine how they can use the
authorities set forth in the General Counsel's legal opinion dated December 1, 2001,
to incorporate environmental justice concerns into permits for new and ongoing
projects.
• Each office's plan for incorporating environmental justice in its permitting programs
should include goals, measures of performance, expected outcomes, accountability
mechanisms, and time frames for meeting the goals.
• EPA should establish an accountability process that includes clear performance
measures for evaluating how well employees - both managers and staff - are able to
incorporate environmental justice into air, water, and waste permits.
• EPA should identify disproportionately impacted and other adversely affected
communities and establish explicit goals for reducing risks there. The agency
should set clear expectations for producing results that are directly linked to the
agency's mission and give staff an important performance measure that they can
support in a whole-hearted fashion. These tasks could also provide measures of
EPA's progress in implementing environmental justice and could be reinforced by
agency-wide reporting that tracks their progress.
• EPA should develop a communication mechanism for sharing information with all
air, water and waste programs, regional offices, and states about effective tools for
addressing environmental justice, including descriptions of best practices and
lessons learned. This mechanism should coordinate EPA's activities for
incorporating environmental justice into permitting, so that permit writers in all the
air, water, and waste programs and regional offices can become more effective and
gain greater efficiency and effectiveness in responding to environmental justice
concerns.
28
-------
• EPA should evaluate the effectiveness of its national workshop on the Fundamentals
of Environmental Justice to determine how well it meets its intended objectives,
including the effective implementation of environmental justice in permitting.
• EPA should develop a program for rewarding employees' extra efforts to address
environmental justice in permitting, through recognition in existing national awards
and development of headquarters and regional office recognition programs.
29
-------
ENDNOTES
1 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations (1994).
Christine Todd Whitman to Assistant Administrators, et al, memorandum, EPA 's Commitment to Environmental
Justice (August 9, 200).
3 Carol M. Browner, EPA 's Environmental Justice Strategy (April 3, 1995).
4 U.S. EPA, "Environmsntal Equity: EPA's Position, Protection Should Applied Fairly," EPA Journal
(March/April 1992): 18-22.
5 U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Equity: Reducing Risk for All Communities,
Vol. I andII, EPA A230-R-92-008A (June 1992).
6 National Environmental Justice Council Charter (July 29,1999).
Available at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/nejac/charter.html.
7 U.S. EPA. Office of Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice Strategy: Executive Order 12898 (April 1995).
8 U. S. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Justice 1994 Annual Report.
9 U.S. EPA, Environmental Justice Homepage. Available at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/ej/index.html#ejhist
10 U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Small Grants Program Application Guidance FY
2000 (October 2001).
11 U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice Small Grants Program: Emerging Tools for
Local Problem-Solving (1999).
12 Richard Lazarus, "Integrating Environmental Justice Into Environmental Permitting Decisions," Presentation
before the Environmental Justice Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration (June 14, 2001).
13 Ibid.
14 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Environmental Justice in The Permitting Process: A Report
from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council's Public Meeting on Environmental Permitting—
Arlington, Virginia November 30-December 2, 1999, EPA/300-R-00-004 (July 2000).
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, letter to Carol M. Browner, Environmental Justice in the
Permitting Process, (August 3, 2000).
16 Gary S. Guzy to Steven A. Herman, et al, memorandum, EPA Statutory and Regulatory Authorities under Which
Environmental Justice Issues May Be Addressed in Permitting (December 1, 2000).
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., 3.
19 Ibid., 3.
20 Ibid., 3.
21 Ibid., 11.
30
-------
In re: Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, PSD Appeal Nos. 99-8 through 99-72, Environmental Appeals Board, Decided
March 14, 2000.
23 Browner, Carol M.,EPA 's EnvironmentalJustice Strategy (April 3, 1995).
24 Ibid.
25 Elliott P. Laws to Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, e? al, memorandum, Integration of
EnvironmentalJustice Into OSWER Policy, Guidance, and Regulatory Development (September 21, 1994).
26 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste
Facilities, EPA530-K-00-005 (April 2000).
27 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Waste Transfer Stations: Involved Citizens Make the
Difference, EPA530-K-01-003 (January 2001).
28 U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A
Reference Guide, EPA-500-R-00-007 (August 2000).
29 U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSW Environmental Justice Program Strategy.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/ej/.
30 Suzanne Wells and Pat Carey, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Interview (September
10, 2001).
31 Ibid.
32 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technology and Transfer Network, The National
Training workshop on Local Urban Air Toxics Assessment and Reduction Strategies.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/wks/mainwks.html.
33 Anna Wood, U.S. EPA, Personal Correspondence (November 7, 2001).
34 U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, EPA-452/R-
01-001 (January 2001).
35 U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 1998 Environmental Justice Biennial Report:
Moving Towards Collaborative and Constructive Problem-Solving, EPA 300/R-00-004, (July 2000) 4.7.
36 U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, Environmental Justice Query Mapper (2001).
Available at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/ejmapper/.
37 Barry E. Hill, U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice, Personal Communication (November 13, 2001).
38 Nicholas Targ, U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice, Interview (November 13, 2001).
39 U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation, Work Related to Environmental Justice (2000-2001)
(October 31, 2001).
40 Ibid.
41 Carol M. Browner, EPA 's EnvironmentalJustice Strategy (April 3, 1995).
42 U.S. EPA, 1998 Environmental Justice Biennial Report (My 2000).
-------
32
-------
CHAPTER THREE
PRACTICAL TOOLS FOR PERMIT WRITERS TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS
FINDINGS
Finding 5: A recent General Counsel's legal opinion makes it clear that the Clean Air Act,
Clean Water Act, and Resource Recovery and Conservation Act provide ample authority for
EPA's permitting staff to address high-risk community concerns when developing the terms
and conditions of individual facility permits. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has
reaffirmed this opinion in her August 9, 2001 memorandum to senior EPA officials.1
Finding 6: EPA managers have not routinely provided straightforward, practical tools and
procedures to their permitting staff for incorporating community concerns into permits, nor
have they directed the staff to ensure that environmental justice concerns are systematically
considered in EPA's permitting programs.
Finding 7: Many EPA permit writers have not had an opportunity to learn how they can
contribute to resolving environmental justice concerns by obtaining more information about the
community that may be affected by a proposed permit; the nature of the risks that the community
faces; community concerns related to the proposed facility; the community's capacity to
participate in the permitting process; and the best methods for communicating with the
community.
Finding 8: Given that its legal authority to issue permits for particular facilities is based on
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, EPA has
limited ability to deal with other common concerns in high-risk communities, such as noise,
traffic, and odor.
Finding 9: EPA's credibility relating to permitting programs in high-risk communities
depends upon timely and rigorous review of permit renewals for existing facilities and on using
opportunities to enforce visibly their permit conditions, including increased inspections and
local monitoring of environmental conditions.
BACKGROUND
Although specifics may vary, the basic procedures for EPA's air, water, and waste permitting
programs are the same. The process begins when a company chooses to build or modify a
facility and determines that an environmental permit is required. The company then prepares a
permit application and submits it to the appropriate EPA regional office. The region's air,
water, or waste permitting staff review the application and determine whether the applicant has
provided the necessary information; staff may request additional details if information is
lacking. Once the application is complete, EPA's permit writers technically review the
33
-------
proposal, develop permit conditions designed to ensure compliance with applicable
environmental standards and requirements, and establish the monitoring and reporting
requirements. It is not uncommon for the technical review to entail interaction between the
applicant and permitting staff. Once a draft permit is complete, EPA publishes a public notice
and announces a formal public comment period, normally 30 days long. Following the
comment period, the permit writers review the public comments, make appropriate adjustments
in the permit terms and conditions, and forward the application for the agency's final decision
(See Figure 3-1).
Various opportunities abound throughout the permitting process for more timely and
meaningful interaction between the agency and the affected community. For example, the
applicant could work voluntarily with the community even before submitting the draft
application; this would provide the applicant a clearer understanding of public concerns and the
opportunity to resolve them. Also, permitting staff could give the affected community and
local governments early notice when a permit application is received and later when the
application is complete. The community, local governments, and the permit applicant could
discuss or negotiate the application before it reaches the draft permit stage. When differences
of opinion or difficult issues arise, the permit writers could use facilitated dialogues to help the
parties develop a consensus on permit terms and conditions, rather than rely solely on the
formal public comment period.
EPA's experience with dispute resolution approaches including facilitated dialogues and more
formal mediation, together with a review of the available literature, should provide the agency
with a rich set of information about when these tools are most useful and how to structure these
dialogues (timing, location, facilitation, identifying the appropriate stakeholders) to maximize
the likelihood of success. This kind of information could be extremely useful to permit staff
and managers if embodied in a decision tree, which would aid in determining when dialogue
techniques would be most appropriate. National distribution of information on public
involvement tools, already proven to be successful, in conjunction with the decision tree would
provide permitting staff with important information needed to shape efficient and effective
public participation. EPA's Region II provides a good example of how this process can work
in practice.
Region II has direct permitting responsibilities for programs in Puerto Rico, and it processed
sixty water permits and five air permits for prevention of significant deterioration since the
Executive Order on environmental justice was issued in 1994. The region has prepared
extensive evaluations to identify and address possible issues related to environmental justice for
five of its air permits and six of its water permits.2 In performing this analysis, the region's
permit writers have relied on the region's recent policy statement that sets forth their
responsibilities for implementing environmental justice.3 The policy is founded on some basic
principles that include "early and meaningful" involvement of the affected community.4
Region II also has provided its permit writers with practical tools, including a methodology for
determining areas that can be identified as "communities of concerns" and a CIS, which
generates maps showing the demographics for areas with high numbers of low income and
34
-------
people of color residents, as well as the site-specific environmental burdens of those
communities. As a result, the region has had positive experiences in addressing environmental
justice concerns through the permitting process. Its staff has learned additional lessons for
improving this process. Those improvements include:
1. earlier and more frequent community interactions
2. public availability sessions to discuss concerns prior to the final permit
3. greater understanding about how to mesh permitting legal requirements with
environmental justice concerns
4. consideration of cumulative impacts, even when potential emission levels are below
certified levels requiring cumulative impact studies
5. translation of materials for non-English speaking communities
Region II acknowledges that its process for reviewing permits and involving the public is more
complex and time consuming than the routine permitting procedures.5 This is partly
attributable to its desire to address environmental justice concerns. Nevertheless and more
importantly, the region has learned that these complexities should not prevent EPA from
addressing environmental justice concerns through its permitting programs; it can do so
consistent with its responsibilities under the 1994 Executive Order. Additionally, the region
has provided technical assistance to its states and copies of its CIS-based demographic
screening tool to states, permit applicants, and others, to encourage the identification and
addressing of environmental justice concerns in the permitting process6 (See Textbox, Region
35
-------
Typical EPA Permitting Process
Figure 3.1
Company
Approves
Project
Company
Submits
Permit
Application
EPA Determines
Permit
Application
Is Complete
EPA
Completes
Draft
Permit
Formal
Public
Comment
Period
Ends
Final Permit
Permit Appeals
Issued (If Any)
Permit
Application
Prepared
By Company
EPA and
Company
Negotiate
The Details
of The
Application
EPA Reviews Permit and Negotiates
Further With the Company
(Varies From About 2 to
Several Months)
Formal
Public
Comment
Period
(Typically
30 Days)
EPA
Review
Of Public
Comments
36
-------
REGION II
EPA's Region II has taken extra steps to incorporate environmental justice concerns. It has
created an Interim Environmental Justice Policy that emphasizes meaningful and early public
involvement, early identification of permit applications that may raise environmental justice
concerns, community identification of environmental justice issues, and responses to
allegations of disproportionate impacts. Region II also has developed an accountability
segment in its plans to evaluate how well they are addressing and resolving environmental
justice problems.
The Interim report pays particular attention to the following categories:
• Ways to identify cases with Environmental Justice Issues.
Key areas of focus include:
•S Setting up geographic boundaries for communities
S Making comparisons between the demographics for a community of concern and
demographics from statistical reference data
-S Development of romprehensive Environmental Load Profiles. This profile is
based on salient characteristics that serve as indicators of environmental burden
and provide consistent basis for comparisons. Region II's environmental
Burden Indicators include the following components: Toxics Release Inventory
Air Emissions, Facility Density/Population Density, Land Use Index, and
Ambient Air Quality Mapping (Attainment/Non-Attainment Designation).
• Addressing disproportionate impacts and responding to concerns.
Region II has observed that:
•S Enhancing public participation helps to promote environmental justice by
ensuring that citizens' concerns and information about the affected community
have been factored into the EPA's decision-making process.
S Using authority to set permit conditions gives the EPA the discretion to take
disproportionate effects into account when developing permit conditions on
monitoring levels, risk reduction and prevention, and preparedness for
accidental releases.
-S Encouraging voluntary Stakeholder Agreements for mitigating community
impacts from a facility; stakeholder involvement increases the ability to reach
"good neighbor" agreements that are advantageous to all who are involved.
Source: U.S. EPA, Region II, Interim EnvironmentalJustice Policy (December 2000).
37
-------
AUTHORITIES FOR INDIVIDUAL PERMITS
A December 2000 General Counsel's legal opinion explained the scope of EPA's legal
authorities for addressing environmental justice concerns when issuing individual permits. The
opinion described those actions that are "legally permissible" under the General Counsel's
interpretation of the agency's primary authorizing statutes. Although these interpretations are
legally permissible, the General Counsel noted that the actions needed to implement this
authority may not "be uniformly practical or feasible given policy or resource considerations"
and recognized that there may be "important considerations of legal risk that would need to be
evaluated."7 This opinion, combined with Administrator Whitman's 2001 memorandum,8
provides the legal authority and management directive for EPA's program offices to begin to
utilize additional opportunities for integrating environmental justice issues when preparing EPA
permits, developing new rules, issuing emission standards, and preparing new guidance
documents.
Several individuals interviewed for this study suggested that new permitting approaches
designed to address environmental justice issues must be "simple" and "doable." EPA
program managers can make significant progress in addressing these concerns by using their
legal authorities to address disproportionate impacts; exercising their discretionary authority
for earlier and more frequent public participation; and translating these authorities into
practical steps that can be used for air, water, and waste programs. A permitting checklist
developed by Washington State's Department of Ecology (see Appendix A) provides a
practical, straightforward approach that permit writers can use when determining whether a
specific permit may raise environmental justice issues. Only recently implemented, this
checklist will likely trigger additional analysis in communities where permit writers identify
possible environmental justice concerns, and help to reinforce the importance of environmental
justice in the permitting staff's day-to-day work.
The time needed to focus on environmental justice issues and work with communities is
another key issue for permitting staff. One project manager responsible for EPA permits in
Indian country reported that permit applications raising environmental justice issues often
require much more interaction between EPA staff and affected parties.9 However, EPA
models for determining its permit writers' appropriate workloads do not account for the
additional time and effort needed in these situations.10 Nonetheless, it is clear that additional
time is needed for enhanced public involvement in the permitting process.
Texas' environmental agency has revised its permitting procedures to comply with a new state
law that requires public notice of a permit upon an application's completion," rather than when
agency staff and the applicant have finished negotiation on a draft permit. The agency's
public meetings increased from about 25 prior to the early notice procedure to 89 in the first
year that the new law took effect. Similarly, Texas received comments on more than 15
percent of total applications in 2000, compared with 10 percent in 1999. In addition, the
38
-------
states' permit writers spend significantly more time interacting with community members than
they did before the new procedures were adopted.12
Agency leadership and the Academy Panel both view environmental justice as part of EPA's
core mission. Consequently, it is incumbent on agency staff to find ways that they can resolve
environmental justice concerns, especially once EPA has provided staff with training and
information on these issues. For example, permit writers can pay greater attention to the
nature of the community affected by a proposed facility, the risks and concerns for its
residents, its ability - or lack thereof - to become involved in reviewing the permit, the
technical and legal resources available within and outside EPA to help its members understand
the context for a facility and participate in permit negotiations, and the best ways for the
agency to communicate with it. Regional staff interviewed believed that new methods for
public involvement are key to EPA developing a more effective and acceptable permitting
process and resolving permit disputes.
Community groups not only are focused on a permit's terms and conditions, but they also
frequently seek to ensure that a facility actually complies with those conditions.13 More visible
EPA enforcement and regular facility inspections in these communities can help to provide this
assurance.14 Once a permit is issued, EPA's vigilance is important to establish credibility for
the permitting process and to demonstrate that the agency has meaningfully incorporated
environmental justice concerns into that process.15 EPA could devote greater inspection and
enforcement resources toward monitoring facility performance in high-risk communities, thus
increasing EPA's presence. Additional monitoring of facility emissions and ambient conditions
in affected communities, as well as public reporting of those monitoring results, also would
facilitate EPA enforcement, encourage facilities to maintain compliance, and allow community
groups to track environmental conditions in their neighborhoods. Increased public access to
emissions information and EPA enforcement results can help citizens to determine whether
nearby facilities are abiding by their permit requirements.
EPA could strengthen the credibility of permit conditions by placing additional monitors in
high-risk communities - such as mobile monitoring equipment that can address site-specific
problems - and using monitoring data to develop conditions for new, revised, or renewed
permits. In several instances, EPA has used supplemental enforcement projects (SEPs) to fund
additional community monitoring;16 these commonly offset a portion of an administrative or
civil penalty that would otherwise be levied against a regulated facility during an enforcement
action. SEPs are designed to return a benefit, or mitigate some of the damage, to a community
affected by the facility's pollution.17 Thus, SEPs are well suited to address environmental
justice issues.
Finally, EPA must eliminate backlogs of expired permits and permit renewals, to mitigate the
potential for facilities to operate under outdated or potentially less protective permit
conditions.18
39
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
• In the short-term, EPA should determine whether it can provide communities with
earlier notice of permit applications, at least as soon as agency staff determine the
applications to be complete. This would provide more opportunities for the public to
interact directly with the agency's permit writers and allow consideration of community
information and concerns during the drafting and negotiation stages.
• In the long-term, EPA should revise its permitting regulations to ensure that nearby
communities are notified of a permit application as early as possible, and certainly as
soon as the application is complete.
• EPA should revise its public notification practices to ensure that notices are provided in
languages common to affected communities and placed at libraries, churches,
community centers, and other locations where many community residents can see them.
• EPA managers should provide their permit writers with checklists or similar tools, to
aid them in identifying and considering potential environmental justice concerns.
• EPA budget and administrative staff should recognize the additional time and effort that
permit writers need to develop permit conditions for environmental justice issues and to
work more closely with community groups. They should adjust the agency's workload
models as appropriate to determine the average number of permits that each writer is
expected to handle.
• EPA's air, water, and waste programs should ensure that their permits fully implement
current environmental standards and should modify or add standards, if necessary, to
ensure that pollution levels are reduced to better protect public health.
• EPA's air, water, and waste programs should place high priority on the elimination of
permit renewal backlogs to ensure that facilities have conditions that are as up-to-date
and protective as possible, especially for those affecting high-risk or disproportionately
impacted communities.
• EPA's air, water, and waste programs should develop specific guidance documents on
the legal requirements and discretionary authorities that permit writers have to require
additional monitoring and public reporting in disproportionately impacted communities.
• EPA should consider using facilitated dialogues as part of its permitting process, at
least in some cases, by creating and utilizing a decision tree approach. This approach
could help to incorporate environmental justice concerns in EPA permits by: (1)
preparing permit conditions that address community concerns; (2) facilitating
interactions between permit applicants and affected residents; (3) providing an
40
-------
opportunity for local authorities to address such issues as noise, odor, and traffic that
EPA cannot resolve; and (4) crafting voluntary agreements among permit applicants,
the community, EPA, and relevant state or local agencies.
• EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) should use
environmental justice as a criterion for deciding the locations and types of facilities
targeted for inspections and other enforcement actions. When it chooses these targets,
OECA should analyze patterns that have generated Title VI complaints.
• OECA should move rapidly to add enforcement information to EPA's CIS, such as
"Windows on My Environment," so that high-risk community residents can learn when
nearby facilities are inspected or involved in an enforcement action.
• OECA should strengthen its targeting of enforcement efforts through increased toxics
monitoring in disproportionately impacted communities, and should expand the use of
funds recovered under Supplemental Environmental Projects for this monitoring.
• EPA program managers should ensure that their permit writers are adequately trained
to recognize permit applications involving disproportionate impacts on low-income and
people of color communities, be alert to facility applications that may affect these
communities, and know how to address these impacts using the agency's legal
authorities.
• For permit applications involving issues beyond EPA's jurisdiction, such as noise,
traffic, and odor concerns, permitting staff should notify local authorities early and
work with local zoning and health agencies on developing solutions for these concerns.
• Regarding permit applications that may affect low-income and people of color
communities, EPA permit writers should:
• urge permit applicants to discuss their proposals with the affected
community as early as possible
• consider whether the affected community has been designated as high
priority or high-risk; whether it may be exposed to specific hazardous
emissions according to monitoring data; or whether it is burdened by high
levels of pollution or significant discharge levels
• take into account community characteristics - such as demographics,
language, local institutions, and familiarity with governmental processes -
when selecting communication methods and working with the affected
public
41
-------
choose carefully the arrangements for public meetings - including time,
place, meeting room set-up, and agency representatives - to ensure that
community members can easily and comfortably participate
identify ways to mitigate or reduce emissions and other environmental and
public health impacts of proposed facilities, such as requiring pollution
prevention and implementing environmental management systems
make full use of all legal requirements and discretionary authorities to
consider a community's high risk and disproportionate impacts when
developing permit conditions designed to reduce pollution burdens there
use facilitated dialogues if the suggested decision tree indicates that a neutral
third party could produce better results that are acceptable to all parties
help communities identify technical support and other resources, such as
Technical Outreach Services for Communities, that may help them
participate more meaningfully during permit negotiations
give early notice of a permit application to local authorities, especially when
there are indications that zoning, health, and other issues may cause
community concern about a permit application
42
-------
ENDNOTES
1 Christine Todd Whitman to Assistant Administrators, et al, memorandum, EPA 's Commitment to Environmental
Justice (August 9, 200).
2 Terry Wesley and other Region II Staff Interviews (October 11, 2001).
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Interim Environmental Justice Policy (December 2000).
4 Ibid.
Interviews with Region II staff.
6 Terry Wesley, Personal Correspondence, November 26, 2001.
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of General Counsel, memorandum, EPA Statutory Authorities
Under Which Environmental Justice Issues May Be Addressed in Permitting (December 1, 2000) 1.
8 Christine Todd Whitman to Assistant Administrators, et al, memorandum, EPA 's Commitment to Environmental
Justice (August 9, 200).
9 Karen Scheuermann, Region IX, Interview (September 4, 2001).
10 Ibid.
11 Texas Health and Safety Code, as amended, section 382.056 (1999).
12 Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission staff, Interviews (September 25, 2001).
13 Albertha Hastens, Louisiana Environmental Action Network; Joan Mulhern, Earthjustice; and Damon
Whitehead, National Black Environmental Justice Network, Interviews (September 18 and October 23, 2001).
14 Mary M. O'Lone, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Remarks before the National Academy of
Public Administration (August 30, 2001).
15 Ibid.
16 Region IV staff, Interviews (September 24, 2001).
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Compliance Assurance and Enforcement, Final Supplemental
Enforcement Projects Policy (May 1, 1998).
18 Malcolm Woolf and Apple Chapman, Office of General Counsel, Interviews (August 23, 2001).
43
-------
44
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
PERMITTING AS AN ELEMENT OF EPA'S STRATEGY TO
PREVENT POLLUTION AND REDUCE RISK
FINDINGS
Finding 10: EPA does not now have a routine process for identifying high-risk communities
and giving them priority attention to prevent pollution and reduce existing public health
hazards.
Finding 11: Many parties support the need for EPA to conduct cumulative risk assessments
when evaluating permit applications, but the current state of this science has not advanced
sufficiently to conduct these assessments. However, EPA has efforts underway to improve the
science so that it will be more feasible and practical. While waiting for cumulative risk
assessment science to advance, EPA, several states, and citizen groups have developed and
applied other tools that analyze exposures of disproportionately impacted communities to actual
or potential amounts of multiple pollutants. More frequent and comprehensive environmental
monitoring in these communities can help EPA to determine whether they need priority
attention.
Finding 12: Limited environmental data, and their lack of accuracy, are barriers to risk
reduction, particularly when analyzing very localized, community-level environmental
conditions and impacts.
Finding 13: Absent a consistent, national approach for assessing risks, several EPA regional
offices have developed tools for evaluating disproportionate impacts from pollution. These
tools, combined with EPA regional experiences, have created an important body of practical
experience. Yet, EPA has not evaluated or catalogued them so that the agency's permitting
programs can learn about best practices, the elements needed to develop a national guidance
document on analyzing cumulative risks, or any potential concerns about the scientific validity
of the tools.
BACKGROUND
The Need to Evaluate Cumulative Risks
Identifying high-risk communities is an important first step that will enable EPA to set goals
and focus attention on reducing environmental hazards there. For several years, EPA has
acknowledged the need to develop scientifically valid methods for assessing cumulative risks
created by pollution, which in turn create high-risk situations. This need also was noted by the
National Research Council in Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment1, and by the
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management in
Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision Making.2
45
-------
Practical considerations have driven EPA's agenda in this area, as well. These include
Congress' approval of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996,3 which requires, among other
things, that EPA analyze cumulative effects of chemical exposures occurring concurrently,
rather than perform single chemical assessments. Complaints filed under Title VI of the 1964
Civil Rights Act,4 which can require EPA to assess potential cumulative risks in high-risk
communities, have created additional pressure to develop these tools. EPA's Title VI
Advisory Committee report, Next Steps for EPA, State, and Local Environmental Justice
Programs, recommended that the agency significantly expand its efforts "to research the nature
and existence of cumulative exposures and synergistic effects and the risks they pose."5 In
addition, some states have officially recognized the need for cumulative risk assessment. For
example, Texas' state legislature recently required its environmental agency to develop an
approach for evaluating cumulative environmental and public health impacts.6
Efforts to Evaluate Cumulative Exposures
Recognizing a growing internal and external consensus, EPA's Science Policy Council issued a
1997 guidance document on planning and scoping for cumulative risk assessments.7 The
memorandum accompanying that document noted the latter's potential for evaluating the
exposures of particular segments of the population. The Council intended that the guidance
would help EPA to be "better able in many cases to analyze risk by considering any unique
impacts the risks may elicit due to the gender, ethnicity, geographic origin, or age of the
affected population."8 The memorandum further stated that "where data are available. . .
[EPA] may be able to determine more precisely whether environmental threats pose a greater
risk" to specific groups or populations.9 However, the memorandum noted that the guidance
did not consider "the social, economic, behavioral, or psychological factors that also may
contribute to adverse health effects. These include, among others, such factors as existing
health conditions, anxiety, nutritional status, crime, and congestion."10 The Council omitted
these problems from its guidance due to the lack of data, yet high-risk communities have raised
some of these issues, like health conditions, as critical concerns. Although the CIS Mapper
and Stressed Community Concept prepared by EPA's Region III11 have attempted to capture
the broader spectrum of health and social data, only the Mapper has been tested and neither
tool has undergone scientific peer review for reliability and, as a practical matter, they remain
a future prospect.
The Council's guidance and other assessments use a very broad definition of cumulative impact
assessment. Nonetheless, this term is frequently used to describe several distinct types of
analysis, including:
• additive impacts: exposure to the same chemical from multiple sources
• aggregate effects: exposure to more than one chemical with the same health effect or
end point
• cumulative risk: exposure to multiple chemicals that may originate from several
sources and have different impacts or end points, and the interactions of these
chemicals with one another (synergistic or antagonistic effects)
46
-------
Other EPA efforts to evaluate how multiple sources may affect public health include the draft
cumulative risk assessment guidelines developed by the Office of Pesticide Programs for
implementing the Food Quality Protection Act,12 and the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
for characterizing the potential health risks associated with inhaling 33 high-priority air
pollutants.13 In addition, the Cumulative Exposure Project, housed in EPA's Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation, has prepared a case study on community-specific cumulative risk
assessment.14 The project worked with members of a mostly minority community and nearby
permitted facilities to gain a better understanding of the practicalities involved when
performing assessments. EPA has also initiated research projects to examine cumulative and
synergistic effects created by urban air toxics, and it has helped states to assess cumulative risk
when establishing total maximum daily loads under the Clean Water Act.15
EPA is developing a framework on how to conduct a cumulative risk assessment. The
agency's Science Policy Council has taken steps to identify the basic elements of the
cumulative risk assessment process.16 This framework will be reviewed by EPA's Science
Advisory Board and will be presented to the Science Policy Council for review and approval.
Upon completion, EPA plans to develop a guidance document on conducting cumulative risk
assessments.
CURRENT EPA TOOLS AND APPROACHES TO REDUCE RISK
Cumulative impacts are key to high-risk community concerns. These communities are
concerned about the impacts of individual chemicals, as well as the health hazards created by
cumulative exposures from multiple sources and chemicals. Although EPA has made progress
in developing an approach for conducting cumulative risk assessments, it does not have
practical tools for doing so, especially in the relatively brief time frame required for reviewing
permit applications. More practical tools for conducting cumulative risk assessments may be
available in the future, but less complex methods of assessing risks are needed now. The 1998
report of EPA's Science Advisory Board, Review of Disproportionate Impact Methodologies,n
recommended that EPA use simpler methodologies to identify chemicals or their classification
that may be of concern prior to performing more detailed risk assessments. In this regard,
Academy research identified several methods that EPA could utilize in the short term for
analyzing the multiple exposures that are typical in high-risk communities. At the same time,
these tools are less complex than cumulative risk assessment.
Monitoring Exposures
Ambient monitoring of existing pollution levels is one currently available method for EPA to
evaluate the additive impacts and aggregate effects of community exposure. Monitoring results
could aid EPA's permit writers in understanding a community's actual exposures to chemicals
with similar effects. In one EPA region, for instance, scientists have determined that one or
two chemicals are responsible for 90 to 95 percent of the environmental risks in 80 to 85
percent of the census blocks for one study area.18 If enhanced monitoring identifies high-risk
47
-------
chemical emissions and potential health impacts among residents with additive or aggregate
exposures, permit writers would have support for crafting conditions in new permits or
renewals, thereby reducing emissions in high-risk communities.
Identifying higher risk communities based on emissions from multiple sources would enable
EPA to devise strategies involving enforceable and voluntary components, both of which
would be designed to improve the environment. These provisions might include pollution
prevention to reduce high-risk chemicals, closer scrutiny of new and renewal permit
applications, and voluntary pollution reduction agreements involving communities, regulated
industries, and EPA. These approaches are consistent with the EPA strategic plan's fourth
goal, which is to prevent pollution and reduce risk in communities, homes, workplaces, and
ecosystems.19
EPA is reassessing its ambient monitoring network and hopes to redesign it.20 Such an effort
would offer an important opportunity for incorporating environmental justice concerns into the
agency's overall effort to gain a better understanding of cumulative and residual risks.
Provided that the redesigned monitoring network would cover high-risk communities with
environmental justice concerns, EPA could ensure the availability of information needed by
permit writers to address cumulative impacts.
Many recognize monitoring as an important tool for identifying and solving environmental
problems. For example, EPA's Region VI has reached agreement with industry sources and
with the states' support to invest $1.2 million for an improved monitoring network, responding
to environmental justice concerns raised in local communities.21 The parties collectively
agreed that they will address problems identified by monitoring and that community residents
will receive monitoring results so they can help determine any needed corrective action. The
parties believe that improved monitoring will allow them to resolve environmental justice
issues and fully inform communities about potential problems and the outcomes of their joint
problem-solving efforts (See Textbox, Monitoring and Cleanup Initiative for Calcasieu
Estuary).
48
-------
MONITORING AND CLEANUP INITIATIVE FOR THE CALCASIEU
ESTUARY
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ) is coordinating an
initiative to measure the ambient air quality in the Lake Charles/Calcasieu Parish area
with support from the Lake Area Industry Alliance (LAIA), EPA, and local
communities. The initiative will significantly enhance the existing ambient air-
monitoring program being conducted by LADEQ. The intent of the initiative is to
measure the levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and dioxins that are present
in the area. The results will provide additional information on air quality in Southwest
Louisiana and insight into what additional steps LADEQ and EPA must take to protect
the health and safety of area residents.
The Calcasieu Estuary includes the Calcasieu River from northern Moss Lake to the
salt-water barrier at Lake Charles. The estuary is an industrialized area where several
petrochemical and agrochemical plants manufacture and process diverse products such
as petroleum, sodium hydroxide, chlorine, Teflon, butadiene, synthetic rubber,
trichloroethylene, and perchloroetheylene.
In March 1999, EPA decided to conduct a federal Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study to evaluate sediments in the Calcasieu Estuary. The principal
pollutants in the area are:
• PCBs
• hexachlorobenzene
• hexachlorobutadiene
• mercury
• zinc
• ethylene dichloride
• lead
• copper
In cooperation with the local governments and area industries - Conoco, PPG, and Olin
- EPA is also responding to the community's concerns about fish advisories and dioxin
exposures, as well as industry issues of cost and corporate responsibility for cleaning up
the sediments.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6sf/sfsites/sitedesc.htm and
http://www.deq.state.la.us/evaluation/calcasieu/
49
-------
A lack of adequate resources and qualified staff can be a barrier to establishing an improved
monitoring network. Yet EPA should treat environmental justice concerns as an indicator of
the need to analyze public exposures and deploy monitors to sensitive areas. These locations
include places where there are community complaints or where EPA has identified "hot spots."
These places should be given high priority for allocation of the agency's scarce monitoring
resources so they can be used to address real environmental and human health concerns. The
agency should then ensure that its permitting staff uses best practices and creativity to solve
these problems more effectively. For instance, EPA could deploy mobile monitoring stations,
like the ones housed in two EPA regions to service the agency, to measure excessive amounts
of air pollution in high-risk communities.
Cost is a critical factor when utilizing such sophisticated equipment as the mobile monitors
housed in Regions II and VI. However, EPA should consider assessing he utility of less
costly alternatives, including the mobile air-monitoring laboratory developed in Jacksonville,
Florida. The Jacksonville project, recognized by the Environmental Law Institute in Fresh
Air: Innovative State and Local Programs for Improving Air Quality as an innovative approach
to improving air quality, is a significantly less expensive version of EPA's mobile unit.22
These mobile monitoring stations may have great value in identifying high-priority areas where
EPA should pursue comprehensive follow-up monitoring and assessment of community
exposures.
Modeling Exposures
Comparing monitoring to modeling, one interviewee stated that monitoring results show higher
pollution levels than models for the same area; this would suggest inadequacies with modeling.
Yet, despite its advantages, monitoring may not always be feasible. In some situations,
modeling may be a legitimate means of identifying potential high-priority environmental
problems in high-risk communities. Pilot-tested models, such as one that compared monitoring
and modeling results for the same Texas community,23 may offer EPA promising alternatives
to monitoring. The Texas project is part of Region VI's effort to develop a tool for examining
additive risks when the same air pollutant is released from several sources in a given
community.
EPA's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) offers yet another method for utilizing
modeling data to identify potential areas of concern that need further, closer evaluation24 (See
Textbox, National Air Toxics Assessment). For air toxics, at a minimum, NATA will assist
EPA in targeting its limited resources to reduce pollution in high-risk areas and address
environmental justice concerns. Academy research did not uncover similar modeling methods
for waste or water pollution.
50
-------
NATIONAL AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to regulate emissions of 188 air toxics. It is
currently conducting a National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) of 33 air toxics that
present the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. This
assessment also includes diesel particulate matter, which is used as a surrogate measure for
diesel exhaust. NATA includes four steps that use data from 1996:
1. compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources
2. estimating ambient concentrations of air toxics across the contiguous United States
3. estimating population exposures across the contiguous United States
4. characterizing potential public health risks due to inhalation of air toxics, including
both cancer and noncancer effects
NATA's goal is to identify air toxics that pose the greatest potential concern in terms of
contribution to population risk. EPA will use the results to set priorities for the collection of
additional air toxics data, such as emissions and ambient monitoring data.
AIR POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT
1. acetaldehyde
2. ethylene oxide
3. acrolein
4. formaldehyde
5. acrylonitrile
6. hexachlorobenzene
7. arsenic compounds
8. hydrazine
9. benzene
10. lead compounds
11. beryllium compounds
12. manganese compounds
13. 1, 3-butadiene
14. mercury compounds
15. cadmium compounds
16. methylene chloride
17. carbon tetrachloride
* also represented as 7-PAH
** results not yet available
For more information, see http://www
18. nickel compounds
19. chloroform
20. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
21. chromium compounds
22. polycyclic organic matter (POM)*
23. coke oven emissions
24. quinoline
25. dioxins/furans**
26. 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrachloroethane
27. ethylene dibromide
28. perchloroethylene
29. propylene dichloride
30. trichloroethylene
31.1, 3-dichloropropene
32. vinyl chloride
33. ethylene dichloride
34. diesel particulate matter
epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/3 4poll
51
-------
Analyzing and Reducing Cumulative Exposures
Permit writers should have the necessary tools to determine whether a proposed facility poses
cumulative risks to its host community. They also should have tools to reduce these risks if
they find such problems exist. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, working with the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic
Substances, and the Office of Water, has developed a guidance document on how to reduce
toxic emissions in local areas.25 Additionally, the air office is conducting a pilot project in
Cleveland, Ohio to characterize indoor and ambient toxics and to determine how to reduce
them.26 EPA should record the lessons learned from such initiatives and make them available
to the water and waste programs. This can be done through a guidance document for
permitting staff that explains how they can resolve problems of cumulative impacts involving
the permit applicant and other existing sources in the same community.
Academy research identified several tools and methodologies that guide EPA permitting staff
when conducting impact assessments for environmental justice issues. EPA's former Office of
Policy developed a methodology for analyzing community-specific cumulative exposures.27
This report may provide additional insights to EPA offices about more broadly applicable
methods for conducting a study of cumulative exposures in a specific community. Region II
uses a methodology for creating an "environmental load profile analysis" by finding indicators
of the "environmental burden" that a particular community may experience.28 Meanwhile,
Region VI is conducting a pilot study in a Texas community that uses a new approach for
analyzing additive risk from several sources of the same pollutant.29 Upon completion, the
region will submit this methodology to EPA's Science Advisory Board for peer review.
When evaluating complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and preparing its Draft
Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits,30
EPA has compiled more information and experience about how to evaluate cumulative impacts.
The agency should draw upon these lessons as it designs more practical, consistent approaches
to assessing cumulative impacts when considering permit applications with potential impacts on
high-risk communities.
As noted earlier, EPA's former Office of Policy conducted a comprehensive community-
specific study that assessed total exposures to more than 100 pollutants across multiple
exposure pathways.31 This study was conducted in a low-income community covering
approximately five square miles and containing a high concentration of industrial facilities,
waste storage and treatment facilities, garbage transfer stations, and transportation routes that
produced significant emissions from mobile sources. The policy office worked with the
community, Region II, the state, and other stakeholders to operate this multi-year project,
aimed at evaluating cumulative exposures and identifying community characteristics that might
be associated with disproportionately high exposure levels. The study also was designed to
test "a methodology for community specific cumulative exposure analysis that ... might be
useful to other communities."32
52
-------
Reducing Pollution in Specific Communities
Some community groups have viewed cumulative impact assessments and local cumulative
impact reductions as important tools in addressing environmental justice concerns. Some of
EPA's Title VI Advisory Committee members stated that programs designed to address
permitting on the basis of airsheds or watersheds "have the potential to define and ameliorate
the cumulative effects of emissions on communities more effectively than individual decisions,
although they may present similar scientific and technical challenges."33 They noted,
however, that the value of these programs should not diminish the importance of considering
environmental justice implications of individual permits, as these can have significant
implications for communities that are over-burdened with pollution.
California's Air Resources Board has taken the area-wide concept to a more local scale, and
has considered ways to reduce pollution impacts on a neighborhood level. In conjunction with
Region IX, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, and the
Environmental Health Coalition, the California Air Resources Board is developing guidelines
on how to evaluate strategies for reducing air pollution impacts on neighborhoods. This
project is called the Neighborhood Assessment Program34 (See Textbox, California's
Neighborhood Assessments). Its primary purpose is to develop pollution assessment tools, but it
will also include development of risk reduction techniques should the project uncover a high-
risk situation in San Diego's Barrio Logan community where the study is being conducted.
The Neighborhood Assessment Program builds on a prior study by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, called the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study II (MATES II).35
MATES II was a community-based monitoring, analysis, and modeling project focused on
residential areas potentially impacted by nearby sources of toxic emissions. The federal Inter-
Agency Work Group on Environmental Justice,36 coordinated by EPA's Office of
Environmental Justice, is currently conducting an evaluation of the Barrio Logan project, using
MATES II as a measure.3T
53
-------
CALIFORNIA'S NEIGHBORHOOD ASSESSMENTS
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposes to use the following work plan to
develop guidelines for evaluating strategies for reducing air pollution impacts at the
neighborhood level.
Objective: To develop and coordinate the Neighborhood Assessment Program (NAP)
within CARB. To investigate whether or not cumulative air pollution impacts differ
between neighborhoods within a designated region. To focus on developing guidelines for
CARB and other stakeholders to use to evaluate cumulative impacts in a neighborhood.
1. Program Development
(a) Work Group; (b) Evaluate Existing Programs; (c) Program
Coordination; (d) Environmental Justice Mission Statement; (e)
Communication Plan
2. Cumulative-Impact Assessment Methodology
(a) Identify Data and Methodology Gaps; (b) Develop Dispersion and
Impact Assessment Model; (c) Evaluate Methodologies and Protocol; (d)
Work Cooperatively with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA); (e) Peer Review
3. Barrio Logan Pilot Study
(a) Coordination and Risk Communication; (b) Monitoring; (c) Emission
Inventory Development; (d) Data Analysis and Impacts Evaluation
4. Supplemental Neighborhood Monitoring and Impacts Evaluations
(a) Develop Neighborhood Assessment Criteria; (b) Neighborhood
Identification; (c) Neighborhood Monitoring and Evaluations
5. Health Evaluation Efforts
(a) MATES I Health Correlation; (b) Neighborhood Health Evaluations;
(c) Cumulative Impact Indices; (d) Identify Co-funding Sources
6. Risk Reduction Strategies
(a) Near-term Risk Reduction; (b) Regulatory Framework;
(c) Long-term Risk Reduction Strategies
7. Evaluation Guidelines
(a) Develop Guidelines; (b) Peer Review and Stakeholder Outreach;
(c) Board Action
For more information, see http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/napworkplan.htm
54
-------
Community-based efforts to reduce air toxics received the attention of Clean Air Communities
(CAC), a nonprofit effort established in 1999 by environmental groups, states, industry, a
foundation, and a regional air association. CAC is committed to air pollution reduction
strategies in low-income and other communities that are disproportionately affected by air
pollution. The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)38 recently
inaugurated CAC's first project. NESCAUM has collaborated with EPA, the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, and community-based environmental
organizations. In the study community, one in three children has asthma. The project aims to
eliminate 2,000 tons of air pollution from diesel exhaust at the South Bronx's Hunts Point
Cooperative Market by electrifying trucks and refrigerated trailers while they idle at the market
(See Textbox, Clean Air Communities).
CLEAN AIR COMMUNITIES
Environmental organizations based in New York and state agencies have received much
publicity for developing a strategic plan, called the Clean Air Communities initiative, to
address air pollution by installing new clean air technology in low income or people of color
communities. With Governor Whitman's support, they have been able to establish innovative
public-private partnerships to correct environmental hazards at the local level. New York
communities that have been traditionally affected by air pollution are of special interest to these
organizations. The intent of their program is to empower communities by implementing locally
based energy efficiency and clean air strategies. They intend to promote environmental equity
through funding, technical assistance, and implementation of clean air technologies in targeted
urban areas. Through the implementation of the Clean Air Community initiative, they have
been able to achieve drastic reductions of diesel emissions from idling trucks in a South Bronx
neighborhood by developing a truck trailer electrification station.
Source: Clean Air Communities, New Collaborative Commits $5 Million for Clean Air Projects
in New York City's Impacted Communities, 2000.
Data accuracy and availability are critical to successful problem identification, resolution, and
accountability for results. The Academy has noted the importance of accurate data in several
prior reports, including environment.gov and Evaluating Environmental Progress: How EPA
and the States Can Improve the Quality of Enforcement and Compliance Information.39
Academy research indicates that data adequacy and accuracy have specific implications for
environmental justice issues because they are very localized. The lack of accurate point-source
location data can produce results that do not correctly capture the potential exposures that
community residents may experience based on emissions from nearby permitted stationary
sources. Varied results from actual monitoring, as compared with modeled data, also suggest
problems with data accuracy, reducing the potential utility of modeling as a tool for conducting
cumulative impact assessments.
55
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
• EPA should consult with state and local health and environmental agencies to address
environmental justice concerns and identify high-priority areas where residents are
exposed to large amounts of pollution.
• EPA should collect monitoring data from high-risk areas, and use this information as a
tool for identifying potential health hazards and helping permit writers to develop
appropriate terms and conditions for permits that will address environmental justice
concerns. Where monitoring is not practical due to cost or other factors, modeling
should be used to estimate impacts on high-priority areas, understanding that modeling
is less precise than monitoring. Upon scientific peer review, EPA should utilize the
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment as a screening tool to identify potential high-
priority areas where the agency will conduct a thorough examination of pollution
sources.
• EPA should evaluate tools that have been developed by its regional and program
offices, as well as by the Offices of Policy, Civil Rights, and Environmental Justice.
From these evaluations, the agency should identify potential best practices to
recommend when developing practical guidance documents about how permitting staffs
can incorporate environmental justice into EPA permits nationwide. EPA's Science
Advisory Board should review the most useful tools, once they are available, to ensure
that the agency's approaches apply good science.
• EPA should work to ensure the accuracy of data on emissions and exposures in specific
communities. The accuracy of all data, especially point-source location data for
facilities, is critical given that the agency uses this information to analyze very localized
pollution impacts, typically the primary concern of high-risk communities.
56
-------
ENDNOTES
1 Natural Research Council, Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Board on
Environmental Sciences and Technology, Commission on Life Sciences, Science and Judgment in Risk
Assessment Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press (1994).
2 Presidential /Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Risk Assessment and Risk
Management in Regulatory Decision-Making Washington, D.C., (1997).
3 Public Law 170, 104th Cong., 2d Sess.
4 Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d et seq.
5 Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee, Report of the Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee: Next
Steps for EPA, State, and Local Environmental Justice Programs (March 1, 1999) 20.
6 Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Interview with staff (September 25, 2001).
7 U.S. EPA, Science Policy Council, "Cumulative Risk Assessment-Planning and Scoping" (July 3, 1997).
8 Carol Browner to Assistant Administrators, etal. Memorandum, "Cumulative Risk Assessment Guidance-Phase
I Planning and Scoping" (July 3, 1997) 1.
9 Ibid., 1.
10 Ibid., 2.
11
Reggie Harris, EPA Region III Environmental Justice Coordinator, Interview (November 7, 2001).
12 U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Public Comment Draft, Proposed Guidance on Cumulative Risk
Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals That Have a Common Mechanism ofToxicity (June 22, 2000).
13 U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, IPB - National -Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ipbpages/current7v. l_bkup_10_24/237.htm.
14 Industrial Economics, Inc., Community-Specific Cumulative Exposure Assessment for Greenpoint/Williamsburg
New York, Final Report (Cambridge, Massachusetts: September 1999).
15 Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee, Report of the Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee: Next
Steps for EPA, State, and Local Environmental Justice Programs (March 1, 1999) 20.
16 U.S. EPA, Office of Research & Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Framework for
Cumulative Risk Assessment." Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/frmwrkcra.htm.
17 U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board, An SAB Report: Review of Disproportionate Impact Methodologies: A
Review By The Integrated Human Exposure Committee Of The Science Advisory Board, EPA-SAB-IHEC-99-
007 (December 1998).
18 Interview with Mike Callahan, Region VI Staff Scientist (September 24, 2001).
19 U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, EPA Strategic Plan, EPA/190-R-97-002 (September 1997)
17.
57
-------
20 U.S. EPA, "EPA Monitoring Study May Lead To Increased Testing For Air Toxics." Inside E.P.A., Vol. 22,
No. 45 (November 9, 2001) 5.
21
Larry Starfield, Region VI, Interview (September 24, 2001).
22 Environmental Law Institute, Fresh Air: Innovative, State and Local programs for Improving Air Quality
(December 1997), 55-60.
23 Starfield interview.
24 U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment,
Available at http://www.epa.gOV//ipbpages/current/v. l_bkup_10_24/237.htm.
25 Wilbert J. Wilson, personal correspondence (August 21, 2001).
26 U.S. EPA Region V, EPA's Cleveland Air Toxics Pilot Project - Home Page (November 1, 2001).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/cleveland.
27 Industrial Economics, Inc., Community-Specific Cumulative Exposure Assessment for Greenpoint/Williamsburg,
New York, Final Report (Cambridge, Massachusetts: September 1999).
28 U.S. EPA, Region II, Community Resources, Interim Environmental Justice Policy, December 2000.
29 Olivia Balandran, U.S. EPA Region VI, Environmental Justice Leader, Interview (September 24, 2001).
30 U.S. EPA, Part II, Environmental Protection Agency; Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients
Administering Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft Recipient Guidance) and Draft Revised Guidance for
Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (draft Revised Investigation Guidance);
Notice, Fed. Reg. Vol. 65, No. 124 (June 27, 2000).
31 Industrial Economics, Community-Specific Cumulative Exposure Assessment for Greenpoint/Williamsburg, New
York, Final Report (Cambridge, Massachusetts: September 1999) 1-1.
32 Ibid.
33 U.S. EPA, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, Report to the Title VI Implementation Advisory
Committee, Next Steps for EPA, State and Local Environment Justice Programs (March 1, 1999) 16.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/nacept/titleVI/titlerpt.html.
34 California Air Resources Board, Neighborhood Assessment Program Work Plan (June 30 2000).
Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/napworkplan.htm.
35 Ibid.
36 Katherine Dawes, Personal Correspondence, OPEI information for NAP A EJ Evaluation (November 1, 2001).
37 U.S. EPA, Interagency Committee Selects Barrio Logan Community As An Environmental Justice Pilot Project
(November 13, 2000). Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/features/barriologan/index.html.
38 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), EPA Administrator Christine Whitman
Joins In Announcing First Clean Air Communities Project (August 6, 2001).
Available at http://www.cleanaircommunities.org/press/080601-huntspoint.html.
58
-------
39 The National Academy of Public Administration, Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for
the 21st Century (2000) and Evaluating Environmental Progress: How EPA And The States Can Improve The
Quality Of Enforcement And Compliance Information (June 2001).
59
-------
60
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
EQUIPPING COMMUNITIES AND EPA STAFF FOR
BETTER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PERMITTING
FINDINGS
Finding 14: Many government officials, business representatives, and community activists
believe that EPA's formal avenues for public participation in the permitting process are
inadequate to address the concerns of disproportionately impacted communities. The public
remains uninvolved until EPA has negotiated with applicants and resolved most of the permit
questions.
Finding 15: To have a more effective voice in permit decisions, community group members
need better training on how to participate in the process, resources to obtain technical help for
more effective participation, and earlier notice about the proposed permit application. The last
would allow them to become involved in negotiations with the applicant at the same time as
EPA.
Finding 16: EPA has experimented with various ways of enhancing public participation, but
these techniques are not yet standard operating procedure for the agency's permitting processes
in the air, water, and waste programs.
Finding 17: Facilitated dialogues, using well-trained neutral third parties, can make significant
contributions to resolving many community concerns about permitting, especially if they are
conducted very early in the process.
Finding 18: Giving early notice to local officials about permit applications can enable them to
consider such community concerns as odor, noise, traffic, and other issues that are outside
EPA's jurisdiction, but that local agencies may have authority to address.
Finding 19: EPA technical assistance and facilitated dialogue resources for community groups
regarding permitting are quite limited except in the Superfund program.
Finding 20: Disproportionately impacted community members want better access to technical
information that will enable them to participate more effectively in negotiations about permit
terms and conditions.
BACKGROUND
The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
require that the public have a formal opportunity to comment on EPA draft permits. This
opportunity typically takes place once EPA has prepared a draft permit. This often occurs
several weeks or months after the original permit application was submitted to EPA.
Environmental laws intend for these formal public comment opportunities to enhance the
openness of permitting processes. Public comment on draft permits occurs too late in the
61
-------
process, however, to produce meaningful changes in many permits or to allow time for EPA
dialogue with applicants and the affected communities. As a result, most public participation
has not helped EPA to deal with citizen concerns about permits. Nor has it ensured that the
best information is made available to permit writers, or reduced disputes between EPA and the
affected communities.
In her August 9, 2001 memorandum reaffirming EPA's commitment to environmental justice,
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman noted that this issue requires "ensuring greater public
participation in the Agency's development and implementation of environmental regulations
and policies."1 Similarly, a National Environmental Policy Commission report recently stated:
"Despite the numerous laws, mandates and directives by the federal government to involve the
public in decision making, communities repeatedly expressed their frustration over their
continued lack of involvement in decisions that impact their daily lives."2 One of the four
"Action Agenda" items developed by the federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice calls on the participating agencies to "make government more accessible
and responsive to communities."3 Furthermore, in a December 2000 review of its public
participation policy, EPA itself observed, "active public participation in EPA decision-making
processes is critical to ensuring that the agency bases its decisions on the most pertinent
information and creates workable long-term solutions for affected communities, industries,
public health and the environment."4 The agency then concluded, "to engage the public in this
new century, EPA will need to reach out to a more diverse society, enhance public
participation practices, and work more closely with our co-regulators."5
EPA's Superfund program, which supports redevelopment of potentially contaminated property
through the "Brownfields" initiative, has emphasized the need to work constructively with the
public. These public participation programs are predicated on providing early notice to
communities about proposed projects, training EPA staff to work with communities,
designating a specific community liaison official, and providing technical resources to
communities for supporting their effective participation in the EPA decision-making process.
A 1999 study of seven Brownfields redevelopment projects by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
revealed that citizens at the sites did not file any Title VI civil rights complaints. The two most
common factors cited for this result were early and meaningful community involvement, and
redevelopment that creates benefits for the community. The study found,
Each pilot has a unique community involvement approach or model, specifically
designed for its community's political, geographic and organizational structure.
While it is clear that models cannot simply be translated from one city to another,
the case studies reveal promising components of various pilot activities that other
pilots can use to help ensure sustained community involvement. These strategies
include: 1) educating community representatives and other stakeholders; 2)
institutionalizing the Brownfields decision-making process; 3) facilitating timely and
clear decision-making with state officials; 4) making meetings/information
accessible; and 5) creating and promoting trust through the use of neutral parties.6
62
-------
Improving the capacity and opportunity for community groups to participate in the permitting
process is an almost universally identified step toward achieving environmental justice.
Public participation by itself is not the solution to environmental justice problems, but such
problems cannot be resolved without improved public participation. The type and scale of
public involvement may vary based on the nature of a specific permit application, but most
basic aspects of participation should apply to all EPA permits. To address environmental
justice concerns more effectively, EPA's permitting programs should include the public
participation elements discussed below.
BUILDING COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO PARTICIPATE
Community members are not often familiar with when and how to participate in permitting
processes. EPA-sponsored training for local communities, such as "The Proof is in the
Permit" (developed by the New York Public Interest Research Group and implemented with
community group input),7 can build communities' capacity to play a more effective role.
These types of courses can provide a clearer picture of how permitting works, including its
limitations, and what kinds of information must be provided to influence EPA's decision on
particular classes of permits.8
Increasing EPA's Resources for Community Assistance
EPA's financial costs and staff time increase when it expands the ability of individuals or
communities to participate in permitting processes, provides technical services to aid
communities, and directs more staff resources toward public participation. However,
Academy research indicates that enhancing public participation is critical for EPA to improve
its permitting processes, address environmental justice concerns, and resolve controversies so
environmentally appropriate projects may proceed. Discussing environmental justice issues,
one state official aptly noted that EPA and state environmental agencies over the past several
years have significantly increased the resources devoted to technical and compliance assistance
for regulated businesses. These efforts are important for achieving improved environmental
results, yet EPA's resources for assisting and involving communities ii permitting programs
have not increased correspondingly.
Providing Earlier Opportunities to Participate
EPA's air, water, and RCRA permit programs provide formal opportunities for public
participation. However, they usually occur late in the permitting process when most projects
have been fully shaped, and when facility and EPA staff have reached agreement on permit
conditions or changes to the original proposals. This late participation significantly limits the
community's ability to influence the permit and analyze the project's potential effects.
Moreover, because the public was not involved in the earlier stages, it may tend to view the
permit applicant and EPA as allies. As a result, the community is more likely to challenge the
permit and create costly, time-consuming delays, not believing that EPA would address their
legitimate concerns. Although formal public comment processes are necessary and useful,
63
-------
they currently are too late and limited in many cases to provide EPA with an opportunity to
address concerns appropriately.
Texas recently adopted legal requirements to notify the public when it receives a complete
permit application.9 This approach provides an opportunity for the public to comment at a stage
when the environmental agency can take its comments into account as part of the give-and-take
between the permit applicant and the agency staff. This is when the applicant may more easily
be able to accept changes to the project design that will accommodate community concerns. In
addition, Texas' approach allows for more extended contacts between the agency's permitting
staff and members of the affected community. This early notice approach takes more time and
has produced many more public comments to the environmental agency, yet there have been
fewer challenges to final permit decisions thus far.
EPA does not have a statutory mandate for early notice of permit applications, but it has clear
legal authority and discretion to expand public participation opportunities. The General
Counsel's legal opinion noted the following finding by EPA's Environmental Appeals Board in
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., 6 E.A.B. 66, 1995 WL 395962 (1995):
When the Region has a basis to believe that operation of the facility may have a
disproportionate impact on a minority or low-income segment of the affected
community, the region should, as a matter of policy, exercise its discretion to assure
early and ongoing opportunities for public involvement in the permitting process.10
This decision recognizes EPA's ability to notify communities at an early stage in the permitting
process and to involve them in negotiations about permit conditions, even prior to the formal
public comment period. The legal opinion also indicates that the agency may be able to
mandate additional public participation requirements, conferring a legal right for early
involvement in permits under RCRA and for permitting publicly owned treatment works under
the Clean Water Act. n
BUILDING COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST
Working effectively with a community during the permitting process is significantly enhanced
if the community already has an established solid level of trust with EPA's staff. Yet this
circumstance is rare today, except with the Superfund program which has used community
liaisons for several years. It may not be practical to have EPA liaisons for all communities,
but the agency could assign them to high-priority disproportionately impacted communities and
work with states to establish a similar function for other communities. This approach would
allow EPA and participating states to identify and understand community concerns, and to
consult with key opinion leaders in the community. It also would provide the community with
clear points of contact for EPA and state environmental agencies (See Textbox, NEJAC: Core
Values and Guiding Principles for the Practice of Public Participation).
64
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL'S (NEJAC)
Core Values and Guiding Principles for the Practice of Public Participation
The following 14 items appear in the Model Plan for Public Participation (February 2000),
developed by the Public Participation and Accountability Committee of NEJAC, a federal advisory
committee to EPA.
1. People should have a say in decisions about actions which affect their lives.
2. Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the
decision.
3. The public participation process communicates the interests and meets the process needs of
all participants.
4. The public participation process seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those
potentially affected.
5. The public participation process involves participants in defining how they participate.
6. The public participation process communicates to participants how their input was, or was
not, utilized.
7. The public participation process provides participants with the information they need to
participate in a meaningful way.
8. Involve the public in decisions about actions which affect their lives.
9. Maintain honesty and integrity throughout the process.
10. Encourage early and active community participation.
11. Recognize community knowledge.
12. Use cross-cultural methods of communication.
13. Institutionalize meaningful public participation by acknowledging and formalizing the
process.
14. Create mechanisms and measurements to ensure the effectiveness of public participation.
Items 1-7 were adopted from Interact: The Journal of Public Participation, Volume 2, Number 1,
Spring 1996. Interact is published by the International Association of Public Participation
Practitioners. Items 8-14 are from The Guiding Principles for Public Participation, developed by
the NEJAC's Public Participation/Accountability Workgroup to ensure the early involvement of
the public.
For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oej/nejac/pdf/modelbk.pdf
65
-------
Improving Staff Outreach Skills
Most staff, including permit writers, do not have readily honed public participation instincts,
understanding, and skills upon arriving at EPA. However, working with the public has
become increasingly essential to carry out their work and minimize costly, time-consuming
disputes. Effective public involvement requires broad-based skills, such as listening to non-
technical people, understanding how to communicate with external audiences, learning
techniques to structure effective meetings, arranging for other public involvement
opportunities, understanding the range of public engagement techniques that are available and
how to choose among them, and appreciating valuable information that successful community
involvement can impart.
Staff training aside, several EPA programs and regions are re-examining their human resource
models to ascertain the need to hire staff with specific community involvement skills, and those
who better represent the diverse populations they serve. The agency has numerous programs
to address these issues, including the community involvement programs developed in the
Superfund program and the agency's Community Involvement University12 (See Textbox,
Community Involvement University). Not all EPA permit writers have skills for working with
communities, although many may be able to acquire them. It may be possible for a permit
writer who lacks strong community involvement skills to work with colleagues who do.
66
-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT UNIVERSITY
Community Involvement University (CIU) was established by the Community Involvement and
Outreach Center in EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR). CIU provides
opportunities for EPA's regional Superfund team members to build skills needed for successful
community cleanup efforts.
CIU offers different courses annually on community involvement, facilitation, and cross-cultural
collaboration. CIU also coordinates with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Training Forum. The Training Forum manages training schedules and activities and
operates a website (http://www.tralnex.org), that provides information on numerous technical and
scientific courses related to site or incident management.
CIU courses allow community involvement coordinators, remedial project managers, on-scene
coordinators, and other specialists associated with Superfund cleanups to learn new skills, enhance
old ones, and gain insights into working effectively with community members and others affected
by Superfund cleanups.
Some of the courses offered by CIU include:
• Public Involvement: How to Communicate, Listen, and Work with our Public
• Leadership, Attitude, Function, and Style
• Media Relations Training
• Introduction to Community Involvement
• Managing the Psychological and Social Stress of Working in Superfund Communities
• Communicating in a Crisis: Tools you can use when there is no time to waste
• Mastering Meetings
• Basic Facilitation
• Working with Hostile Meetings and Difficult People
• Cross Cultural Effectiveness
For more information, see http://www.trainex.org/pdf/ciu_brochure.pdf
67
-------
Providing Technical Support for Public Participation
Communities do not always trust the objectivity of EPA staff. In cases where difficult
technical issues and significant community concerns exist, the public often wants its own
experts who can analyze the facts and advise on the proposed permits. EPA has substantial
experience providing technical assistance to communities involved with Superfund issues
through Technical Assistance Grants or the "TAG" program.13 However, there are some
concerns about using the TAG program as a technical assistance for model permitting
programs. From the community perspective, there can be complexities and long delays when
applying for a TAG. From the government perspective, there is concern that TAG experts can
exacerbate controversies, rather than help communities and EPA work better together. TAG is
currently limited to Superfund sites, and no similar program exists for EPA's air, water, and
other waste permitting programs (See Textbox, Technical Assistance Grant Process).
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROCESS
Congress included provisions in the Superfund Reauthorization Act of 1986 to establish the
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program. This program recognizes the importance of
community participation and the need to involve citizens living near National Priorities List
(NPL) sites, the most hazardous waste sites nationwide. TAGs are intended to promote
community involvement in EPA's decisions about site-specific cleanup strategies under
Superfund.
TAG's provide funding for community activities associated with participation in the decision-
making process at eligible Superfund sites. Those activities may include obtaining technical
assistance from their own scientists or other experts who can interpret scientific data and other
information about the site. This assistance then allows communities to assess independently
the technical aspects of an issue or pending action, rather than relying on the regulated
community or EPA for their information. An initial grant up to $50,000 is available for any
Superfund site that is on EPA's NPL, or is proposed to be on it where a response action has
begun.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/tag/whatis.htm.
Community groups can obtain technical support for permitting through Technical Outreach
Services for Communities (TOSC), an EPA program.14 TOSC is a service of the university-
based Hazardous Substance Research Centers, funded by EPA and the Department of Defense.
The services - provided through two universities located in each region - are focused on
hazardous waste issues and include providing a base of fundamental scientific information;
interpreting aid summarizing reports; clarifying the regulatory process generally and site-
68
-------
specifically; and addressing specific site contamination issues, including extent of
contamination, contaminant dynamics, exposure, health, and ecological considerations, and
potential remediation technologies. TOSC has proved useful to some environmental justice
situations, but it has limits. First, the program has scarce resources and can only meet the
needs of a few communities seeking assistance on technical issues. Second, only ten
universities are involved in TOSC; thus, university experts may be outsiders to a community
and not necessarily be more trusted than others (See Textbox, Technical Outreach Services for
Communities).
TECHNICAL OUTREACH SERVICES FOR COMMUNITIES
The mission of the Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) program is to help
communities with hazardous-sub stance pollution problems. By providing independent technical
information and assistance, TOSC helps communities to better understand technical issues and to
participate in environmental decisions.
TOSC is a service of the Hazardous Substance Research Centers (HSRC) program. Over thirty
universities nationwide form a network of five HSRCs. Each HSRC serves two EPA regions.
Meaningful community participation in environmental decisions is most useful when
community members understand the technical issues involved. The TOSC program gives
power to communities through education and information.
Through TOSC, each regional HSRC works directly with local communities on hazardous-
substance problems. Each center helps communities to understand the problems and create
solutions. TOSC may also promote communication and dialogue among different groups with
interests in the site.
Additionally, TOSC provides technical outreach to communities, by using new technologies
and training, as well as the expertise of HSRC educators and researchers. This outreach
supports the communities with the scientific and engineering information needed for
participation in EPA's cleanup decisions.
Funding for the HSRCs is provided by EPA, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Energy, and other federal and state agencies, participating universities, and private sources.
TOSC is designed to complement the technical assistance that EPA offers to communities
through the Superfund Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program. However, there are two key
differences. First, unlike TAG, TOSC is not limited to sites on the National Priorities List.
TOSC is available to many communities with hazardous-substance problems that are not
otherwise eligible for TAG. Second, TOSC is not a grant program, and it is easier for informal
community groups to access because there are no federal or incorporation requirements, as are
common with TAG.
For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/unix0008/community _resources/tosc/toschome. html
69
-------
Offering Facilitated Dialogues
Various public involvement approaches have addressed community concerns about proposed
new or modified facilities. One helpful technique for controversial situations has been
facilitated dialogue, which uses a neutral third party to manage interactions among the
community, a permit applicant, the regulatory agency, and other interested parties. This
dialogue can be informal or involve formal dispute resolution processes like mediation. Such
negotiations can address issues and propose solutions not identified in typical public meetings,
hearings, or informal discussions with interested parties. Funding for mediation and other
facilitated dialogue approaches is available through EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and
a standing contract managed by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.15 The
agency's demand for dispute resolution services under that contract has skyrocketed from four
work assignments during the initial five-year grant period to 206 during the most recent five-
year grant period.16
Numerous issues relate to facilitated dialogues, including (1) the types of dialogue that are
most useful for specific kinds of issues or disputes and when to use them, (2) how
knowledgeable EPA staff are about "interest-based negotiation," (3) access to resources to
ensure successful community participation in dialogues, (4) EPA program ability to access
quickly facilitation/mediation resources, and (5) the availability of resources to fund dialogues
other than those in the waste program. An evaluation of the value of collaborative efforts,
currently underway through EPA's Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, should answer
some of these questions.1T
EPA needs to document what it has learned from past uses of various dispute resolution
methods, such as facilitated dialogues and more formal mediation. These experiences, together
with a review of the relevant literature, should provide the agency with a rich set of
information about when these tools are most useful. Based on this information, EPA should
develop some guidance for its permitting programs on how to maximize the success of these
dialogues in terms of timing, location, choice of facilitator, and identifying the appropriate
participants.
EPA headquarters could make this information particularly useful for EPA permit writers and
permitting program managers by developing a "decision tree" to determine when and how to
use dialogue techniques. This decision tree should identify the factors for permit writers to
consider when determining whether a facilitated dialogue would be useful in particular
situations, including what type of dialogue would be most appropriate and the structure of the
dialogue. EPA should then distribute this decision tree to all of its program and regional
offices, along with information about other public involvement tools that have proven
successful. Then EPA's permitting staff and managers would have the information they need
to conduct efficient and effective public participation.
70
-------
ENCOURAGING REGULATED ENTITIES TO EXPAND THEIR OUTREACH
An excellent way to address concerns about a permit application is for the applicant to meet
and work with the community while the agency considers the application for permit renewal,
modification, or a new facility. Indeed, a community involvement program is also often in the
applicant's best interest. An industry association observed in a recent article on fast-track
construction of energy facilities that:
A proactive approach to plant siting public relations and education must take place at
the earliest stages of the project. Moreover, the public relations program must take into
account the committee's cultural sensitivities. Remember that your power plant is their
neighbor.18
Many projects proceed with little opposition. Where opposition develops, however, the results
can be very costly, in terms of time delays and public relations should the applicant lack a way
to work with community groups. EPA has encouraged corporate good neighbor policies,
including plans to involve communities early in any permitting process. For example, the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response publishes Social Aspects of Siting RCRA
Hazardous Waste Facilities19 (See Textbox, Social Aspects of Siting), which provides helpful
information and advice to permit applicants on how to work with communities effectively.
71
-------
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF SITING:
A CHECKLIST ON SITING FACILITIES FOR EPA AND INDUSTRY
Address the fundamentals:
^ Integrate cultural/social and economic needs of a community into early site
planning
^ Establish partnerships with communities
^ Take time to find out about a community's quality of life concerns
v' Learn about environmental justice programs that may apply at the site
Be prepared to answer questions on:
^ Routine environmental exposure
v' Threat of spills and likelihood of exposure from accidental releases
^ Evacuation routes and alternative routes
S Noise and odor
^ Influence on outdoor activities
v' Influence on development of neighboring property
S Devaluation of surrounding land and personal property
S Gardening and fishing activity nearby—recreational or subsistence
S Effect on property of cultural and social significance
S Displacement of existing jobs or potential for new jobs and skills match
Collect information on:
-S Community boundaries—residential and commercial
S Demographics
•S Education level of residents
S Cultural background and values of residents
•S Actual land use
-S Emissions from existing facilities, e.g., existing emission sources and
cumulative impacts
-S Environmental permitting history
S Key community members and institutions
-S Existing contamination information
•S Areas used by high-risk populations (schools, hospitals, recreation areas)
S History of all environmentally permitted activities
S Oral history of community's health
S Location of sites of special culture
Develop effective communication plan based on:
-S How the community members communicate with each other
S How the community gets its information
S Building trust with a two-way, open dialogue, responding to all comments and
questions
•S Holding effective public meetings
•S Early on, devising and using an effective outreach strategy
S Providing technical assistance to community members
^ Reaching out before site selection
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous
Waste Facilities (April 2000), p. 13.
72
-------
EPA officials and several states indicated that they routinely urge applicants to work closely
with communities surrounding their facilities. In addition to using its "bully pulpit," EPA
could use other on going programs for the regulated community, such as small business
assistance training programs,20 to help companies understand the techniques and benefits for
working with affected communities during the permitting process.
COMMUNICATING INFORMATION TO THE COMMUNITY
Communities must have accurate, timely, understandable, and complete information about
facilities, emissions, and enforcement activities. This is critical to building trust and
empowering the public so it can meaningfully participate in EPA's permitting processes. Just
as formal participation procedures provide inadequate opportunities to the public in many
permitting decisions, legal notices in newspapers and permit information made available in
government offices are equally ineffective. A recent report prepared by the National
Environmental Policy Commission has pointed out that:
Resources should be made available for culturally competent outreach, including
language translation and explanation of scientific and technical issues, meetings
scheduled for times most available to the affected community, longer comment periods
for major or high-risk or technically complicated sources, all with a goal of more
meaningful public participation.21
During an electronic dialogue on public involvement in EPA decisions, a participant from the
Southern Organizing Community for Economic and Social Justice observed that:
use of a variety of outreach avenues is most effective (in reaching "fence-line"
communities), radio and television public service announcements and talk shows, news
stories, newspaper paid ads, public meetings and meetings with neighborhood and
community organizations, open houses and the like.... Churches and libraries are good
places to distribute information....22
EPA offices have experimented with various techniques to notify the public about pending
actions and to provide people with easier access to understandable data. For example, Region
V advocates interviews through one-on-one conversations, or small group meetings to inform
the community on how it can become involved.23 EPA's new CIS, "Window on My
Environment" (See Textbox, Window on My Environment), allows the public to quickly find
information on environmental releases and facilities in its neighborhood through the Internet.24
Various other tools are identified in EPA's new guide, "Public Involvement in Permitting"25
and in the Environmental Law Institute's study, "Building Capacity to Participate in
Environmental Protection Agency Activities: A Needs Assessment and Analysis."26
73
-------
WINDOW ON MY ENVIRONMENT
Window on My Environment (WME) is sponsored by EPA in partnership with federal, state,
and local organizations. It is designed to improve the public's access to useful community-
based environmental information. In connection with WME, EPA, the states, and other data
sources are developing a comprehensive data exchange network that will compile
environmental information for agencies' and public use.
WME is EPA's prototype of a geographical portal for integrating environmental information
with local geography to answer public questions, examine critical problems, and discover
potential solutions for environmental protection and human health issues.
WME was developed to incorporate new technology, environmental data, and information
resources from EPA and other federal agencies, states, tribes and communities. In 2001, the
demonstration phase will make WME more user-friendly, providing wider geographic
coverage, live-streaming of data from partners, and greater breadth and depth of environmental
data and information resources. Data standards, data quality, and consistency in reporting
methods also are being refined as part of the WME pilot phase.
Current features of WME include:
• state-of-the-art interactive mapping tools
• data on ambient environmental conditions
• access to analytical and reporting tools
• local governmental services and contacts
When a user enters a specific location to be profiled, such as city/town and state or zip code,
WME will display:
• An Interactive Map: the location of regulated facilities, monitoring sites, water bodies,
community demographics, and three-dimensional views. Hotlinks are provided to
state/federal information about these items
• Your Window: statistics about conditions in a specific area, including population
density, country/urban area designations, and local watersheds/water bodies
• Your Environment: information from federal, state, and local partners on
environmental issues such as air and water quality, watershed health, Superfund sites,
fish advisories, polluted waters, and local services for protecting the environment
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme
74
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
• EPA should expand its TAG and TOSC programs to offer more timely and accessible
technical assistance to communities that need this support. This help would allow
communities to participate effectively in EPA's air, water, and RCRA permitting
processes, and in efforts to mitigate environmental risks in high-risk communities.
• Using its discretionary authority, EPA should adopt early notice procedures for
communities once permit applications are complete, providing the name of an agency
community liaison and soliciting community comments prior to negotiating the permit
terms and conditions. EPA should expand these efforts beyond an experimental stage
and should make them standard operating procedure.
• EPA should use community liaisons in some high-priority communities to assess how
such an approach could improve communications and relationships with those
communities.
• EPA should expand its public involvement training and offer significantly more training
opportunities so that managers, permit writers, and other staff can develop stronger
skills in outreach and public involvement techniques. This training is especially
important for those who interact with, or make decisions about, the public.
• EPA's public participation resources, including staff training and technical assistance
funding, should be expanded to provide greater balance in the amount of EPA support
made available for assisting community groups and regulated businesses.
• EPA should use its facilitation and mediation experiences to create, publish, and widely
disseminate a decision tree to help EPA staff decide when and under what
circumstances dispute resolution and dialogue tools may be useful when dealing with
environmental justice concerns. The agency also should make funding available in each
region for the sole purpose of providing community and EPA access to
facilitation/mediation resources. The decision tree can indicate when such approaches
might be helpful in resolving permit controversies.
• EPA should continue to encourage regulated facilities and permit applicants to work
with affected communities early in the permitting process, including publishing case
studies that demonstrate the value of community involvement, offering outreach
training as part of business assistance programs, and other techniques.
• EPA should use various mechanisms to provide information to communities about
permit applications, such as more prominent newspaper notices; notices posted in local
institutions including libraries, schools, and churches; establishment of a community
liaison person; and web-based information. Also, EPA should expand its efforts to
provide information in other languages as appropriate, and in easily understandable
formats.
75
-------
ENDNOTES
1 Christine Todd Whitman to Assistant Administrators, et al., memorandum, EPA 's Commitment to Environmental
Justice (August 9, 2001).
2 National Environmental Policy Commission, Report to the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional
Black Caucus Foundation Environmental Justice Braintrust (September 28, 2001), 43.
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice, Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda (November 2000): 7.
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, Engaging the American People: A Review of EPA's
Public Participation Policy and Regulations with Recommendations for Action (December 2000), 1.
5 Ibid.
6 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Brownfields Title VI Case Studies: Summary
Report (June 1999) 16.
7 New York Public Interest Research Group, The Proof is in the Permitting.,
Available at http://www.titlev.org/handbook.htm.
8 Elizabeth Mullin, The Art of Commenting: How to Influence Environmental Decisions with Effective Comments,
2000. Environmental Law Institute.
9 Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission Interview with Staff (September 25, 2001).
10 Gary S. Guzy to Steven A. Herman, Robert Perciasepe, Timothy Fields, Jr., and J, Charles Fox, Memorandum,
"EPA Statutory and Regulatory Authorities Under Which Environmental Justice Issues may be Addressed in
Permitting" (December 1, 2000), 2.
"ibid., 4.
12 U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Ghmmunity Involvement and Outreach Center,
Community Involvement University (2001).
13 U.S. EPA, Technical Assistance Grants (TAG). Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/tag/.
U.S. EPA, Technical Outreach Services for Communities.
Available athttp://www.epa.gov/region08/community_resources/tosc/toschome.html.
15
U.S. EPA, Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, "Index." Available http://www.epa.gov/adr/index.html.
16National Environmental Policy Commission, Report to the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional
Black Caucus Foundation Environmental Justice Braintrust (September 28, 2001), 13.
17 U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, Strategy for Evaluating the Environmental Justice
Collaborative Model (July 12, 2001).
18 Edison Electric Institute, Electric Perspectives (March/April 2001), 4.
19 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste
Facilities, EPA530-K-00-005 (April 2000).
76
-------
20 U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Interviews with Staff
(October 18, 2001).
21 National Environmental Policy Commission, Report to the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional
Black Caucus Foundation Environmental Justice Braintrust (September 28, 2001) 48.
22 www.network-democracy.org/epa-pip/archive/seq00242.html; see also Environmental Law Institute, Libraries
as a Community Resource for Environmental Information (December 2000).
23 U.S. EPA, Region V, Interim Guidelines for Idertifying and Addressing A Potential Environmental Justice Case
(June 1998): 24.
24 U.S. EPA, Window to My Environment," Available at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme/
25 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Public Involvement in Environmental Permits: A
Reference Guide (August 2000).
26 Environmental Law Institute, Building Capacity to Participate in Environmental Protection Agency Activities: A
Needs Assessment and Analysis (June 1999).
77
-------
78
-------
APPENDIX A
Environmental Justice Checklist and Resources
for Ecology Staff and Management
Please assess the following questions and items as you conduct your work.
The purpose of this Checklist is to raise awareness of possible environmental justice (EJ) issues and
dynamics when working with communities or when working with statewide policies that affect the public's
health or a community's environment.
Reviewing these items will help to further identify possible issues of concern,
appropriate considerations, or actions for follow-up. Going through them will benefit
you and your program. Not going through these considerations could make your and
the agency's work less effective, and possibly expose the agency to liabilities.
Overall, consider the "stakeholders."
Who are they and who's missing?
LOCATION & IMPACT
If known or suspected EJ
issues are identified by
going through this Checklist
(or by any other means),
consult your program's EJ
subcommittee representative
or John Ridgway,
Ecology's EJ coordinator,
(360) 407-6713,
irid461@ecy.wa.gov.
Who lives, works, or recreates closest to the facility/site/area of concern?
This first step helps to physically define the "community" and everyone who's in it. Consider: Are all the area's
residents and users aware of the work you're doing and its relationship to their environment? Are they represented?
How?
In general, a one -mile radius from the area of concern should be considered for residents, including housing,
tribes, schools, other institutions, etc. For soil contamination, an area smaller than a mile's radius may be adequate.
For air releases, where weather patterns usually matter, a larger area may be more appropriate to consider. For
water-related issues, down stream, down gradient, a local aquifer's area, or perhaps the entire drainage basin may be
the area to consider. In a small town, it may be best to address the entire town. Transportation problems associated
with a given project (e.g., construction or operation-related traffic on the only road through town) may also be an
issue that can go far beyond a mile's radius.
0 For statewide effects (rules, policies, etc.), the goal is to actively solicit comments and participation from a full
representation of the "community." Identifying those who might ordinarily be left out is not as clear-cut. The key:
look for, invite, welcome, and assist diversity. Look to draw in those most likely to be affected by the rule,
policy, or other Ecology-related activity. This may mean going into a variety of communities, at least informally,
and talking with them to better understand if there is a probable or possible effect on them. Arranging a tour with
someone who knows the community will help.
i I Cumulative effects. What other environmental pollution or environmentally related activities are or have been
taking place within a 1- to 2-mile radius of the area in question? What is the cumulative effect of those other
sites?
To help make up for what is not posted in the facility/site system, the lead
for the project or issue will be expected to let people in other programs
within the regional office know what they're embarking upon.
This can be easily done by a "send-all" e-mail within the respective
office. The regional EJ subcommittee contact and/or lead Public
Information Officer (PIO) will also help to identify who would be most
appropriate within the office to notify. Contact Education and Outreach
Start at Ecology's "Facility/Site"
Web site:
http: //www. ecy. wa. gov/services/as
/iss/fsweb/fshome.html This will
show much (but likely, not all) of
what Ecology is tracking in the
area.
79
-------
Specialists in the regions (Toxics Cleanup, Water Quality, Air Quality Programs, etc.) who are doing on-the-ground
public-involvement work. They are likely already involved with some (or many) of the groups who will need to be
contacted and may have already established positive relationships with them.
0 In terms of cumulative effects, here's a basic point to consider: if there are multiple sources of pollution in the
immediate area of interest, the need increases for a public health specialist to help assess those factors. This
person should be prepared for health-related questions and concerns from the community and the news media. Help
bring that expertise in early, starting with the staff from local public-health districts. Other resources are also
available: see the Public Health reference later in this list.
SEPA/NEPA
1 I Should the State or National Environmental Policy Acts be
considered? SEPA may be the most appropriate and best opportunity
or tool to consider important issues covered in this checklist, whether
site-specific or on a statewide basis. It's possible that the
applicant/business/entity that's triggering Ecology's review or
Patty Betts in the Shorelands and
Environmental Assessment
Program, (360) 407-6925, can also
help with this.
involvement isn't necessarily looking for SEPA/NEPA considerations when they should be. Either way, check with
Ecology's SEPA staff if you're not sure. They can help determine what needs to be considered and done in this
regard.
TRIBES
You can get assistance
in understanding tribal
interests, tribal
reservations, potential
impacts and how to best
communicate with tribes
by contacting Ecology's
liaison with tribal
governments, Tom
Laurie, Inter-
governmental Liaison,
(360) 407-7017.
0 Tribal treaty reserved rights . Twenty-one tribes within the state have off-
reservation rights guaranteed by the United States through treaties under which the
tribes ceded title to most of the land within the state. These treaty -reserved rights
include the right to take fish and shellfish in "usual and accustomed areas"
throughout most of the state for commercial and subsistence purposes. If the
site/facility/action will affect fish or shellfish, it will likely affect one or more
tribes.
0 Tribal lands . If a facility/site/action will affect tribal lands , Indian reservations
in particular, the appropriate tribal government needs to be contacted and kept
informed Indian reservations are an available layer in our geographic information
system (GIS) mapping files.
CULTURE AND LANGUAGE
1 I Subsistence and cultural users . Are any resources affected by the site/facility/action used for subsistence or for
cultural purposes? In addition to direct problems created by discharges or displacement, subsistence use may be
affected by treatment options or cleanup levels. This can apply to fishing, hunting, and/or harvesting, and tribal
and/or non-tribal communities. Many Southeast Asian (and other) residents in Washington have cultures and diets
that use or consume local foods, plants, mushrooms, nuts, etc., that are not cultivated or protected or managed as a
conventional "crop." The gathering and consumption offish, aquatic life, herbs and plants within a local environment
- and Ecology's environmental work in the same water body or area can easily be related to subsistence issues. For
more information about the relationships between subsistence consumption, toxicity exposure, and public health, see
the Public Health reference later in this list.
80
-------
0 Communication/language barriers . Are there one or more notable non-
English-speaking populations that may be part of the area or community
in consideration? Regardless of the predominant language(s), is illiteracy
an issue? Are your messages getting to those who need to see or hear
them? The standard requirement to post notices in the legal page of the
predominant newspaper of the region is not effective communication by itself.
0 Notices at laundry facilities, homeless shelters, employment offices, food
banks, post offices, bus stops/transit stations, and local radio stations will
likely reach many more low-income or migrant residents. Also, churches,
playgrounds, parks, health clinics, grocery stores, and community centers are
effective places to consider for printed messages. Flyer inserts in newspapers
specific to the culture (i.e., Latino, Vietnamese papers, etc.) or notices sent via
school district cultural programs are also very effective. Notices in these
locations also inform employees as much as the general public who goes
there.
0 Cultural barriers. What potential cultural barriers should be
considered? Local residents from other cultures often don't trust the
government, including meetings in government buildings. (This is not to
imply that any local resident necessarily does trust a government meeting in a
government building.)
MEETINGS
Ecology has an outstanding
responsive, field-proven,
translation resource for print,
meetings and other needs. The
"Multi-lingual Inteipretation
and Translation Teams "
(MITT) work in Chinese,
Spanish, Vietnamese and
Korean. Don't hesitate to use
this resource at
http://aww.ecology.ecv.wa.gov
/mitt/. If other languages are
needed, including signing for
the deaf, contact your EJ
representative. And don't
forget to add Ecology's TDD
(Telecommunication Device
for the Deaf) phone numbers
to your notices.
Non-government buildings. It's perfectly acceptable, and in some cases it may be to an advantage, to conduct
Ecology public meetings or events in non-governmental (or less traditional) buildings - provided that such
locations still meet Americans with Disability Act requirements. Doing this may diminish or remove some cultural
barriers, thus increasing attendance and participation. Schools, churches, tribal centers, fire stations, granges,
community centers (formal or otherwise) are some suggested examples. Using a community hall may be the easiest
and best thing you can do to create a welcoming meeting (for Ecology as well as the community) with good
participation. People are more likely to come if they know the location as "their" community center - as compared to
a place of bureaucrats and regulations.
Tables partially blocking entrances with sign-in sheets can be intimidating. It's good to have an Ecology person
at the entrance to welcome folks but try to not separate yourself with a table from those coming in. Consider placing
the table along a wall; you won't be tempted to sit behind it and it won't be in the way. And don't feel compelled to
require a sign- in. If someone does not wish to sign in, welcome him or her anyway. Let him/her know that his/her
name and address is respectfully requested so we can send follow-up information related to the meeting's topic. If
someone wishes an Ecology reply to his or her comment or question, a name and mailing address would be needed, of
course. We appreciate having names to help know how many people attended the meeting. A list also helps show
other visitors and meeting managers how many people intend to comment. If formal comments are being taken, a list
of the names of those wishing to comment may be requested before the comment period starts (not necessarily before
the meeting starts) to establish the order of speakers. However, the law doesn't require one's name to be on a list in
order to have the right to walk up and comment at the last minute if there's time. Typically, a speaker's name is
requested (to be given verbally) at the time the comment is given. The point is, signing an attendance sheet is not
required for admittance or participation in a public meeting.
Check with locals (church leaders, teachers, community center staff, health clinic staff, etc.) to lean more
about cultural factors. They will likely be good resources to help draw local interest and participation.
81
-------
Local meetings. Are these events accessible? For
meetings/hearings/workshops/other Ecology-sponsored public events, ensure
accessibility to the greatest extent practicable. This applies not only to
the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), but also to timing and
geographic location Low-income individuals seldom work 8-5 and often
don't have a car. Consider these people who depend on public transit.
Site the meeting as close as possible to those most likely to be affected.
Would a Saturday event draw a broader (more diverse/more participatory)
group, including younger people? Does a bus route serve the location? If so,
does it run late enough in the evening to get folks home after the meeting?
Could your meeting(s) take place at an already scheduled community event
(that's open to all and appropriate for ADA considerations)? This may be
where locally involved interests are more likely to attend and feel welcome to
participate. Are you better off going to smaller venues (churches, schools,
community service centers) or individual homes and talking face to face?
Ecology has a very good
resource to show which public
facilities, beyond the
traditional, are ADA
accessible. Facility and
Meeting Guidelines -
Americans with Disability
Act (ADA) Requirements,
publication #97-701, should be
reviewed for any kind of
public meeting that Ecology is
going to conduct or sponsor. It
includes, by county, facilities
that have already been
certified to meet ADA
requirements.
B^J Types of meetings: open houses, workshops, community forums and
roundtables. Can each imply (and actually be) a less formal and more participatory event than a "meeting"?
With the exception of formal hearings required by law, these other kinds of public events may likely bring a much
better representation of the general public simply because of the descriptive name. Better yet, a real "open house"
(even if not in an Ecology building) will encourage people to come any time during the event without the expectation
that one has to be there from the start to the finish. This may also improve attendance, outreach, communication,
and common understanding - which is the goal. An open house may require additional staff, but more people will
be able to talk one-on-one with Ecology experts without having to wait or risk intimidation by speaking publicly
(often into a microphone).
RESOURCES TO OVERCOME BARRIERS
0 Local expertise. What and where are the effective networks for communicating within a community? These
will likely include several of the following: schools (principals and teachers), local newspaper reporters, local radio
stations, church leaders, multi-denominational organizations, community centers (their "events" organizers),
community health centers (doctors and nurses), local government entities, libraries, environmental groups, etc. This
is important to assess because they can be very good resources for answering some of the questions above. They may
also be more effective (and less traditional) resources that can help get our
message out. These resources may also help get the community's message(s)
back to us. They can help answer our questions, provide us with quality
comments, and bring broader public participation to our work.
Governmental barriers. Who's doing what? Do we know who are all the
regulatory and governmental entities at play in the issue we're dealing
with, including their representatives? Are we coordinating with them?
Does the community know who all the players are and how to contact them?
Are we helping them understand what Ecology's role is in relation to the
other, topic-related entities (EPA, city/county, local air authority, local public
health, state public health, etc.)? Are we clearly stating what we're able to
address and why? Not sure? Work to find this out as soon as possible. Invite
these other governmental entities' participation, in writing as well as more
personally. You don't have to do it all, but help introduce and explain their
respective role(s) to all interested and affected parties.
Technical and financial barriers. Are the communities realistically prepared to understand the technical
issues? Could they benefit from having technical expertise working with and/or for them (e.g., a geohydrologist, a
Grants to the community may
be available through the
federal or state government
and possibly some private
sources; look into this early. If
relevant, check with your local
EPA counterpart or Ecology's
Solid Waste & Financial
Assistance (SWFA) Program
for additional information.
Ellen Caywood within the
SWFA Program, (360) 407-
6132 is a good resource on
this.
82
-------
public health official, a toxicologist, air pollution or regulatory expertise, etc.)? Limited grant dollars may be
available to local governments or non-governmental groups for addressing specific environmental issues. The key is
to determine this early enough to keep bureaucratic time constraints from getting in the way.
What cost-related issues could hamper a community's ability to participate with Ecology's activities? These
may include costs for transportation to Ecology meetings (and back home) or childcare costs to attend meetings. If
you're relying on an Ecology (or any other) Web site for outreach to the public, confirm that Internet access is
available and free at the local library (and check the ability to print and take materials home - is printing free?). Even
then, don't assume everyone will use the Internet or is computer literate.
If public health or toxicity
problems are a suspected issue,
there are (currently) at least six
trained toxicologists within
Ecology. Leslie Keill, (360)
407-6851, is an expert on fish-
consumption issues. Cheryl
Niemi, (360) 407-6440, is an
expert on statewide water-
quality toxicology issues. The
other toxicologists include
Craig McCormack, (360)
407-7193, Dave Bradley,
(360) 407-6907, and Damon
Delistraty, (509) 456-6362.
Each is a good resource to help
determine if a particular
Ecology activity warrants
more attention from a human
toxicity perspective.
PUBLIC HEALTH
0 Identify public health risk. What's the connection to the local community's
(public and environmental) health? Are there highly at-risk populations
nearby, such as facilities for children or seniors or migrant workers? Are
local health district officials aware of the issue(s)? What about the Washington
State Department of Health (DOH)? If you're not sure, call local health districts
first to find out what they know and what they may be interested in knowing.
There's a good chance that the environmental health expert(s) within the local
health district office will know who, if anyone, would be interested or already
involved in such matters.
0 Formally invite public health participation with (or at least review of) your
work if there is any chance of public health concerns. At the state DOH,
hopefully an appropriate person to contact will be known by the staff you
contact at the local health department. Be sure to let the local and state public
health contacts know (in writing - at least by e-mail) of each other and your
contact with both.
0 Don't forget that other general experts on public health include the public. The
public may be the most able to provide specific and/or unique public health
profiles within their community, beyond what the government is aware of. Just
because they're not doctors or public health officials doesn't mean they're not acutely aware of the health-related
information that could be of particular value to Ecology's work and the community.
SUSTAINABILITY
' I What are the longer-term implications (that are reasonable to assume) for the local community's sustainable
health in relation to the action with which Ecology's involved? Is Ecology taking those implications into account?
What assurances, if any, do local residents have that Ecology's work (permit, cleanup plan, new rule, etc.) will not
harm them (or harm them disproportionately) in the future? What is the local public health department or official's
perspective on this? They are often (but not always) much better prepared than we are to address these health-related
questions, but we have to help them know what's there to assess. Again, invite these public health experts into your
work early (and document such invitations).
ZONING
0 This is clearly a major factor in many of the EJ dynamics within a community, and one that Ecology has very little, if
any, control over. In the context of sustainability, it may be wise to work with local zoning/planning authorities
early and often because they may have much more capacity to take cumulative environmental information into
account regarding a community's long-term environmental health. This is also true for decisions about where
residents and businesses are zoned relative to one another. Is it sustainable? You may not be able to answer the
question, but at least in terms of environmental impact, it's a good idea to ask it and see where it leads you. (ii/oi)
83
-------
84
-------
APPENDIX B
PANEL AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES
PANEL
Philip J. Rutledge, Chair - Professor Emeritus School of Public and Environmental Affairs and
former Special Assistant to the President, Indiana University. Former Director, Department of
Human Resources, District of Columbia; Professor of Public Administration, Howard University;
Director of Policy Analysis, National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors; Deputy
Administrator, Social and Rehabilitation Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare; Deputy Manpower Administrator, U.S. Department of Labor.
A. James Barnes - Professor and former Dean, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and
Professor, School of Law, Indiana University. Former positions with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: Deputy Administrator; General Counsel; Special Assistant to
Administrator/Chief of Staff. Former General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Partner,
Beveridge & Diamond; Campaign Manager, Governor William G. Milliken (Michigan); Assistant to
Deputy Attorney General and Special Assistant/Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice.
Jonathan B. Howes - Special Assistant to the Chancellor and Professor of Planning and Policy,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Former Secretary, Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR), State of North Carolina; Research Professor and Director, Center
for Urban and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina; Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill;
Director, Urban Policy Center, Urban America, Inc.; Director, State and Local Planning Assistance,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Valerie Lemmie - City Manager, City of Dayton, Ohio. Former City Manager, City of Petersburg,
Virginia; Director, Department of Environmental Services, City of Arlington, Virginia; Assistant
Professor, Howard University. Former positions with the Washington, D.C. Government: Deputy
Director, Department of Consumer/Regulatory Affairs; Assistant to the Director, Department of
Consumer/Regulatory Affairs; Project Director, Minority Business Development Services, One
America, Inc; Special Assistant, Office of Business and Economic Development; Financial Policy
Analyst/Course Manager, Office of Comptroller, Labor Department (on assignment from Kansas
City, Missouri).
David Mora - City Manager, Salinas, California. Former City Manager, Oxnard, California;
Manager, Los Gatos, California. Increasingly responsible positions with Santa Barbara, California,
including: Director, Community Relations; Assistant to City Administrator; Deputy City
Administrator.
James Murley - Director, Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, Florida Atlantic
University. Former Secretary and Director, Division of Resource Planning and Management,
Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida; Executive Director, 1000 Friends of Florida.
Former positions with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce: Director, Coastal Program Office, Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM);
Congressional Officer; Gulf Coast Regional Manager, OCZM.
Eddie Williams - President, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Fortner Vice President
for Public Affairs and Director, Center for Policy Study, The University of Chicago; Foreign
Service Reserve Officer, U.S. Department of State; Staff Assistant, U.S. Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations.
85
-------
STAFF
Suellen Terrill Keiner - Director, The Center for the Economy and the Environment, National
Academy of Public Administration. Former Senior Attorney and Director, Program on Environment,
Governance and Management, the Environmental Law Institute; Director of Litigation, the
Environmental Policy Institute; Assistant Solicitor and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy and
Minerals, U.S. Department of Interior; Natural Resources Consultant, Council of State Planning
Agencies; Attorney representing environmental and civil rights groups in citizen suits.
William P. Shields - Communications Associate, Office of Communications, National Academy of
Public Administration; Adjunct Professor in Government, American University. Former Program
Coordinator and Research Assistant, American University; Mayoral Writer, Executive Office of the
Mayor of Providence, Rhode Island.
LeRoy (Lee) Paddock - Senior Consultant, Principal, Paddock Environmental Research and
Consulting; Visiting Scholar, Environmental Law Institute. Former Director of Environmental
Policy, Minnesota Attorney General's Office; Senior Environmental Counsel, National Association
of Attorneys General; Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota Attorney General's Office.
Richard J. Lazarus - Senior Consultant, Center for the Economy and the Environment, National
Academy of Public Administration; Woodrow Wilson Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars; Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; former Professor of Law at the
University of Texas Law School, Northwestern University School of Law, George Washington
University National Law Center, and Indiana University (Bloomington); Office of the President -
Elect Transition Team for the U.S. Department of Justice; Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S.
Department of Justice; Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice.
Ann E. Goode - Senior Consultant, Center for the Economy and Environment, National Academy
of Public Administration; Environmental Protection Agency: Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of
Air and Radiation; Director, Office of Civil Rights; Chief of Staff, Office of Air and Radiation;
Assistant Director for Regional Affairs, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Special Assistant to the
Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Staff Associate, National Research Council.
Mark Hertko - Research Assistant, Center for the Economy and Environment, National Academy of
Public Administration.
Stacey Keaton - Research Assistant, Center for the Economy and Environment, National Academy
of Public Administration.
Veronica Lenegan - Research Assistant, Center for the Economy and Environment, National
Academy of Public Administration.
Charlene Walsh - Administrative Assistant, Center for the Economy and Environment, National
Academy of Public Administration.
86
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Balandran, Olivia. U.S. EPA Region VI, Environmental Justice Leader. Interview,
September 24, 2001.
Browner, Carol M., to Assistant Administrators, et al. Memorandum. Cumulative
Risk Assessment Guidance-Phase I Planning and Scoping. July 3, 1997.
Browner, Carol M. EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy. April 3, 1995.
California Air Resources Board. "Neighborhood Assessment Program Work Plan."
June 30, 2000. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/napworkplan.htm.
Callahan, Michael A. U.S. EPA Region VI, Staff Scientist. Interview, September 24,
2001.
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the
National Environmental Policy Act. 1997.
Dawes, Katherine. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Policy Innovation, Evaluation
Support Division. Personal correspondence. "OPEI information on NAP A EJ
Evaluation." November 1, 2001.
Edison Electric Institute. Electric Perspectives. March/April 2001.
Environmental Law Institute. Building Capacity to Participate in Environmental
Protection Agency Activities: A Needs Assessment and Analysis. June 1999.
Environmental Law Institute. Fresh Air: Innovative State and Local Programs for
Improving Air Quality. December 1997.
Environmental Law Institute. Libraries as a Community Resource for Environmental
Information. December 2000.
Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations. 1994.
Guzy, Gary S., to Steven A. Herman, Robert Perciasepe, Timothy Fields, Jr. and J.
Charles Fox, Memorandum. EPA Statutory Authorities Under Which
Environmental Justice Issues May Be Addressed in Permitting. December 1,
2000.
Harris, Reggie. U.S. EPA Region III, Environmental Justice Coordinator. Interview,
November 7, 2001.
87
-------
Hill, Barry E. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice. Personal Correspondence,
November 13, 2001.
Industrial Economics, Inc. Community-Specific Cumulative Exposure Assessment for
Greenpoint/Williamsburg, New York, Final Report. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
September 1999.
Inside EPA. "EPA Monitoring May Lead To Increased Testing For Air Toxics." Vol.
22, No. 45 (November 9, 2001): 5.
Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH. PSD Appeal Nos. 99-8 through 99-72. Environmental
Appeals Board. Decided March 14, 2000.
Laws, Elliott P., to Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, et al.
Memorandum. Integration of Environmental Justice Into OSWER Policy,
Guidance, and Regulatory Development. September 21, 1994.
Lazarus, Richard J. "Integrating Environmental Justice Into Environmental Permitting
Decisions." Presentation before the Environmental Justice Panel of the National
Academy of Public Administration. June 14, 2001.
Lazarus, Richard J., and Stephanie Tai. "Integrating Environmental Justice into EPA
Permitting Authority." Ecology Law Quarterly (Volume 26, 1999): 617-678.
Mullin, Elizabeth. The Art of Commenting: How to Influence Environmental Decisions
with Effective Comments. Environmental Law Institute, 2000.
National Academy of Public Administration. Environment.gov: Transforming
Environmental Protection for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: 2000.
National Academy of Public Administration. Environment.gov: Transforming
Environmental Protection for the 21st Century, Research Papers 11-17, Vol III.
Washington, D.C.: 2000.
National Academy of Public Administration. Evaluating Environmental Progress: How
the EPA and the States Can Improve the Quality of Enforcement and
Compliance Information. June 2001.
National Academy of Public Administration. Resolving the Paradox of Environmental
Protection: An Agenda for Congress, EPA, & the States. Washington, D.C.:
1997.
88
-------
National Academy of Public Administration. Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New
Direction For EPA. Washington, D. C.: 1995.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to Carol Browner. Letter.
Environmental Justice in the Permitting Process. August 3, 2000.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Environmental Justice in the
Permitting Process: A Report from the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council's Public Meeting on Environmental Permitting—Arlington, Virginia
November 30-December 2, 1999. EPA/300-R-00-004. July 2000.
National Environmental Justice Council Charier. July 29,1999. Available at
http: //es. epa. gov/oeca/main/ej/nej ac/charter. html.
National Environmental Policy Commission. Report to the Congressional Black
Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Environmental Justice
Braintrust. September 28, 2001.
Natural Research Council, Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Board on Environmental Sciences and Technology, Commission on Life
Sciences. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press. 1994.
New York Public Interest Research Group. The Proof is in the Permit: How to Make
Sure A Facility In Your Community Gets An Effective Title V Air Pollution
Permit. 2000. Available at http://www.titlev.org/handbook.htm.
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). EPA
Administrator Christine Whitman Joins In Announcing First Clean Air
Communities Project. August 6, 2001. Available at
http: //www. cleanaircommunities. org/press/080601 -huntspoint. html.
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management.
Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making.
Washington, D.C.: 1997.
Public Law 170, 104* Cong., 2d sess. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.
Starfield, Lawrence. U.S. EPA Region VI, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator.
Interview, September 24, 2001.
Targ, Nicholas. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice. Interview, November
13, 2001.
89
-------
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. Jody Henneke, et al. Interviews,
September 25, 2001.
Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee. Report of the Title VI Implementation
Advisory Committee: Next Steps for EPA, State, and Local Environmental
Justice Programs. March 1, 1999.
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C., Sec. 2000d et seq.
U.S. EPA. "Environmental Equity: EPA's Position, Protection Should Be Applied
Fairly." EPA Journal (March/April 1992).
U.S. EPA, Environmental Justice Homepage. Available at
http: //www. epa. gov/swerosps/ej/index. htmltejhist.
U.S. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Justice 1994 Annual
Report. 1995.
U.S. EPA. "Interagency Committee Selects Barrio Logan Community As An
Environmental Justice Pilot Project." November 13, 2000. Available at
http: //www. epa. gov/region09/features/barriologan/index. html.
U.S. EPA. "Part II, Environmental Protection Agency; Draft Title VI Guidance for
EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs
(Draft Recipient Guidance) and Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title
VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (draft Revised Investigation
Guidance); Notice." Fed. Reg. Vol. 65, No. 124. June 27, 2000.
U.S. EPA. Technical Assistance Grants (TAG). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/tag/.
U.S. EPA. Technical Outreach Services for Communities. Available at
http: //www .epa. gov/region08/community_resources/tosc/toschome. html.
U.S. EPA. Window to My Environment. Available at
http://www. epa.gov/enviro/wme/.
U.S. EPA, Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center. Index. Available at
http: //www. epa. gov/adr/index. html.
U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. Improving Air Quality with Economic
Incentive Programs. EPA-452/R-01-001. January 2001.
90
-------
U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. William T. Harnett, et al. Interviews, October 18, 2001.
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technology and Transfer
Network. The National Training Workshop on Local Urban Air Toxics
Assessment and Reduction Strategies. 1999. Available at
http: //www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/wks/mainwks. html.
U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. EPA Strategic Plan. EPA/190-R-97-
002. September 1997.
U.S. EPA, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management. Report to the Title VI
Implementation Advisory Committee, Next Steps for EPA, State and Local
Environment Justice Programs. March 1, 1999. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/nacept/titleVI/titlerpt.html.
U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Community Involvement and
Outreach Center. Community Involvement University. 2001.
U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 1998 Environmental
Justice Biennial Report: Moving Towards Collaborative and Constructive
Problem-Solving. EPA 300/R-00-004. July 2000.
U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Environmental Justice
Query Mapper. 2001. Available at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/ejmapper/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Small Grants Program
Application Guidance FY 2000. October 2001.
U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information. "National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment." Date not given. Available at
http://www.epa.gov//ipbpages/current/v.l_bkup_10_24/237.htm.
U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice. Environmental Justice Small Grants
Program: Emerging Tools for Local Problem-Solving. 1999.
U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice. Environmental Justice Strategy: Executive
Order 12898. 1995.
U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice. Guidance to Assessing and Addressing
Allegations of Environmental Injustice: Working Draft. January 10, 2001.
U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Justice. Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda. November 2000.
91
-------
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. Public Comment Draft, Proposed Guidance
on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals That Have a Common
Mechanism ofToxicity. June 22, 2000.
U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Engaging the American
People: A Review of EPA's Public Participation Policy and Regulations with
Recommendations for Action. December 2000.
U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Strategy for Evaluating the
Environmental Justice Collaborative Model. July 12, 2001.
U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Work Related to
Environmentaljustice (2000-2001). October 31, 2001.
U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Environmental Equity: Reducing
Risk for All Communities, Vol. I and II. EPA A230-R-92-008A. June 1992.
U.S. EPA, Office of Research & Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Date not given.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/frmwrkcra.htm.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Brownfields Title VI Case
Studies: Summary Report. June 1999.
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSW Environmental
Justice Program Strategy. Date not given. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/osw/ej/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Public Involvement in
Environmental Permits: A Reference Guide. August 2000.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Social Aspects of Siting
RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities. EPA530-K-00-005. April 2000.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Waste Transfer Stations:
Involved Citizens Make the Difference. EPA530-K-01-003. January 2001.
U.S. EPA, Region II, Community Resources. Interim Environmental Justice Policy.
December 2000.
U.S. EPA Region V. "EPA's Cleveland Air Toxics Pilot Project - Home Page."
November 1, 2001. Available at http://www.epa.gov/cleveland.
92
-------
U.S EPA, Region V. Interim Guidelines for Identifying and Addressing A Potential
Environmentaljustice Case. June 1998.
U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board. An SAB Report: Review of Disproportionate
Impact Methodologies: A Review By The Integrated Human Exposure Committee
(IHEC) Of The Science Advisory Board (SAB). EPA-SAB-IHEC-99-007.
December 1998.
U.S. EPA, Science Policy Council. Cumulative Risk Assessment-Planning and
Scoping. July 3, 1997.
Wells, Suzanne and Pat Carey. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Interview, September 10, 2001.
Whitman, Christine Todd, Memorandum to Assistant Administrators, et al. EPA's
Commitment to Environmental Justice. August 9, 2001.
Wilson, Wilbert J. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. Personal correspondence,
August 21, 2001.
Wood, Anna. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. Personal correspondence,
November 7, 2001.
93
-------
94
-------
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Briggum, Sue, Waste Management. Environmental Justice and Permitting.
Presentation for the National Academy of Public Administration Environmental
Justice Panel. 2001.
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. CCEEB's Comments on
EPA's Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering
Environmental Permitting Programs and Draft Revised Guidance for
Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits. 2000.
Center for Policy Alternatives. EJ Legislation in the States. 1996.
Clean Air Communities. New Collaborative Commits $5 Million for Clean Air Projects
in New York City's Impacted Communities. 2000.
Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251. 1998.
Georgia Environmental Protection Department. An Overview of Redeployment. 2000.
Earthjustice. New Source Review: In the Shadows of Refineries: Communities Fighting
for Clean Air. Date not given.
Environmental Biosciences Program and Medical University of South Carolina
Environmental Justice: Strengthening the Bridge between Economic
Development and Sustainable Communities. 1999.
Federal Interagency Working Group and Medical University of South Carolina.
American Indian and Alaskan Native Environmental Justice Roundtable.
September 28, 2001.
GovExec.com. EPA Stuck with Backlog of Environmental Justice Decisions, News
Brief. 2001.
Hazardous and Medical Waste Services Inc. Public Involvement in Environmental
Permits: An Action Plan. 2001.
Higgins, Margot. Poor Have Less Access to Clean Environment. Environmental News
Network. 2001.
Hill, Barry E. and Nicholas Targ. The Link Between Protecting Natural Resources and
the Issue of Environmental Justice. Environmental Affairs. 2000. Available at
http: //www. epa.gov/commonsense/CSInews. html.
95
-------
In re: Chemical Waste Management of Indiana, Inc. RCRA Appeal Nos 95-2 and 95-3
1995.
Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. Re-Genesis: Cleanup and
Revitalization through Collaborative Partnerships, Arkwright and Forest Park
Community. 2001.
Lazarus, Richard J. Civil Rights in the New Decade: Highways and Bi-Ways for
Environmentaljustice. Cumberland Law Review Symposium. 2001.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Final Report to the Louisiana
Legislature on Environmentaljustice. 1994.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Governor's Office. Draft Title VI
Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental
Permitting Programs: Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI
Administrative Complaints. 2000.
Miller, Maime. Clean Air Act: Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy.
2001.
Morgan Lewis, and Bockius LLP. Environmental Justice Programs: 50-State Survey.
2000.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. A Regulatory Strategy for Siting and
Operating Waste Transfer Stations—A Response to a Recurring Environmental
Justice Circumstance: The Siting of Waste Transfer Stations in Low Income
Communities and Communities of Color. March 2000.
New York Public Interest Research Fund, Inc. and The Earth Day Coalition, Inc. The
Proof is in the Permit: How to Make Sure a Facility in Your Community Gets an
Effective Title V Air Pollution Permit. 2000.
0' Lone, Mary, Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Presentation for
the National Academy of Public Administration Environmental Justice Panel.
2001.
Public Law Institute at Hastings College of the Law. Environmental Justice: A Review
of State Responses. 2000.
Safe Drinking Water Act. 42 U.S.C. 300f to SOOj-26.
Shintech. Community Response Document # 2 -Iberville Parish/West Baton Rouge
Parish, Polyvinyl Chloride Manufacturing Facility. 1999.
96
-------
Tennessee Environmental Steering Committee and the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation. Environmental Justice in the State of
Tennessee. 2000.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Guidance Package for Public
Notification Procedures for New Source Review Air Quality Permit Applications.
2001.
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. South Camden Citizens in
Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. May 10, 2001.
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Letter to Administrator Browner concerning
Community Complaints and Disparate/Cumulative Impact. 2000.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities Initiative (EZ/EC) Available at
http//www. hud. gov/progdesc/ezec. cfm/.
U. S. EPA. Common Sense Initiative: An Industry Sector Approach for Protecting the
Environment. Available at
http//www. epa. gov/commonsense/CSInews. html.
U. S. EPA. Community Based Approaches. 2000.
U. S. EPA. Customer Service in Permitting. A Toolkit for Regions , States, and Local
Permitting Authorities. 1999. Available at
http//www. epa. gov/customerservice/permits/.
U.S. EPA. Draft Public Involvement Policy. 2000.
U. S. EPA. Environmental Permitting Clearinghouse. 2001. Available at
http//www.epa.gov/permits /.
U. S. EPA. Interim Environmental Justice Policy. 2001.
U. S. EPA. Issues Regarding the Implementation of the Environmental Justice
Executive Order Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air
Quality Regulations. 1999.
U. S. EPA. New Jersey Pushes Voluntary Approach to Environmental Justice Despite
Court Ruling on State Inadequacies, Web News Brief. 2001.
97
-------
U. S. EPA. The Next Generation in Permitting. 1999. Available at
http//www. epa. gov/permits/papmem. htm.
U. S. EPA. Project XL—Encouraging Innovation, Delivering Results. 2000.
U.S. EPA. RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rule. 1996.
U. S. EPA. Region II Environmental Justice Analysis for Caribbean Petroleum and
RefiningL.P., Bayam'on, Puerto Rico. 2001.
U. S. EPA. Region II Environmental Justice Analysis for the Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and Carolina Sewer Authority Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. 2000.
U. S. EPA. Region V Interim Guidelines for Identifying and Addressing A Potential
Environmental Justice Case. 1998.
U. S. EPA. Region IXEnvironmental Justice Assessment. 1996.
U. S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Strategic Plan. 2000.
U. S. EPA Office of Cooperative Environmental Management. National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)—Incentives to
Promote Environmental Stewardship. 1999.
U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Policy Innovation. Evaluating the Environmental
Justice Collaborative Model. 2001.
U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Activities. Final Guidance for Incorporating
Environmental Justice Concerns In NEPA Compliance Analyses. 1998.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response . RCRA Public
Participation Manual. 1996.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Waste Transfer Stations—
A Manual For Decision Making. 2001.
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Sensitive Environments
and the Siting of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities. 1997.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Chemical Risk Assessment—Selected Federal
Agencies'Procedures, Assumptions, and Policies. GAO-01-810. 2001.
98
-------
99
------- |