Summary of the Meeting of the
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council
A Federal Advisory Committee
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC
December 12 - 74, 7995
-------
Summary of the Meeting of the
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council
A Federal Advisory Committee
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC
December 72 - 74,7995
-------
PREFACE
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a federal advisory committee that was
established by charter on September 30, 1993, to provide independent advice, consultation, and
recommendations to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on matters
related to environmental justice. As a federal advisory committee, the NEJAC is bound by all
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of October 6, 1972. Those requirements
include:
• Members must be selected and appointed by EPA
• Members must attend and participate fully in meetings of NEJAC
• Meetings must be open to the public, except as specified by the Administrator
• All meetings must be announced in the Federal Register
• Public participation must be allowed at all public meetings
• The public must be provided access to materials distributed during the meeting
• Meeting minutes must be kept and made available to the public
• A designated federal official (DFO) must be present at all meetings of the NEJAC (and its
subcommittees)
• NEJAC must provide independent judgment that is not influenced by special interest groups
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
(1995 through 1996)
Designated Federal Official: Chairman of NEJAC:
Dr. Clarice Gaylord, Director, Mr. Richard Moore
Office of Environmental Justice
General Members
Mr. John Borum Mr. John O'Leary
Mr. Walter Bresette Mr. Michael Pierle
Dr. Robert Bullard Mr. Arthur Ray
Dr. Mary English Hon. Salomon Rondon-Tollens
Ms. Deeohn Ferris Ms. Peggy Saika
Ms. Jean Gamache Dr. Jean Sindab
Ms. Dolores Herrera Ms. Gail Small
Mr. Lawrence Hurst Mr. Haywood Turrentine
Ms. Hazel Johnson Mr. Baldemar Velasquez
Mr. Richard Lazarus Ms. Velma Veloria
Mr. Charles Lee Ms. Nathalie Walker
Mr. Charles McDermott Dr. Beverly Wright
-------
The NEJAC is made up of 25 members, and one DFO, who serve on a parent council that has six
subcommittees. Along with the NEJAC members who fill subcommittee posts, an additional 34
individuals serve on the various subcommittees.
Each subcommittee, formed to deal with a specific topic and to facilitate the conduct of the business of
NEJAC, has a DFO and is bound by the requirements of FACA. Subcommittees of the NEJAC meet
independently of the full NEJAC and present their findings to the NEJAC for review. Subcommittees
cannot make recommendations independently to EPA. In addition to the six subcommittees, NEJAC has
established a Protocol Committee, the members of which are the chair of NEJAC and the chairs of each
subcommittee.
Members of the NEJAC are presented in the table on the following page. A list of the members of the six
subcommittees are presented in the appropriate chapter of the report.
To date, NEJAC has held six meetings in the following locations:
• Washington, D.C., May 20, 1994
• Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 3 through 5, 1994
• Herndon, Virginia, October 25 through 27, 1994
• Atlanta, Georgia, January 17 and 18, 1995
• Arlington, Virginia, July 25 and 26, 1995
• Washington, D.C., December 12 through 14, 1995
EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) maintains transcripts, summary reports, and other material
distributed during the meetings. Those documents are available to the public upon request.
Comments or questions can be directed to OEJ by the Internet. OEJ's Internet E-mail address is:
environmental.justi.ce. epa@epama.il. epa. gov.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
CHAPTER ONE: MEETING OF THE NEJAC EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 OPENING REMARKS 1-2
2.1 Remarks of the NEJAC Chair 1-2
2.2 Remarks of the DFO 1-2
3.0 REPORTS FROM EPA PROGRAM OFFICES 1-4
3.1 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 1-4
3.2 Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances 1-5
3.3 Office of Air and Radiation 1-7
3.4 Office of Water 1-7
3.5 American Indian Environmental Office 1-8
3.6 Office of International Activities 1-9
4.0 PRESENTATIONS 1-10
4.1 Report of the White House Council on Environmental Quality 1-10
4.2 Report on the Brownfields Initiative 1-11
4.3 Update on the Louisiana Energy Services Case 1-12
4.4 Update on the EPA Environmental Justice Strategy Implementation Plan 1-13
5.0 REPORTS OF THE NEJAC SUBCOMMITTEES 1-13
5.1 Enforcement Subcommittee 1-13
5.2 Health and Research Subcommittee 1-14
5.3 Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee 1-14
5.4 International Subcommittee 1-15
5.5 Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee 1-15
5.6 Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee 1-15
6.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 1-16
6.1 Puerto Rico Downlink 1-16
6.1.1 Frank Coss, President of the Coticam 1-16
6.1.2 Francisco L. Figueroa, Apari Enterprises 1-16
6.1.3 Hector Arana 1-17
6.1.4 Diana Lopez-Feliciano, Inter Americana University 1-17
6.1.5 Kenneth Albright, Shundahai Network 1-17
6.1.6 Mr. Juan Rosario, Mision Industrial de Puerto Rico 1-18
6.1.7 Sonia Vazquez, Associacionde Pescadores de Fajardo 1-18
iu
-------
Table of Contents National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
6.1.8 Miguel Canals, Southwest Puerto Rico Environmental Movement 1-19
6.1.9 Mr. Efren Perez, Committee of Cabo Rojo and Pro-Environment 1-19
6.1.10 Father Henry Beauchamp, Mayaguezanos por la Salud 1-20
6.1.11 Antonio Perez, Committee for Defense of the Environment and
Esperanza Dorado Community 1-20
6.1.12 Conclusion of Downlink 1-20
6.2 Washington, D.C. Session 1-21
6.2.1 Sandra Hill, National Association of State Foresters 1-21
6.2.2 Robert Boone, Anacostia Watershed Society 1-21
6.2.3 Deborah Matthews, Alton Park/Piney Woods Neighborhood
Improvement Coalition 1-21
6.2.4 Dr. Grace Hewell, Local Resident 1-22
6.2.5 Valerie Wilk, Farm Worker Justice Fund 1-22
6.2.6 Mr. Tom Goldtooth for the Cahuilla Band of Indian People 1-23
6.2.7 Connie Tucker 1-23
6.2.8 Jose Bravo, Southwest Network 1-23
6.2.9 Ms. Marina Lamarque, Local Resident of Calexico, California 1-24
6.2.10 Daniel Luna, Calexico, California High School Student 1-24
6.2.11 Cynthia Marques, Local Resident of Mexicali, California 1-24
6.2.12 Cesar Luna, San Diego Environmental Health Coalition 1-25
6.2.13 Robert Faithful for the D.C. Coalition on Environmental Justice 1-25
6.2.14 Don Edwards, U.S. Network for Habitat II 1-25
6.2.15 Damu Smith, Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and
Social Justice 1-26
6.2.16 Christine Benally, Dine CARE 1-27
6.2.17 Phil Harrison, Navajo Reservation 1-27
7.0 WRAP-UP 1-27
7.1 Replacement of Gail Small 1-27
7.2 Review of Selected Action Items 1-28
7.3 Logistics for the Seventh Meeting of NEJAC 1-29
7.4 Closing Remarks of the NEJAC Chair 1-29
7.5 Resolutions 1-29
CHAPTER TWO: MEETING OF THE ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE 2-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.0 REMARKS 2-1
2.1 Remarks of the Chair 2-1
2.2 Remarks of the DFO 2-2
3.0 UPDATE ON OEJ AND OECA 2-2
3.1 Transfer of OEJ 2-2
3.2 Budget Update 2-3
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Table of Contents
4.0 ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE 2-5
4.1 Subcommittee Report of Recommendations 2-5
4.2 Subcommittee Work Plan 2-5
4.3 Puerto Rico Downlink 2-6
5.0 ISSUES RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT 2-7
5.1 Issues Related to Louisiana Energy Services 2-7
5.2 Issues Related to Carver Terrace 2-8
5.3 Issues Related to Air Emissions 2-8
6.0 PRESENTATIONS 2-9
6.1 Information Tools to Support Environmental Justice 2-9
6.2 Policy on Supplemental Environmental Projects 2-10
6.3 Superfund Administrative Reforms 2-11
6.3.1 Administrative Reforms to Address Remedy Selection 2-12
6.3.2 Administrative Reforms to Address Fairness
in the Enforcement Process 2-12
6.3.3 Administrative Reforms to Address Public Participation 2-13
6.3.4 Additional Administrative Reform Issues 2-13
6.4 Office of Compliance 2-15
6.4.1 Compliance Assistance Centers 2-15
6.4.2 Data Management 2-16
6.4.3 Additional Issues Related to Compliance 2-16
CHAPTER THREE: MEETING OF THE HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE 3-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3-1
2.0 REMARKS 3-1
2.1 Remarks of the Chair 3-1
2.2 Remarks of the DFO 3-2
3.0 SUBCOMMITTEE WORK PLAN 3-2
4.0 ISSUES RELATED TO HEALTH AND RESEARCH 3-3
4.1 Research Methodologies 3-3
4.2 Community-Based Research 3-5
5.0 PRESENTATIONS 3-5
5.1 Baltimore Environmental Justice Community Partnership Pilot Project 3-6
5.2 Toxics Release Inventory Environmental Indicators Model 3-7
5.3 Information Tools to Support Environmental Justice 3-8
5.4 Report on the Baltimore Symposium on Environmental Justice 3-9
-------
Table of Contents National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
5.5 Proposed Collaboration with HHS/NIEHS Environmental Health Policy
Committee 3-11
5.6 Inventory of Activity by EPA in the Area of Cumulative Risk 3-13
5.7 Update on EPA Reports on Environmental Health Issues 3-14
5.8 Exposure Factors Handbook 3-15
5.9 Pollution Prevention and Environmental Justice 3-16
5.10 Migrant Worker Health 3-17
5.11 Report on Controlling Lead Hazards 3-18
5.12 Proposed Rule on Military Munitions 3-20
6.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT 3-20
6.1 Christine Benally, Dine CARE 3-20
7.0 RESOLUTIONS 3-21
CHAPTER FOUR: MEETING OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE 4-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION .4-1
2.0 REMARKS .4-1
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE 4-2
3.1 Relationship And Coordination With Other Subcommittees of NEJAC 4-2
3.2 Relationship And Coordination With EPA's Tribal Operations Committee 4-3
3.3 Relationship And Involvement With Other Members of NEJAC Who
Represent Indigenous Peoples 4-3
3.4 Administrative Issues 4-3
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES RELATED TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 4-4
4.1 Update on Issues Previously Reported to NEJAC 4-4
4.1.1 California Indian Basket Weaver Association 4-5
4.1.2 Dine Alliance 4-5
4.1.3 Dine CARE 4-5
4.1.4 Torres Martinez Indian Tribe 4-6
4.2 Additional Environmental Justice Issues Related to Indigenous Peoples 4-6
4.2.1 Proposed Rule on Military Munitions : 4-6
4.2.2 Ward Valley, California 4-6
4.2.3 Tribal Environmental Programs 4-6
5.0 PRESENTATIONS 4.7
5.1 Report on Environmental Justice at EPA 4.7
5.2 Tribal Operations at EPA 4.7
5.3 Transboundary Pollution Affecting Tribes in the U.S., Mexico, And Canada 4-9
5.4 Environmental Justice And Tribal Water Rights 4_10
5.5 Pending Legislation Affecting Native Americans 4_U
vi
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Table of Contents
5.6 Native American Task Force of the IWG 4-11
CHAPTER FIVE: MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE 5-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5-1
2.0 REMARKS 5-1
2.1 Remarks of the DFO 5-1
2.2 Remarks of the Director of OEJ 5-2
2.3 Introduction of Subcommittee Members 5-2
3.0 PRESENTATIONS 5-3
3.1 Multilateral Environmental Policy Initiatives 5-3
3.2 Environmental Justice and the United Nations Fourth World
Conference on Women 5-4
3.3 Enforcement on the International Front 5-6
3.4 Panel Discussion on Bilateral and Trilateral Affairs in North America 5-8
3.5 Update on the Basel Convention 5-9
3.6 Follow-up Initiatives to the Summit of the Americas 5-10
3.7 Progress on Lead Phaseout 5-11
4.0 SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 5-12
CHAPTER SIX: MEETING OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SUBCOMMITTEE 6-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 6-1
2.0 REMARKS .6-1
2.1 Introduction of Members 6-2
2.2 Introduction of Observers 6-2
3.0 WORK PLAN .6-3
4.0 IMPROVING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 6-4
4.1 Role of the Subcommittee 6-4
4.2 Institutionalizing Public Participation 6-4
4.3 NEJAC Model for Public Participation 6-5
4.3.1 List of Stakeholders 6-5
4.3.2 Testing the Model 6-6
4.4 Review of the Puerto Rico Downlink 6-7
5.0 RCRA FINAL RULE 6-8
6.0 EPA GRANT PROCESS 6-9
VB
-------
Table of Contents ^ National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
6.1 Funding Inequities 6-9
6.2 MIT Research Project 6-10
7.0 GENERAL CONCERNS 6-12
8.0 RESOLUTIONS 6-13
CHAPTER SEVEN: MEETING OF THE WASTE AND FACILITY SITING
SUBCOMMITTEE 7-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 7-1
2.0 OPENING REMARKS 7-1
3.0 PRESENTATIONS 7-2
3.1 LandView II 7-2
3.2 Reports of Work Groups 7-4
3.2.1 Presentations on Relocation 7-4
3.2.2 Presentations on Siting 7-6
4.0 UPDATE ON URBAN REVITALIZATION AND THE BROWNFIELDS INITIATIVE .... 7-7
4.1 Review of the Public Dialogues 7-7
4.2 Issues from the Public Dialogues 7-8
4.3 Brownfields Pilot Projects 7-9
5.0 ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 7-11
6.0 GENERAL ISSUES 7-12
7.0 RESOLUTIONS 7-12
Appendix
A LIST OF NEJAC MEMBERS
B PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
C LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) is a federal advisory committee
that was established by charter on September 30,
1993, to provide independent advice, consultation,
and recommendations to the Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
matters related to environmental justice. Mr.
Richard Moore continues to serve as the Chair of
the Executive Council. Dr. Clarice Gaylord, EPA
Office of the Environmental Justice (OEJ),
continues to serve as the Designated Federal
Official (DFO) for the Council.
To date, NEJAC has held six meetings. Public
transcripts and summary reports of the proceedings
of the meetings are maintained by OEJ and are
available to the public upon request.
This Executive Summary provides highlights of the
NEJAC's sixth meeting, held on December 12
through 14, 1995 in Washington, D.C. The
Executive Council of NEJAC met on December 12
and 14, 1995. On December 13 and 14, 1995,
twenty members of the Executive Council, along
with an additional 25 individuals, participated in
the deliberations of NEJAC's six subcommittees.
Each NEJAC subcommittee met for a full day on
December 13, 1995; five continued their
deliberations through the morning of December
14, 1995.
Approximately 200 people attended the meetings
conducted in Washington, D.C.
On the evening of December 12, 1995, the
Executive Council hosted a public comment period
that was broadcast live (with simultaneous
translation) from two communities in Puerto Rico.
Using a satellite downlink provided by the Black
College Satellite Network, NEJAC members
listened as approximately 300 residents of Puerto
Rico attended the discussion.
In accordance with the bylaws of NEJAC,
members elected candidates to chair the original
committees, as well as to head the two new
subcommittees. Table 1 contains a list of the
persons elected to chair the six NEJAC
subcommittees and the EPA staff appointed to
serve as DFO for each of the subcommittees.
Table 1
NEJAC Chairs and DFOs
Executive Council:
Mr. Richard Moore, Chair
Dr. Clarice Gaylord, DFO
Enforcement Subcommittee:
Ms. Deeohn Ferris, Chair
Ms. Sherry Milan, DFO
Health and Research Subcommittee:
Dr. Robert Bullard, Chair
Mr. Lawrence Martin, DFO
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee:
Mr. Walter Bresette, Chair
Ms. Elizabeth Bell, DFO
International Subcommittee:
Mr. Baldemar Velasquez, Chair
Ms. Lorraine Frigerio, DFO
Public Participation Subcommittee
Ms. Peggy Saika, Chair
Mr. Robert Knox, DFO
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Mr. Charles Lee, Chair
Ms. Jan Young, DFO
OVERVIEW
Mr. Moore opened the meeting by welcoming
participants and thanking OEJ and EPA for then-
commitment to resolve issues related to
environmental justice. In fact, NEJAC would not
exist, he stressed, were it not for the efforts of
grassroots environmental justice groups, as well as
the continued commitment of EPA. Mr. Moore
reminded the audience that the environmental
ES-1
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
justice arena has faced many difficult years before
NEJAC was formed.
Mr. Moore commented that environmental justice
overlaps with and cannot be separated from
discussions on such issues as California's
Proposition 187, affirmative action, and other
issues related to the economy and the workplace.
This was the first meeting at which the new
subcommittees met. Dr. Gaylord discussed the
creation of the subcommittees, explaining in
particular why the NEJAC had waited two years
before forming the two subcommittees. She
briefly reviewed the activities of NEJAC, stating
that issues related to indigenous peoples and
environmental justice at the international level
were among the council's early concerns hi 1993.
Dr. Gaylord added that hi 1995, concerns about
indigenous peoples and environmental justice
related to international issues were raised once
again among members of the NEJAC. At the July
1995 meeting of the NEJAC Executive Council,
members called for and approved the establishment
of two new subcommittees, she continued, to
address concerns related to international issues and
indigenous peoples.
Common Themes
During the two-day meeting, the subcommittees
discussed a wide-range of issues related to
coordination of the activities of various federal
agencies, involvement of state and local
governments in the decision-making process of
those agencies, possible duplication of effort
among various programs, the effects of budget
limitations on efforts to increase community
involvement, and the roles of various grant
programs.
Members of the six subcommittees called for
improved coordination and communication between
the six NEJAC subcommittees. The members
recommended that the subcommittees share
agendas, jointly develop agendas, and participate
in joint discussions of common issues. Common
issues include issues related to public participation,
environmental quality in Puerto Rico, Indigenous
Peoples, relocation, and air emissions trading.
NEJAC members, hi acknowledging the current
budget situation, examined ways for EPA and the
Council to leverage resources within EPA and with
other federal agencies. Specifically, members of
subcommittees identified significant opportunities
for collaboration with the Interagency Working
Group on Environmental Justice (IWG) and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).
Discussions about the coordination between
NEJAC and other agencies included concern about
the unclear relationship between NEJAC and the
IWG. They noted that because the issues being
addressed by NEJAC and IWG are "cross-cutting",
a unique opportunity exists for NEJAC and IWG
to work together, particularly with respect to
efforts to "reinvent government."
NEJAC members also focused on examining
current activities within EPA to empower local
communities to participate hi shaping policies that
affect their health and environment. Presentations
highlighted efforts to provide communities with
better access to tools and information, community-
based projects, and partnerships between EPA, the
community, academia, business, and other federal
agencies.
Many members pointed to the use of the satellite
downlink to Puerto Rico as a test of NEJAC's
model for public participation. NEJAC had
worked with EPA and a coalition of 26
organi/ations located throughout Puerto Rico to
develop and organize the event. Comments
received during the downlink session focused on
water quality issues, poor access to information,
inadequate enforcement of environmental
regulations, and a general lack of responsiveness
from EPA.
NEJAC members expressed concern that federal
agencies are using the absence of NEPA guidance
as an excuse to "do nothing" in the area of
environmental justice. They added that the White
House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
had not addressed the matter adequately. Mr.
Brad Campbell, CEQ, responded that his office
appreciates the patience of NEJAC and is aware of
the "collective unhappiness" NEJAC members feel
about the IWG and CEQ. He stated that although
it has been difficult to identify a communication
ES-2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
mechanism that will not repeat some of the
mistakes of the past, CEQ remains sincere in its
commitment to environmental justice.
NEJAC members expressed concern about the
process for awarding EPA grants. Examples
include MIT and Tufts. Members called for a
reexamination of the grants process, with
particular emphasis on evaluating the participation
of local communities in projects.
MEETING SUMMARIES
The following sections summarize the meetings of
the six subcommittees.
Enforcement Subcommittee
The Enforcement Subcommittee of NEJAC
conducted a two-day meeting on Wednesday and
Thursday, December 13 and 14, 1995. During a
meeting of the NEJAC Executive Council on
December 12, 1995, Ms. Deeohn Ferris was
reelected to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. Sherry Milan, EPA Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA), continues to
serve as DEO for the subcommittee.
The Enforcement Subcommittee was updated on
issues related to the transfer of OEJ to the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) and also was provided an update on the
OECA budget. OEJ was transferred to OECA
because of the multimedia nature of the office and
because OEJ could draw upon the expertise and
technical support of OECA. The transition has
been occurring over the last four months and has
been successful to date. Currently, OEJ is
working with OECA to develop materials
explaining the criminal enforcement process for
public distribution, and to encourage the general
public to interact with enforcement personnel who
deal with environmental justice issues.
The subcommittee reviewed the activities in which
the subcommittee had participated during 1995,
including the development of the Subcommittee
Report of Recommendations and the subcommittee
work plan. The final draft of the Subcommittee
Report is near completion and has been sent to
OECA to ensure that recommendations are
incorporated into the work plans of appropriate
offices within OECA. Members of the
subcommittee agreed that the recommendations
made by the subcommittee in its report should be
considered action items for OECA. The
subcommittee work plan outlines specific projects
that the Enforcement Subcommittee will undertake
in the coming year. Three projects identified
include examining issues related to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and permitting,
trading of air emissions credits and offsets, and
EPA's interim policy on Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEP).
Several issues were raised during the satellite
downlink with Puerto Rico that were or will be
referred to the Enforcement Subcommittee for
follow-up. Some of the major issues identified
include the possibility of an EPA-sponsored
commission of community groups to address the
delegation of authority to agencies in Puerto Rico;
issuance of areawide 404 permits; increased staff
at the EPA Caribbean field office and lack of
enforcement of environmental laws and regulations
hi Puerto Rico. Due to the cross-cutting nature of
environmental justice concerns related to Puerto
Rico, the members of the subcommittee
recommended forming a task force, consisting of
members representing all the subcommittees of
NEJAC, to address issues related to Puerto Rico.
Members of the subcommittee discussed several
specific environmental justice issues related to
enforcement, such as the Louisiana Energy Service
(LES) case and the Carver Terrace case. The LES
case focuses attention on the question of the extent
to which environmental justice concerns can be
addressed within the NEPA process. The
subcommittee pointed out that the case provides an
opportunity to examine the extent to which existing
regulations or statutes provide EPA with discretion
to create criteria related to environmental justice
under permitting requirements under the Clean
Water Act. The subcommittee also agreed to
establish a Work Group on Agency Integration that
would not only examine the LES case, but all
environmental statutes, as well as EPA's statutory
authority under permitting provisions. Mr.
Lazarus agreed to serve as chair of the Work
Group.
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
The subcommittee reviewed the Carver Terrace
case, in which members of a Texarkana, Arkansas
community have filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) for alleged
discrimination during the relocation process.
Acknowledging that the Office of Solid Waste And
Emergency Response (OSWER) had initiated a
work group at EPA to address relocation issues at
Carver Terrace and NET AC's Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee has a work group examining
relocation, the subcommittee recommended that
OSWER ensure that it considers enforcement
issues in its deliberations.
During its discussions on issues related to the open
market trading of air emissions credits, the
subcommittee established a Work Group on Air
Emissions, which will focus on several basic items
related to EPA's air emissions credit trading
program. Because of the cross-cutting nature of
air emissions trading, the subcommittee
recommended working jointly with the NEJAC
Health and Research Subcommittee to address
common issues.
The subcommittee also heard numerous
presentations during the two-day meeting. The
presentations consisted of reports on information
tools to support environmental justice; EPA's
policy on SEPs; Superfund administrative reforms;
and activities of EPA's Office of Compliance.
Health and Research Subcommittee
The Health and Research Subcommittee of NEJAC
conducted a two-day meeting on Wednesday and
Thursday, December 13 and 14, 1995. During a
meeting of the NEJAC Executive Council on
December 12, 1995, Dr. Robert Bullard was
reelected to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. Lawrence Martin, EPA Office of Research
and Development (ORD), continues to serve as
DFO for the subcommittee.
Much of the two-day subcommittee meeting was
filled with presentations on activities that are
ongoing within EPA to empower local citizens to
participate hi shaping policies that affect their
health and environment. These presentations
highlighted:
• EPA efforts to provide communities with
better access to tools and information
• community-based projects sponsored by
EPA
• partnerships between EPA, the community,
academia, business, and other federal
agencies on environmental justice issues.
The members of the subcommittee passed six
resolutions for full consideration by the NEJAC.
They also identified several actions items to
address in the future. The subcommittee
established work groups to survey health and
environmental concerns at the community level and
to report back findings at the next meeting of the
NEJAC subcommittee.
As part of the presentations, two software tools,
currently under development by ORD which have
the potential to be used to support environmental
justice studies, were demonstrated. The first tool,
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Indicators
Model, is an information management and risk-
based ranking and comparison tool that is based on
TRI reporting information supplemented by
receptor population data and exposure
characteristic modelling. Currently there are plans
to link the model with a geographic information
system (GIS) software tool, like ArcView, to
provide a mechanism for the evaluation of health
and environmental impacts of multiple emissions
sources on a small geographic area comparable to
the size of a neighborhood. A second tool, a
prototype system also using ArcView and
containing information about TRI data, facilities
listed on the National Priorities List (NPL), and
block-level census data, was demonstrated to the
subcommittee. Future versions of this prototype
system may include relative facility ranking
capabilities.
Several presentations provided information on
recent reports issued by EPA which address health
and research topics. These reports include a draft
compendium of all the cumulative risk research or
projects conducted by the agency in recent years,
the Exposure Factors Handbook which provides
reference information used by risk assessors on the
general population, and a draft document entitled
ES-4
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
"Identifying and Quantifying Susceptible
Populations."
Other presentations provided an overview of recent
EPA reports on urban soil lead abatement
demonstrations projects, mercury emissions, and
distribution of industrial air emissions by income
and race in the United States. In particular the
subcommittee reviewed recommendations made by
an EPA- and HUD- sponsored task force on
controlling lead hazards and recently set forth in a
report entitled "Controlling Lead Hazards in the
Nation's Housing." After much discussion, the
subcommittee recommended that NEJAC ask EPA
to reconsider its findings.
The Baltimore Environmental Justice Community
Partnership Pilot Project and the Environmental
Justice Through Pollution Prevention (P2) Grant
Program are ongoing EPA initiatives that
emphasize a local rather than a national
focus/methodology and provide an opportunity for
the federal government to find more effective ways
to organize resources to assist communities hi
achieving their environmental goals.
Several of the presentations expanded on the
subject of partnerships in support of environmental
justice. A representative from the U.S.
Conference of Mayors briefly discussed the efforts
of her organization to support EPA's pollution
prevention efforts. A representative from the
International City/County Management Association
(ICMA) discussed the Baltimore Symposium on
Urban Environmental Justice that her organization
cosponsored with EPA hi 1995. In another
presentation, upcoming opportunities for more
effective interaction between the subcommittee and
HHS on environmental justice research agendas
were discussed.
Two significant opportunities for collaboration
were proposed. Mr. Gerry Poje, National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),
invited the subcommittee to participate in a
forthcoming series of regional fact-finding public
meetings, organized by the Institute of Medicine
and the National Academy of Sciences and funding
by 15 federal agencies, to examine environmental
justice research, education, and policy needs. Mr.
Poje also invited the subcommittee to work with
NIEHS in organizing a meeting of high level
federal science managers to serve as a model
participatory project on environmental justice. An
overview of HHS's migrant health program also
was presented.
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
The Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee convened
for the first time at the December 1995 meeting of
NEJAC. The subcommittee was established hi
response to concerns expressed by several
members of NEJAC that issues important to
indigenous peoples had not been addressed
adequately by the existing committee structure of
NEJAC. During a meeting of the NEJAC
Executive Council on December 12, 1995, Mr.
Walter Bresette was elected to serve as chair of the
subcommittee. EPA's American Indian
Environmental Office (AIEO) and OEJ have
agreed to jointly sponsor the subcommittee. Ms.
Elizabeth Bell, OEJ, was appointed to serve as
DFO for the subcommittee.
The Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee chose as its
mission the improvement of interagency
coordination and communication among agencies
on environmental justice issues related to
indigenous peoples. The subcommittee stressed
that, by its very nature, the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee is different from other NEJAC
subcommittees because the issues that this
subcommittee will address are cross-cutting with
those that also will be addressed by other
subcommittees.
The subcommittee also expressed a need to
strengthen relationships with other subcommittees
of the NEJAC, individual members of the other
NEJAC subcommittees who represent indigenous
peoples, and EPA's Tribal Operations Committee
(TOC).
In an effort to improve communication between the
six NEJAC subcommittees and among the various
individuals who represent indigenous peoples, the
subcommittee recommended that each NEJAC
subcommittee develop and share agendas before
meetings of the NEJAC. In addition, the
subcommittee suggested the NEJAC subcommittees
hold joint sessions when appropriate.
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
In addition to improving communication within the
NEJAC, the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
also recommended participating in a joint meeting
with the TOC. The purpose of the meeting would
be to discuss the relationship between the two
groups, identifying areas of mutual concern, and
avoid duplication of efforts.
Environmental justice issues and concerns related
to indigenous peoples also were discussed at
length. The issues included specific cases those
previously reported to the NEJAC, as well as
several new issues brought before the
subcommittee. A common theme among the issues
and cases presented before the subcommittee was
the hesitation of many Indian tribes to adopt strong
environmental regulations and standards for their
lands because of continuing pressure for economic
growth and increased employment. Members
agreed that the subcommittee could play an
important role in supporting the emerging
environmental programs of tribal governments.
Concern also was expressed that existing pollution
prevention programs of EPA do not meet the needs
of companies located on Native American lands.
Members cited the constant struggle between
economic growth and environmental protection as
critical to why such companies are reluctant to
invest in pollution prevention technologies because
of the costs associated with such investments.
The subcommittee heard numerous presentations
during the two-day meeting. The presentations
consisted of reports on environmental justice
activities at EPA; the agency's efforts to address
tribal operations; transboundary pollution affecting
tribes in the United States, Mexico, and Canada;
the connection between environmental justice and
tribal water rights; and pending legislation
affecting Native Americans.
From these presentations, the subcommittee
identified several areas of mutual concern for the
various NEJAC subcommittees. For example,
discussions about environmental justice issues
related to border tribes and the possible loss of
water supplies for tribes in the Great Lakes region
because of the free trade agreements with Mexico
and Canada, might be appropriate topics for both
the International Subcommittee and the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittees.
International Subcommittee
The International Subcommittee convened for the
first time at the December 1995 meeting of
NEJAC. The subcommittee was established to
identify and advise EPA on environmental justice
issues of international importance. During a
meeting of the NEJAC Executive Council on
December 12, 1995, Mr. Baldemar Velasquez was
elected to serve as chair of the subcommittee. Ms.
Lorraine Frigerio, EPA Office of International
Activities (OIA), was appointed to serve as DFO
for the subcommittee. OIA has agreed to serve as
sponsor of the subcommittee.
Much of the meeting was designed to provide the
members of the subcommittee with an overall
understanding of activities through which EPA
meets its international responsibilities.
Presentations were given by staff of OIA, OECA,
OSWER, and EPA's Office of General Counsel.
These presentations highlighted:
• Multilateral environmental policy initiatives
• Environmental justice efforts at international
conferences
• EPA efforts on enforcement on the
international front
• EPA efforts to phase out lead
As part of the presentations, the members of the
International Subcommittee heard several speakers
and one panel discussion on multilateral
environmental policy initiatives of the U.S. Two
multilateral policy initiatives which have potential
impact on environmental justice issues are the
General Trade Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). The members discussed
issues related to enforcement under these
multilateral agreements.
Presenters also reported on several international
conferences, including the United Nations (UN)
Fourth World Conference on Women, the Basel
Convention, and the Summit of the Americas. The
conferences highlighted issues related to social
policy and sustainable development. For example,
the UN conference for the first time examined
EST
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
women's relationship to the environment, including
such issues as their right to reimbursement for the
use of their intellectual property, their relationship
to agriculture, and their exposure to toxic
chemicals. The EPA Task Force on Women
drafted language on environmental justice to
include in the conference report. Members of the
subcommittee were urged to breathe life into the
UN document containing the strong definition of
environmental justice.
Members of the subcommittee discussed at length
international enforcement related to environmental
justice, particularly along the United States and
Mexico border because of the influx of people
searching for employment. An issue of central
concern is the lack of community right-to-know
laws in Mexico. The members noted that public
access to information is the linchpin of
environmental justice; they recommended that EPA
discuss this issue with its counterparts in Mexico.
During the discussions on EPA's efforts to phase
out lead, the subcommittee noted that
environmental justice programs do not exist which
are targeted for Africa, although lead phase-out
programs exist for Europe and Latin America.
Members of the subcommittee expressed concerned
that environmental justice issues related to Africa
seem to be overlooked.
In addition to the presentations, members of the
subcommittee urged EPA to define its role in
extra-territorial conduct of U.S. multinational
corporations, especially in light of such incidents
such as the improper operation of smelters in Peru.
The subcommittee stated that EPA should develop
mechanisms to influence multinational corporations
to behave in a more moral manner.
The International Subcommittee discussed the need
for unproved coordination between EPA and other
agencies related to international environmental
justice issues. The members also noted that the
NEJAC through EPA should encourage
communication with other agencies. The
subcommittee also recommended that language
related to environmental justice be inserted into the
ISO 14000 standards currently under development.
Public Participation and Accountability
Subcommittee
The Public Participation and Accountability
Subcommittee of NEJAC conducted a two-day
meeting on Wednesday and Thursday, December
13 and 14, 1995. During a meeting of the NEJAC
Executive Council on December 12, 1995, Ms.
Peggy Saika was reelected to serve as chair of the
subcommittee. Mr. Robert Knox, Office of
Environmental Justice (OEJ), continues to serve as
DFO for the subcommittee.
The members of the subcommittee discussed the
unique, cross-cutting characteristic of the Public
Participation and Accountability Subcommittee and
agreed that the work of the subcommittee needs to
become more visible. The members agreed to
develop a process to incorporate public
participation in all activities of the NEJAC through
key activities, which include:
• Ensuring communication among
subcommittees
• Ensuring that the mission statement of the
subcommittee and the NEJAC model for
public participation are incorporated by, and
used for, NEJAC and other related activities
• Develop a resource bank of technical
expertise.
The subcommittee also discussed a work plan for
specific projects to be undertaken by the
subcommittee. The members of the subcommittee
once again agreed that the work plan goals should
acknowledge that public participation is a cross-
cutting issue and focus on improving the
coordination among NEJAC subcommittees, and
pursuing increased coordination with other federal
agencies. The members recommended that joint
meetings be conducted with other subcommittees,
as well as with representatives of HHS.
Improving the public participation process was
discussed at length by the members of the
subcommittee. The members agreed that the
Model for Public Participation be adopted by the
NEJAC as a living document, subject to revisions
as needed. During the October 1994 meeting of
NEJAC, the subcommittee developed a model for
-------
Executive Summary
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
public participation that consisted of three guiding
principles and five critical elements.
The subcommittee also agreed that the process of
public participation should be institutionalized as
part of the NET AC meeting. They also began
development of a process to incorporate public
participation in all NEJAC activities. The
subcommittee strongly recommended that NEJAC
consider the continued use of downlinking and
other innovative technologies and translating
capabilities to meet the needs of participating
audiences, as well as the establishment of
procedures that ensure accountability for
responding to public comments.
Members of the subcommittee also indicated the
need to reaffirm the list of stakeholder groups that
should be involved actively in preparing for public
participation meetings. As stakeholders were
identified, the members of the subcommittee
commented that industry and business should be
involved in public participation to encourage them
to become "good neighbors" to the communities in
which they operate. The subcommittee also agreed
to include international groups in the list.
The subcommittee also reviewed the status of
EPA's final rule for expanded public participation
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Pledging to draft NEJAC's official
response to the guidance documents, members of
the subcommittee suggested meeting with the
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee to discuss
the RCRA Final Rule and the guidance documents.
EPA's process for awarding grants also was
discussed during the meeting. Concern was
expressed by several members about apparent
inequities and difficulties experienced by
community groups in obtaining grants, compared
with universities like Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) and Harvard University, who
are experienced grant writers.
The subcommittee concluded its meeting by
discussing mechanisms to increase the visibility of
the subcommittee. One mechanism discussed was
participation in the satellite downlinks.
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of
NEJAC conducted a two-day meeting on
Wednesday and Thursday, December 13 and 14,
1995. During a meeting of the NEJAC Executive
Council, Mr. Charles Lee was reelected to serve
as chair of the subcommittee. Ms. Jan Young,
OSWER Outreach and Special Projects Staff
(OSPS), continues to serve as DFO for the
subcommittee.
The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
opened with a discussion of the activities of the
subcommittee during May 1994 through November
1995. Members of the subcommittee pointed out
these activities reflect the subcommittee's effort to
ensure that opportunity is provided for public
participation in decision making about issues
related to waste and hazardous waste facilities.
The subcommittee also heard reports from its two
Work Groups, who were created to facilitate the
goals of the subcommittee.
The Public Health Work Group provided an update
on EPA activities to develop a policy to address
the relocation of residents living on or near
environmental hazards. The Work Group is co-
sponsoring a Community Roundtable on Relocation
at which EPA will elicit comment from
communities about issues related to relocation.
Members of the subcommittee commented that the
purpose of the proposed roundtable discussions is
to bring community concerns to light and build
partnerships to support the decision-making
process.
The Work Group on Siting examined issues related
to siting of hazardous waste facilities. The group
had conducted surveys of hazardous waste facilities
to identify what facilities exist and how they are
used for storage, as well as to identify
environmental justice concerns that are pertinent to
the operations of the facilities. Dissatisfaction was
expressed by several members of the subcommittee
about OSWER's draft report, "Siting Hazardous
Waste Facilities," which noted that the federal
government will not play a role in siting decisions-
-the states will have that authority. Members of
the subcommittee stated that communities want the
federal government involved in siting decisions.
The subcommittee decided to prepare guidelines
ES-8
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Summary
for informing the public about how to become
involved in the facility siting process.
The subcommittee expressed concern related to
efforts to privatize the LandView II Mapping
computer software. Members of the subcommittee
strongly recommended that the federal government
retain control of the program, providing updates as
needed. Members explained that LandView II is
a valuable tool that offers communities access to
crucial data. Such a move to privatize the system
might increase the price of the system, placing it
out of the reach of the communities that need it.
The subcommittee also recommended that EPA
coordinates its efforts related to LandView II with
the work of U.S. Geological Survey and the
federal geographic data council.
The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
discussed urban revitalization and the Brownfields
Initiative. One issue raised by the subcommittee
about the public dialogues on the Brownfields
Initiative is that communities and representatives of
EPA Headquarters and the EPA regional offices
appear to have different visions of the Initiative.
The subcommittee recommended that standards be
established and a common understanding reached
so that all parties can clarify the objectives of the
initiative and their expectations of it.
In addition, members commented on EPA's grant
process. The subcommittee agreed that applicants
should be required to demonstrate hi their grant
proposals that community organizations will be
involved throughout the project and that EPA
should require that proposed projects be tied to
plans formulated in and by communities.
Members reiterated that EPA also needs to focus
on what happens after the grant has been awarded.
The subcommittee discussed issues of significance
to indigenous peoples related to waste and facility
siting. Members of the subcommittee pointed to
the dumping of waste into open areas and the
numerous waste sites located on tribal lands that
are on the NPL as serious problems. The
subcommittee also recognized that many Indian
tribes do not have adequate environmental
infrastructures to prevent the dumping of wastes.
In response to these issues, the subcommittee
established a working group to address Native
American issues and to assist OSWER in
implementing its environmental justice
implementation strategy related to Native
Americans. The members also noted that Such
issues of mutual concern would be appropriate
topics on which the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee and the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee could work together.
The subcommittee concluded by discussing that
EPA should to continue to address matters related
to siting of facilities, with toxic and nuclear wastes
of concern, and the need to assess progress on the
regional level in implementing the environmental
justice strategies developed by various agencies.
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 12 and 14, 1995
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Clarice Gaylord
Designated Federal Official
Richard Moore
Chair
-------
CHAPTER ONE
MEETING OF THE
NEJAC EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The sixth meeting of the Executive Council of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) was conducted on December 12 and 14,
1995. On December 13 and 14, 1995, members
of the Executive Council participated in the
deliberations of one of NEJAC's six
subcommittees. Mr. Richard Moore continues to
serve as the Chair of the Executive Council. Dr.
Clarice Gaylord, Office of Environmental Justice
(OEJ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) continues to serve as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO).
On the evening of December 12, 1995, the
Executive Council hosted a public comment period
that was broadcast live (with simultaneous
translation) from two communities in Puerto Rico.
Using a satellite downlink provided by the Black
College Satellite Network, NEJAC members
listened as residents of Puerto Rico discussed
issues of great concern.
Approximately 200 people attended the meetings
conducted in Washington, D.C., while
approximately 300 individuals attended the
locations in Puerto Rico. Table 1 presents a list of
members who attended the meeting, and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a detailed discussion
of the deliberations of the Executive Council
(hereafter referred to as NEJAC), contains seven
sections, including this Introduction. Section 2.0,
Opening Remarks, presents summaries of the
remarks presented by the chair of NEJAC and the
DFO. Section 3.0, Reports from EPA Program
Offices, contains summaries of remarks by
representatives of selected EPA program offices.
In addition, Section 4.0, Presentations, contains
summaries of presentations on various topics,
including a report by a representative of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
and an update on the Brownfields Initiative.
Section 5.0, Subcommittees of the NEJAC,
summarizes the reports of the activities of the
subcommittees. Section 6.0, Summary of Public
Comment, contains summaries of the public
comments provided during the satellite downlink
Table 1
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
List of Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 12 and 14, 1995
Dr. Clarice Gaylord, DFO
Mr. Richard Moore, Chairman
Mr. John Borum
Dr. Robert Bullard
Dr. Mary R. English
Ms. Deeohn Ferris
Ms. Delores Herrera
Mr. Lawrence Hurst
Mr. Richard Lazarus
Mr. Charles Lee
Mr. Walter Bresette
Mr. Charles McDermott
Mr. John O'Leary
Mr. Michael Pierle
Mr. Arthur Ray
Mr. Haywood Turrentine
Ms. Nathalie Walker
Dr. Beverly Wright
List of Members
Who Did Not Attend
Ms. Jean Gamache
Ms. Hazel Johnson
Hon. Salomon Rondon-Tollens
Ms. Peggy Saika
Dr. Jean Sindab
Ms. Gail Small
Mr. Baldemar Velasquez
Ms. Velma Veloria
1-1
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
with Puerto Rico, as well as comments provided in
Washington, D.C. on December 14, 1995.
Section 7.0, Wrap-Up, summarizes discussion of
action items and logistics for the seventh meeting
oftheNEJAC.
2.0 OPENING REMARKS
This section summarizes the remarks of the
NEJAC chair and the Director of OEJ.
2.1 Remarks of the NEJAC Chair
Mr. Moore, Chair of NEJAC, opened the
committee's sixth meeting by welcoming
participants and thanking OEJ and EPA for their
commitment to resolve issues related to
environmental justice. Mr. Moore then reminded
members that, several years earlier, NEJAC had
made a commitment to struggle for environmental
justice. That continued commitment, he stated,
was the purpose of the sixth meeting of NEJAC.
He urged members to remember the environmental
justice successes where NEJAC had played a role
in the past.
Mr. Moore commented further that the members
of NEJAC were present at the meeting because of
the seriousness of the issues, not simply for the
sake of attending. He added that he hopes NEJAC
will not become a political advisory committee --
there is no place for politics in the arena of
environmental justice. NEJAC is a federal
advisory committee, he stated, and discussions of
the committee must be made accessible to the
community. NEJAC would not exist, he added,
were it not for grassroots environmental justice
movements.
Finally, Mr. Moore stated that environmental
justice overlaps with, and cannot be separated
from, other issues. Specifically, he explained that
you cannot separate economic issues from
environmental issues.
2.2 Remarks of the DFO
Dr. Gaylord, Director of OEJ, welcomed the
NEJAC members in general, new member Mr.
John Borum, in particular, and all invited guests.
She then acknowledged those NEJAC members
who were not present. She explained that Dr.
Orientation of New Members
Mr. Knox presented an overview of federal
advisory committees. Using a videotape to
explain the purpose of such committees and how
they are formed, he also presented information
about the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), which governs the activities of federal
advisory committees. He explained that FACA
requires:
• Maximum public access to deliberations of
such advisory committees (before decisions
to hold closed meetings are made final, legal
counsel must review such decisions)
• Submittal of detailed reports to Congress on
the deliberations of such committees
• Balanced representation of stakeholder
groups among the members of such
committees
• The identification of a committee
management officer or a designated federal
official (DFO) for each committee and
subcommittee
Mr. Knox also discussed the roles and functions
of various NEJAC members. He explained that
the DFO is responsible for knowing the
requirements of FACA and ensuring that the
committee complies with those requirements.
The committee management officer files the
charter paperwork and handles other
administrative matters for the committee. The
committee chair, who may be appointed or
elected, presides over the meetings, keeps
meetings focused on agenda items, maintains
neutrality, ensures group participation hi
discussions, verifies meeting notes, and works
closely with the DFO to ensure that the
committee fulfills the requirements of FACA.
Committee members are responsible for
attending and actively participating in meetings,
carrying out the objectives of the committee,
and maintaining their organizational affiliation
to ensure balance and diversity among the
membership. Mr. Knox noted mat if members
change their affiliations, they must notify the
DFO immediately.
1-2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Jean Sindab and Ms. Jean Gamache were unable to
attend for health reasons; Mr. Baldemar Velasquez
was delayed but would be present on December 13
and 14; the Honorable Salomon Rondon-Tollens
could not attend because of an election process
taking place in Puerto Rico; and Ms. Velma
Veloria could not attend because of logistic
difficulties.
Dr. Gaylord pointed out that the council must
address the fact that Ms. Gail Small, who also was
not present, has missed four consecutive NEJAC
meetings. Dr. Gaylord explained that according to
the by-laws of NEJAC, members are subject to
removal from NEJAC after two consecutive
unexcused absences. (See Section 7.0, Wrap-Up,
for further discussion of this issue)
Dr. Gaylord discussed a logistical change planned
for future meetings of NEJAC. Specifically, she
stated that, in response to complaints from
members of NEJAC, OEJ will reserve a block of
hotel rooms for NEJAC members. Members will
be required to confirm their attendance 45 days in
advance, she said. The change, she added, is an
attempt to accommodate members who do not have
credit cards.
Dr. Gaylord also reminded members that they
must vote on several outstanding issues. She
stated that the Protocol Committee selected two
possible sites for the next NEJAC meeting in May
1996: Detroit, Michigan, and Stevens Point,
Wisconsin. She reminded members to cast their
ballots for the location they prefer. She further
requested members to submit their ballots to elect
candidates to chair the subcommittees. According
to the by-laws of NEJAC, she explained,
subcommittee chairs serve one-year terms.
Several terms were coming to an end, she stated,
and members must elect candidates to chair the
existing committees, as well as to head the two
new subcommittees. She asked that members
submit their ballots by noon on December 12.
Later on in the morning of December 12, Dr.
Gaylord led a discussion of action items identified
during the July 1995 meeting of NEJAC. She
stated that, in response to concerns expressed by
some members of NEJAC about lack of follow-up
on action items, OEJ has developed an Action Item
Tracking System. She then reviewed the
outstanding action items:
• Update on the effects of the practice of
trading air emissions credits on communities
of color was to be discussed during the
presentation by EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR).
• Written summaries of subcommittee
activities have been received from the
Enforcement and Waste and Facility Siting
subcommittees and were distributed to the
members. Reports from other
subcommittees are requested within two
weeks for mailing to all members.
• The report outlining specific
recommendations for enforcement activity
has been completed and distributed to the
members prior to the meeting. A vote of
the full NEJAC on approving the report is
necessary.
• A full presentation of the issues related to
the Louisiana Energy Services case in EPA
Region 6 was on the agenda of the current
meeting.
• OEJ will assist Mr. Moore in scheduling a
meeting between NEJAC and the EPA
Region 6 Administrator to discuss ongoing
historical problems.
• Information about water quality in Puerto
Rico will be provided during the meeting.
Dr. Gaylord then enumerated on past NEJAC
recommendations, including a need to address (1)
the issue of cumulative health risks faced by
communities that are confronted with issues related
to environmental justice; (2) ongoing projects in
the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) for the protection of farm
workers; and (3) environmental justice issues
related to the EPA Office of Water (OW). Dr.
Gaylord said that the Health and Research
Subcommittee would address the issue of
cumulative health risks. Issues pertaining to
OPPTS and OW would be addressed during
1-3
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
presentations to be made during the NEJAC
meeting.
Dr. Gaylord added that a new list of action items
would be developed to reflect deliberations made
during the current meeting. Those action items
then would be added to the tracking list, which
would be distributed to members.
3.0 REPORTS FROM
EPA PROGRAM OFFICES
This section summarizes presentations made by
representatives of various EPA program offices.
Some of the presentations discussed issues raised
during previous meetings of the NEJAC.
3.1 Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Mr. Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator (AA)
for OECA, began his remarks by expressing his
pleasure that OEJ had been placed under the
auspices of OECA. He added that OECA and
EPA are laying a solid foundation for the
development of long-term solutions to problems
related to environmental justice.
In addition, Mr. Herman spoke about the
importance of the scheduled public comment
period to be conducted by satellite downlink with
Puerto Rico. The downlink would provide access
to NEJAC for people who otherwise would not
have it. He stated further that EPA is working to
open the public involvement process to those who
traditionally have been left out of the process. The
goal is to provide an opportunity for all citizens to
have meaningful influence on the activities of
NEJAC. In closing, Mr. Herman stated that he
was looking forward to hearing observations of,
and receiving suggestions from, the members of
NEJAC.
The members then made comments and asked
questions of Mr. Herman, as summarized below.
Dr. Robert Bullard, noting the recent
reorganization of various offices of EPA,
expressed interest in whether the regions were
being restructured in light of an overall effort to
reorganize and "reinvent" EPA. He also asked
whether reorganization efforts were being
coordinated and synchronized among the regions.
Mr. Herman responded that OECA is attempting
to ensure consistency between the regions in
implementing policies. Reorganizations in the
regions, he added, have been consistent with
reorganizations at EPA Headquarters. He added
that in light of the reorganizations, staff in several
regional offices (for example, Regions 4 and 5)
have expressed concern about the direction of
environmental justice activities. Mr. Herman then
asked that the members of NEJAC inform him of
problems or successes experienced in the regions.
#
Mr. Charles Lee asked where environmental
justice "fits" within the regional program offices,
given recent budget cuts in EPA. Mr. Herman
responded that EPA has had to operate under
continuing resolutions because of budget issues
within the federal government; that reality, he
added, has limited some activities. EPA's current
budget is significantly lower than it has been in the
past, he added. Mr. Herman stated that, once the
federal budget has been approved, further
clarification of issues will be possible.
Mr. Lee then asked whether funds for travel and
those for salary came from the same budget "pot."
When Mr. Herman answered that they do not, Mr.
Lee asked how funds from separate "pots" can be
pooled. Mr. Lee stated further that the importance
of the activities of NEJAC is judged, in part, by
budget cuts. Noting that EPA regional
environmental justice coordinators could not attend
the meeting because of budget cuts, Mr. Lee stated
that decreases in travel funds can affect the
effectiveness of meetings. Mr. Herman responded
that the monies used to fund the NEJAC meetings
come from discretionary funds. He added that
although certain conditions have been placed on
the funds during the continuing resolutions, the
EPA Administrator made a decision to move
forward with the December meeting.
After he responded to members' questions, Mr.
Herman turned the floor over to Ms. Sylvia
Lowrance, Deputy AA for OECA. Ms. Lowrance
requested NEJAC's assistance in helping OECA
gain a better understanding of the community-
based issues inherent in its activities. She also
requested NEJAC's assistance in ensuring that
work conducted in the regions is relevant to, and
effective in, addressing environmental justice. She
1-4
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
stated that EPA is developing an environmental
justice implementation plan and requested that
NEJAC review the plan. Ms. Lowrance also
expressed a desire that NEJAC assist EPA in using
the Interagency Working Group on Environmental
Justice (IWG) as a means to leverage the resources
of the federal government to address problems
related to environmental justice.
Ms. Lowrance mentioned that, because of current
budget constraints, it is particularly important to
ensure that EPA's environmental justice activities
are "relevant." She stated that she and Mr.
Herman had worked to keep the environmental
justice budget intact. So far, she added, they have
been successful.
Following Ms. Lowrance's remarks, Mr. Moore
commented on the importance of developing an
ongoing relationship and dialogue between NEJAC
and IWG. With the exception of the Interagency
Public Meeting on Environmental Justice (held on
January 20, 1995 in Atlanta, Georgia), Mr. Moore
stated that the members of NEJAC have not had an
opportunity to engage in dialogue with the IWG.
Ms. Lowrance expressed her desire to help open
such a dialogue.
Mr. Moore commented further that several citizens
reported that environmental justice coordinators in
several government agencies have been reassigned
to other areas because of budget limitations. Dr.
Gaylord responded that, at EPA, the opposite
circumstances had occurred. For example, she
mentioned that in Region 5, EPA has added
environmental justice staff and now has a 13-
member environmental justice team; Region 5
previously had one environmental justice
coordinator. Other regions offices have increased
their staffs as well, she added. Mr. Herman
requested that Mr. Moore provide a list of the
agencies.
Dr. Bullard commented that, despite budget cuts,
it is important that environmental justice remain an
interagency issue. Health and environmental
issues are under attack, he declared; it is crucial
that the impetus to make environmental justice a
part of the national agenda not be lost by having
an ineffective IWG. He stated that the members of
NEJAC must be aware of the situation and
NEJAC's subcommittees should move in the same
direction in which other entities are moving. Mr.
Lee echoed Dr. Bullard's concerns about people
and agencies "going off in all different kinds of
directions." He urged the council to recognize
that it is time to seriously address this issue.
3.2 Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances
Dr. Lynn Goldman, AA for EPA's OPPTS, began
by thanking the members of NEJAC for their work
in environmental justice. She then provided a
brief overview of the responsibilities of OPPTS,
which include the regulation of pesticides, and
implementation of EPA's pollution prevention and
right-to-know programs. She stated that although
her presentation would focus on the protection of
farm workers, she would like future presentations
to address lead poisoning, implementation of Title
10, and efforts to expand the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI).
Dr. Goldman stated that OPPTS is overcoming
difficult political barriers addressing issues related
to the protection of farm workers. Despite current
budget constraints, farm worker protection remains
a priority for OPPTS, she announced. Now that
the Farm Worker Protection Rule has been in
place for more than a year, OPPTS is striving for
full compliance and proper enforcement, she said.
Dr. Goldman commented that OPPTS is
considering public hearings in different areas of
the country to determine how effectively the rule
is being implemented. In planning the hearings,
she added OPPTS would solicit information and
help from the farm worker and medical
communities, regulated industries, state agencies,
and NEJAC. In addition, such an effort would
bring together various federal agencies, as well as
representatives from EPA's Pesticides and
Enforcement program offices. She identified
Texas, Florida, Idaho, and Missouri as potential
locations for such hearings.
Dr. Goldman then spoke about ongoing activities
of OPPTS to advance farm worker protection. In
an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the Farm
Worker Protection Rule, OPPTS is funding
assessments of basic safety training for farm
workers. OPPTS also plans to track pesticide data
1-5
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Worker Protection Standard
In 1992, EPA revised the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) which is intended to protect
agricultural workers from risks associated
widi agricultural pesticides. The 1992 WPS
expanded the scope of the original standard
to include not only workers performing hand
labor operations in fields treated with
pesticides, but also workers in or on farms,
forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. It also
included pesticide handlers who mix, load,
apply, or otherwise handle pesticides for use
at these locations in the production of
agricultural commodities. The WPS
contains other requirements for training,
notification of pesticide applications, use of
personal protective equipment, restricted
entry intervals, decontamination, and
emergency medical assistance.
from the state of Hawaii about
workers who speak Hawaiian)
farm
to determine trends in pesticide poisoning cases
with a goal to reduce exposure of workers to
pesticides by 85 percent, she stated. Dr. Goldman
added that information about trends might provide
insight into such problems as weaknesses in die
regulations and into how such weaknesses can be
addressed. She mentioned that among the
partnerships in which her office participates,
OPPTS is working in conjunction with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to sponsor a satellite
broadcast to address the concerns of workers about
the implementation of the Farm Worker Protection
Rule. She added that OPPTS is revising its
manual on die recognition and management of
pesticide poisoning.
Dr. Goldman also discussed several activities
underway in her office to modify rules. Among
the modifications are:
• A decision to deny the request of the state
of Delaware for early entry into fields
treated widi cortheilenil
• Proposed amendment to the Farm Worker
Protection Rule to display warning signs in
languages other than English and Spanish
(mis amendment is in response to a request
A proposal to reduce the amount of time
growers must supply decontamination
supplies for farm workers exposed to low-
toxicity pesticides
A proposal to allow the use of glove liners
during pesticide application
Hazard Information Rule
The so-called "Hazard Information Rule"
initially was proposed when the final Farm
Worker Protection Rule was issued in 1992.
In the three years since then, EPA has
received approximately 25 comments,
mostly from farm workers. The Hazard
Information Rule goes beyond die
requirement for basic training to require
more information about specific chemicals
and crops.
Recently, EPA began examining how best to
proceed with this proposal, asking for
recommendations from members of botii the
farm worker and farm grower communities.
While the farm worker community is
advising EPA to finalize the rule, the farm
grower community has advised EPA to re-
propose die rule.
EPA is examining how much value would
be added to the rule by requiring the
additional information.
Dr. Goldman also asked the NEJAC members to
provide comments to OPPTS about how it could
complete the Hazard Information Rule, mat was
proposed in 1992 when the final Farm Worker
Protection Rule was issued.
When Dr. Goldman finished her presentation, she
entertained questions and comments from the
members of NEJAC. Mr. Moore commented that
NEJAC sent a letter about issues related to farm
worker protection to die EPA Administrator and
some members participated in a follow-up
conference call with the Administrator. Mr.
1-6
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Moore thanked Dr. Goldman for her assistance in
arranging for the conference call. He also stated
that many of the activities Dr. Goldman discussed
during her presentation grew out of that conference
call.
Mr. Lee asked to what extent opposition to worker
protection standards exists. Dr. Goldman
responded that OPPTS has exerted much effort in
training agricultural employers, but OPPTS does
not know to what extent compliance exists or to
what extent the entire agricultural community is
being reached. She said that manufacturers have
been very cooperative in labeling materials;
however, she added, tremendous effort has been
exerted to bring such improvements about.
3.3 Office of Air and Radiation
Dr. Wil Wilson, EPA's OAR, opened his
presentation with an apology on behalf of Ms.
Mary Nichols, AA for OAR, who was not able to
attend the meeting. He men acknowledged
concerns expressed by members of NEJAC about
open-market trading of air emissions credits. He
stated that although the public comment period on
the rule ended in October 1995, OAR hoped to
address member concerns before the next meeting
of NEJAC when the rule would be final. Dr.
Wilson distributed copies of the preamble to the
Open-Market Trading Rule and copies of the rule
itself.
Ms. Deeohn Ferris stated that she had requested
that OAR provide a full briefing on issues related
to the trading of air emissions credits because
questions had arisen during discussions within the
Enforcement Subcommittee. She asked that Dr.
Wilson explain the Acid Rain Trading Program,
how it affects communities, whether the program
is monitorable and verifiable, and what the impacts
are on minority and low-income communities.
Ms. Ferris stated that she is concerned that
research on air emissions, acid rain, and ozone
programs simply are resulting in a "shuffling" of
pollution within urban areas, to the detriment of
those who live in such areas. Dr. Wilson
expressed regret that Ms. Nichols was not present
to respond to Ms. Ferris' questions, but suggested
that a series of meetings be scheduled so that Ms.
Ferris could speak directly with Ms. Nichols.
Mr. Arthur Ray expressed concern about the
possibility that the proposed open-market trading
rule would become final without incorporating the
concerns of communities affected by the rule. He
explained that "just merely talking to NEJAC
doesn't spread information out to the communities
who potentially are at risk." Mr. Ray added that,
even though a public comment period was
conducted, communities at risk were not likely to
have enough information to comment effectively.
Dr. Wilson responded that, although the official
public comment period had ended, comments
continue to be accepted and would be considered
before the rule is made final. He suggested the
concerns of the NEJAC members might be
incorporated most effectively if the members of
NEJAC express them directly to Ms. Nichols.
Dr. Gaylord interjected that the issue was to be
considered as an action item of the Enforcement
Subcommittee.
3.4 Office of Water
Ms. Dana Minerva, Deputy AA for EPA's OW,
provided an update on several issues raised during
her presentation at the July 1995 meeting of
NEJAC.
Ms. Minerva reported that the U.S. House of
Representatives recently passed a resolution hi
which it directed the Congressional Conference
Committee to not append riders to the EPA
appropriations bill which would prohibit EPA from
implementing certain provisions of the Clean
Water Act. Ms. Minerva added that activity on
the Clean Water Act proposed by the House of
Representatives has slowed.
Ms. Minerva reported that she had informed
NEJAC incorrectly that OW provides $15 million
each year for native villages in Alaska. Rather,
she explained, the funds are provided to rural
villages in Alaska, not all of which are
communities of Alaskan natives. In 1996, she
added, $12.7 million of the $15 million will be
provided to such communities.
Ms. Minerva then discussed advisories about fish
consumption, which recommend certain limits on
the amounts of fish consumed by individuals. She
noted that OW considers the advisories to be its
1-7
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
"premier project" for protecting people. In
addition to informing people about what fish not to
eat, OW is working to remove toxins from bodies
of water, she added. Ms. Minerva stressed that
EPA "develops the science" and issues guidance
that states use in issuing the advisories. OW
recently published a national list of such
advisories, which is available to the public free of
charge on computer diskette.
Ms. Minerva commented that OW guidance
recommends that, when issuing such advisories,
states account for different consumption patterns
among different populations. OW has been
providing support to the states in determining the
consumption patterns of certain populations, she
added. Ms. Minerva noted that she is not an
expert on fish consumption advisories; however,
she added, the subject matter expert in OW has
agreed to speak personally with any member of
NEJAC who has specific questions about this
issue.
Comments that followed Ms.
presentation are summarized below.
Minerva's
Mr. Lee asked whether data related to fish
consumption advisories could be integrated with
LandView II or other geographic information
mapping systems. Ms. Minerva responded that a
similar computer program already exists and OW
is developing a watershed mapping system based
on digitized data from the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). The new system will allow users to look
up specific watershed data by geographic location.
She agreed with Mr. Lee that it is important that
the various mapping systems (such as LandView II
and the watershed data system) be compatible.
Ms. Ferris commented that many people who are
interested in the data related to fish consumption
advisories do not have computers. She
recommended that OW consider methods other
than computer diskette by which to distribute the
data. She added that many people affected by the
advisories, such as Native Americans, Asians, and
Haitians, may not speak English.
Ms. Ferris then stated that permits under the Clean
Water Act are not being reevaluated and renewed
in old rural and old urban areas. She added that
the permits should be reevaluated periodically in
light of multiple sources of contamination,
cumulative effects, and synergistic effects on
human health. She requested that OW provide
information that explains how the permit and
permit renewal processes work, as well as how the
processes are affected by the Executive order on
environmental justice. In response, Ms. Minerva
requested that the issue of permit renewals be
addressed at a later point in tune.
3.5 American Indian Environmental Office
Mr. Terry Williams, EPA's American Indian
Environmental Office (AIEO), opened his remarks
by applauding the level of commitment from EPA
officials in establishing and supporting this new
office. He stated that this strong commitment has
enabled AIEO to concentrate on examining how
best to implement EPA's commitment to establish
a government-to-government relationship with
Native American tribal governments. Mr. Wilson
noted that in all the discussions about budget cuts,
EPA senior staff continue to look for ways to
protect and preserve the direction the office is
headed.
Mr. Williams explained that AIEO established a
network throughout the country through which
EPA and tribal governments could exchange
information. This network relies on regional
offices that work directly with the tribes, as well
as work with AIEO in overall planning.
Mr. Williams added that AIEO established the
Tribal Operations Committee (TOC) to assist EPA
in its efforts to implement the trust obligation
inherent in recognition of tribal sovereignty. He
noted that the new tribal environmental agreements
(TEA) grew out of this collaboration. Each TEA
is intended to reflect the unique concerns and
cultural and historical characteristics for each
tribe.
For 1996, Mr. Williams reported that AIEO plans
to address the following issues:
• Legislative rulemaking and congressional
jurisdiction issues
• Development of decision-making tools for
tribes (for example, development of a
watershed analysis system that would allow
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
users to view information about tribal areas
throughout the country)
• Establishment of pilot projects, training
programs, and manuals
• Establishment of a comprehensive
communications network, including a
newsletter and use of Internet networks.
Mr. Williams also reported that AIEO currently is
developing a National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) pilot project to improve the
implementation of the requirements of NEPA and
the Tribal Environmental Policy Act in tribal
areas. He added that AIEO would like to
coordinate its efforts with OEJ. The focus of
AIEO has been on broad issues such as
rulemaking, regulations, and other government
issues, he noted, while OEJ has focused on more
site-specific and human health issues. He noted
that AIEO and OEJ share an employee and have
coordinated their efforts to date.
3.6 Office of International Activities
Mr. Alan Sielen, EPA's Office of International
Activities (OIA), provided a brief overview of the
activities of his office. He opened his presentation
by stating that environmental justice is "at the
heart" of EPA's international work. Just as
environmental justice has become one of the new
generation of environmental protection, it is fast
becoming a fundamental component of EPA's
international activities, he added.
Mr. Sielen summarized several examples of EPA's
international activities related to environmental
justice:
• EPA had played a major role at the Beijing
Conference on Women, particularly in
examining health risks to women living in
urban or poor communities.
• EPA supports a phase out of the use of
leaded gasoline worldwide; doing so will
benefit communities concerned with
environmental justice because exposure to
lead and levels of lead in blood tend to be
high in urban areas.
• EPA was instrumental in opposing the
Eurun Dam construction project in Nepal, a
project which the World Bank canceled
because of its potential adverse effect on
poor people. EPA's position is that poor
communities often are harmed by large
infrastructure projects.
Mr. Sielen identified other activities of OIA,
including cooperative efforts with China to conduct
indoor air studies to determine the effects on poor
families of charcoal in cooking, supporting the
inclusion of environmental justice themes into
bilateral cooperative programs with Chile, and the
establishment of a worldwide network of poison
control centers to allow global dissemination of
lifesaving information.
The questions and comments that followed Mr.
Sielen's presentation are summarized below.
Dr. Mary English asked what could be done about
U.S.-owned multinational corporations that take
advantage of lenient environmental standards in
other countries. She also asked whether
corporations are required to specify where they
will dispose of their waste. Mr. Sielen responded
that multinational corporations are encouraged to
comply, at a minimum, with international
guidelines that the United States and most
developed countries support. Ms. Ferris echoed
Dr. English's concerns, adding that there is a need
to coordinate international activities with those
occurring within the United States, since problems
are being transferred to communities affected by
issues of environmental justice in developing
countries.
Dr. Bullard asked whether considerations of
environmental justice had been incorporated into
the permitting process for waste exporters. Mr.
Sielen responded that some applications explicitly
state where wastes will be disposed of, while
others simply name the country. He added that
prospective exporters are encouraged to discuss the
matter with the officials of the country to which
the waste will be shipped.
Mr. Ray then asked for examples of cases in
which permit decisions for waste exports have
been changed because of concerns related to
environmental justice. Mr. Sielen responded that
1-9
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
he will look for specific examples of such cases
and provide them at a later date.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS
This section of the chapter contains summaries of
presentations on various topics, including a report
by the CEQ and an update on the Brownfields
Initiative.
4.1 Report of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality
Mr. Brad Campbell, CEQ, reported on the
commitment of the White House to environmental
justice. He first stated that EPA Administrator
Browner, as well as the White House, remains
committed to environmental justice, despite the
current political climate and budget issues. He
stated further that NEJAC's resolution on urban
revitalization is helping CEQ to focus on issues
related to the EPA's Brownfields Initiative. Mr.
Campbell commended Mr. Lee and NEJAC for
efforts in this area. (See Chapter Seven for a more
detailed discussion of the NEJAC resolution)
Mr. Campbell commented
environmental justice successes
improvements still are needed in
added that CEQ is interested in
improve environmental justice
seeking advice from NEJAC.
mentioned that the CEQ seeks
NEJAC on ways to:
that, despite
in some areas,
other areas. He
finding ways to
efforts and is
He specifically
comment from
• Ensure that considerations of environmental
justice are incorporated into ongoing
initiatives in an "organic" way by
incorporating environmental justice into the
visions of such initiatives
• Improve coordination of environmental
justice efforts among federal agencies
• Disseminate information, such as data from
theTRI
• Expand community-right-to-know
protections, both legally and in application.
Mr. Campbell concluded by saying that CEQ is
committed to distributing to the members of
NEJAC a draft copy of its guidance on
implementing environmental justice within NEPA
and solicit their comments. The questions and
comments from NEJAC members which followed
Mr. Campbell's report are summarized below.
Ms. Nathalie Walker expressed concern that
agencies are using the absence of NEPA guidance
as an excuse to "do nothing" in the area of
environmental justice. She added that CEQ had
not addressed the matter adequately. Mr.
Campbell acknowledged that the delay in releasing
the guidance is a "blemish" on CEQ's record. He
added that he would like to discuss with Ms.
Walker specific cases in which agencies have
failed to act.
Dr. Bullard commented that a perception exists
where environmental justice is being equated with
affirmative action. Mr. Campbell responded that,
among White House staff, there is explicit
recognition that environmental justice and
affirmative action are two separate issues. He
added that nothing should diminish the efforts
made with environmental justice and that CEQ will
work with NEJAC to ensure that this message is
clear.
Mr. Lee commented that the relationship between
NEJAC and the IWG is unclear. He explained
that because the issues being addressed by NEJAC
and IWG are "cross-cutting", a unique opportunity
exists for NEJAC and IWG to work together,
particularly with respect to efforts to "reinvent
government." Mr. Campbell responded that CEQ
wishes to take advantage of whatever opportunities
exist to clarify the function of IWG. He pointed
out that there is a general sense that IWG should
be more focused and produce concrete results.
CEQ is soliciting comment from the members of
NEJAC about how to ensure that the link is
maintained between actual progress made and the
implementation of agency environmental justice
strategies.
Mr. Moore commented that members of NEJAC
are not happy with IWG; that opinion, he added,
had been conveyed at previous meetings of
NEJAC. He stated that, in the past, CEQ and
various federal agencies had promised to "try" to
incorporate advice from NEJAC into everyday
processes. Mr. Campbell responded that CEQ
appreciates the patience of NEJAC and is aware of
the "collective unhappiness" NEJAC members feel
1-10
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
about the IWG and CEQ. He stated that although
it has been difficult to identify a communication
mechanism that will not repeat some of the
mistakes of the past, CEQ remains sincere in its
commitment to environmental justice.
4.2 Report on the Brownfields Initiative
Mr. Timothy Fields, Deputy AA for EPA's Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) thanked the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee for its support and work on issues
related to the Brownfields Initiative. He
mentioned specifically that subcommittee's help in
planning and conducting a series of public dialogue
sessions (held in five cities during June and July
1995) to discuss urban revitalization and issues
related to the Brownfields Initiative. He
mentioned that several issues (for example, the
need for greater community involvement) arose
during the dialogues. Mr. Fields added that
OSWER and the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee currently are working on ways to
achieve greater community involvement. As a
result of the public dialogues, he noted, EPA has
revised the criteria for grant applicants to allow for
greater community involvement.
Mr. Fields reported that OSWER has developed an
action agenda to address issues related to the
Brownfields Initiative. The action agenda provides
for the funding of 50 pilot projects under the
Brownfields Initiative; clarification of liability;
greater community involvement; and job creation
and training. Mr. Fields said that OSWER is
committed to modifying the action agenda to
address comments raised during the public
dialogue sessions. EPA is working with other
agencies to address issues of concern under the
Brownfields Initiative and to provide incentives for
greater investment hi properties being redeveloped
under it, he pointed out. Mr. Fields noted that a
Brownfields coordinator has been established in
each EPA region.
Mr. Fields announced that under the Brownfields
Initiative, EPA has awarded grants to 29 cities to
assess and cleanup properties. He added that job
training workshops were scheduled or had been
conducted in 20 of the 29 cities, to allow local
citizens an opportunity to obtain employment
under the program. Grants also had been allotted
to ensure that tribal issues are considered during
the redevelopment of properties under the
Initiative, he said. In addition, he said, the
Brownfields Initiative is being integrated into
EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI).
To emphasize OSWER's commitment to
community involvement, Mr. Fields stated that
more technical assistance will be provided to
communities than previously had been made
available. He also spoke of partnerships through
which universities will assist communities hi
evaluating technical documents.
Mr. Fields then turned to the NEJAC resolution on
urban revitalization and the Brownfields Initiative,
which requested that federal agencies coordinate
efforts to address issues related to urban
revitalization. He stated that OSWER is working
with industry to identify a community in which
issues related to wastes from metal finishing and
electroplating operations would be considered for
a grant award under the Brownfields Initiative.
OSWER also is working with other agencies, such
as those involved in enterprise zone and
empowerment zone activities, he said. Mr. Fields
added that EPA had removed thousands of sites
from the Superfund inventory and intends to
remove additional sites hi the future.
OSWER also has committed to hosting a national
meeting on the Brownfields Initiative in February
1996, he added, stating that members of NEJAC;
community groups; representatives of state, local,
and federal agencies; and other stakeholders would
be invited to discuss ways to address the issues
that arose during the public dialogue sessions. A
goal of the meeting, he concluded, is to obtain
commitments from all stakeholders to move
forward in the spirit of the NEJAC resolution.
Comments and questions from NEJAC members
followed Mr. Fields' presentation.
Mr. Ray mentioned that the state of Maryland has
convened a multidisciplinary team to address issues
related to the Brownfields Initiative and that the
program is a major priority of the governor of
Maryland. Mr. Ray identified issues that have
been raised in Maryland, such as whether a need
exists for legislation specifically related to the
Brownfields effort; whether the program will
1-11
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
remain a priority if the Administration changes;
and die lack of clarity about Brownfields projects
provided in EPA and other agency guidance. He
added that states need more guidance on cleanup
standards and covenants not to sue. Mr. Ray
commented that states need funds and staff to
implement the initiative; he asked whether staff
could be "donated" by EPA.
In response, Mr. Fields echoed die need for
federal and state legislation to address issues
related to the Brownfields Initiative. He added
that approximately 20 states have adopted
legislation to address such issues. A mandate of
law is more powerful than administration
priorities, which change often, he pointed out.
Finally, Mr. Fields mentioned that OSWER will
not have as much funding in 1996 as it had in
1995; however, the Brownfields Initiative remains
a priority.
Ms. Ferris inquired about plans for including
Native Americans in the Brownfields Initiative,
asking specifically about a Native American
organization that recently had been awarded a
grant. Mr. Fields responded that the Americans
for Indian Opportunity had received a grant to
establish an organization to advise and assist
OSWER on issues related to waste. He added that
OSWER had never before received direct advice
about tribal issues from such an organization; the
grant, he said, would allow such communication.
The organization, he stated, will work with the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee of the NEJAC
in addressing tribal issues. Mr. Fields emphasized
that the goal is to fill the current void in
information about tribal issues and make OSWER
aware of such issues. Ms. Ferris expressed
concern about federal agencies "forming"
organizations when there are existing organizations
working on the issues of concern. She also
requested that communities be informed before
such decisions are made, rather than after the fact.
Ms. Ferris recommended that OSWER contact the
Indigenous Environmental Network for input.
Mr. Charles McDermott suggested that OSWER
involve the Business Network for Environmental
Justice in planning the February 1996 meeting on
the Brownfields Initiative.
Dr. Beverly Wright asked Mr. Fields to clarify his
statement about OSWER's efforts to encourage
university partnerships with communities. Mr.
Fields responded that OSWER is providing grants
to assist community colleges in developing
curricula to teach community members how to
conduct environmental cleanup work. The effort
is intended to improve the economic condition of
local residents, he added.
4.3 Update on the Louisiana Energy Services
Case
Ms. Ferris and Dr. Wright reported on the status
of activities initiated to resolve complaints related
to the Louisiana Energy Services (LES) case. The
case focused on issues related to the permit
process that LES underwent hi its effort to site the
nation's only privately-owned uranium enrichment
facility. Ms. Ferris summarized discussions held
during a conference call between several NEJAC
members and EPA Headquarters and Region 6
staff. The call was the second hi a series
generated in response to previous requests from
the NEJAC to address concerns about the case, she
explained. During the call, Region 6 was asked to
clarify die point at which it became difficult to
integrate environmental justice concerns into the
decision-making process for approving the permit.
Dr. Wright reported that Region 6 staff stated that
although they had criticized the LES environmental
impact statement (EIS) because it had not
considered issues of environmental justice, the
permit process proceeded despite the criticism.
Dr. Wright added that, during die conference call,
it was not apparent that environmental justice was
considered a factor in the permit process. Rather,
she said, it appeared that Region 6 staff thought
that it may not be possible to deny a permit
because of problems related to environmental
justice. She stated that the "it-may-not-be-
possible" attitude should be replaced with a "do-it-
and-see-how-it-works" attitude. Mr. Richard
Lazarus echoed Dr. Wright's statement, adding
that it appears that Region 6 staff were not aware
that they have discretion to deny a permit because
of issues of environmental justice. Dr. English
commented she believed Region 6 was being
evasive by not considering issues of environmental
justice simply because specific provisions do not
exist in the regulations.
TIT
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
Dr. Wright stated that Region 6 personnel believe
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
should handle the LES matter. However, Ms.
Ferris responded that NEPA is not restricted to
nuclear regulatory issues; in fact, she added, many
federal agencies apply NEPA in decisions that can
affect human health or the environment.
Understanding the potential barriers to addressing
issues of environmental justice when implementing
the requirements of NEPA goes beyond the LES
case, she pointed out. Ms. Ferris emphasized that
the issue is not restricted to LES; broader
implications, she said, affect the ways in which
regulations and policies are implemented to
incorporate concerns related to environmental
justice.
Ms. Ferris emphasized that the LES permit process
is ongoing; conclusions about the case cannot be
reached at this time. However, she said, Region
6 has been asked to determine at what stages
difficulties related to environmental justice have
been encountered. She stated that it would be
useful for NEJAC to understand the barriers
encountered during the LES permit process so that
NEJAC can recommend ways to streamline the
process to ensure that environmental justice issues
are considered during the NEPA process.
Dr. Gaylord commented that the initial EIS had
not been accepted and the permit process had been
suspended "unofficially" because the process did
not adequately address concerns related to
environmental justice. She explained that the
suspension was unofficial because no official
guidance on environmental justice exists in the
NEPA regulations. Dr. Gaylord recommended
that NEJAC establish a work group to investigate
issues related to NEPA and environmental justice,
and to identify as suggested by Ms. Ferris,
barriers to responding to community concerns.
The members of NEJAC agreed to refer the LES
permit issue to the Enforcement Subcommittee
which will analyze the issue further and report its
findings to the Executive Council of the NEJAC.
4.4 Update on the EPA Environmental
Justice Strategy Implementation Plan
Dr. Gaylord provided an update on the status of
EPA's environmental justice implementation plan.
She stated that the members of NEJAC had
reviewed the draft plan in July 1995, adding that
agencywide review of the plan had followed.
Comments had been received from EPA regions
and program offices in November 1995. She
noted that OEJ, with assistance from EPA's Office
of Policy Planning and Evaluation, is refining the
goals, milestones, and measures of success. The
revised plan will be mailed to the members of
NEJAC in early January 1996 for review, she
said, and the plan will be submitted to the White
House hi February 1996. Dr. Gaylord stressed
that the plan is a "living document" which should
be updated to reflect ongoing issues, such as those
of an international aspect.
5.0 REPORTS OF THE
NEJAC SUBCOMMITTEES
Each NEJAC subcommittee met for a full day on
December 13, 1995; five continued their
deliberations through the morning of December
14, 1995. This section presents summaries of the
action items and proposed resolutions diat stemmed
from subcommittee discussions. Full summaries of
the deliberations of the subcommittees are
presented in subsequent chapters of this report. In
addition, Section 7. Oof this chapter contains a list
of the action items reported by the subcommittees
during this session of the meeting.
5.1 Enforcement Subcommittee
No formal report was presented on issues
discussed during the meeting of the Enforcement
Subcommittee; however, the members of NEJAC
voted unanimously to adopt the subcommittee's
report on recommendations to EPA about
enforcement. In addition, Ms. Ferris, Chair of the
Enforcement Subcommittee, commented that the
Enforcement Subcommittee had requested that
NEJAC issue a resolution encouraging Congress to
participate hi the Basel Convention, but no action
had been taken on the request. Dr. Gaylord
responded that she had been informed that the
International Subcommittee had addressed that
issue during its meeting.
1-13
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Election of Subcommittee Chairs
The following persons were elected to chair
the six NEJAC subcommittees:
• Deeohn Ferris, Enforcement
Subcommittee
• Robert Bullard, Health and Research
Subcommittee
• Walter Bresette, Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee
• Baldemar Velasquez, International
Subcommittee
• Peggy Saika, Public Participation and
Accountability Subcommittee
• Charles Lee, Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee
5.2 Health and Research Subcommittee
Dr. Bullard, Chair of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, reported on the action items and
proposed resolutions developed by the Health and
Research Subcommittee. The members of NEJAC
unanimously adopted the resolutions presented by
the subcommittee.
In addition, the full NEJAC voted, with one
abstention, to request that EPA reconsider its
judgement of a report, entitled "Controlling Lead
Hazards in the Nation's Housing," until issues
raised by those holding a minority dissenting
opinion have been addressed and a response to that
opinion has been forwarded to NEJAC.
During a discussion preceding the vote on the
report, Dr. Gaylord stated that Ms. Lynn Moose,
EPA, had requested that EPA's opinion on this
matter be read to the members of NEJAC. Dr.
Gaylord read the statement, which maintained that
EPA cannot simply rely on the recommendations
of a task force, but must consider a full set of
regulatory requirements before decisions are made.
Dr. English countered that recommendations in the
task force report had not been endorsed by all
members of the task force. Rather, she pointed
out, the recommendations were adopted by a two-
thirds majority of those members of the task force
who were present at the time of the vote.
5.3 Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
Mr. Walter Bresette, Chan- of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee, opened his report with
several comments. He noted that for a variety of
reasons (notably illness and logistics issues), his
subcommittee was unable to attain a quorum. He
urged the members of NEJAC not to assume that
people are not interested simply because they are
unable to attend a meeting. He then stated that the
subcommittee meeting had been productive and
thanked the notetaker from PRC Environmental
Management, Inc. for providing support during the
meetings.
Mr. Bresette commented further that, as a new
member of NEJAC, he is assessing other
members, the meeting forums, and the general
environment of NEJAC meetings. Part of his
appraisal, he said, involves listening carefully to
ensure that he understands the process so that he
can accurately represent the community. He asked
that other members not interpret silence as a lack
of concern or understanding of the seriousness of
the issues.
Noting that he represented a Native American
community and was not a "professional" person,
Mr. Bresette urged other members to be respectful
of styles that may differ from their own. He then
stated that he speaks not just for the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee, but also for himself, his
family, his community, and his grandchildren. He
concluded his general comments by expressing
concern about comments from Puerto Rico on
EPA's participation in "continued colonialism."
He stressed that he could not be silent when
misconceptions exist.
Mr. Bresette stated that the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee had discussed several issues:
• The poor response of Region 9 staff to
Native American issues
1-14
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
• The transfer of land in California to the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the
storage of nuclear waste
• The lack of attention to rural and Native
American issues
• The review of the process for applying for
environmental justice grants
• The development of an inventory of all
federal resources available to address Native
American issues
• The need for closer communication and
coordination among EPA staff and those
working on environmental justice and
Native American issues
• The preparation of a training video for
indigenous people involved in
environmental justice activities
• The development of mechanisms to facilitate
communication between the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee and other
subcommittees of NET AC
5.4 International Subcommittee
Mr. Baldemar Velasquez, Chair of the
International Subcommittee, was not available to
present a report on the discussions of the
International Subcommittee.
5.5 Public Participation and Accountability
Subcommittee
Dr. Wright, reporting for Ms. Peggy Saika, Chair
of the Public Participation and Accountability
Subcommittee, summarized several items discussed
during the subcommittee meeting. Dr. Wright
stated that the subcommittee had discussed the
"cross-cutting" nature of public participation and
had recommended that the other NEJAC
subcommittees keep this subcommittee informed of
issues that arise during their deliberations which
have an effect on issues of public participation.
The subcommittee also discussed the possibility of
identifying potential pilot projects in which the
public participation model could be used, she said.
Dr. Wright added that the subcommittee is
considering repackaging the model and will consult
public participation experts for advice. Mr.
Moore commented that the Department of Energy
(DOE) and the Department of Defense (DoD) have
requested copies of the model, noting that the
model has been used for some base closure
projects.
5.6 Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Mr. Lee, Chair of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, summarized action items and
proposed resolutions developed by the
subcommittee. He reported that the subcommittee
had requested that NEJAC vote on the following
issues:
• Distribute copies of LandView II to the
members of NEJAC
• Place copies of LandView II in local
libraries, at historically black colleges and
universities, and at other institutions that
serve communities affected by issues of
environmental justice
• Maintain LandView II in the public domain
to prevent cost increases that could make
the system unaffordable
• Sponsor community roundtable meetings on
LandView II and other geographic
information mapping systems
• Request the integration of LandView II,
other geographic mapping systems, and
geographic information systems (GIS) to
make them more compatible.
Mr. Lee stated that the recommendations were not
written, but requested an immediate vote. Mr.
McDermott responded that he would rather have
an opportunity to review the written requests
before the vote was taken.
Mr. Lee then presented another request of the
subcommittee that dealt with a proposed rule on
military munitions. The subcommittee requested
that NEJAC vote on whether to request that DoD
and other federal agencies consider the effects of
the proposed rule on communities affected by
T75
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
environmental justice issues. Mr. Lee stated that,
under the proposed rule, certain issues would have
a significant, adverse effect on such communities.
The members of NEJAC approved unanimously
the subcommittee's recommendation that the
effects on communities affected by environmental
justice issues be considered before the proposed
munitions rule is promulgated.
6.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
This section provides a summary of the comments
offered during the public comment period
conducted December 12 by satellite downlink to
Puerto Rico and the public comment period held
on December 14 in Washington, D.C. The full
transcript of the proceedings of the meeting of the
Executive Council contains a verbatim record of
public comments.
6.1 Puerto Rico Downlink
Mr. Moore introduced the session by explaining
that the use of satellite downlinks represents a test
of NEJAC's model for public participation. He
explained that the Executive Council had worked
with EPA and a coalition of 26 organizations
located throughout Puerto Rico to develop and
organize the event.
Comments were received from two satellite
downlink locations: University of Puerto Rico,
Rio Pedras campus and University of Puerto Rico,
Mayaguez Campus. Public comments also were
broadcast at EPA Headquarters and EPA Region
2; however, those locations were one-way audio
downlinks only, in which individuals at those
locations could hear the public comments and
discussions but could not make comments or
participate in the discussions.
All comments were translated into English and
responses were translated into Spanish. Comments
are summarized below, in the order in which they
were made. In addition to the audio portion of the
downlink, a videotape of the NEJAC Executive
Council members and their responses to the public
comments is available from the Black College
Satellite Network. Please contact the Network for
tape cost and availability, at 301-350-0056 or
write, 8616 Edgeworth Drive, Capitol Heights,
Maryland, 20743.
6.1.1 Frank Coss, President of the Coticam
Mr. Frank Coss pleaded that those "in power" not
expose people in Puerto Rico to further health
risks and decreased quality of life. He stated that
environmental justice is a program intended to help
poor people and minorities, and he urged Congress
and the White House not to decrease funding for
EPA and environmental justice issues.
Mr. Coss added that it is important to ensure a
better environment for the future. Too many
people are seeking economic enhancement with no
concern for the environment. He requested that
the United States enact a law to stop groundwater
contamination and protect the groundwater in
Puerto Rico. Finally, he asked the United States to
achieve greater integration in its educational
system. He concluded by stressing the importance
of community involvement in decision-making
processes, adding that Puerto Rico and the United
States must work together to improve
environmental and economic conditions regardless
of who is in power.
6.1.2 Francisco L. Figueroa, Apari Enterprises
Mr. Francisco Figueroa stated that he represents a
nonprofit organization that sponsors a variety of
environmental and educational programs and
services. His organization works in conjunction
with government agencies and private companies.
He added that his organization views jobs and job
training as a means to decrease welfare
dependency. He highlighted some of his
organization's activities, which included: assisting
homeless persons in obtaining an education,
helping students through their first year of college,
providing literacy and parenthood assistance, and
providing technical training. In addition, he said,
his organization is certified by the Puerto Rico
Housing Department to develop 25 ecological
housing construction projects, which will consist of
energy- and waste-efficient homes.
Mr. Figueroa commented that not only are surface
and groundwater contamination problems in Puerto
Rico, but that air contamination is a growing
problem. Erosion is rampant, he said, and there
are too few efforts to educate people to be aware
of such problems. He suggested that the federal
government change its policy of channeling funds
1-16
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
through state and local governments. Instead, the
funds should go directly to community-based
organizations. He concluded that such an
approach would help environmental justice become
a reality in Puerto Rico.
6.1.3 Hector Arana
Mr. Hector Arana began by sharing a recent
experience with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) and the Puerto Rico Power
Authority which, he said, was a case of
environmental injustice. He stated that because
pipelines are "jammed with a thousand megawatts
of power generated with fossil fuels," the
challenge facing Puerto Rico is that permits have
been requested for additional pipelines for a
natural gas plant.
Mr. Arana stated further that the Puerto Rico
Power Authority wants to impose higher energy
costs on the people, a proposal he identified as an
injustice. He stated that the FERC should address
the issue of energy costs, from a standpoint of the
potential economic effects on residents of Puerto
Rico. He added that a comprehensive plan for
energy conservation should be developed which is
modeled on EPA's "Green Lights" program. The
plan should incorporate concepts of renewable
energy. He specifically requested that the
Enforcement Subcommittee investigate those
issues.
Mr. Moore responded that requests for NEJAC
subcommittees to address certain issues were to be
discussed during the subcommittee meetings.
6.1.4 Diana Lopez-Feliciano, Inter Americana
University
Ms. Diana Lopez-Feliciano stated that she is the
director of the Environmental Law Clinic at
Inter Americana University School of Law.
Describing the Clinic, which was established in
January 1995 to provide legal assistance to low-
income individuals, she summarized the clinic's
findings over the past year. She stated that, in its
first year, the clinic took in more cases than it
could handle; therefore, local and federal
government agencies were not provided with tools
to address all the problems that arose.
Ms. Lopez-Feliciano urged that communities be
educated on the causes of their problems and the
remedies available to them. She then requested
that funds be provided to the clinic to support free
services for low-income communities. She also
requested that funds be provided to nongovernment
organizations (NGO) that provide environmental
and educational services.
Mr. Borum responded that the American Bar
Association soon will publish a directory of
organizations and U.S. attorneys that provide pro
bono legal services for cases related to
environmental justice. He asked Ms. Lopez-
Feliciano to provide her name and address so that
a copy of the directory can be mailed to her.
Adding that her organization could be included in
the directory, he applauded the clinic for its work.
6.1.5 Kenneth Albright, Shundahai Network
Mr. Kenneth Albright spoke against the testing of
nuclear weapons, citing the harmful effects of such
testing on humans and the environment. He spoke
of eliminating testing areas and replacing the sites
with soil, grass, and trees to make one-third of the
world a land mass. Finally, he thanked the
spiritual leaders of Native Americans for
acknowledging different approaches to
environmental issues.
Mr. Lee commented that NEJAC is concerned
about the issues raised by the commentors. He
apologized for not being able to see the
commentors and stated that the lack of two-way
visual transmission was no indication of level of
concern on the part of the members of NEJAC.
He added that, although it was difficult to hear all
the comments, he hoped that all comments would
be cataloged so that appropriate responses could be
given.
Dr. Wright added that many members of NEJAC
were concerned to learn that their brothers and
sisters in Puerto Rico believed that their concerns
were not being heard. She endorsed Mr. Lee's
comment about the importance of recording and
responding to all public comments.
Dr. Gaylord announced that, as is true of all
public comment periods conducted by NEJAC, the
comments would be recorded, action items would
1-17
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
be identified, and updated printouts of the action
item tracking list would be provided to all
members of NEJAC.
6.1.6 Mr. Juan Rosario, Mision Industrial de
Puerto Rico
Mr. Juan Rosario stated that approximately 20
groups were represented at the two downlink
locations together. All those groups, he said, are
asking that fair rules be established so that the
efforts of citizens groups will be effective. There
have been too many meetings and commentaries
that have not resulted in any action.
He then stated that Puerto Rico is a group of
islands on which reside approximately one million
residents per square mile. In addition, he added,
Puerto Rico is the "pharmaceutical capital of the
world," where pharmaceutical companies use
millions of gallons of water each day and dispose
of millions of gallons of waste.
Mr. Rosario stated that industry in Puerto Rico
produces four times more toxic waste per acre than
in the United States. He also stated that per capita
income in Puerto Rico is half the per capita
income in the state of Mississippi, the unofficial
unemployment rate in Puerto Rico is 16 percent,
and 60 percent of the population lives below the
poverty level. He observed that Puerto Ricans
obviously are not among those people who are
created equal and who enjoy certain inalienable
rights.
Mr. Rosario emphasized that Puerto Rico's history
is full of racially discriminatory statements by
academics and politicians. He added that the
negative perceptions of many contribute to the use
of Puerto Ricans as "guinea pigs." For example,
he cited a case where, with the Puerto Rico
government's knowledge, forests in Puerto Rico
have been used to conduct radiation experiments.
He went on to say that contraceptive pills were
tested on women in Puerto Rico, and sterilization
operations have left one-third of the women in
Puerto Rico without the capacity to procreate. He
added that testing of Agent Orange was conducted
at 17 different sites in Puerto Rico. He noted that
such testing is permitted under the state
implementation plan, which allows for emission
discharges three times greater than are allowed in
the United States.
After citing further examples of discrimination,
Mr. Rosario stated that environmental groups in
Puerto Rico will not tolerate further discrimination
and demand respect from federal agencies when
they are working with communities. Further,
those groups will demand that resources be
allocated to implement programs delegated to
Puerto Rico and that potentially affected
communities be consulted before programs are
implemented. He also stated that all files and
permits related to activities in Puerto Rico should
be transferred to Puerto Rico, and documents
should be produced in Spanish. He added that
environmental justice can not occur when people
cannot even read documents because die
documents are not written in those people's
language. In addition, he requested that
environmental groups from Puerto Rico be
represented on NEJAC. Finally, he asked that the
Enforcement, Indigenous Peoples, and Public
Participation and Accountability subcommittees
engage in work that is directed to and focused on
issues in Puerto Rico.
6.1.7 Sonia Vazquez, Associacionde Pescadores
de Fajardo
Dr. Sonia Vazquez stated that she represented a
variety of groups and associations, including the
Association of Fishermen, the Association for a
Good Environment, and the Committee Against
Contamination in the city of Humacao. She spoke
about specific situations affecting the east and
southeast areas of Puerto Rico, notably: (1) a
concept of progress, irrespective of quality of life,
has been developed in Puerto Rico at the expense
of the environment; (2) the east and southeast
areas have the greatest number of pharmaceutical
companies of any area of the island and are
referred to as the industry capital of the world; (3)
the areas have the highest levels of air emissions in
the world; (4) beaches have been lost because of
acts of nature, affecting die tourism business, and
therefore die economy of the area; (5) these areas
tiiat formerly were used by fishermen are now
used by tourists, affecting the livelihood of
fishermen and their families; and (6) regulations
and water quality standards are inadequate and
1-18
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
respond more to the needs of industry than to
those of local residents.
Dr. Vazquez described a case in the town of
Jabucoa in which the government has allowed a
company to discharge air emissions and
contaminants. Despite numerous complaints by
local residents, the government continues to renew
the company's permits. The regulatory agencies
do not seem to notice or care about the concerns
of local residents, she said. Dr. Vazquez then
made a plea that the health department conduct an
epidemiology study in the town of Jabucoa. She
also pleaded for NEJAC to help the people of Rio
Pedras.
6.1.8 Miguel Canals, Southwest Puerto Rico
Environmental Movement
Mr. Miguel Canals first stated that the Southwest
Puerto Rico Environmental Movement is a
community group organized to address regional
environmental and health problems associated with
waste, privatization of beaches, deterioration of
natural heritage, and nonsustainable environmental
projects. He described southwest Puerto Rico as
a beautiful area in which some of the most
contaminated areas on the island are found there.
He pointed out that the harbors are polluted and
that unsustainable economic development is
destroying the area, particularly areas in which
communities are poor and unemployment high.
Mr. Canals stated further that federal laws,
regulatory agencies, and states which are
implementing delegated programs have been
participants in clear cases of environmental
injustice. In particular, Mr. Canals expressed
concern about the following issues: the
effectiveness and application of federal laws;
enforcement; program monitoring; and
environmental discrimination. He stated that
environmental standards, such as those pertaining
to air and water, are established for large
continental areas and are then applied to smaller
islands.
Mr. Canals then said that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) recently circulated a
nationwide permit for private owners to construct
homes in wetlands areas, which will have serious
adverse effects on wetlands areas in Puerto Rico.
He also mentioned contradictory regulations, such
as incentives that are given to the coffee industry
to grow "sun coffee" which have resulted in
deforestation in central Puerto Rico.
In addition, Mr. Canals said regulatory agencies
are not dealing with military issues. For example,
he stated that radar systems are being imposed in
Lajas Valley, an area that is particularly
economically disadvantaged. Historically, there
has been in that area a lack of enforcement of
federal laws and regulations and in monitoring
pollution from non-point sources, he said. He
stated that economic and human resources are an
issue. Federal agencies have limited staff and
funding to follow up on issues and conduct
effective monitoring, he pointed out. For
example, he said, USAGE has only two
professional staff to take action against violators.
Resource shortages also have a negative impact on
the implementation of delegated programs, he
noted, adding that, when programs are delegated,
resources should be allocated to implement them.
Finally, Mr. Canals stated that environmental
groups should be able to participate in the process
of making decisions about the delegation of power.
He added that EPA documents should be bilingual.
Ms. Walker commented that her organization
currently is investigating the USAGE'S nationwide
permit program. She requested any information
available about the effects of the program in
Puerto Rico.
6.1.9 Mr. Efren Perez, Committee of Cabo
Rojo and Pro-Environment
Mr. Efren Perez described his community as an
area of about 72 miles with about 700 families and
heavy tourism. The community is affected
negatively by urban development. For example,
he said, companies and tourists use the natural
resources that belong to the people of Puerto Rico,
and many green areas are now deteriorating
because of overuse. The area has a high level of
water contamination, especially in the Boqueron
Forest area. Mr. Perez added that waste from
water treatment plants is discharged directly into
the river, affecting the health of local residents.
The community has received no support from state
or federal agencies on the issue.
1-19
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
6.1.10 Father Henry Beauchamp,
Mayagiiezanos por la Salud
Father Henry Beauchamp identified himself as a
Roman Catholic priest working in the city of
Mayaguez.
He noted that his organization is dedicated to
preserving health and the environment. The nature
and purpose of his organization is best summarized
in Dr. Bullard's work, "Confronting
Environmental Racism," stated Father Beauchamp.
The organization is a grassroots establishment that
represents a broad spectrum of social classes,
academic backgrounds, ideologies, and religious
affiliations. The organization has assumed an
active leadership role in defending communities
against projects that can have a negative effect on
the well being of residents, he declared, adding
that the organization has received an EPA
environmental education grant. The grant was
used to raise community awareness of problems
related to solid waste, he said. Despite its efforts,
the organization confronts problems with elected
officials and agencies that are supposed to protect
the environment.
Father Beauchamp criticized the rhetoric of local
politicians who have adopted "green" vocabularies
but whose actions bely their words. In addition,
he said, there is a general lack of knowledge
among politicians of environmental issues. He
added that most politicians and agency personnel
view grassroots organizations as adversaries and
are reluctant to share information with them.
Public participation therefore is curtailed and
communication is poor.
Father Beauchamp pointed out that there is a lack
of holistic, integrated models for planning and
dealing with projects, a circumstance that feeds
into a "colonial mentality." He added that, when
officials take some action on positions that
organizations advocate, the organizations are
expected to remain silent and not expect any future
concessions. This attitude, he said, affects the
level of trust people can invest in government.
Father Beauchamp added that many organizations
are concerned that EPA is simply rendering lip
service to environmental justice and has little
concern about the issues communities have faced
and the abuses they have experienced. His
organization, he said, has asked EPA repeatedly to
resolve issues "before they become candidates for
environmental justice grants." He cited Mayaguez
Bay as an example of EPA inaction and "passing
the buck." He added that EPA has participated hi
its own brand of "colonialism."
6.1.11 Antonio Perez, Committee for
Defense of the Environment and
Esperanza Dorado Community
Mr. Antonio Perez stated that the San Juan
Cement Company has been working in the Dorado
community for more than two decades and has
been contaminating the environment. The
contamination has deteriorated the health of local
residents and property values also have
deteriorated, he said.
Mr. Perez stated that contamination in the
community worsened in 1989 when the cement
industry moved in. He added that Safety Kleen is
responsible for managing solid waste studies on the
cement industry. Although the San Juan Cement
Company is supposed to use its ovens to create
concrete, it uses them to burn waste from other
industries, Mr. Perez said. He then stated that the
burning of solid waste has resulted in cases of
cancer, skin disorders, and respiratory problems.
He added that the cement company is operating
under a provisional permit that EPA approved.
The provisional permit is being extended and there
has been no public hearing, he pointed out. Mr.
Perez stressed that no one is protecting the
community, not even EPA. He added that Safety
Kleen has continued to transport solid waste
without a permit.
Mr. Perez pleaded with EPA to remove the San
Juan Cement Company and Safety Kleen from the
island. He stressed that EPA and other regulatory
agencies in Puerto Rico should take the matter
more seriously.
6.1.12
Conclusion of Downlink
Mr. Moore commented that the members of
NEJAC visited Puerto Rico and were able to see
the urban and rural situations and learn about the
history of Puerto Rico and its culture. He added
that, during that visit and the public comment
1-20
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
sessions, comment focused on the lack of response
by EPA in general and EPA Region 2 in
particular. He stated further that, although some
individuals maintain that there are not
environmental justice problems in Puerto Rico, the
public comments and observations of NEJAC
members prove that environmental injustices do
exist in Puerto Rico.
Dr. Gaylord then thanked the citizens of Puerto
Rico for their comments. She stressed that there
is a need to follow up and ensure that NEJAC and
EPA respond to the comments. She noted that
EPA Region 2 was participating in the session to
the downlink and that staff of OECA were viewing
the telecast. She added that assignments would be
made on each issue that was raised, as well as
resolutions on some issues to the EPA
Administrator. She stressed that NEJAC would
work with the EPA Administrator in Region 2,
who, she noted, had been involved actively in
arranging the downlink. In closing, Dr. Gaylord
thanked the members of NEJAC for listening to
the public comments and encouraged them to begin
work on the issues raised.
6.2 Washington, D.C. Session
Comments offered during the public comment
period held in Washington, D.C. on December 14,
1995 are summarized below, in the order in which
they were provided.
6.2.1 Sandra Hill, National Association of State
Foresters
Ms. Sandra Hill opened with an announcement that
the seventh meeting of the American Forest
Congress (AFC) is scheduled for February 1996.
The AFC, she stated, represents the paper
industry, as well as the interests of grassroots
organizations. She urged the members and other
attendees to attend the AFC meeting. She briefly
pointed out that a main focus of the meeting will
be to formulate a vision of the forest for the next
century. Ms. Hill stated that it is important that
environmental justice interests be represented at
the meeting.
6.2.2 Robert Boone, Anacostia Watershed
Society
Mr. Robert Boone identified himself as the
Director of the Anacostia Watershed Society, an
environmental group in Washington, D.C. He
then said that, although most things in the
Washington, D.C. area are referred to as "local,"
almost everything that occurs in the city is really
"federal." He hopes that a federal focus can be
placed on environmental justice.
"Racial estrangement," continued Mr. Boone, is a
toxin of sorts that slowly poisons and erodes hope
and pride. He added mat irrational fear based on
race has become common, although everyone
pretends mat it does not exist.
Mr. Boone went on to discuss the contrasts
between bodies of water in urban areas and bodies
of water in nonurban areas. He said that, to save
the Potomac River, the community must be saved.
He then spoke about Children's Island, currently
used as a dump site. He noted that Children's
Island is 15 minutes from the United States
Capitol. He urged the members of NEJAC to help
stop a bill in Congress that he said would "give"
Children's Island to a developer. The community
would like to see the property redeveloped for use
as a park and is opposed to the bill, he added. He
also mentioned that the National Park Service
supports the transfer of the property, despite the
wishes of the community.
In response, Mr. Ray commented mat the problem
in Washington, D.C. is that the community never
has been empowered and community members
have been treated as second-class citizens. He
expressed appreciation to Mr. Boone for his
efforts.
6.2.3 Deborah Matthews, Alton Park/Piney
Woods Neighborhood Improvement
Coalition
Ms. Deborah Matthews stated that she lives hi
Chattanooga, Tennessee. Her city, she said,
ironically was chosen as a sustainable
environmental community by the President's
Council for Sustainable Communities. However,
she said, her community is home to 41 toxic waste
sites and is surrounded by 32 polluting industries.
7-21
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Children and adults are plagued with health
problems, she added. Despite all this, she said,
EPA has not determined that the health problems
of residents are related to pollution in the
community.
Ms. Matthews then focused on OEJ's community-
university partnership grant program. She stated
that Tennessee Technological University was
awarded a $300,000 grant; partners include the
Bethlehem Community Center and the Chattanooga
Neighborhood Network. She complained that the
"so-called community partners" have not addressed
any social, economic, or environmental problems
in the community.
She added that some of the partners are not
"community organizations," and she questioned
where the community fits within the community
partnership process. She stated further that
Tennessee Technological University is a majority-
white institution that serves the white middle class,
and she questioned whether individuals from the
university have any knowledge of issues facing the
African-American community.
Ms. Matthews announced that the community is
developing a letter to document its dissatisfaction
with the "conspiracy" on the part of the grantees
"to make money off the community's suffering."
She asked that the members of NEJAC review the
letter and make recommendations to EPA to
prevent exploitation of communities hi the future.
She also requested that OEJ not approve any
revisions to the existing grant unless the
community is involved in that process.
Ms. Ferris asked whether the Chattanooga
community had submitted any written requests to
EPA and whether any response had been received.
She also asked for a copy of the budget submitted
with the grant proposal. Ms. Matthews responded
that she had spoken with OEJ and that she would
forward a copy of the budget to Ms. Ferris.
6.2.4 Dr. Grace Hewell, Local Resident
Dr. Grace Hewell stated that she has an extensive
background in public policy and public health
issues, as well as experience in legislative policy
making. She echoed Ms. Matthews' complaints
about the community-university partnership grant
in Chattanooga, Tennessee. She then expressed
dissatisfaction with the amount of research
conducted by "outside" groups on communities of
color. She added that, despite her dissatisfaction
in some areas, she would like to see the
partnership grant program continue.
6.2.5 Valerie Wilk, Farm Worker Justice Fund
Ms. Valerie Wilk commented on the presentation
made by Dr. Goldman, AA for OPPTS. Ms. Wilk
said that she was disturbed by what Dr. Goldman
had said about farm worker protection standards,
as well as by what she had not said. Ms. Wilk
then described specific issues of concern that she
wanted to call to the attention of the members of
NEJAC.
Ms. Wilk stated that the National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) has
joined forces with the grower coalition to kill the
Farm Worker Protection Rule, even though, in
most states, NASDA members are responsible for
enforcing the regulation. She also said that five
months after the regulation became effective in
January 1995, EPA issued five amendments that
significantly weakened the regulation. Regulations
were revised to reflect the demands of attorneys
for NASDA, she added. She also stated that EPA
made a final decision before the public comment
period ended.
Ms. Wilk explained that two amendments to the
rule are pending. One essentially would eliminate
the requirement for emergency wash water for
certain pesticides, she said, even though the
pesticides are known to cause chronic health
problems. The other amendment would allow a 95
percent reduction hi the size of warning signs.
Little by little, the regulations are being gutted,
she stated.
She added that, before the worker protection
standards went into effect, the only protection
workers had was provided by their union
affiliations. Today, the only protection workers
have is the unions, she said.
Ms. Ferris commented that the Enforcement
Subcommittee is forming a work group on
enforcement of worker protection standards. She
7-22
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
asked to speak with Ms. Wilk about contributing
to the work group. Ms. Wilk agreed.
6.2.6 Mr. Tom Goldtooth for the Cahuilla
Band of Indian People
Mr. Tom Goldtooth first stated that the Waste and
Facility Siting and Indigenous Peoples
subcommittees had received several comments that
were discussed during the subcommittee meetings.
He added that the comment he was presenting
referred to information received from the Cahuilla
Band of Indian people in southern California. He
then read a written statement from the tribal
members.
The statement complained about the failure of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, EPA Region 9, the state
of California, Riverside County, and other
enforcement agencies, to enforce California
Resolution 91-17, which calls for an end to illegal
dumping. The statement also emphasized that the
Cahuilla Band often has requested that illegal
dumping be stopped, and, for five years, no
agency has responded to those requests.
6.2.7 Connie Tucker
Ms. Tucker first noted the lack of representation
of African-American grassroots organizations on
NET AC and its subcommittees. She asked why
there was only one representative of African-
American grassroots organization on NEJAC and
only three African-American representatives of
grassroots groups on the subcommittees.
Dr. Gaylord responded that recommendations are
solicited for membership on NEJAC and
forwarded for the final decision-making process.
She added that recommendations are not always
approved and efforts are underway to attempt to
change that circumstance. She added that OEJ has
more flexibility and control over the appointment
of subcommittee members. Ms. Tucker responded
that she was not aware that recommendations were
solicited and requested that the decision makers be
informed of the existing lack of representation of
African-Americans of grassroots organizations on
NEJAC and its subcommittees.
Ms. Tucker then noted that NEJAC is not
addressing the issue of pollution in African-
American communities caused by industry.
Pollution generated by industry is the primary
source of illness hi those communities, she stated.
She recommended that a subcommittee be formed
to address pollution caused by existing industry in
general and those that emit highly toxic chemicals
in particular.
She also commented about the awarding of grants
to organizations that may be African-American by
name or in membership, but are not
knowledgeable about environmental justice issues.
She mentioned the National Council of Negro
Women and the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), in
particular. She questioned how one determines
whether an organization is an "environmental
justice" organization, and she asked who makes
such determinations. She expressed outrage that
EPA and other agencies fund organizations that
receive private funding from polluting industries.
She then asked NEJAC to request that EPA
provide a list of organizations that receive EPA
funding, while simultaneously receiving funding
from private industry. She also asked NEJAC to
investigate the process of awarding environmental
justice grants.
Dr. Wright suggested that Ms. Tucker request a
list of members of NEJAC and their terms on the
body. She commented that no African-American
has a two-year term. Ms. Tucker asked why that
was the case. She clarified her belief that the
perspective of the people who are faced daily with
environmental justice issues would add value to
NEJAC.
Dr. Gaylord commented that OEJ funds the
National Council of Negro Women because of that
organization's Family Reunion Project, which
reaches millions of people. OEJ funds the
organization to support its efforts to distribute
information related to environmental justice and to
conduct awareness workshops. Dr. Gaylord
pointed out that OEJ does not fund NAACP.
Funding for NAACP is provided from elsewhere
in EPA, she added.
6.2.8 Jose Bravo, Southwest Network
Mr. Jose Bravo stated that the Southwest Network
is outraged about the Secretary of Labor's Fair
1-23
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Labor Fashions Trendsetter List, which named 31
U.S. garment manufacturers that have taken steps
to ensure that workers are not exploited. He
added that two manufacturers, Jessica McClintock
and Levis Strauss, were included on the list despite
the fact that they have been the targets of national
boycotts by grassroots organizations. He charged
that the Department of Labor (DOL) has
undermined national campaigns for economic and
environmental justice by including those
manufacturers on the list of trendsetters. That, he
said, is a slap in the face of all who have struggled
to achieve justice for immigrant people of color
and garment workers.
Mr. Bravo then requested, on behalf of the
Southwest Network, that NEJAC write a letter to
DOL requesting that the Jessica McClintock and
Levis Strauss clothing manufacturers be removed
from the list.
Mr. Bravo also commented that an EPA official
had requested information about the legal status of
immigrants hi the colonias along the border
between the U.S. and Mexico. He stated that EPA
should limit itself to the task of protecting the
environment and asked that NEJAC investigate the
reason for the inquiry.
6.2.9 Ms. Marina Lamarque, Local Resident of
Calexico, California
Ms. Marina Lamarque stated that she had been
born in Calexico, California, the home of the New
River, which she said is one of the most
contaminated rivers in the country. She mentioned
that the New River flows through the Imperial
Valley and into the Salton Sea. She then
summarized the variety of problems stemming
from contamination in the New River and Salton
Sea. She spoke of 100 known diseases and viruses
in the waters and described studies that
documented health problems among surrounding
residents and farm workers, as well as unbalances
in the ecosystem that have killed fish and birds.
She also stated that petrochemical companies dump
toxins into the river.
Ms. Lamarque also said that air contamination is
a serious problem hi the area, and she suggested
that Calexico be considered for a cleanup project
funded by EPA. She pointed out that funds are
needed to educate residents of the area about the
existence and extent of the myriad of health
hazards. She added that the people of Calexico
feel frustrated and are fed up with testing,
research, and politics. None of these things has
resulted hi any action. She asked whether the lack
of action is because Calexico is home to people of
color. She concluded by stating that the people of
Calexico have a God-given right to drink clean
water and breathe clean ah".
6.2.10 Daniel Luna, Calexico, California
High School Student
Mr. Daniel Luna discussed a report prepared by
high school students hi Calexico, California. He
said that students conducted the study on the New
River because they were no longer willing to live
near a polluted river. He then summarized the
results of the study: (1) the New River is one of
the most polluted rivers hi the country; (2) the
river flows into the Salton Sea, where many people
fish and swim; (3) toxins are dumped in the river;
and (4) many homeless people live hi cardboard
"houses" next to the river. He asked why nothing
has been done to clean up the area, and demanded
action.
6.2.11 Cynthia Marques, Local Resident of
Mexicali, California
Ms. Cynthia Marques expressed gratitude for the
opportunity to provide comments. She then stated
that she lives hi Mexicali, California, a city that is
affected by pollution from the New River. She
echoed the comments of the two previous speakers
about problems hi the New River. She added that
Mexicali has an abundance of human and natural
resources and has advanced in the areas of industry
and technology. She further stated many low-
income people with children live in the area of the
New River. She pointed out that the niinimum
wage in Mexico is $2.50 per hour, contrasted with
$4.50 per hour in the United States. Employees in
Mexico, she said, are exploited by U.S. industries.
Because the New River is a border problem, and
because U.S. industry has realized great gains
from exploiting Mexican workers, U.S. industry
should be responsible for resolving the problems,
she added.
1-24
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
6.2.12 Cesar Luna, San Diego
Environmental Health Coalition
Mr. Cesar Luna identified himself as the director
of the Border Environmental Justice Campaign for
the Environmental Health Coalition. The coalition
is a grassroots organization based in San Diego, he
explained. He commented that the New River is
a constant reminder of the costs of free trade
arrangements. He added that problems in the New
River are symbolic of the inability of the two
countries involved to deal with a regional problem
that has persisted since 1944.
He pointed out that, despite various agreements
and memoranda of understanding negotiated
between 1980 and 1993, nothing has been done to
remedy the problems in the New River. The
communities near the river are still at risk, he
said.
Mr. Luna explained that in February 1994, the
Environmental Health Coalition, in conjunction
with other groups in Mexico and the United States,
filed an administrative petition requesting that EPA
take action in the New River. As a result of the
petition, EPA issued 94 subpoenas to U.S.
companies that owned machilladoras in the city of
Mexicali. EPA also commenced a water
monitoring study, with assistance from USGS.
Mr. Luna then pointed out that almost two years
have passed since EPA promised to take action;
yet, no action has been taken and no report has
been prepared. He added that no enforcement
actions have been taken. He demanded that EPA
follow up with enforcement actions against
companies that have not complied sufficiently with
the subpoenas.
Mr. Luna requested that the International
Subcommittee hold a public meeting in Calexico to
give the members of NEJAC an opportunity to
hear the needs and concerns of the community.
He also requested that NEJAC ask for the release
of data gathered by USGS on the water quality of
the river. He asked that the data be presented and
explained to at-risk communities. He further
requested that EPA implement a hazardous waste
tracking mechanism that is available to community
members and usable by them. Finally, he
encouraged EPA to work with Mexico to improve
conditions hi the communities in the Imperial
Valley and Mexicali regions.
Mr. Moore commented that requests for action by
the Enforcement and International subcommittees
would be taken under consideration. He expressed
special gratitude to the young people who
conducted the study on the New River and who
provided comments.
6.2.13 Robert Faithful for the D.C.
Coalition on Environmental Justice
Mr. Robert Faithful explained that he was
speaking on behalf of the D.C. Coalition on
Environmental Justice. He mentioned that the
coalition comprises community activists, attorneys,
and law and medical schools in the Washington,
D.C. area. He invited the members of NEJAC to
use the coalition as a communications vehicle or to
assist it in its environmental justice projects.
Ms. Ferris commented that the coalition must be
guided by individuals representing grassroots
concerns. She urged that the coalition enlist more
community groups. She added that she lives in
Ward 6, which is a community affected by
environmental justice issues, and that she wished
to speak on behalf of her community about the
problems it faces. She mentioned that tributaries
of the Anacostia River run through the community;
the community is affected by an intermittently
regulated incinerator; Ward 6 hosts almost half the
city's homeless shelters and halfway houses; and
the ward suffers from problems, such as increased
traffic from the suburbs, associated with
entertainment centers such as the Metroplex.
6.2.14 Don Edwards, U.S. Network for
Habitat II
Mr. Don Edwards explained that his organization
is a domestic grassroots coalition of
nongovernment organizations concerned with
issues related to housing and the creation of
sustainable cities. He noted that more than 30,000
people throughout the world will gather in June
1996 in Istanbul, Turkey for the Second United
Nations Conference on Human Settlements. He
added that delegates from Habitat II are charged
with creating a global plan of action to guide
nations in creating sustainable communities.
1-25
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Edwards stated that Habitat II is concerned
about population growth, the status of women,
urbanization, environmental justice, wasteful
consumption, economic globalization, the role of
the family, and immigration. He mentioned that
the U.S. Network for Habitat II is organizing town
meetings to address local issues; the meetings will
be held in Ames, Iowa; Atlanta, Georgia;
Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts;
Brownsville, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland,
Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and other cities.
He pointed out that environmental justice is a
global issue and cited the work of EPA's Office of
International Affairs. He urged the members of
NEJAC to participate in the process of ensuring
that sustainability is achieved, both locally and
nationally. He invited NEJAC to work with the
U.S. Network for Habitat II to reach a broader
audience.
In response, Ms. Ferris commented that she hopes
Habitat II will be effective in including the
leadership of people of color when organizing its
conference. She offered to help in integrating the
views of communities of color into the structure of
the conference.
Mr. Moore then mentioned that NEJAC's
International Subcommittee was newly established,
and that body could monitor issues raised by Mr.
Edwards.
6.2.15 Damu Smith, Southern Organizing
Committee for Economic and Social
Justice
Mr. Damu Smith echoed earlier complaints about
a community partnership grant award to a
university in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He urged
that NEJAC take action to rectify that situation.
He stated that, when he attended a meeting held by
Tennessee Technological University to discuss the
grant, he had been appalled that 95 percent of
those attending meetings were white. He added
that he is not opposed to the involvement of white
people in and their support for environmental
justice. However, he said, he did have concerns
about a grant being awarded to white people to
solve problems in a predominately African-
American community.
He then cited international manifestations of
environmental racism. He stated that the Agonne
people in Nigeria are suffering from Shell Oil
Company's racist policies. He added that
prominent African-Americans have called for an
oil embargo to freeze the assets of the military
rulers of Nigeria and bring other punitive measures
to bear on the regime. People in Nigeria support
such action, he added.
Mr. Smith then discussed the importance of broad
representation among NEJAC members. He stated
that local community organizations, regional
environmental justice organizations, and
professionals who support environmental justice
should be represented, as well as the groups that
are currently represented. He clarified that he was
speaking as an individual, not as a representative
of his organization. He then stated that, while
criticism was voiced about the grant to the
National Council of Negro Women, he welcomes
the idea of such a group being interested in
environmental justice and willing to help educate
affected communities.
He stressed that part of the task of NEJAC and
environmental justice groups is to work with
professionals and other organizations who can
assist in the environmental justice movement. He
stated that there should be no rush to establish
priorities for funding grassroots organizations
simply "because they are grassroots." He added
that those groups are important, and other groups
are important too.
When Mr. Smith finished his remarks, Ms. Ferris
commented that the members of NEJAC have
actively attempted to steer the council toward
achievement of the goals articulated by Mr. Smith
and Ms. Tucker. To clarify one issue, she stated
that NEJAC does not issue grants and that NEJAC
does not decide who sits on the council.
Dr. Gaylord then remarked that NEJAC's charter
does not allow it any involvement in the issuance
of grants. She added that OEJ is responsible for
that function.
Mr. Moore added that organizations in
Albuquerque, New Mexico have had strong
relationships with the National Council of Negro
Women over the past 15 to 20 years. He
1-26
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
expressed deep respect for the local chapter and
stated that the organization will continue its
working relationship with the local chapter in
Albuquerque.
6.2.16 Christine Benally, Dine CARE
Ms. Christine Benally read a letter addressed to
Mr. Moore and Dr. Gaylord, requesting that a
representative of Dine CARE be given a position
on NEJAC or one of its subcommittees. Mr.
Moore thanked Ms. Benally and reminded the
members of NEJAC that the travel of Ms. Benally
and representatives of other organizations is not
funded by the government. He added that their
presence was a sign of commitment to
environmental and economic justice.
6.2.17 Phil Harrison, Navajo Reservation
Mr. Phil Harrison spoke about environmental
problems caused by uranium companies that have
not been held responsible for their actions. He
stated that his community is located in the Four
Corners area (Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New
Mexico), and that the community is investigating
options for conducting radon and epidemiology
studies. He inquired about resources that may be
available to conduct these studies.
Mr. Harrison added that residents would like to
see quicker cleanups of abandoned mines and
radioactive waste piles. He mentioned that
spouses and families of mine workers are affected
by the illnesses and deaths of the workers. He
urged DOE and EPA to conduct site visits and to
visit some of the families that are affected by
contamination and exposure to radon. He urged
that NEJAC make recommendations to EPA on the
matter.
7.0 WRAP-UP
This section summarizes discussions pertaining to
the replacement of Ms. Small, selected action
items that were identified during the course of the
meeting, and logistics for the seventh meeting.
Final remarks by the NEJAC chair also are
identified in this section.
7.1 Replacement of Gail Small
Dr. Gaylord informed the members of NEJAC that
Ms. Small had submitted a letter of resignation.
Dr. Gaylord read the letter, which recommended
Ms. Sarah James as a replacement. Ms. James has
worked with the indigenous people of Alaska.
Dr. Gaylord explained that the recommendation of
Ms. James would be submitted with the other
recommendations of NEJAC. She requested the
members of NEJAC submit names, resumes, and
biographic sketches to OEJ by January 15, 1996.
She emphasized that the open position was to be
filled by a representative of indigenous or Native
American persons because Ms. Small had
represented that category. She pointed out that
OEJ would submit the recommendations to the
EPA Administrator, who would make the final
decision.
Mr. Bresette, Dr. Bullard, and Mr. McDermott
emphasized that a representative of Dine CARE
should be considered for the position because of
that organization's past work and proven
commitment to environmental justice. Mr.
McDermott added diat special weight should be
given to recommendations from the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee.
Mr. McDermott had drafted a resolution on filling
the vacancy, which he read aloud for the members
of NEJAC. The resolution stated that NEJAC
concurs with the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
in requesting that the EPA Administrator give
special consideration to filling the vacancy with a
representative from Dine CARE. It stated further
that Dine CARE has demonstrated a commitment
to environmental justice and has informed NEJAC
of issues of concern to Native Americans. The
members of NEJAC voted unanimously to adopt
the resolution.
Mr. Moore suggested that NEJAC submit a letter
to the EPA Administrator, outlining NFJAC's
concerns and opinions regarding the replacement
of Ms. Small. He suggested that specific
recommendations be outlined in the letter. He
further suggested that the Protocol Committee
conduct an internal assessment of members'
compliance with the by-laws of NEJAC that
govern attendance at meetings. He also suggested
1-27
-------
Executive Council
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
that a thank-you letter be sent to Ms. Small for her
contributions to, and support for, NEJAC.
7.2 Review of Selected Action Items
Dr. Gaylord led a discussion of selected action
items that had been identified during discussions
and public comments during the meeting. The
action items are summarized below. A complete
list of action items presented during the Executive
Council are summarized hi Section 7.5 of this
chapter.
• Send letter to EPA Administrator regarding
NEJAC's dissatisfaction with CEQ's
progress on issuing guidance related to
incorporating environmental justice into the
NEPA implementation process.
Dr. Gaylord stated that NEJAC voted on
sending the letter, but had not specified who
would draft the letter. The members then
selected Ms. English, Mr. Lee, and Mr.
Ray to prepare a draft letter.
• Vote on whether to approve a report
prepared by the Enforcement Subcommittee
that outlines recommendations for
enforcement.
Dr. Gaylord reminded the members of
NEJAC that a vote on the report was
necessary. The members then approved the
report and agreed that it be forwarded to
EPA.
• Assist Mr. Moore in arranging a meeting
with the Region 6 Administrator to discuss
ongoing environmental justice problems.
Dr. Gaylord stated that OEJ would assist
Mr. Moore in arranging the meeting. She
added that his action item had been carried
forward from the July 1995 meeting of
NEJAC.
• Discuss resolution regarding environmental
justice issues in Puerto Rico.
Dr. Gaylord reminded members that Mr.
l^ee had drafted a resolution that required
their attention. Mr. I^ee read the
resolution, which he had based on
comments provided during the satellite
downlink to Puerto Rico. The resolution
spelled out NEJAC's conclusions. Several
NEJAC members expressed agreement with
the intent of the resolution and suggested
revisions in the text. Members selected Mr.
J-ee, Ms. Ferris, and Mr. Ray to revise the
resolution slightly and submit the revised
version for a vote by the council.
• Review EPA's second draft environmental
justice implementation plan.
Dr. Gaylord reminded members that OEJ
will send copies of the second draft of
EPA's environmental justice implementation
plan to NEJAC for review and comment.
She stated that the document would be
mailed to members during the first week of
January 1996.
• Read letter from Mr. Moore to Dr.
Goldman regarding farm worker protection
issues.
Dr. Gaylord stated that OEJ will send
members a copy of the letter Mr. Moore
sent to Dr. Goldman about issues related to
the protection of farm workers. Members
had requested copies of the letter during the
discussions that followed Dr. Goldman's
presentation.
• Request report from EPA's Office of
International Activities on criteria used to
evaluate waste export permit decisions.
Dr. Gaylord summarized a request made
after the presentation of the OIA report on
EPA's international activities. She added
that the request will be added to the
tracking list for follow-up as an action item.
Dr. Gaylord stated that several individuals had
made requests and offered recommendations during
their public comments. Such comments included:
• A recommendation that the Enforcement
and International subcommittees investigate
an inquiry made by an EPA staff member
about the legal status of immigrants
1-28
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Executive Council
* A request that the International
Subcommittee sponsor a public meeting in
Imperial Valley, California and follow up
on citizens' requests to receive water quality
data from EPA and USGS
• A request that the International
Subcommittee work with the U.S. Network
for Habitat II to ensure local and national
sustainability and to communicate
environmental justice issues to a broader
audience
• A request that NEJAC request that EPA
conduct site visits and investigate the
circumstances of families in the Four
Corners area who are exposed to radon and
affected by contamination.
Dr. Gaylord pointed out that specific action items
would be added to the action item tracking list.
7.3 Logistics for the Seventh Meeting of
NEJAC
Dr. Gaylord mentioned a logistical change that
will affect future NEJAC meetings. Specifically,
she stated that, hi response to complaints from
NEJAC members, OEJ will use a purchase order
to reserve a block of hotel rooms; members will be
required to confirm their attendance 45 days in
advance. The new procedure, she said, is an
attempt to accommodate members who do not have
credit cards.
Dr. Gaylord announced that ballots for the location
of the next NEJAC meeting had been received and
tallied. She announced that the seventh meeting of
NEJAC would be held in Detroit, Michigan.
The members then discussed at length the selection
of Detroit as the site for the seventh NEJAC
meeting. Several members expressed concern
about the fact that none of the past meetings has
been held near communities of indigenous or
Native American communities. Several members,
including Mr. Bresette, Ms. Ferris, and Mr.
McDermott, requested that serious consideration
be given to holding the next meeting in an area
near such communities. Stevens Point, Wisconsin
was mentioned as a location to be considered. Mr.
Lee countered that many urban areas have large
populations of indigenous and Native American
individuals.
7.4 Closing Remarks of the NEJAC Chair
Mr. Moore acknowledged the work and effort of
the members of NEJAC and its subcommittees.
He urged each member to encourage full
participation at the subcommittee meetings. He
pointed out that subcommittee chairs,
subcommittee members, and NEJAC members in
general must accept responsibility for encouraging
others to attend the meetings. He emphasized that
it is important that a quorum be present during
meetings so that the members can vote on issues.
Mr. Moore closed the meeting with the
observation that the meeting had been very
successful. He pointed out that the subcommittees
had worked hard during their meetings. He noted
also mat EPA staff did an excellent job of working
with the subcommittees and providing other
support. He then asked Dr. Gaylord to inform the
EPA Administrator of the ongoing success of
NEJAC. He also asked that a special thank you be
extended to all the people who provided support
for the meeting.
7.5 Resolutions
This section summarizes the key resolutions
discussed during the meeting. Additional
resolutions are identified under appropriate
chapters of the subcommittees.
Resolution #1: In response to Military Toxics
Project's public comment, prepare letters to EPA
RCRA docket and Administrator Browner
providing comment on the munitions rule's failure
to address environmental justice concerns
Resolution #2: Interact with IWG
1-29
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 13 and 14, 1995
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Sherry Milan Deeohn Ferris
Designated Federal Official Chair
-------
CHAPTER TWO
MEETING OF THE
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Enforcement Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a two-day meeting on Wednesday and
Thursday, December 13 and 14, 1995, during a
three-day meeting of the NEJAC in Washington,
D.C. During a meeting of the NEJAC Executive
Council on December 12, 1995, Ms. Deeohn
Ferris was reelected to serve as chair of the
subcommittee. Ms. Sherry Milan, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
continues to serve as the Designated Federal
Official (DFO) for the subcommittee.
This chapter, which provides a detailed discussion
of the deliberations of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, is organized into six sections,
including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks,
summarizes the remarks provided by the chair and
the DFO. Section 3.0, Update on OEJ and
OECA, presents the discussion of the transfer of
the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) under
the auspices of OECA. The section also offers a
discussion of OECA's current budget status.
Section 4.0, Activities of the Subcommittee,
presents discussions on the subcommittee report of
recommendations and the subcommittee work plan.
In addition, the section also summarizes
administrative issues of the subcommittee and
discussions on the Puerto Rico downlink. Section
5.0, Issues Related to Enforcement, summarizes
issues related to enforcement that were reviewed
by the subcommittee. Presentations made to the
subcommittee are summarized in Section 6.0,
Presentations.
2.0 REMARKS
Ms. Ferris, Chair of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, opened the subcommittee meeting
by welcoming the members present and Ms.
Sherry Milan, the DFO. Table 1 presents a list of
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
Table 1
ENFORCEMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 13 and 14, 1995
Ms. Sherry Milan, DFO
Ms. Deeohn Ferris, Chair
Mr. Grover G. Hankins
Mr. Richard Lazarus
Mr. Charles McDermott
Mr. Richard Moore
Mr. Arthur Ray
Ms. Peggy M. Shepard
Mr. Rex L. Tingle
List of Members
Who Did Not Attend
Ms. Gail Small
Ms. Pamela Tau Lee
2.1 Remarks of the Chair
Ms. Ferris announced that Ms. Sylvia Lowrance,
Deputy Assistant Administrator (AA) for OECA,
could not attend the meeting. Ms. Ferris added
that Ms. Anne Lassiter, OECA, would instead
present the update on OECA's budget status.
Ms. Ferris asked Ms. Lassiter to forward a request
for a briefing from senior management of OECA,
explaining that it would be helpful in setting the
tone for the subcommittee's work over the next
several months. In addition, she asked if Ms.
Lowrance or Mr. Steven Herman, AA for OECA,
could attend the subcommittee meeting on
Thursday. Ms. Ferris noted that OECA's
participation is important so that the subcommittee
2-1
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
could understand the direction and the focus
OECA wishes the subcommittee to take. Ms.
Ferris emphasized the importance of the presence
of a senior manager from OECA.
Ms. Ferris noted that four issues had arisen during
the meeting of the Executive Council of NEJAC
which should be added to the agenda of the
subcommittee:
• Discussion of issues related to Louisiana
Energy Services (LES) case, to include a
broader discussion of issues related to
integration of efforts across agencies. This
new Work Group on Agency Integration
would be headed by Mr. Richard Lazarus.
• Establishment of a Work Group on Air
Emissions Credits. Mr. Arthur Ray has
agreed to serve as chair.
• Participation by a member of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee in today's
presentation about supplemental
environmental projects (SEP) conducted on
Indian lands.
• Discussion of issues raised during the
downlink to Puerto Rico during the public
comment period on December 12, 1995 and
a review of the actions requested of the
subcommittee to determine follow-up.
Ms. Ferris requested the subcommittee meet before
the May 1996 meeting of NEJAC to report
progress and discuss in further detail issues related
to communities in Puerto Rico and other issues
raised during the public comment period.
2.2 Remarks of the DFO
Ms. Milan began her remarks by explaining that as
a DFO, she is responsible for ensuring that the
members of the subcommittee follow the agenda.
As DFO, she also is responsible for avoiding
major disruptions of the meeting. She advised the
members of the public who were present that,
because this was a meeting of the Enforcement
Subcommittee, the public should reserve comments
for the public comment period to be conducted
during the meeting of the NEJAC Executive
Council scheduled for December 14.
3.0 UPDATE ON OEJ AND OECA
This section of the chapter provides an update on
issues related to the transfer of the OEJ to OECA.
The subcommittee also was provided an update on
the OECA budget.
3.1 Transfer of OEJ
Dr. Clarice Gaylord, Director of OEJ, opened the
discussion by summarizing the history of OEJ.
She explained that when OEJ was created hi 1992,
EPA senior management were unsure about where
the office should be placed within EPA. She said
that EPA's Office of Administration and Resources
Management (OARM) accepted OEJ, but that OEJ
did not interact with or fit into the organizational
structure of OARM because OARM deals with
services, contracts, personnel, grants, and
facilities, while OEJ addresses programmatic
issues. Dr. Gaylord pointed out that it therefore
was difficult for OEJ to do business with and
difficult to communicate OEJ issues to the AA of
OARM.
Dr. Gaylord stated that NEJAC recognized that
OEJ did not belong in OARM and that there had
been continuing dialogue with EPA Administrator
Carol Browner about OEJ's need to move to an
office that would be supportive, understand issues,
and offer technical assistance. Dr. Gaylord
indicated that a number of offices had been
identified as options. She indicated that OEJ's
requirement was that OEJ be in a multimedia
office. Administrator Browner made that decision
and announced OEJ's move to OECA hi July
1995. Dr. Gaylord explained further that OECA
was chosen primarily because of the multimedia
nature of that office and because OEJ could draw
upon the expertise and technical support of OECA.
Dr. Gaylord reported that the transition, which
took place over the last four months, had been
successful. She commented that OEJ has the full
support of AA Herman and Deputy AA Lowrance.
She said that Mr. Herman also arranged meetings
between OEJ and other EPA AAs and that he is
interested in ensuring that there is a coordinated,
focused program of environmental justice. OEJ
staff feel they can talk to and relate to OECA staff
who understand and are interested hi
environmental justice, she stated. Members of
2-2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
OEJ staff are meeting individually with all the
office directors hi OECA to familiarize them with
OEJ's national programs and talk with them about
how OEJ can interact with them, added Dr.
Gaylord. OEJ already has met with the directors
of four OECA offices, she noted.
Dr. Gaylord stated that OEJ is the national
program manager for environmental justice. She
emphasized that, in becoming part of OECA, OEJ
did not intend to take away from the existing
infrastructure. Rather, OEJ's objective is to
determine how to complement OECA's existing
infrastructure and make OEJ's national program
more effective. The OECA infrastructure includes
an environmental justice coordinator, Ms. Milan,
and a Coordinating Council with representatives
from each OECA office. In addition, each office
of OECA has developed environmental justice
work plans, she said.
Dr. Gaylord provided an example of OEJ's efforts
to coordinate its activities with those of OECA by
describing OEJ's work with the Office of
Compliance in the area of enforcement targeting
and enforcement inspections. She explained that
OEJ is attempting to ensure that the techniques
being used by the Office of Compliance are
compatible with the goals of environmental justice.
Dr. Gaylord stated further that because of the
reorganization of EPA program offices,
enforcement activities that previously were
distributed throughout the agency have been
consolidated in OECA. She said that circumstance
was a pleasant surprise to OEJ because OECA is
now responsible for enforcement in areas of
interest to OEJ, such as farmworker protection
standards and air quality standards.
Dr. Gaylord noted, however, that the transition of
OEJ into OECA is not yet complete; OEJ, she
said, continues to work with individual program
offices within OECA to gain a better
understanding of certain types of enforcement.
She offered as an example, the potential for
greater public involvement in criminal
enforcement. She indicated that OECA had not
developed many materials for public distribution
which explain the criminal enforcement process.
Dr. Gaylord added that OEJ now is working with
OECA to develop such materials, and to encourage
the general public to interact with enforcement
personnel who deal with environmental justice
issues. She also reported that OEJ is coordinating
with OECA on a variety of other activities.
3.2 Budget Update
Ms. Lassiter, OECA, began her discussion with a
review of recent Congressional activity to reduce
EPA's budget. She explained that the House and
Senate conference report contains language that
suggests that EPA will face significant reductions
in funding. She said that, in its planning, EPA is
assuming that there will be major cuts. Ms.
Lassiter explained that OECA is attempting to
predict where the cuts will be made and how
available funding should be used.
Ms. Lassiter indicated that an OECA work group
is attempting to determine what reductions will
mean to current enforcement programs. She
reported that, to date, no decisions had been made
about which functions would be given priority.
She continued that, in terms of environmental
justice activities, the conference report proposes a
reduction in funds for grants previously awarded,
eliminates the Partners in Protection Program, and
calls for an additional $800,000 in other cuts.
Dr. Gaylord explained that the enforcement budget
had been a target of the Congress. She indicated
that enforcement will be affected more than some
other programs. She said that, organizationally
and programmatically, it is to OEJ's advantage to
be situated within OECA. However, she added,
because OEJ now is considered part of the
enforcement program, its budget will be affected.
Dr. Gaylord pointed out that, because
Administrator Browner is committed to making
environmental justice a priority, Mr. Herman and
Ms. Lowrance are attempting to ensure that OEJ's
budget is affected as little as possible.
Dr. Gaylord added that, in the proposed
appropriations bill, several add-ons for
environmental justice programs totalling $3.3
million are offset by $2.5 million in cost
reductions. She said that Congress added
$300,000 specifically for NEJAC and that OEJ's
budget is separate from that of the Office of
Enforcement.
2-3
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Ferris remarked that the subcommittee has not
been able to obtain from OECA the level of staff
support that it needs. She said that a commitment
is needed from OECA of resources to assist in the
development and production of documents. Ms.
Ferris asked that OECA report to the
subcommittee on the issue.
Ms. Lassiter then briefly described some of
OECA's enforcement activities. She indicated that
major areas of enforcement activity include
ongoing, routine enforcement and specific
enforcement initiatives. She said that the agency
has stated that it does take enforcement actions in
areas related to environmental justice when
specific statutes have been violated. She stated
however, that improvements are needed in such
areas as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and
worker protection.
Ms. Lassiter stated that a second major area of
activity is enforcement targeting and the effort to
array data in a way which identifies communities
that have environmental justice concerns and the
risks faced by those communities. She said that
OECA's process of reaching memoranda of
agreement (MOA) with the EPA regional offices is
an important part of successful targeting. Ms.
Lassiter said that the Office of Compliance uses
census tracking and risk models to identify
communities in which to target enforcement
actions. She added that the MO As currently being
negotiated identify the communities that the
regions have decided to focus on in the coming
year.
Ms. Lassiter stated that the third major area of
enforcement activity in OECA is outreach and
training. She declared that consideration of the
views of the public must be incorporated into the
decision-making process. Ms. Peggy Shepard
commented that the responsibility for ensuring
communication and public participation lies with
OECA. She suggested that a committee be
established to address regional issues related to
outreach.
Ms. Lassiter stated that there is a draft agreement
between EPA Headquarters and the regional
offices which recommends a new process for EPA
to follow in conducting oversight of state
enforcement activities. She said that the state of
Colorado and several other states currently are
negotiating a new arrangement with EPA, whereby
the states conduct a "self-assessment" by
describing their enforcement processes and
indicating how environmental justice issues are
addressed through those processes.
After Ms. Lassiter concluded her presentation, Mr.
Lazarus requested that the subcommittee's draft
report and work plans from January 1995 be
distributed to new members of the NEJAC and that
a status report on activities under the work plans
also be provided to NEJAC. He added that actual
examples of enforcement actions taken would be
useful to NEJAC.
Ms. Shepard then inquired about OECA's
community-based approach to enforcement. Ms.
Lassiter described the approach as focusing on
multimedia issues, rather than single media issues.
She said that EPA had attempted during the
preceding year or two to persuade the EPA
regional offices and states to approach their work
in three ways: media specific, multimedia, and
community-based. Ms. Lassiter added that an
EPA work group was formed to examine
community-based enforcement.
Responding to Ms. Lassiter's statement, Ms.
Ferris expressed concern that OECA's work plans
made no reference to the concept of community-
based enforcement. Ms. Lassiter responded that
the concept of community-based enforcement has
evolved from the broader geographic-area-based
approach used by EPA. She explained that each
regional office is identifying for its MOA specific
communities that it plans to give priority to this
year; each initiative, she said, is specifically
designed to meet the needs of the particular
region.
Mr. Ray expressed concern that EPA continually
redefines the same problems. He stated that he
believes that EPA should stop discussing the issues
and that some of the initiatives it is now
undertaking have no substance and no effect on the
people living in the community on which the
initiative is intended to focus.
Mr. Rex Tingle expressed concern about OECA's
exclusion of local emergency planning committees
(LEPC) from the community-based approach to
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
enforcement. He stressed the importance of using
LEPCs as resources and suggested OECA
incorporate them into its work plans.
Mr. Grover Hankins asked about the agency's
ability, in the face of budget cuts, to fulfill its
promises to conduct community training. Ms.
Lassiter responded that she could not answer the
question. She explained that there are provisions
for training local communities under the
community-based approach; however the type of
training had not yet been identified. Mr. Hankins
commented that individuals in OECA are not able
to define community training needs adequately.
He encouraged OECA to include grassroots
organizations in the process of identifying training
needs within communities.
4.0 ACTIVITIES OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE
This section of the chapter describes the activities
the subcommittee has participated in during 1995.
Also, the section summarizes the discussion on
administrative issues related to the subcommittee
and discussions on the Puerto Rico downlink.
4.1 Subcommittee Report of
Recommendations
Ms. Ferris reported that the final draft of the
Subcommittee Report is near completion. She
pointed out that the executive summary and
conclusion still need to be written and that the
report must be approved by NEJAC. Ms. Ferris
then acknowledged the outstanding contributions
made by Mr. Lazarus, Ms. Ferguson-Southard,
and Mr. Ray in the development of the final draft
report of the subcommittee.
Ms. Lassiter reported that OECA was pleased to
receive the draft report from the subcommittee and
had forwarded the recommendations to individual
offices, as appropriate. OECA had received draft
work plans from each office, she added, and
OECA had compared the work plans with the
subcommittee's recommendations to ensure that
progress will be made in the coming year. Mr.
Lazarus asked that an update on OECA work plans
be provided to the subcommittee.
4.2 Subcommittee Work Plan
The subcommittee discussed plans for specific
projects to be undertaken in the coming year.
Mr. Lazarus opened the discussion with a list of
the three projects the subcommittee already had
identified: NEPA and permitting, trading of air
emissions credits and offsets, and EPA's interim
policy on SEPs. Mr. Ray added that a project
which addresses issues related to the siting of new
housing projects financed by HUD near Superfund
sites and high-risk facilities also would be an
appropriate issue to be addressed by the
subcommittee.
Dr. Gaylord said that OEJ has been receiving
comments from directors of various EPA program
offices that indicate that the subcommittee should
deal with some of the substantive policies under
development by the agency. Dr. Gaylord cited the
audit policy, the small communities policy, and the
small business policy as examples of policies the
subcommittee should review to ensure that issues
of environmental justice are addressed.
On a general note, Ms. Ferris stated that the
recommendations made by the subcommittee in its
report should be considered action items for
OECA. The members agreed that OECA should
provide a status report. Ms. Lassiter stated that
OECA does consider the subcommittee's
recommendations action items and that she
believes that OECA is including those action items
in its work plans.
Regarding OECA's commitment to addressing
environmental concerns, Mr. Ray asked Ms.
Lassiter whether environmental justice issues are
still being treated as a national effort in all
regional offices. She responded that
environmental justice continued to be a national
priority and that EPA Headquarters has continued
to provide instructions to that effect to the regions.
She explained that OECA had requested that
regional offices provide information to
Headquarters about their success in addressing
environmental justice issues. Mr. Ray indicated
that the NEJAC should hold the regions
accountable for accomplishing environmental
justice goals instead of criticizing Headquarters at
each meeting.
2-5
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Hankins added his concern that EPA regions
are not addressing cross-media, statutory, and
interagency enforcement, particularly under Titles
VI and VIII of the Civil Rights Act. Ms. Ferris
suggested that the subcommittee develop projects
that would accomplish tangible results. Using Mr.
Hankins' concern as an example, she asked the
members to suggest ways the subcommittee can
foster community involvement in the process of
setting enforcement priorities in EPA Region 6.
In response to Ms. Ferris' request, Ms. Shepard
suggested that the subcommittee create an advisory
group in each region that would report to the
Enforcement Subcommittee. Responding to Ms.
Shepard's suggestions, Ms. Ferris brought up the
issue of funding for such advisory groups. She
pointed out that the Enforcement Subcommittee
and the Health and Research Subcommittee are the
only two NEJAC subcommittees for which the
office sponsoring the subcommittee does not
provide funding. She then stated that OECA must
make some investment in the subcommittee.
Mr. Ray suggested that the subcommittee obtain
data from the LandView II mapping program and
select an area as a pilot project in which to focus
enforcement efforts. Ms. Ferris stated that a
meeting such as an EPA enforcement roundtable
would be a useful tool in focusing enforcement
efforts. Mr. Lazarus then suggested that the
subcommittee select a region in which to host an
enforcement roundtable meeting; he proposed the
city of Detroit as a possible location. He noted
that Region 6 also would be a good venue for such
a meeting because of Mr. Hankins' familiarity
with the region. Mr. Lazarus said that when the
EPA regional environmental justice coordinators
attended the NEJAC meeting held July 1995 the
coordinator from Region 6 was unable to attend.
Pointing out that the next NEJAC meeting is
scheduled for May 21 through 23, Ms. Ferris
expressed concern about the length of time
between meetings. Mr. Ray suggested that the
subcommittee host a conference call to allow the
regional environmental justice coordinators to
report on their activities relative to enforcement.
Mr. Lazarus suggested that the regional
coordinators be asked to provide a written status
report on environmental justice activities in their
regions, to be submitted one week before the call.
The members agreed that the administrator and the
counsel from each regional office should
participate in the conference call.
Ms. Ferris closed the discussion by stating that the
subcommittee had not had the opportunity to
develop a work plan for 1996. She suggested that,
in the near future, the group conduct a conference
call to develop a work plan.
4.3 Puerto Rico Downlink
Ms. Ferris summarized some of the issues that
were raised during the satellite downlink with
Puerto Rico that were or will be referred to the
Enforcement Subcommittee for follow-up:
• Funding for environmental law clinics
• Establishment of an EPA commission of
community groups to address delegation of
authority to agencies in Puerto Rico
• Examination of environmental justice issues
in Puerto Rico
• Issuance of areawide 404 permits
• Lack of enforcement of environmental laws
and regulations in Puerto Rico
• Irresponsible use of pesticides by
agricultural businesses
• Worker health protection
• The use of cement kilns for purposes other
than that for which they are permitted
Ms. Shepard proposed that EPA establish a
regional office in Puerto Rico which is
independent of the EPA Region 2 office. Ms.
Ferris responded that she believes such an
arrangement had already been proposed. She
indicated that the current Caribbean field office
does not have adequate staff, nor does it have
immediate access to EPA documentation that is
located hi the Region 2 offices in New York City.
Mr. Ray suggested that the NEJAC Executive
Council address the Region 2 issue so that all the
subcommittees can comment on the issues
concerning Puerto Rico. The members of the
2-6
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
subcommittee agreed to form a task force,
consisting of members representing all the
subcommittees of NEJAC, to address issues related
to Puerto Rico.
In response to problems and issues raised during
the downlink about the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), Mr. Ray inquired about the
exclusion of that agency from the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG).
He indicated that the IWG has not made a report
on environmental justice activities within that
agency. Mr. Ray suggested that the NEJAC
Executive Council recommend the inclusion of
FERC in IWG. Ms. Ferris responded that the
FERC is not one of the agencies specifically
included in the President's Executive order on
environmental justice. She suggested that many
other agencies have not submitted reports on their
environmental justice activities.
5.0 ISSUES RELATED
TO ENFORCEMENT
This section of the chapter discusses environmental
justice issues related to enforcement, including the
Louisiana Energy Service (LES) case and the
Carver Terrace case. This section also
summarizes the subcommittee's discussion of
issues related to the open market trading of air
emissions credits.
5.1 Issues Related to Louisiana Energy
Services
Mr. Lazarus summarized the issues related to the
Louisiana Energy Services (LES) case, which
concerns a proposal by LES to build a uranium
enrichment plant hi the midst of two entirely
African American communities in Forest Grove
and Center Springs, Louisiana. LES must obtain
a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to build the plant.
Mr. Lazarus stated that the case involves one of
the first environmental impact statements (EIS)
related to environmental justice developed under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
He indicated that a final EIS was completed by the
NRC after the Executive order on environmental
justice was issued hi February 1994. He said that
a question arose whether the EIS was hi
compliance with the Executive order and NEPA.
Mr. Lazarus stated that the White House Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) had not yet
issued its guidance on implementing environmental
justice concerns through NEPA; as a result, he
said, the NRC included little discussion of such
concerns in the final EIS.
Mr. Lazarus reported that the case focuses
attention on the question of the extent to which
environmental justice concerns can be addressed
within the NEPA process. Mr. Lazarus pointed
out that the case provides an opportunity to
examine the extent to which existing regulations or
statutes provide EPA with discretion to create
criteria related to environmental justice under
permitting requirements under the Clean Water
Act.
Mr. Lazarus stated that the Subcommittee's Work
Group on Agency Integration is interested in using
LES as a starting point for examining all
environmental statutes, as well as EPA's statutory
authority under permitting provisions. He
indicated that the Work Group would investigate
the extent to which statutory authority allows EPA
to take environmental justice into account as an
explicit criterion. Mr. Lazarus explained that the
answer would affect both whether a permit can be
granted and when conditions might be placed on a
permit, and whether EPA has any authority under
existing statutes or regulations to take
environmental justice concerns into account.
Mr. Lazarus stated that the Work Group will strive
to address the specific issue of the LES case, but
that the real focus of the Work Group is to take a
broader look at the outcome of the case in light of
how that outcome might affect the incorporation of
environmental justice concerns into the permitting
and NEPA processes.
Mr. Hankins asked whether Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act has any effect on permitting decisions
and whether that issue would take precedence over
any questions the Work Group may have about
different statutory provisions. Mr. Lazarus
responded that the provision may have some effect
which could take precedence, but stated that the
Work Group would not examine Title VI because
it already had been examined. He added that the
Work Group would examine different statutory
2-7
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
provisions, such as Section 402 of the Clean Water
Act, Section 3005 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), new permitting
provisions (Title V) of the Clean Air Act, and
NEPA.
Ms. Ferris announced that membership of the
Work Group on Agency Integration would consist
of Mr. Hankins, Mr. Charles McDermott, and Dr.
Mary English, with Mr. Lazarus as the chair. Ms.
Ferris suggested that the Work Group seek
assistance outside of the subcommittee. She then
scheduled Mr. Lazarus to present a status report of
the work group's efforts for the next conference
call of the subcommittee.
5.2 Issues Related to Carver Terrace
Ms. Ferris led the discussion by reviewing the
Carver Terrace case. She said that Carver Terrace
is a community located in Texarkana, Texas, in
which members of the community have filed a
lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE). Ms. Ferris said that some members of
the community did not accept the initial offer of
USAGE to buy their properties. Ms. Ferris
reported that several community members allege
that USAGE had offered less than fair market
value for their property.
Ms. Ferris stated that lawyers representing the
case for the community members had approached
NEJAC for assistance because they felt that the
federal agencies involved were not considering the
environmental justice issues of the case. Ms.
Ferris stated that the attorneys had asked NEJAC
to write a letter to the appropriate agencies or take
some action which recognizes that when the
relocation was conducted, the agencies involved
did not consider the effects of that action on the
community.
Ms. Ferris pointed out that, because of NEJAC's
heavy workload the Carver Terrace issue had not
been addressed during the preceding year. She
added that the case is considered "old business,"
but that she believed that the subcommittee should
address it. Mr. Lazarus then commented that the
National Law Journal uses the Carver Terrace case
as an example of environmental injustice.
After Mr. Lazarus' comment, an audience member
said that the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), specifically Mr. Elliott Laws,
had initiated a work group at EPA to address
relocation issues at Carver Terrace. Ms. Ferris
then pointed out that the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee has a relocation work group. She
suggested that the Enforcement Subcommittee
work with the OSWER work group and the Waste
and Facility Siting Subcommittee to ensure that it
considers enforcement issues in its deliberations.
Mr. Hankins volunteered to serve as a liaison
between the two subcommittees to address the
issue of relocation.
5.3 Issues Related to Air Emissions
Ms. Ferris led the discussion of issues related to
the open market trading of air emissions credits by
establishing a Work Group on Air Emissions
Credits. Members of the Work Group include Ms.
Shepard and Mr. Tingle, with Mr. Ray as chair.
Mr. Ray then mentioned that the Health and
Research Subcommittee was scheduled to hear a
presentation on the distribution of levels of
industrial air emissions among groups in the
United States differentiated by income and race.
Mr. Ray suggested that, since the topic of the
presentation is pertinent to the work of the new
work group, the Work Group should solicit the
assistance of the appropriate members of the
Health and Research Subcommittee.
Ms. Ferris replied by summarizing her view of the
issues on which the Work Group should focus.
She stated that the focus of the Work Group
should consist of several basic items related to
EPA's air emissions credits trading program. She
reflected that the subcommittee originally had
requested information about EPA's historical
experiences with that program. Instead of
receiving a full briefing, she said, the
subcommittee received a notice of a rule written
by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
which announced trading of ozone credits.
Mr. Ray brought up a related issue, that of the
approach taken by EPA and states to set ozone
controls. Mr. Ray indicated that the approach may
harm the urban environment and that ozone
controls may be an issue appropriate for the Health
2-8
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
and Research Subcommittee. He stated that, if the
work group encounters a similar issue, its
members might recommend that another
subcommittee address it.
Ms. Ferris suggested that the Work Group on Air
Emissions Credits become a joint work group
supported by the Enforcement and the Health and
Research subcommittees.
Mr. Lazarus suggested that the issue of the offset
program be added to the issues being examined by
the Work Group on Air Emissions Credits, and be
considered wholly apart from acid rain and ozone
controls.
Mr. Hankins commented that he participates in
another work group that focuses on the petroleum
refining sector for EPA's Common Sense Initiative
(CSI), a program under which issues similar to air
emissions credits trading are considered. Mr.
Hankins asked how the efforts of the Work Group
and CSI's petroleum refining work group would
coincide. Ms. Ferris responded that there is little
integration under CSI. She explained that CSI
covers several industrial sectors and includes one
committee established under the Federal Advisory
Council Act (FACA). In addition, a work group
was created for each sector to address specific
issues.
Ms. Ferris expressed concern about interacting
with CSI. She indicated that all the initiatives
should be examined and environmental justice
issues identified.
Dr. Gaylord added that she would ask the
appropriate offices to make presentations that will
provide information about all six sectors under
CSI. She cited a need for better interaction
between NFJAC and CSI. In conclusion, Dr.
Gaylord mentioned that Administrator Browner has
said that she wants more environmental justice
concerns included in efforts conducted under CSI.
6.0 PRESENTATIONS
This section provides a summary of the
presentations given at the meeting of the
Enforcement Subcommittee.
6.1 Information Tools to Support
Environmental Justice
Mr. Loren Hall, Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), provided an
overview of OPPTS's commitment to incorporate
environmental justice considerations in all its
major actions. He stated that EPA has been
refocusing its efforts to provide support in a
variety of ways, including broadening community-
based environmental protection (CBEP) by
providing access to information. He said that
OPPTS looks at providing information in
community right-to-know and pollution prevention
as key elements of its CBEP programs. He said
that OPPTS also awards pollution prevention
grants to communities.
Mr. Hall indicated that OPPTS recently expanded
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) with the
addition of 285 chemicals and is developing a
proposed rule to add industry sectors to TRI
reporting. Mr. Hall pointed out that geographic
information systems (GIS) also have been very
useful tools for addressing environmental justice
issues.
Mr. Hall then reviewed the spatial analysis tools
program OPPTS currently is developing. He
explained that the programs will automate a variety
of frequently used analyses that are related to
environmental justice issues — for example,
releases located near a given community that are
reported through TRI.
The comments and questions that followed Mr.
Hall's presentation are summarized below.
Mr. Lazarus asked Mr. Hall how ArcView (the
software package on which the spatial analysis
tools program will operate) differs from LandView
II, a mapping system that combines information
from several EPA databases with geographic
features and demographic data from the 1990 U.S.
Census. Mr. Hall responded that EPA has adopted
ArcView as the GIS system for all its offices. He
explained that by using ArcView, EPA promotes
increased information-sharing because more federal
agencies use the Arclnfo format.
2-y
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Ray asked Mr. Hall about the beta testing of
the system that is to be conducted in Maryland.
Mr. Hall agreed to discuss the beta testing with
Mr. Ray.
Mr. Lazarus asked about the cost of the software.
Mr. Hall said that a price had not yet been set, but
site licenses have been sold to educational
institutions for $500.
Mr. Hankins then asked whether census tract data
could be provided for a community. Mr. Hall
responded that such a service is possible.
Ms. Ferris inquired if health information was to be
included in the database. Mr. Hall said that
OPPTS is searching for health information and
hopes that coordinating its search with the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) will provide data that can
be used.
6.2 Policy on Supplemental Environmental
Projects
Mr. David Hindin of the Multimedia Enforcement
Division, OECA, began his discussion of EPA's
policy on supplemental environmental projects
(SEP). He explained that on May 3, 1995, EPA
issued an interim revised policy on SEPs to obtain
expanded environmental and public health
protection and improvements that may not have
occurred without the settlement incentives provided
by the policy, to maintain a strong penalty policy,
to make policy easier to understand and apply, and
to ensure policy is based on a firm legal
foundation.
Mr. Hindin then explained that the regulated party
must satisfy five legal guidelines to conduct a
SEP.
• There must be a distinct relationship
between the violation and the project - for
example, the SEP remedies or reduces the
probable overall environmental or public
health effects or risks to which the violation
at issue contributes, or reduces the
likelihood that similar violations will occur
in the future.
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP)
are environmentally beneficial projects which a
defendant agrees to undertake in settlement of
an environmental enforcement action, but
which the defendant is not otherwise legally
required to perform. In return, some
percentage of the cost of the project is
considered as a factor in establishing the final
penalty to be paid by the defendant.
SEPs can fall into one of the following
categories:
• Public Health - projects which provide
diagnostic, preventative, or remedial
health care related to actual or potential
damage caused by the violation
• Pollution Prevention—projects that
reduce the amount of contamination
being released into the environment
• Pollution Reduction-projects that reduce
the amount or toxiciry of contaminants
released into the environment by a
means other than pollution prevention
• Environmental Restoration and
Protection—projects that enhance the
condition of the ecosystem beyond
repairing damage caused by the violation
• Assessments and Audits-projects to
identify opportunities to reduce
emissions and improve environmental
performance
• Environmental Compliance Promotion -
projects to provide training or technical
support to other members of the
regulated community
• Emergency Planning and Preparedness -
- projects to provide technical assistance
and training to enable state and local
organizations to prepare for and respond
to chemical emergencies
The project must be consistent with the
environmental statute that is the basis for
action.
2-10
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
* EPA must not play a role in managing
funds or controlling the performance of the
SEP.
• The type and scope of the project must be
set forth in a signed agreement.
• The project cannot be an activity EPA
already is required to perform, or to
supplement EPA's budget.
Mr. Lazarus commented that a SEP category of
promotion of environmental enforcement should be
added to improve the capacity of the community to
see that environmental laws are enforced and to
provide training to the regulated community. Mr.
Hindin responded by saying that promotion of
environmental enforcement can duplicate EPA's
mission and violate the legal guidelines for SEPs.
He explained further that, under the environmental
compliance promotion category, companies would
receive monies through a SEP to conduct training
for other companies to promote compliance. Mr.
Hindin went on to explain that adding that
category would involve extra monitoring.
Mr. Lazarus continued the discussion, asking
whether a formal policy memorandum had been
prepared on the issue. Mr. Hindin responded that
legal analysis of EPA's authority to perform SEPs
had been done. In response to requests for copies
of that material, Mr. Hindin agreed to send the
information to Ms. Milan for distribution to the
subcommittee.
Ms. Shepard asked whether community task forces
are created under the settlement agreement so that
the community affected is involved in the decision-
making process that determines what elements of
the SEP will be initiated. She cited as an example
the actions of the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection in two cases in which
sewage treatment plants established environmental
benefit funds hi lieu of penalties. Community
advisory groups were formed to decide how to use
the funds, she added.
Mr. Hindin responded that the federal government
cannot legally establish funds like those Ms.
Shepard had described. He stated that EPA only
has the authority to reach a settlement consistent
with the violations that occurred. However, he
noted, a citizen's suit settlement could establish an
environmental benefit fund to be used for SEPs.
Ms. Ferris asked how SEPs are conducted on
tribal lands. She set forth a scenario in which the
Bureau of Indian Affairs has been fined and the
community is trying to participate in defining the
terms of the settlement. Mr. Hindin responded
that, although he did not have specific
recommendations, procedures should not be
different under such a scenario. He said that,
because tribes and states are considered citizens
under environmental statutes, they can file citizen
suits.
Mr. Hindin added that he could not recall a case in
which the community actively participated in
determining the terms of the settlement, but cited
a recent case in which meetings were held with
members of the community as part of the
settlement process.
6.3 Superfund Administrative Reforms
Ms. Linda Boornazian, Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (OSRE), OECA and Mr. William
Ross, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR), OSWER, provided an overview
of the current Superfund Administrative Reforms.
Mr. Ross began the overview by stating that on
October 2, 1995, Administrator Browner
announced twenty new "common sense"
administrative reforms to the Superfund toxic
waste cleanup program — the third round of
Clinton Administration reforms. Administrative
improvements, Mr. Ross continued, first were
announced in 1993 hi the "90-day study" released
in 1989, which introduced the concepts of
"enforcement first" and "worst sites first." He
added that the "30-day study" released in 1991
brought about the accelerated cleanup program and
introduced the concept of "construction
completion."
Mr. Ross said that, hi June 1993, EPA announced
the first round of administrative improvements. In
February 1995, a second round of administrative
reforms was announced. Mr. Ross explained that
the common-sense initiatives featured in the third
round of Administrative reforms announced in
October 1995 addresses concerns related to the
cost of cleanup, risk, and the stigma associated
2-11
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
with a site listed as a Superfiind site on the
National Priorities List (NPL). He then stated that
several of these reforms had been developed in
response to concerns about fairness in enforcement
and increasing the role of stakeholders in remedy
decisions. He added that one of the initiatives
provides for a facilitator in each region to serve as
an ombudsman whose role is to resolve such
concerns.
6.3.1 Administrative Reforms to Address
Remedy Selection
Mr. Ross reviewed some of the administrative
reforms related to remedy decisions that EPA
currently is implementing. He indicated that EPA
may no longer select the same remedy at a site as
it might have in the past. Some past remedies, he
said, may require modification hi light of new
scientific or technical information. He added that
EPA Headquarters should ensure that the regions
understand the role of cost in remedy selection and
that they should respond to inquiries from
stateholders who are concerned about remedies
selected and the remedy selection process.
Mr. Ross then discussed Superfund reforms
designed to ensure the development of reasonable
and consistent risk assessments through the use of
realistic standards in performing risk assessments
and developing scenarios used to make cleanup
decisions. He said that many national firms which
deal with several EPA regions have expressed
concern about the different standards for risk
assessments they encounter. Mr. Ross indicated
that the recent administrative reforms attempt to
ensure national consistency in the conduct of risk
assessments.
Ms. Ferris asked Mr. Ross whether the revised
risk assessment strategy accounts for multiple risks
if they are present at a site. She expressed
concern that the reforms may not be sufficiently
specific or may not adequately address risks posed
by multiple sources or multiple sites hi the same
area. Mr. Ross responded that the proposed
reforms address risks from multiple sources and
that the increased involvement of the community in
determining which risks should be assessed is an
important factor in the revised risk assessment
process.
Mr. Ross said that the reforms offer the potential
to gain experience and explore new approaches to
risk assessments. He indicated that, under the
reforms, data are being collected to support the
debate for reauthorization of Superfund.
Mr. Ray observed that some of the sites that
already are on the NPL may not be highly
contaminated. He suggested such sites might be
deleted from the NPL to facilitate transfer and
reuse of property. He asked about the process by
which sites are deleted from the NPL. Mr. Ross
answered that the regions have been delegated
authority to delete sites. He explained that the
region issues a notice of intent to delete, which
must be advertised. He added that under the new
reforms individual areas on a site may be deleted.
6.3.2 Administrative Reforms to Address
Fairness in the Enforcement Process
Ms. Boornazian then discussed administrative
reforms intended to increase the fairness in
enforcement programs. She reported that, hi the
past, the Superfund enforcement program had
charged 100 percent of the cost of cleanup to
known potentially responsible parties (PRP). She
explained that such action is taken under a concept
known as joint and several liability. One proposed
administrative reform presents an approach
designed to deal with the fact that past costs and
future oversight costs currently are charged to
known PRPs, who hi turn must contribute to the
"orphan share," or to individuals who do not have
the financial ability to pay the full cost of cleanup.
For those sites for which remedial design or
remedial action is being negotiated, EPA is
investigating an approach that would reward those
parties that cooperate with the agency.
One reform is intended to ensure that settlement
funds are designated to specific sites. To
accomplish that, a special account will be created
to hold monies from settlements to pay for future
oversight costs.
A third reform, addresses orders to all parties
responsible for cleanup. Large businesses have
expressed concern that EPA is issuing orders only
to the larger parties involved at a site. The reform
is designed to ensure that all parties against which
EPA has evidence are considered in the decision-
2-12:
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
making process that leads to the issuance of
orders.
Other reforms are intended to reduce transaction
costs, in response to claims that the cleanup
process conducted under Superfund promotes
unnecessary litigation. EPA will simplify the
requirements for identifying de micromis parties
and excluding them from the enforcement process.
EPA will not pursue those parties and will
discourage other PRPs from pursuing them. The
toxicity of waste of concern also is considered in
this approach.
Ms. Susan Bromm, OSRE, added that EPA also
has initiated administrative reforms related to
prospective purchasers and issued lender liability
guidance, de minimis premium guidance, and de
minimis settlement models.
Ms. Boornazian concluded that EPA is considering
methods of rewarding companies for doing good
work in studying the site cleanup. She said that
EPA and the states want to reduce the level of
oversight imposed on companies that are good
performers.
6.3.3 Administrative Reforms to Address
Public Participation
Mr. Ross provided a summary of the initiative
intended to increase stakeholder involvement. He
said that states and tribes should become involved
more extensively in the remedy selection process.
Mr. Ross indicated that EPA sees a trend in
Congress toward delegation of the Superfund
program to the states, and, to a certain extent, to
local governments, who then would make the
decision about remedy selection and cleanup. He
stated that EPA would like to use the initiative to
gain some knowledge about which approaches
work best.
Mr. Ross added that EPA also is proposing an
initiative that involves meeting with stakeholders to
select the nature of the remedy at a site. He stated
that the initiative involves stakeholders earlier in
the process than had been the case in the past, in
the hopes of making their participation more
meaningful.
Ms. Bromm discussed specific administrative
reforms intended to increase community
involvement in the remedy selection process: 13
pilot projects are underway in which communities
are involved in remedy selection. The purpose of
the pilot projects is to demonstrate the importance
of keeping communities informed about technical
issues that arise at a site. The reform is a
response to community concerns that during
negotiations with PRPs, EPA was changing the
remedy selected.
One administrative reform will lead to the
establishment of an EPA ombudsman in each
region. The role of the ombudsman is to provide
a focal point for addressing concerns about new
policies and functions in an appeal role to resolve
site-specific issues that arise in the region.
Mr. Ross concluded that Superfund reforms are
intended to fundamentally improve the program
and to demonstrate to the public and Congress that
EPA understands the criticisms that have been
expressed by the public and Congress.
6.3.4 Additional Administrative Reform Issues
Ms. Ferris asked whether the Agency has written
criteria that govern the designation of a state as
"qualified" to have responsibility for the Superfund
program delegated to it. Mr. Ross responded that
there are no written criteria, but that one of the
objectives of administrative reforms is to determine
what criteria would help predict success. He
stated that EPA is attempting to gather data so that
the agency can provide information to Congress
that establishes a correlation between states and
their success or failure in conducting cleanups. He
also indicated that EPA is asking states whether
they would be able to "handle" both non-NPL sites
and NPL sites if Congress were to impose a cap
on the number of sites that could be listed on the
NPL.
Mr. Ross added that some communities are
concerned that states will not respond to cleanup
needs. He stated that EPA is considering
designing a process through which the state would
have to notify the public of the functions of the
Superfund program for which the state is seeking
authority.
T13
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Ferris stated that the state's technical
capability has nothing to do with the political will
to actually accomplish cleanup. She indicated that
she believes cleanups are part of the political
decision-making process. Mr. Ross commented
that there will never be 100 percent state
delegation of the program to the states. There will
always be a need for federal representation, he
declared.
Ms. Boornazian added that EPA should ensure that
it does not preclude communities from seeking the
assistance of the federal government, should the
state fail to meet its cleanup responsibilities. She
then asked what is the best way to share
information about delegation of programs to the
states. Ms. Ferris said that meetings with
community organizations would be a good means
of sharing information. She recommended that
OSRE seek advice from the NEJAC Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee for advice about
public participation. Ms. Ferris also asked how
community comment is weighed. In response, Ms.
Bromm pointed out that EPA does consider the
wishes of the community that is affected by die
cleanup and that it is not advantageous to EPA to
choose a remedy with which the community does
not agree.
Mr. Ross said that there have been cases in which
the community has rejected a proposed remedy.
He then questioned the federal government's right
to impose its will on a community by selecting a
remedy that a community does not favor. Several
subcommittee members commented that it was
unlikely that a community would reject a remedy
that was needed to safeguard public health.
Mr. Ross cited an example in which a community
primarily of elderly people did not see the utility
in EPA's selection of remedy or the associated
restrictions placed on the community (for example,
a ban on fishing). Ms. Bromm provided another
example, that of a community in which the
company that is contaminating the area is the sole
employer. She explained that EPA tries to obtain
unbiased comment and attempts to create solutions
that guarantee the health and well being of the
community, regardless of whether the decision is
popular.
Mr. Ray commented that perhaps the individuals
who reject EPA's assistance are not knowledgeable
about the consequences of living near or
interacting with contaminated media.
Mr. Ross stated that reauthorization of Superfund
will bring forth a variety of fundamental, cost
cutting measures that will change the enforcement
program. Ms. Ferris said that the Washington
Office on Environmental Justice had reviewed
House Resolution (H.R.) 1285 and H.R. 2500, and
asked whether EPA had analyzed the proposed
legislation. She further requested that, if an
analysis had been conducted, its results be shared
with the subcommittee. Mr. Ross responded
further that an analysis had been conducted; he
agreed to share the results of that analysis.
Concluding the presentation by OSRE, Ms.
Boornazian asked the subcommittee to inform
OSRE of areas in which members believe
Superfund reform initiatives have not yet addressed
the concerns of stakeholders.
Mr. Ray commented on his specific concern that
a HUD housing project in EPA Region 6 is being
built next to a Superfund site. He asked Ms.
Boornazian whether OSRE could help. Mr. Ray
suggested that HUD be required to provide
notification to EPA of any intention to build near
Superfund sites. Ms. Boornazian noted that EPA
is starting to hold meetings with HUD about the
Brownfields Initiative. She stated that such
meetings will be helpful to EPA in developing a
cooperative relationship with HUD.
Ms. Ferris concluded the discussion of
enforcement issues with a request of Ms.
Boornazian to share with the subcommittee the
criteria for delegation of enforcement responsibility
to the states. Ms. Ferris stated further that the
subcommittee would like the opportunity to
comment on those criteria. She recommended that
OSRE present to the NEJAC Waste and Facility
Siting and Public Participation and Accountability
subcommittees a briefing on issues related to
Superfund administrative reform and enforcement.
TTT
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
6.4 Office of Compliance
Ms. Elaine Stanley, EPA Office of Compliance
(OC), provided an overview of the activities of the
OC. She stated that one of the primary roles of
the office is to promote new and innovative
methods of resolving problems related to
compliance. The recent reorganization of EPA
helped to define the office's increased emphasis on
promoting and improving compliance by working
directly with the facilities, she said.
Ms. Stanley indicated that OC attempts to work
with facilities at the process level, rather than at
the end-of-the-pipe and encourage creative
approaches in the area of compliance assistance.
She said that OC also provides strategic planning,
annual planning, and policy direction for the
Agency's compliance and enforcement programs.
She indicated that a large part of her office's
efforts is focused on managing the process for
MOAs which identify each region's priorities,
inspections, enforcement cases, and compliance
assistance projects.
Environmental justice has been a priority for OC,
continued Ms. Stanley, and it has been
incorporated into the planning process that was
developed after the reorganization of OECA. She
stated that OC has developed its own strategy,
called "Vision 2000," to incorporate environmental
justice into its compliance assistance activities.
She explained that Vision 2000 is a five-year plan
that addresses five strategic areas:
• Education and outreach
• Information management
• Targeting
• Grants and cooperative agreements
• Compliance assistance
6.4.1 Compliance Assistance Centers
Ms. Stanley discussed that, as part of President
Clinton's effort to reinvent government, OC has
established compliance assistance centers for
specific industry sectors. She explained that the
centers reflect the belief that EPA can improve
compliance by working with industry to understand
its compliance problems.
EPA Compliance Assistance Centers
The centers are partnerships developed with
industry, trade associations, academic
institutions, environmental groups, and federal
and state agencies. The partnerships include:
• A center for the printing industry which
operates on an electronic network and is
being developed by the University of
Wisconsin and the University of Illinois
• A center for agricultural services that is
being developed in partnership with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and is
located hi Kansas City
• A center for the metal finishing industry
that is being developed by the Department
of Commerce and the trade association for
the industry
• A center for the automotive services
industry that is being developed hi
conjunction with a consortium of trade
associations of automobile repair service
centers and Front Range Community
College hi Colorado.
Ms. Stanley explained mat the compliance
assistance centers are in the early stages of
development and will be operational by spring.
She stated that her office will continue to identify
additional industries for which compliance
assistance centers would be appropriate, adding
that the dry cleaning, industrial paints and
coatings, and chemical industries are possibilities.
Ms. Stanley stated that the centers will focus on
small businesses and will not provide advice to
individual facilities. She explained that the centers
are intended to provide general, "entry-level"
information for those individuals who may not
know that they are subject to environmental
requirements and to encourage such individuals to
contact state agencies or EPA regional offices for
more specific assistance.
-------
Enforcement Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Regarding the development of compliance
assistance centers, Ms. Shepard asked how the
partnerships with universities were formed. Ms.
Stanley explained that EPA solicited ideas from all
prospective partners. She added that EPA also
published notices in the Federal Register to solicit
partners.
Mr. Hankins asked whether the general public is
being provided information about the existence of
the assistance centers. Ms. Stanley confirmed that
such is the case, adding that the centers will have
general information about obtaining compliance
data on a specific facility.
6.4.2 Data Management
Ms. Stanley discussed her office's responsibility
for supplying enforcement and compliance data for
all EPA programs. She explained that OCs data
management branch manages about 17 database
systems, including the permit compliance system
(PCS) and the integrated data for enforcement
actions (IDEA) system, which compiles
compliance data for all programs at the facility
level.
Ms. Stanley reported that OC is conducting several
projects to make the data available to the public
and has attempted to incorporate as many data
sources as possible into its databases. She stated
that OC has incorporated LandView data and
census tract data into some of its systems. Ms.
Stanley explained mat the additional data has
enabled OC to produce a map that shows
demographic data in relation to compliance data
concerning a specific facility. She commented that
the databases enable EPA to target its enforcement
efforts, inspections, and compliance assistance
efforts on areas in greatest need of such efforts.
She described the planning efforts, her office
conducted during the preceding year. She
explained that OC examined compliance rates for
individual sectors and identified 12 priority sectors
to study on the national level. She explained that
the office's research efforts identified three priority
sectors ~ petroleum refining, dry cleaning, and
nonferrous metals sectors. She said that, in its
planning with the regions, OC asked each region
to address those priority sectors in its strategic
plan.
6.4.3 Additional Issues Related to Compliance
Mr. Hankins asked Ms. Stanley to describe how
the regional MOAs are being enforced,
specifically, how many enforcement actions had
been brought in the past year in each region and
what the results of those enforcement actions were.
Ms. Stanley responded that OC works closely with
the regions to ensure that appropriate action is
taken against companies that have compliance
problems. Mr. Hankins offered an example of a
facility that is known to have compliance
problems, as indicated by the TRI. Neither the
state nor EPA had taken any enforcement action
against the facility, he stated.
Ms. Stanley reported that OC also is attempting to
target enforcement activity by community. She
said that OC has asked the EPA regional offices to
identify specific communities or geographic areas
in which they plan to target their resources. Ms.
Stanley explained that OC is encouraging the
regions to pool their compliance and enforcement
resources and target those on specific sector or
community.
Ms. Ferris responded with a list of general policy
issues that grew out of subcommittee's discussion.
She stated that communities are not experiencing
rapid or efficient enforcement response to either
perceived or actual violations. She stated that the
subcommittee believes that a mechanism should be
established to allow communities to provide input
into the enforcement process. For example, Ms.
Ferris said MOAs should not be negotiated without
taking into consideration the community views on
the enforcement initiatives proposed, purportedly
to remedy violations and/or benefit communities.
Ms. Ferris commended OC for its efforts in
compliance assistance efforts and stated that she
believes that compliance assistance is also
beneficial to people who live near facilities that are
not in compliance. She said that an educated
public is EPA's best support.
Ms. Shepard asked about revised standards for dry
cleaners that use perchloroethylene. Ms. Stanley
responded that she was not certain of the status of
revised standards, but that she would investigate
the issue.
2-16
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Enforcement Subcommittee
Mr. Tingle asked how organized labor will be
involved in compliance issues. He said that EPA
historically has not included organized labor in
national initiatives. Ms. Ferris stated that the
subcommittee had discussed the need for greater
emphasis on the worker protection program,
particularly in regulations and actual enforcement
litigation. Ms. Stanley explained that OC is
experimenting with different approaches to
bringing stakeholders into the process. She
pointed to OECA's environmental leadership
program (ELP), which is similar to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
(OSHA) "Star" program. Ms. Stanley stated that
the purpose of the program is to identify
companies that have excellent compliance records
and that incorporate compliance into their
philosophy and management practices. She said
that OECA started a pilot program last year that
involves 12 companies that are testing different
characteristics of an environmental leadership
company.
Ms. Stanley explained that the pilot projects
involve the community and workers. She noted
that most of the companies that responded to
EPA's request for participation in the program are
large businesses and that EPA is studying how to
include small businesses.
Ms. Ferris expressed dissatisfaction with the extent
to which EPA had included community groups in
the development of programs like the ELP. She
stated that her experience indicates that
communities are not aware of such programs. She
asked whether there is a docket on the
establishment of the ELP and asked for a list of
the locations of the pilot projects and the
community groups that are involved in each pilot
project. She also requested information about
sources of funding for the program.
Ms. Ferris added that she did not believe that there
has been adequate community comment on ELP
and other programs such as CSI and ISO 14000.
She requested that EPA describe for the
subcommittee the programs, what they are
intended to accomplish, how they are integrated
with each other, and how the community has been
involved.
Ms. Stanley responded that she shares the
frustrations expressed by Ms. Ferris about the
plethora of programs that involve stakeholders.
She said that the MOA process is still evolving and
that information is needed from the regions. She
emphasized that OC is making a strong effort to
involve the public in the planning of enforcement
activities.
2-17
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 13 and 14, 1995
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Lawrence Martin
Designated Federal Official
Robert Bullard
Chair
-------
CHAPTER THREE
MEETING OF THE
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Health and Research Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a two-day meeting on
Wednesday and Thursday, December 13 and 14,
1995, during a three-day meeting of the NEJAC in
Washington, D.C. During a meeting of the
NEJAC Executive Council on December 12, 1995,
Dr. Robert Bullard was reelected to serve as chair
of the subcommittee. Mr. Lawrence Martin,
Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues
to serve as the Designated Federal Official (DFO)
for the subcommittee.
This chapter, which provides a detailed discussion
of the deliberations of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, is organized in seven sections,
including this Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks,
summarizes the opening remarks of the chair and
the DFO. Section 3.0, Subcommittee Work Plan,
summarizes the discussion surrounding the
development of the work plan. Section 4.0, Issues
Related to Health and Research, summarizes the
discussions about issues related to health and
research, including research methodologies and
community-based research. Section 5.0,
Presentations, presents an overview of each
presentation, as well as a summary of relevant
questions and comments from the subcommittee
members. Section 6.0, Summary of Public
Comment, summarizes discussions offered during
the public comment period provided by the
subcommittee. Section 7.0, Resolutions,
summarizes the resolutions forwarded to the
NEJAC Executive Council.
2.0 REMARKS
2.1 Remarks of the Chair
Dr. Bullard, Chan- of the Health and Research
Subcommittee, opened the subcommittee meeting
by welcoming the members present and Mr.
Martin, the DFO. Table 1 presents a list of
Table 1
HEALTH AND RESEARCH
SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 13 and 14, 1995
Mr. Lawrence Martin, DFO
Dr. Robert Bullard, Chair
Ms. Sherry Salway-Black
Dr. Mary English
Ms. Hazel Johnson
Dr. Andrew McBride
Mr. Michael Pierle *
List of Members
Who Did Not Attend
Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell
Ms. Paula Gomez
Dr. Bailus Walker
attended December 13, 1995 only
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
Dr. Bullard began with a review of the draft
mission statement for the subcommittee, which
identifies its focus and mission as the exploration
of health issues and research issues as they relate
to environmental justice. He explained that the
purpose of the subcommittee, and of NEJAC in
general, is to provide comment and advice to
ensure that principles of environmental justice are
integrated into EPA's initiatives.
Dr. Bullard then pointed out that the work of the
subcommittee cuts across that of all the other
3-1
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
NEJAC subcommittees. He added that the
composition of the subcommittee is designed to
reflect a balanced point of view, representing
health professionals, members of affected
communities, academia, industry, and other
concerned parties.
Dr. Bullard noted that, at the previous meeting of
the subcommittee, most of the session was devoted
to presentations by representatives of various EPA
offices intended to acquaint members with EPA's
ongoing and planned activities. Dr. Bullard noted
that the subcommittee had provided advice and
comments on several EPA projects and draft EPA
documents to ensure that principles of
environmental justice were integrated into the
initiatives. Dr. Bullard acknowledged that, at the
previous meeting, the members did not reach
agreement about priority issues to examine or
specific actions to support, although the
subcommittee discussed health and research issues
at length.
Dr. Bullard identified several issues raised at the
previous subcommittee meeting as possible topics
for follow-up discussions at the current meeting.
Among those topics were:
Promote
research
and foster community-based
Recommend policies governing the design
of requests for proposals (RFP)
Identify additional data necessary to
appropriately evaluate environmental justice
issues related to health and research
Provide comment on the term "adverse and
disproportionate impact," as defined in
Executive Order 12898 on environmental
justice
Examine alternatives to methodologies of
quantitative risk assessment that better
assess risk in minority communities
Examine methodologies or designs for
assessing cumulative risk
2.2 Remarks of the DFO
Mr. Martin discussed the general rules for
conducting the meeting. He explained that the
subcommittee will invite public comment at a
specific time and asked observers to hold any
questions or comments until that time. He
explained that the rules of the Federal Advisory
Council Act (FACA) do not provide for input from
those who are not members of the subcommittee,
except when invited to participate. Mr. Martin
emphasized that, unless questions are directed
specifically to the audience or observers,
discussions are limited strictly to subcommittee
members.
3.0 SUBCOMMITTEE WORK PLAN
The members of the NEJAC Health and Research
Subcommittee discussed possible next steps for the
subcommittee. Suggestions include:
• Dr. Bullard urged examination of the
mission statement and goals of the
subcommittee to focus future efforts.
• Dr. Bullard suggested follow-up on action
items in the resolutions NEJAC passes.
• Dr. Mary English encouraged the
subcommittee to establish working
relationships with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) and
other federal agencies involved hi health
and research.
• Dr. English recommended consolidating
plans to develop a formal report of the
subcommittee's recommendations for
incorporating environmental justice into
health and research areas.
• Dr. Andrew McBride recommended the
formation of working groups to investigate
health and research concerns of susceptible
populations and to report findings to the
subcommittee during its next meeting.
• Mr. Martin agreed to develop and distribute
to all members of the subcommittee a
memorandum describing the intent to form
working groups to investigate health and
3-2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
research concerns of susceptible
populations.
Members of the subcommittee responded to the
suggestion that it develop a formal report of the
subcommittee's recommendations for health and
research agendas. Dr. Bullard mentioned that the
subcommittee had previously prepared a document
specifically for ORD on ideas for a health and
research strategy. The subcommittee's original
goal, he said, had been to develop comparable
documents to focus health and research strategies,
first in EPA and later among other federal
agencies. Dr. Bullard said that document could be
helpful in formulating a report on the
subcommittee's recommendations to EPA for
focusing health and research efforts.
Ms. Sherry Sal way-Black asked whether a
document is available which describes EPA's
current efforts in health and research. Mr. Martin
indicated that there is a "massive" document
available, but suggested that the subcommittee
narrow its scope of work to a few specific projects
that could be completed so that useful
recommendations can be developed.
The subcommittee discussed plans to establish
three working groups to investigate and report to
the subcommittee on three key concerns:
indigenous peoples, urban community populations,
and migrant workers. The focus of the working
groups will be to identify priority areas for health
and research efforts. Mr. Martin stated that ORD
does not have budget to support conference calls
for working groups; however, he stated that EPA's
Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) may have
resources available.
Dr. McBride suggested a strategy to identify
priority or cross-cutting concerns by interacting
directly with the members of communities affected
by such issues, rather than by scrutinizing or
reviewing existing studies. He explained that the
subcommittee could form working groups to
investigate the environmental justice concerns of
various communities. The working group dien
could report its findings to the subcommittee
during the next subcommittee meeting. Such an
approach will help to establish priorities among
health and research concerns, he said.
Members of the subcommittee agreed to form
working groups to investigate the concerns of rural
(including indigenous peoples), migrant, and urban
communities. Ms. Salway-Black and Dr. English
volunteered to serve on the Rural Communities
Working Group, and Dr. Bullard, Dr. English,
and Ms. Hazel Johnson volunteered to serve on the
Urban Communities Working Group. Mr. Martin
offered to send a memorandum on the working
group initiative to other subcommittee members
and request then- comments by January 31, 1996.
He said he then would send members a list of
ideas for the initiative and follow up with an
informal conference call to identify next steps.
In response to the subcommittee's questions about
funding and resources to support the working
group initiative, Mr. Martin said regretfully that
ORD had no money and limited staff available to
support the initiative. He suggested that OEJ
might be able to provide some support. He added
that individual members of the subcommittee can
call on any resources and convene a group of
people to work with outside the subcommittee.
The only restriction, he said, was that, convening
an official meeting of the subcommittee requires an
advance notice hi the Federal Register.
4.0 ISSUES RELATED TO
HEALTH AND RESEARCH
This section of the report summarizes the
discussions of the subcommittee about issues
related to health and research, including research
methodologies and community-based research.
4.1 Research Methodologies
Dr. English asked whether the research identified
in the subcommittee's draft mission statement was
restricted to health-based research or whether
research could focus more specifically on
environmental justice issues. Dr. Bullard
confirmed that both types of research would be
appropriate for consideration of the subcommittee.
He said that topics the subcommittee might
examine include environmental justice hi disease
prevention, pollution prevention, and hi the
management of disease registries. Equally
pertinent as a research topic, he said, would be the
identification of effective mechanisms for
integrating environmental justice into existing or
3-3
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
future environmental regulations. As an example,
Dr. Bullard cited the socioeconomic analysis
required for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and proposed
that the development of guidance for the conduct
of a socioeconomic assessment would be a suitable
area of research for the subcommittee.
Dr. McBride expressed concern about the
application of the standard research practice of
documenting cause and effect when assessing the
need for environmental intervention. He stressed
that it is unacceptable to require rigorous
documentation of detrimental health effects in a
community before environmental intervention can
occur. He asked whether the subcommittee had
made any statement about the limitations of that
approach hi the enforcement of environmental
laws. Dr. Bullard responded that the
subcommittee had discussed many issues in great
detail, but had adopted no resolution about the
failure of rigorous cause and effect methodologies
to provide adequate protection of the health of the
community. He agreed that significant
impediments do exist and that hi many cases such
impediments preclude appropriate assistance to
communities that have problems. Dr. Bullard said
that one position proposed, but not recommended,
by the subcommittee was that early actions should
be taken to protect a community if many symptoms
and many detrimental effects can be demonstrated
in that community, even if the cause of the
problem has not yet been determined.
Dr. McBride contended that current environmental
laws favor potential polluters, rather than
populations that might be at risk. He said that,
currently, before any limits are imposed on
industry or polluters, rigorous proof is required of
detrimental effects attributable to industrial
operations. Dr. McBride urged the subcommittee
to take a position that clearly favors prompt
intervention, with a bias toward the protection of
populations at risk. Dr. McBride stressed that
decisions about intervention should be based on the
best knowledge available at the time, rather than
on long-term studies of cause-and-effect that are
expensive and impractical.
Dr. English echoed Dr. McBride's concerns,
adding that the "burden of proof" should not lie
with the community. The community, she said,
should not be required to show evidence of an
adverse health effect; rather, the facility should be
required to show that no adverse effects exist. Dr.
English acknowledged the difficulty of proving
cause and effect, given numerous possible sources
of adverse effects. She suggested that, if
additional data were required to assess
environmental effects, the types of decisions made
today could be challenged in the future. She said
that through guidance and regulation, additional
information can be required and considered to
better assess potential effects of facilities on
surrounding communities.
Dr. Bullard suggested supporting research that
questions the kinds of quantitative and qualitative
data that federal agencies must collect to meet the
requirements of the Executive order on
environmental justice. Such data, he said, would
include information about race and ethnicity,
vulnerable populations, and populations that are
"disproportionately and adversely affected."
Mr. Michael Pierle questioned whether the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) has been involved in discussions of the
types of data now needed to comply with the
environmental justice aspects of NEPA. He
recommended that any future efforts to identify
data needs be coordinated with ATSDR. Dr.
Bullard agreed that the subcommittee should
coordinate with ATSDR about the kinds of data
that should be collected.
Dr. Bullard observed that the heart of the "burden
of proof" approach is the use of quantitative risk
analysis as the dominant tool in evaluating risk
versus impact. Expressing concern that
quantitative risk analysis may not provide equal
protection for some populations, he suggested that
the subcommittee explore alternative methods of
risk analysis that better represent minority
positions on such issues as socioeconomic effects,
effects evidenced by transgenerational and
intergenerational incidence, questions of equity,
and distribution of effects. Dr. Bullard also
suggested the subcommittee develop methodologies
to assess cumulative risk.
Dr. McBride voiced concern that all questions of
injustice would be "buried" in the complex issues
of methodologies. He asserted that, in its current
3-4
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
form, risk assessment "guts" most environmental
interventions and suspends the influence of
common knowledge about facts because explicit
"proof" is lacking. He restated his
recommendation that the subcommittee recognize
that long-range studies are unpractical or
acknowledge the limitations of the existing
approach to risk assessment.
Dr. English again echoed Dr. McBride's mistrust
of how risk assessment information is used. She
also stated that she advocates pointing out the
limitations of risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis, both of which she said are being used as
quantitative tools to dismantle environmental laws
and regulations. Practitioners, she said, recognize
that decisions cannot be based solely on such
unsophisticated tools. When making decisions
about environmental issues, information generated
by such tools should be considered, but not used
as the sole criterion, she added. Dr. English
suggested that the subcommittee support a policy
position on the limitations of quantitative risk
assessment and cost-benefit analysis as tools in
making environmental decisions and in developing
environmental policy. Mr. Pierle added that he
considers the debate about the value of risk
assessment methodologies unproductive. He
suggested the subcommittee prepare questions that
will help them begin to resolve the issues.
In response, Dr. Bullard proposed that the
subcommittee draft a recommendation for the
consideration of the full NEJAC that supports a
policy statement that endorses the identification of
the limitations of such assessment tools. (See
Section 7.0, Resolutions, for the full text of the
resolution).
4.2 Community-Based Research
Dr. English asked why, at the previous meeting,
there had been much discussion of, but no action
on, the issue of community-based research. Dr.
Bullard responded that inaction did not indicate a
lack of interest, but rather limits imposed by the
subcommittee's schedule. He mentioned that
during 1996 ORD may be able to support a
subcommittee project to consider community-based
research.
Dr. McBride asked whether the subcommittee
should focus on developing specific projects
related to community-based research or examining
a community's role in research. Dr. Bullard
responded that both approaches are appropriate.
He stressed the need to find ways to support the
legitimacy and, ultimately, the parity of
community-driven research if it is comparable with
research conducted by universities, institutions, or
government. For many funded projects, Dr.
Bullard said, community organizations could
perform that same research given the proper
training.
Dr. McBride questioned whether research efforts
conducted by communities, academic institutions,
and government agencies, are mutually exclusive.
Dr. Bullard responded that their efforts are not
mutually exclusive and pointed to pilot projects for
community-university partnerships and community-
industry partnerships. He acknowledged,
however, that there is a need for community-
based, bottom-up strategies for conducting
research. Dr. Bullard also recognized that
community representatives successfully took part
in a 1994 national health symposium in which
participation initially had been limited to scientists.
Dr. McBride commented that, before a research
project is approved or implemented in a
community, the community must be informed and
the involvement of the community must be
assured. He applauded the National Institute of
Environmental Policy as an organization that is
beginning to adopt research protocols that are
more community-oriented than those of the past.
In addition, Dr. English emphasized the
importance of developing policies to coordinate
community-based research with that of traditional
scientific research.
5.0 PRESENTATIONS
This section summarizes presentations on various
topics related to health and research that were
made during the meeting of the Health and
Research Subcommittee.
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
5.1 Baltimore Environmental Justice
Community Partnership Pilot Project
Mr. Charles Auer, Director, EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and Mr.
Hank Topper, also with OPPT, served as co-
presenters. They provided an overview of the
pilot project proposed to address environmental
justice concerns through community-based
partnerships in Baltimore, Maryland.
Mr. Auer thanked the members of the
subcommittee for their assistance in developing the
partnership model. He added that the design of
the pilot project established in January 1994
incorporated many of their recommendations. He
explained that the project strives to unite all
members of the community ~ residents,
businesses, organizations, and governments — in
an effort to take a comprehensive look at the local
environment and to build consensus on an action
plan to improve the environment. Mr. Auer said
that OPPT sees the pilot project as an opportunity
for the federal government to find more effective
ways to organize resources to assist communities
in achieving their environmental goals.
Mr. Auer explained that the proposed study area is
a neighborhood in South Baltimore, Maryland,
part of which lies within the Empowerment Zone.
Mr. Topper explained further that the community
is made up of about 22,000 people and is located
hi a heavily industrialized area of the city that
historically has been subjected to significant
environmental stresses. A revitalization project
targeted in the area should increase industrial
activity in the community, he said. Mr. Topper
added that the partnership pilot project will
provide a way for the community to better evaluate
whether the increased industrial activities that have
been proposed might have a negative effect on the
local environment.
Mr. Topper commented that the community-based
approach used in the project changes the traditional
roles of community and government. It empowers
the community, both residents and businesses, to
take the lead in making the decisions that affect
theu: environment, and it puts government in the
role of advisor, providing information and
technical assistance not available in the
community, he explained. Much of the project, he
added, focuses on environmental education and
capacity-building in the community to ensure that
residents and small businesses have all the
information, tools, and knowledge necessary to
take responsibility for then- environment and to be
full partners in the project.
Mr. Topper explained that the project includes an
"environmental profile" of the community. In
addition to gathering information about the local
environment (including truck traffic, indoor use of
chemicals, and use of pesticides) each member of
the partnership would participate in setting
priorities and carrying out the action plan, he
explained. Mr. Topper pointed to a high school
located in the proposed study area which has
expressed interest in participating in the project by
gathering and distributing information.
Mr. Topper concluded that under the project,
voluntary actions are endorsed as a common-sense
approach to environmental protection, as opposed
to scientific risk assessments that require proof of
cause and effect before environmental intervention
can occur.
Mr. Pierle inquired about the justification for the
pilot project and asked what provisions have been
made about community activities or programs
before the pilot began. Mr. Auer responded that
this pilot model is a departure from the standard
approaches used to identify and address
environmental problems because it emphasizes a
local rather than a national methodology. He
added that the pilot project is an example of the
administration's common-sense improvements that
favor environmental justice activities. Mr. Auer
also stated that OPPT had anticipated that there
might be city- or industry-led activities that could
be used in a positive way to support the goals of
the pilot project. Mr. Topper added that the
community in which the pilot project is proposed
has a community advisory panel, as well as a
history of citizen involvement in environmental
issues.
Several subcommittee members inquired whether
there is local support for the project. Dr. English
asked whether the city of Baltimore, Maryland, is
fully committed to city planning decisions that
would support efforts under the project. Dr.
McBride asked whether OPPT had established
3-6
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
partnerships with any public housing associations
or with the superintendent of schools. Mr. Auer
acknowledged that although the city of Baltimore
appears committed to the project, OPPT still is
waiting for the city to approve the project. In the
meantime, he said, the project team has worked to
build partnerships among residents, government
entities, and businesses in the study area. Mr.
Auer added that the Baltimore School System
currently is involved in the project, but the public
housing association is not.
Dr. McBride and Ms. Johnson raised a few
questions about funding for the pilot project. Both
endorsed the payment of small stipends to
volunteers to raise consciousness in the community
and to address the question of equity with regard
to project workers paid by EPA. Mr. Auer
explained that the community-based partnership
pilot is a project that uses EPA staff time, but no
money can be used to support the project. A small
sum set aside for a community capacity-building
grant could be used to hire someone to work on
the project, if the community so chooses, he
added.
Ms. Salway-Black observed that sustainable
economic development had not been identified as
a component of the project. She stressed that, to
achieve sustainable development hi a community,
both economic research and economic literacy
training are necessary. Mr. Auer agreed that
economic considerations are an important part of
the revitalization process, but said that fostering
economic awareness is not a strength of OPPT.
He suggested that the Fairfield Eco-Industrial Park
and the Empowerment Zone could provide vehicles
for advancing economic awareness.
Expressing concern about the limited scope of the
pilot project, Mr. Pierle suggested that it be
broadened to focus on building sustainable
development. Dr. English and Dr. McBride,
disagreed, explaining that the pilot is a sustainable
community project that simply has a different
name.
Dr. Bullard expressed concern about EPA's role in
coordinating activities under the proposed pilot
project. He said that, if it is to be a legitimate
community-based project, the community should
take the initiative to coordinate actions of potential
partners and to fund activities. Mr. Topper
responded that EPA wants the community to take
the initiative. He suggested that OPPT tram
members of the community to coordinate programs
and identify funding sources. Dr. English
commented further that, if EPA develops a generic
program to implement the project, such materials
could be made available to other communities.
5.2 Toxics Release Inventory Environmental
Indicators Model
Mr. Nicholas Bouwes and Mr. Steven Hassur,
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division
(EETD), OPPT, provided a presentation on the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Environmental
Indicators Model software. Mr. Bouwes began by
explaining that the model, which is currently under
development, is designed to be a tool for
information management and risk-based ranking
and comparison that is based on information
reported in the TRI. Mr. Bouwes pointed out that
the model is not a quantitative risk assessment
tool, but, rather, it contains many of the data
elements found in risk assessments that are used in
comparing levels of risk.
Mr. Bouwes announced there are plans to generate
the information at the community level which can
be used in conjunction with the model for analysis
of environmental justice issues. Such an
application would make it possible to provide a
risk-based perspective to evaluate effects hi a
focused geographic area, he pointed out. To
accomplish that end, it would be necessary to link
the model with a geographic information system
(GIS) software tool, such as ArcView, Mr.
Bouwes said. The strategy, Mr. Hassur remarked,
is to evaluate the health and environmental effects
of a number of emission sources on a small
geographic area such as a neighborhood.
Dr. English asked for clarification of the toxicity
weighing approach used with the model and asked
whether the approach had prompted significant
comment. Mr. Bouwes explained that toxicity
values and weight of evidence were used to put
TRI chemicals into toxicity categories based on
differences in order of magnitude. Mr. Loren
Hall, Environmental Assistance Division, OPPT,
explained further that the approach to the ranking
of relative toxicity used in the model reflects the
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
TRI Environmental Indicators Model
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
model can display four types of
information: total pounds of the
chemical released, pounds times
toxicity, pounds times toxicity and
population, and the full model results
that include exposure calculations.
Currently the model is limited to 250
TRI chemicals, includes only chronic
human health toxicity values are
available but does not include some
exposure pathways. A planned
expansion of reporting requirements
will add about 300 chemicals to the
TRI in the near future.
The model creates a database of
approximately one million indicator
elements for each year of TRI
information. By combining selected
elements in different ways, the model
can be used in various analyses, such
as trends analysis, ranking and setting
priorities among chemicals, risk-based
targeting, and possibly analysis of
factors related to environmental justice.
Results can be obtained by medium,
chemical, region or state, standard
industrialization code, or a combination
of those and other factors.
approach used in EPA's Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) model. Mr. Hall said that the model had
undergone a review; a second review and comment
period was planned, he added.
Dr. English commented that, because the model
does not consider site-specific conditions,
particularly in its chemical fate and transport
component, she questioned whether the tool can
reflect accurately environmental effects at the
community level. Mr. Hall responded that the
model does not provide results comparable to
values developed in a site-specific risk assessment.
Mr. Hassur further explained that the model is
designed to evaluate relative risk, which takes into
account many of the elements of risk assessment
but typically uses data that are more generic than
the data traditionally used in risk assessment. Mr.
Bouwes agreed with Dr. English that TRI
environmental indicators should not be used as the
sole criterion in assessing effects on a community,
but stated that such data can indicate where to look
further for possible environmental problems and
therefore should be used. Mr. Bouwes added that
the larger the geographic area that is considered,
the more confidence one can place in the results
produced by the model. He also pointed out that
the model is sufficiently flexible to accept data
about a particular site.
Mr. Pierle inquired about the availability of the
model. Mr. Bouwes responded that the model is
in the final stages of development and should be
available to the environmental justice community
within a few years.
5.3 Information Tools to Support
Environmental Justice
Mr. Hall presented information about EPA's
efforts to provide better access to information
about facilities and demographics and to make
available spatial analysis tools that can empower
local citizens to participate in shaping government
policies that affect those citizens' health and
environment. Mr. Hall also demonstrated a
prototype spatial analysis tool that links
information about sources of pollution with
demographic information through Arc View.
Mr. Hall explained that the spatial analysis
prototype system provides information about:
• Facilities that report TRI data and about
sites on EPA's National Priorities List
(NPL)
• Population characteristics based on block-
level census data
• Ambient conditions
• Legal and administrative characteristics of
the site
• Cartographic features
3-8
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
All the components are integrated in software
packages individualized for each region, he
explained, adding that EPA plans to distribute
them as CD-ROM publications. The spatial
analysis tool, which provides information in a
ready-to-use format, does not require a user who
is a computer expert.
Mr. Hall demonstrated the prototype system for
the subcommittee members. He explained that
demographic information, such race, income,
education, language, age of the housing unit, and
water source for the housing unit, can be obtained
through this system and compared to information
on sources of pollution to study environmental
justice concerns. The next step, Mr. Hall said, is
beta testing of the prototype. Future versions of
the system could include the capability to rank
facilities according to chemical releases, the
toxicity of releases, and other data.
Comments and questions that the members of the
subcommittee posed during the presentation are
summarized below.
Ms. Salway-Black asked whether the system had
been used or tested for applicability to tribal land.
She added that GIS data and tools are being used
by tribes. Mr. Hall replied that there has been an
interest in examining tribal data with the prototype
system but, so far, no testing of that application
has been carried out.
Dr. McBride asked several questions about the
types of information that could be obtained from
the system. He inquired whether the prototype
could sort and analyze data on pollution sources by
facility and by city, whether users can add their
own information to the system to tailor it to local
sources of pollution, and whether any health data
had been included in the system. Mr. Hall
responded that, currently data could not be
analyzed by city boundaries, but added that future
versions of the system might have that capability,
as well as the capability of sorting by zip code.
He also explained that the system allows the entry
of site-specific data, but pointed out the need for
support and training for users before they can
employ the more advanced applications of the
software system.
On the issue of inclusion of health data, Mr. Hall
responded, that although health information is not
part of the prototype, he welcomed suggestions
about the sources of health data to include,
particularly those data that support analyses at the
community-level. Dr. McBride identified several
possible sources of health information, including
state agencies, databases maintained by the Center
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and
the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation
Survey.
Dr. McBride asked whether the software used to
develop the spatial analysis tool was commercially
available and whether it is necessary to purchase it
separately to run the analysis program. Mr. Hall
responded that ArcView, is commercially available
and can be purchased separately for use with
EPA's new spatial analysis tool. He added that
access to ArcView is currently available through
many educational institutions and libraries.
5.4 Report on the Baltimore Symposium on
Environmental Justice
Ms. Barbara Uhauss, International City/County
Management Association (ICMA), provided an
overview of the issues identified during a 1995
symposium on environmental justice cosponsored
by ICMA and EPA. The two-day symposium in
Baltimore, Maryland, she said, was attended by
more than 100 academicians, researchers,
educators, and representatives of local
communities. The objective of the symposium was
to convene health and environmental researchers in
the Baltimore area to share information and to
investigate environmental justice issues, she said.
The four panel discussions conducted during the
symposium focused on outdoor pollution,
household hazards, sustainable community
development, and environmental assessment and
management hi urban areas, she added.
Ms. Uhauss explained that key topics discussed
during the outdoor pollution panel included
ongoing research on contamination of ah- and
water in the Baltimore area, commuting options
for workers, and technology-based approaches to
advising the community about ground-level ozone
pollution. The disproportionate effects of various
commuting options on lower-income workers and
then: employers, compared with effects on higher-
3-9
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
income professionals, were also examined she
said. She added that the ozone map developed by
the Maryland Lung Association, which can be
viewed on local weather reports, was identified as
a good example of presenting technology-based
research in a practical and useful form.
Ms. Uhauss reported that the topics addressed
during the panel discussion of household hazards
included radon testing, asthma in children, and
issues related to contamination with lead. She
added that participants expressed dissatisfaction
with efforts to address lead poisoning problems in
children. She noted that participants also called
for enforcement of housing codes and the
implementation of measures to prevent lead
poisoning.
Ms. Uhauss reported that much of the discussion
about sustainable community development focused
on the Fairfield Ecological Industrial Park Project.
That portion of the symposium, she said,
emphasized the principles of helping communities
become involved in addressing local environmental
problems and providing communities with
appropriate resources to solve their problems.
Ms. Uhauss stated that the panel discussion of
urban environmental assessment and management
focused on current research on environmental
assessments being conducted by EPA Region 3 in
the Baltimore, Maryland, and Chester and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania areas. She mentioned
the frustration expressed by some participants
representing communities about the complexity of
government and fragmentation of responsibility
among government agencies and offices that stymie
community participation in solving local problems.
The need to emphasize community-based
approaches to problem-solving was recommended,
she said.
In closing, Ms. Uhauss discussed the steps planned
as a follow-up to the symposium. She explained
that discussions are now underway with EPA to
identify mechanisms for working with local
communities to address specific problems and to
set in motion actions supported by research
presented at the symposium.
Questions asked and comments offered after the
presentation are summarized below.
Mr. Martin asked the subcommittee for
recommendations on how to help communities,
particularly Baltimore communities involved in
environmental justice projects, to devise then- own
research projects.
Ms. Sal way-Black questioned what defines
community-based research. She asked whether it
is research conducted by the community, using the
traditional scientific research methodology, or
research that involves alternative indicators of
effects that reflect the community's points of view,
such as spiritual and cultural ramifications of a
project planned for an indigenous community. In
response, Mr. Martin commented that there is no
unanimous opinion within the scientific community
about the merits of alternative research
methodologies that cannot be quantified. ORD,
however, wants to structure an approach that will
enable EPA to explore such options, he said.
Dr. Bullard supported the use of alternative,
nontraditional indicators of a healthy community
and pointed out the continuing struggle to
legitimize such indicators as valid areas of
research. He endorsed the need that the
community define what its problems are, the need
to determine the kinds of methodologies that
should be developed to address such problems, and
the need to identify the quantitative and qualitative
data that should be collected. Dr. Bullard said that
community-based research is more than the
adoption by communities of existing research
topics and methods; it requires, he pointed out,
that communities create their own research
agendas.
Dr. Bullard requested that a comprehensive
literature search be conducted to examine existing
models for community-led research, and that a
tracking system be established to monitor federally
funded initiatives like this. A reaffirmation of
support for community-led and community-based
research should be a part of a strategic plan, he
added.
Dr. English endorsed the suggestion of an
inventory of existing health or environmental
assessment models. She said she believes that the
validity of alternative models is not recognized in
part because they are so poorly understood. Dr.
English identified the Highlander Center as a
3-10
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
possible resource for alternative assessment
models. She said that the center conducts a
vigorous program directed at community-based
studies of health effects.
Dr. English also urged the subcommittee to
recognize the limitations of using tools for
quantitative risk assessment and cost benefit
analysis as the only criteria in making
environmental decisions. She encouraged EPA to
continue to promote the use of community-based
risk and health effects assessments as essential in
making just environmental decisions.
Stating that the National Association of County and
City Health Officials (NACCHO) is working to
develop environmental health assessment tools, Dr.
McBride suggested that organization as a possible
resource for identifying models for community-
based research. He suggested that volunteer
programs, such as the work of senior citizens
assisting local health departments in collecting
environmental samples, be studied and that similar
mechanisms be used to foster community education
and involvement. Dr. McBride also proposed the
formation of partnerships and collaborations with
well-established not-for-profit environmental
groups that can mobilize significant resources,
both within and outside the community.
5.5 Proposed Collaboration with HHS/NIEHS
Environmental Health Policy Committee
Dr. Gerry Poje, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), discussed
upcoming opportunities for more effective
interaction on environmental justice research
agendas between the subcommittee and the NIEHS
Environmental Health Policy Committee (EHPC).
Mr. Poje invited the Health and Research
Subcommittee to participate in a forthcoming
series of regional public meetings organized by the
National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of
Medicine, to examine environmental justice
research, education, and policy needs related to
environmental justice.
Mr. Poje explained further that, in September
1995, fifteen federal agencies contributed funding
to the National Academy of Sciences and the
Institute of Medicine to conduct a major study on
environmental justice that is being spearheaded
through the Institute of Medicine's Board on
Health Science and Policy. OEJ and ORD, he
mentioned, are among the offices that are
sponsoring the effort. The findings of the 18-
month study, he said, will be used to make
recommendations related to environmental justice
to all federal agencies involved in the project. The
study represents an endeavor by the Institute of
Medicine to change the process of identifying and
investigating health issues, he added.
Involvement of the subcommittee in the
interagency endeavor, Mr. Poje continued, would
provide another opportunity for a subcommittee of
NEJAC to promote the public participation model.
The subcommittee's participation would ensure up-
front community involvement in planning,
preparation, and definition of issues for the
environmental justice study, he said. He added
that the study also would afford an opportunity for
the subcommittee to hear from communities
nationwide.
Mr. Poje identified other areas in which the
subcommittee could work with HHS on
environmental health issues. First, he urged the
subcommittee, on behalf of the Environmental
Health Policy Committee, to meet with HHS to
discuss environmental justice issues. Second, Mr.
Poje invited the subcommittee to work with
NIEHS to organize an upcoming meeting of high-
level federal science managers. He explained that
the subcommittee's participation could serve as a
model for government and communities working
together. He noted that the Interagency Working
Group on Environmental Justice (IWG)'s Task
Force on Research and Health earlier had
recommended the meeting be used as a mechanism
for addressing the need to coordinate research
agendas on environmental justice among federal
agencies.
Mr. Poje also suggested the subcommittee consider
helping to shape a definition of environmental
justice research, particularly for federally
designated grant programs. He asked them to be
cognizant of the need to draft recommendations to
support grant programs that encourage sustainable
research in environmental justice. He also urged
the subcommittee to think about potential vehicles
T37
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
for communicating the subcommittee's findings
and other environmental justice activities.
Questions asked and comments made during and
following the presentation are summarized below.
Dr. English and Dr. McBride asked if other
committees on environmental health or
environmental justice chartered under FACA
existed beside NEJAC. Mr. Poje replied that there
was not a citizens advisory committee created
explicitly to address environmental justice issues.
He said it is unlikely, given the current fiscal
situation, that a similar citizens federal advisory
group will be established for Department of
Defense (DoD) or Department of Energy (DOE).
Mr. Poje added that NIEHS supports several
official advisory committees, citing those that
address grant protocols and applications. The
HHS/EHPC subcommittee on environmental
justice is not a citizens advisory group, Mr. Poje
said, but rather an internal subcommittee formed
from the leadership of HHS to provide a
coordinated effort for issues related to
environmental health. Dr. English expressed
concern that the NIEHS advisory committees
might not consider environmental justice in their
work and recommended that the Health and
Research Subcommittee, or the NEJAC as a
whole, meet with those advisory committees to
inform them about the principles of environmental
justice.
Ms. Johnson recommended that the regional public
meetings be held at locations within the
community, and that members of the study
committee tour the community selected to
guarantee that they fully understand the problems
of each community. Ms. Johnson also expressed
concern about the prevalence of yellow jaundice in
urban communities. Mr. Poje endorsed Ms.
Johnson's recommendations and restated his
position that the subcommittee's advice would be
invaluable in planning for the forthcoming study of
environmental justice issues.
Dr. English acknowledged the importance of
highlighting urban health issues but pointed out the
need to address rural health concerns, as well.
The decreasing availability of health care research
on rural issues and the lack of health care in rural
areas require attention, she said.
Ms. Salway-Black asked whether the study would
investigate women's health issues. Mr. Poje
responded that the agendas for the environmental
justice study had not been made and urged the
subcommittee to consider the opportunity to be
play a major role in defining those agendas.
Mr. Poje commented that the subcommittee or its
members individually could help to plan the public
meetings. Dr. Bullard added that involvement in
the study could "move the subcommittee's efforts
out of Washington, D.C. and into the community."
Members of the subcommittee could use their
knowledge of the principles and techniques of
public participation to reach isolated sectors of the
community that usually are not represented, he
said. Dr. Bullard reminded the subcommittee,
however, that before it can work outside EPA, the
NEJAC Executive Council must give approval for
such action.
Concerning the proposed meeting of senior federal
science managers, Dr. Bullard commented that
during the preceding year, the subcommittee had
discussed the possibility of conducting a workshop
or small symposium on cumulative risk. He
suggested that meeting could be merged with the
meeting sponsored by NIEHS. Dr. Bullard asked
Mr. Martin whether ORD, and possibly the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), would support a coordinated effort with
NIEHS to conduct such a meeting. Mr. Martin
noted that EPA's environmental justice
implementation plan for health and research
includes a meeting of senior science managers to
evaluate environmental justice research. He said
he believes ORD will work with the subcommittee
to arrange such a meeting.
Dr. English expressed concern that the long-term
strategy of incorporating environmental justice
considerations into all research agendas not be
obscured by any temporary focus on environmental
justice research. Mr. Poje replied that, in his
opinion, both approaches have been productive and
are necessary to change research agendas so that
research results are more valuable to the public.
Dr. English agreed that some convergence on
environmental justice in research is beginning but
3-12
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
emphasized the need for universal recognition of
environmental justice issues in research.
Dr. McBride recommended that all research be
community-based. He recommended further that
the environmental justice movement reflect more
than the "minority" view; rather, it should
represent the opinions and concerns of the entire
"community," he said. Last, Dr. McBride stated
his opinion that local public health centers should
serve as depositories for environmental
information.
Following the comments summarized above, the
subcommittee unanimously adopted two resolutions
to be considered by the NEJAC Executive
Council. The first of the two resolutions urged
NEJAC to recognize that there is a need to
coordinate research that addresses issues of
environmental justice in all agencies of the federal
government and to support the IWG Task Force on
Research and Health in its call for a meeting of
senior science managers. The resolution also
called for the meeting to be conducted using the
model for public participation by stakeholders.
The second resolution follows-up earlier
discussions about the use of current environmental
analysis tools to justify environmental decisions in
the community. The resolution recommended that
the NEJAC applaud EPA for speaking against the
use of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis as
the only criteria in evaluation of the merit of
environmental laws and regulations. (See Section
7.0, Resolutions, for a complete description of the
resolutions.)
5.6 Inventory of Activity by EPA in the Area
of Cumulative Risk
Dr. Warren Banks, science advisor in OSWER,
presented information about the work EPA is
doing hi the area of cumulative risk. Dr. Banks
began his presentation with the statement that
health and research, particularly human health, is
a priority issue for the administration, not simply
one element of environmental justice. Dr. Banks
then explained the principles of a dual-tract
strategic approach proposed to and supported by
Mr. Fred Hansen, EPA Deputy Administrator,
which includes technical and community outreach
components to address cumulative risk issues. The
technical component of the strategic approach
would focus specifically on EPA's efforts to
evaluate risk, chemical by chemical, while the
outreach component would deal directly with the
community, he explained, adding that up-front
community involvement would provide a
mechanism for EPA to effectively identify and
initiate actions to reduce adverse effects on human
health.
Dr. Banks said he currently is working with
several people within EPA to draft an overall
strategy for examining cumulative risks. During
the next three months, he said, the group also will
be identifying communities that have concerns
about cumulative risk which EPA could survey for
a proposed community pilot project. Dr. Banks
mentioned that Altgeld Gardens, located in
Chicago, Illinois, is one of the communities
suggested for the survey, because a significant
amount of data already are available about health
risks in that community. Dr. Banks solicited the
subcommittee's suggestions of other communities
that should be included in EPA's survey.
Dr. Banks concluded his presentation by saying
that implementation of the dual-tract strategy to
direct efforts related to cumulative risk depends on
appropriate support and funding. He urged the
members of the subcommittee to pursue action and
accountability on the issue when they meet with
senior EPA management. He also stressed the
importance of formulating an action agenda for
health and research.
Questions asked and comments offered during and
following the presentation are summarized below.
Dr. McBride asked Dr. Banks to clarify whether
examination of cumulative risk focused on toxins
or hazards, meaning chemical rather than physical
health risks (for example, from inhalation of
asbestos). Dr. Banks responded that EPA
currently is addressing adverse health effects from
toxins present in the community.
Dr. McBride also wanted to know whether the
information being compiled on cumulative risk hi
communities is accessible to the public. Dr. Banks
said that the effort to gather information is just
beginning, but added that, when the information
has been compiled, it will be made available to the
3-13
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
public. Dr. Bullard then asked Dr. Banks the
status of an earlier request by the subcommittee for
an inventory of efforts being conducted by EPA in
the area of cumulative risk or multiple exposures.
Dr. Clarice Gaylord, Director of OEJ, informed
the subcommittee that, in the preceding week, the
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
(OPPE) had sent to her office a draft document
entitled "Cumulative Risk and Environmental
Justice." The document, she said, is a
compendium of all the cumulative risk research or
projects conducted by EPA over the past four to
five years. Dr. Gaylord said the OPPE document
is complete but it has not undergone internal
review.
Dr. Banks added that EPA requires peer review
before public release of any document. He said he
had suggested to Deputy Administrator Hansen
that some members of the subcommittee serve on
the peer review panel. Dr. McBride supported
that recommendation, saying that, if EPA truly
wants comment from citizens, the inclusion of
members of the subcommittee on the review panel
is a reasonable way to secure such comment.
Dr. English expressed concern that there is a need
to examine the topic of cumulative risk beyond the
domain of EPA. Dr. Bullard agreed, adding that
the issue is another reason the interagency studies
and meetings discussed earlier are so important.
Ms. Donna Harris, OPPE, told the subcommittee
that the survey supports the position, that very
little research has been done to examine the
relationships between cumulative risk and
environmental justice. Ms. Harris added that the
draft document is now undergoing internal review.
She invited the members of the subcommittee to
review the draft document.
Following the discussion of issues, the
subcommittee unanimously adopted a motion to
draft a resolution to be considered by the full
NEJAC. The resolution would recommend that
the peer review panel that reviews the OPPE
document include members of the subcommittee.
(See Section 7.0, Resolutions, for a complete
description of the resolution.)
5.7 Update on EPA Reports
Environmental Health Issues
on
Mr. Martin provided an overview of recent EPA
reports on three environmental health issues:
demonstration projects in lead abatement in urban
soils, mercury emissions, and occurrence or
incidence hi the United States of industrial air
emissions by income and race.
Mr. Martin explained that the report on lead
abatement in urban soils is a follow-up study
conducted by ORD to analyze the outcome of lead
abatement efforts in Cincinnati, Ohio; Boston,
Massachusetts; and Baltimore, Maryland. The
final report, he said, has not been released pending
completion of peer reviews. The findings are
mixed, but two general conclusions were drawn,
he added. They are:
• "When soil is a significant source of lead in
a child's environment, the abatefment] of
[lead hi] that soil will result in a reduction
in exposure that will, under certain
conditions cause a reduction in childhood
blood lead concentrations."
• "Although these conditions for a reduction
in blood [lead concentrations] are not fully
understood, it is likely that four factors are
important: (1) past history of exposure of
the child to lead as reflected in the pre-
abatement blood lead, (2) magnitude of
reduction in soil lead concentrations, (3)
magnitude of other sources of lead exposure
other than the soil, and (4) quality of direct
exposure to soil."
Mr. Martin told the subcommittee that the second
report, which addresses ingestion of mercury, is
being generated under authority of the Clean Air
Act. He explained that the Act requires the EPA
Administrator to prepare and submit a report to
Congress on (1) quantitative emissions of mercury
by several industrial sources, (2) health and
environmental effects associated with those
emissions, and (3) technologies and their
associated costs for controlling those emissions.
EPA must comply with a court order to release the
report which recently underwent review within and
outside EPA, he said. The study found that, of the
industrial sources of mercury emissions evaluated -
3-14
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
- including coal combustion, incineration of waste,
production of chlorine and caustic soda, and
smelting — the highest emitters of mercury were
municipal and landfill waste incinerators, and coal
tar combusters.
Mr. Martin explained that the third report, entitled
"The Distribution of Industrial Air Emissions by
Income and Race hi the United States: An
Approach Using the Toxics Release Inventory,"
was prepared by ORD. The report was published
earlier hi 1995, and presents what he described as
"interesting" evaluations of methodologies used to
support conclusions on environmental justice
issues. The report demonstrates how the selection
of statistical tests, geographic units of analysis,
exposure estimators, and reference populations
influences the outcome and interpretation of
environmental justice studies, Mr. Martin said.
He added that the report also provides some
recommendations for improving the ways in which
data are used.
Questions asked and comments offered during and
after Mr. Martin's presentation are summarized
below.
In response to inquiries about the availability of
the reports, Mr. Martin offered to distribute copies
of the draft report on lead abatement hi urban soils
to all members of the subcommittee and to provide
a copy of the final report on mercury to the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee when it becomes
available. The report on the incidence of
industrial air emissions, he said, is available from
Environmental Science and Technology.
Ms. Salway-Black asked Mr. Martin his opinion of
the adequacy of the first and second reports in
addressing environmental justice perspectives and
disproportionate effects on minority or low-income
populations. Mr. Martin replied that an effort had
been made hi the draft report on lead abatement hi
urban soils to examine socioeconomic conditions
but no racial breakout had been provided. Mr.
Martin then said that he had not read the draft
report on mercury emissions; but however, he said
his understanding was that, if consumption of
contaminated fish were to exceed 100 grams a day,
adverse health effects from ingestion of mercury
could occur, regardless of the subpopulation
involved.
Ms. Johnson asked whether eating smaller fish was
safer because they had less "fatty tissue." Mr.
Martin replied that he believed that concentrations
of mercury hi fish was the result of feeding habits
of the fish, the presence of contamination in the
area hi which the fish where caught, and whether
the fish feed on other fish. He said that fish
caught in the Great Lakes and in southern Florida
often contain elevated concentrations of mercury.
Dr. McBride pointed out that urban subsistence
fishing represents a high risk of exposure to
mercury.
5.8 Exposure Factors Handbook
Ms. Amina Wilkins, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, briefly described two
reference documents that are used by risk
assessors. She reported that ORD recently had
completed its Exposure Factors Handbook, which
provides information on the consumption or intake
rates of various foods and frequency and duration
of various activities that may have led to exposure.
The risk assessors need this information for the
exposure intake equations that estimate risk. She
acknowledged that most of the data compiled for
the handbook are national data that can be used
only to give an estimate of risk for the general
population. More specific information is needed
to prepare a more accurate risk assessment of
subgroups and subpopulations, she noted.
Ms. Wilkins then explained that she now is
working on a new document, entitled "Identifying
and Quantifying Susceptible Populations." She
stated that the document is intended for use by risk
assessors to identify susceptible populations
through examination of a number of evaluation
categories, such as geographic location, type of
housing, and cultural and behavioral practices.
The document also will list specific chemicals and
populations susceptible to those chemicals. Other
information that is more applicable to the general
population, such as enumeration of populations by
age, race, gender, and income, also may be
included in the reference book, Ms. Wilkins
added.
Ms. Wilkins concluded her presentation by inviting
the subcommittee to comment on the draft
document. She suggested the members could
recommend new categories for identifying
3-15
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
susceptible populations or identify studies that
would be appropriate for inclusion in the
document. She said the subcommittee's comments
would be valuable in making certain that the draft
document will be a useful resource.
Subcommittee members offered comments during
the presentation. Ms. Johnson stressed that
exposure to asbestos from pipes and tile is still a
significant problem and explained that children are
inclined to eat paint, even lead-based paint,
because it tastes sweet.
Dr. Bullard asked about the availability of ORD's
Exposure Factors Handbook. Ms. Wilkins
responded that the rather large reference book is
being separated into three volumes and should be
available in CD-ROM publications in the near
future.
5.9 Pollution Prevention and Environmental
Justice
Ms. Judy Sheenan, United States Conference of
Mayors, briefly discussed the efforts of her
organization to support EPA's pollution prevention
(P2) efforts. She explained that through the
Conference, a national association of mayors of
cities that have populations of 30,000 or more, the
nation's larger cities share experiences and
cooperate to meet the challenges of the urban
environment. Ms. Sheenan explained that several
EPA program offices, including ORD and Office
of Pollution Prevention (OPP), had drafted a
compendium of P2 opportunities entitled "Pollution
Prevention in Our Cities and Counties." The
Conference is helping EPA to market P2
opportunities to communities, she said, adding that
there are plans to target communities that have
been awarded grants through OPP's Environmental
Justice Through P2 Grants Program. Ms. Sheenan
welcomed the subcommittee's suggestions about
targeting communities for assistance with P2
efforts and about effective means of providing such
assistance.
Mr. Chen Wen, EPA Pollution Prevention
Division (PPD), presented information about
EPA's Environmental Justice Through P2 Grants
Program. The program, he explained, seeks to
provide financial assistance to community groups,
tribal organizations, county and local governments,
educational institutions, and local and national
environmental groups for projects that address
environmental justice using pollution prevention.
The objective of the program is to improve
distribution of information about P2 to the
community.
Mr. Wen stated that grants were awarded through
a national competition and that there are six or
seven grant recipients hi each EPA region. He
added that most of the grants support training and
technical assistance in P2. Of those grants, more
than 60 percent target households and almost 33
percent target minority-owned businesses in
disadvantaged areas.
Questions asked and comments offered during and
after the presentation are summarized below.
Ms. Johnson asked how grassroots organizations
were informed of the grants program. Mr. Wen
said that PPD mailed out grant applications and
promoted the program through various grassroots
organizations. He said organizations targeted for
the mailing effort included tribal governments that
are listed in a federal facilities database, recent
applicants for environmental justice grants, and
contacts provided by Dr. Bullard's Directory of
People of Color Environmental Justice Groups.
Mr. Wen acknowledged that few of the grantees
are grassroots organizations. As a follow-up
action, Dr. Bullard offered to send an updated
database of environmental justice contacts to Mr.
Wen.
Ms. Salway-Black said her foundation administers
a nonfederal grants program and that she has
experience in reaching grassroots organizations.
She offered to provide information to Mr. Wen
and PPD about how EPA can better reach
grassroots organizations, particularly in
implementing its Environmental Justice Through
P2 Grants Program.
Dr. Bullard commented that an analysis, by type
and location of the proposed and awarded grant
projects, could provide useful information to the
subcommittee, particularly to determine whether
the organization that proposed the project
represents the affected community. Dr. English
added that it would be interesting to track grant
recipients by categories, such as low-income
3-16
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
communities, people of color, and nominally-based
community groups. In reference to the latter
category, Mr. Wen mentioned that grant applicants
must have 501 C3 status. He added, however,
that an organization that does not have that status
could enlist the services of another organization
that is certified to apply for the grant.
Dr. McBride offered several comments about the
need to enlist the support of cities and counties
affected in efforts to promote P2 as a planning
priority for municipalities. He also pointed out the
importance of securing municipal support for
public health initiatives.
Dr. McBride also suggested that an elected official
from the United States Conference of Mayors be
invited to speak to the subcommittee about public
health concerns identified by municipalities during
the subcommittee's next meeting. Ms. Sheenan
agreed to arrange for a speaker from the United
States Conference of Mayors to do so.
5.10 Migrant Worker Health
Mr. Antonio Duran, Director, Migrant Health
Branch, Bureau of Primary Health Care, HHS,
and President, National Advisory Council on
Migrant Health (NACMH), presented an overview
of the migrant health program conducted by HHS
and activities of the NACMH. He discussed the
primary health concerns of migrant workers and
identified key organizations and programs that
focus on issues affecting migrant workers.
Mr. Duran began by saying that the Migrant
Health Program began in 1962 with the passage of
the Migrant Health Act, which authorized delivery
of primary and supplemental health services to
migrant and seasonal farm workers. The program
initially was funded at $3 million, he said. Today
$65 million is used to fund about 120 migrant
health centers and 400 clinics nationwide. Mr.
Duran explained that the medical facilities serve
approximately 500,000 of the four to five million
migrant or seasonal farm workers in the nation.
Of those patients served, he said, about one third
are migrants and the rest are seasonal farm
workers. Most of the patients don't qualify for
Medicare because of state residency requirements,
he pointed out. Mr. Duran then explained that
most of the health centers and clinics are located in
three corridors: Florida to Maine; South Texas
through the midwestern states to Canada; and
California to Idaho.
Mr. Duran stated that the NACMH is mandated by
Congress to make annual recommendations to the
Secretary of HHS about the health and health care
needs of migrant and seasonal farm workers in the
United States. He explained that the Council
comprises 16 members, most of them farm
workers, appointed by HHS. The Council meets
three times a year, and public hearings are held as
part of the meetings, he said. Testimony before
the council is used to identify the needs of the
migrant worker community. The Council gathers
information and generates a report to advise HHS
about health issues affecting migrant workers. The
Council also attempts to provide advice to other
agencies, such as EPA and the Department of
Labor, he said. Over the years, the foremost
concerns of the Council have been housing, safe
drinking water, proper sanitation, exposure to
pesticides, and health care.
Questions asked and comments offered during and
after the presentation are summarized below.
Dr. McBride asked whether there are any
mechanisms to track the movement of migrant
workers, possibly by linking the computer systems
at the health centers. Mr. Duran replied that,
because of the illegal residency status of many
farm workers, patients are not required to give
their names at the migrant worker health centers
and clinics. He pointed out, however, that two
studies have been conducted ha the past seven
years to track the movements of the migrant
workers. The results of the most reliable study
were published in 1988 in the "Atlas of Farm
Workers," he said. The movements of migrant
farm workers, he added, were tracked by
examining crop patterns.
Dr. McBride suggested that one method of
enlisting the support of local health departments in
improving the living and working conditions of
migrant farm workers was to emphasize the risks
to the entire community of the emergence or
recurrence of infectious diseases. Mr. Duran
answered that obtaining resources and attention for
the population is always difficult. The main
rationale used by communities for failure to
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
address health problems among migrants is lack of
funding.
Dr. English estimated that about 15 percent of
migrant farm workers in the United States use the
migrant health centers and clinics. She asked what
are the deterrents that keep the rest of the migrant
population away. Mr. Duran said that most
simply do not have access to health care services
and do not get medical attention. He added that,
hi the current political environment, some may
stay away out of fear or apprehension of being
reported as illegal immigrants.
Dr. Bullard asked about the quality of health care
services for migrant workers and their children
when Proposition 187 first passed hi California.
Mr. Duran replied that Proposition 187 now has
been declared unconstitutional, but, in California
for a short period of time, the decline in the
quality and quantity of migrant health services was
devastating. Elimination of services to illegal
immigrants is a politically popular issue that has
been elevated from the state to the national level,
he observed. He warned that legislation pending
hi Congress might eliminate services to naturalized
citizens as well as undocumented immigrants.
There are no resources to support opposition to
such proposals, he told the subcommittee. In
California, grassroots organizations came together
to fight Proposition 187 through the courts, he
said.
Several questions were raised by Dr. English and
Dr. McBride about who are the "bad actors" in
providing migrant health care, as indicated by
treatment of disease and living and working
conditions. Mr. Duran said that the shortage of
medical care for migrant workers hi local
communities is more the result of lack of resources
and funding than lack of conscience. All aspects
of the living and working conditions of migrant
workers, he said, are controlled by the growers.
He closed his presentation with the statement that
growers have different views about worker
conditions — "there are good and bad actors," he
said.
Dr. McBride asked whether there are any
standards governing housing for migrant workers.
Mr. Duran responded that there are no such
standards. He said that efforts to improve housing
must rely on local support and housing cooperative
programs, such as that sponsored by the Housing
Assistance Council.
Commenting that NEJAC had recommended more
rapid implementation of worker protection
standards, Mr. Martin asked about progress in that
area. Mr. Duran replied that, unfortunately, there
had been little progress to report since the Worker
Protection Standards became effective on January
1, 1995. He stressed education of local agencies
as the most crucial component in expediting
implementation of the standards.
Dr. Bullard mentioned that the Farm Worker
Protection Rule has met resistance for more than
a decade. He suggested that farm workers should
be represented on NEJAC and further stated that
NEJAC efforts hi the area should be coordinated
with those of other organizations.
5.11 Report on Controlling Lead Hazards
Dr. McBride presented a summary of his
misgivings about the report prepared by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)—appointed Task Force on Lead-Based
Paint Hazard Reduction and Financing and titled
"Controlling Lead Hazards hi the Nation's
Housing." Dr. McBride pointed out that the
report has raised serious concerns among people hi
the lead abatement field. He said that, hi the view
of many health practitioners and some members of
the task force, the report represents a "terrible
compromise" of the health of children. In his
opinion, he said, lack of zeal hi addressing the
lead poisoning issue may lead to the misperception
that this health problem affects only low-income
children.
Dr. McBride cited a recommendation in the report
that states that, even when elevated levels of lead
hi blood are documented, "if no lead hazards are
identified as sources of exposure, the source of
exposure is presumed to be other than the housing
unit and no further action is required by the
property owner." Dr. McBride said that, in his
opinion, that recommendation provides protection
for the landlord, not for the child. He expressed
concern that the recommendation sets forth a lower
level of protection than required by Title X of the
3-18
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
Housing and Community Development Act of
1992.
Dr. McBride also expressed concern that the
report:
• Endorses standards for lead levels in blood
or for lead-based paints that are 20 years
old, even though adverse effects have been
documented in children at lower levels
• Provides recommendations that could result
in "rollbacks" in local public health
standards because of slack national
standards
• Does not establish a long-term national goal
of eradicating lead poisoning
• Accepts a child's blood lead level as a
indicator of action, even though the blood
lead level is only a rough indicator of
exposure to lead and represents a very small
percentage of the child's lead burden
Dr. McBride concluded that acceptance of the
report would represent a step backward in the
terms of protection of children. He asked the
subcommittee to recommend that the
environmental justice community review the report
and to recommend that NEJAC advise the
Administrator not to accept the report until
environmental justice considerations have been
addressed.
Questions asked and comments offered after Dr.
McBride's remarks are summarized below.
Ms. Johnson asked whether the report addressed
how to properly clean up or remove lead. Dr.
McBride acknowledged that part of the report does
address those areas. He added that the report
recommends no action in the home when a child
has lead poisoning but the lead hazard cannot be
documented.
Ms. Johnson also asked Dr. McBride whether, in
his experience, it was necessary to move families
out of affected housing to conduct lead abatement
efforts. Dr. McBride said it was sometimes
necessary to move families temporarily, but, most
often, the lead hazard, for example a window sill,
can be removed quickly and safely with the family
remaining in residence.
Dr. English asked Dr. McBride to discuss his
opinion of why die report offered a
"compromised" approach to standards for the
protection of children from lead poisoning. Dr.
McBride responded that there is much conjecture
on that question. He said mere may have been a
belief among members of the task force that an
increase in the economic burdens on landlords
would affect die victims negatively because such
burdens ultimately would be passed on to the
tenants. Dr. McBride said that the Task Force
supported a practical, cost-benefit-analysis point of
view that is reflected in many of the report's
recommendations, such as that recommending
removal of sources of lead from only one
apartment, rauier than from the entire building,
including common areas.
The chair, DFO, and various members of the
subcommittee made recommendations about
appropriate individuals to review the report
prepared by the HUD-appointed Task Force.
There was general agreement that it would be
more expedient for the subcommittee to charge
EPA with the responsibility of assessing concerns
about the report than to recommend to EPA that
the report be reviewed by an outside organization.
Dr. McBride stressed that he also supported
solicitation of comment on the report from the
community.
Mr. Hall informed the subcommittee that the Lead-
Based Paint Reduction Act established a number of
legal deadlines associated with the creation of
certain standards. Any recommendations about die
Task Force report could possibly jeopardize the
legislative timetables, he said. To that statement,
Dr. McBride responded that he understood the
report was intended to be guidance to EPA ~ as
such, EPA must address the concerns expressed
about the report before standards are established.
After their discussion of the lead report, the
subcommittee unanimously agreed to draft a
resolution to be considered by the full NEJAC that
EPA reserve judgment on the recommendations of
the report until dissenting opinions and
reservations expressed about the report can be
-------
Health and Research Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
examined fully. (See Section 7.0, Resolutions, for
a complete description of the resolution.)
5.12 Proposed Rule on Military Munitions
Ms. Salway-Black briefly discussed her concerns
about the EPA's proposed rule regulating
munitions at military installations. She asked
whether it was within the scope of the Health and
Research Subcommittee to support a
recommendation that EPA consider environmental
justice concerns fully in this particular rulemaking.
The larger issue, she said, is whether there is an
appropriate mechanism to ensure that issues related
to environmental justice are considered hi the
development of any EPA rule, regulation, or
policy, and how the subcommittee can assist in
that area.
Dr. Bullard answered that the Health and Research
Subcommittee often considers cross-cutting and
overlapping issues. He said it is entirely
appropriate for the subcommittee to make a
recommendation on the proposed rulemaking
because the rulemaking deals with possible effects
on the environment. Dr. McBride added health
and safety considerations also are involved.
Mr. Martin noted that before EPA passes any final
regulation it must satisfy scrutiny for response to
environmental justice concerns.
Ms. Salway-Black then proposed, and subsequently
the subcommittee unanimously adopted a
resolution that NEJAC endorse EPA's full
consideration of the environmental justice effects
of its promulgation of final regulations for
managing munitions wastes.
6.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT
Dr. Bullard opened the floor to public comments.
6.1 Christine Benally, Dine CARE
Ms. Christine Benally, Executive Director of Dine
CARE, focused on the process used to award
grants for the study of native peoples to non-native
organizations. She said that, most grants that are
being funded for work and research in minority
communities or to study issues related to
environmental justice are awarded to non-minority
organizations often because those organizations are
"impressive on paper." In the past when some of
those organizations have been awarded grants for
environmental justice projects, they often contract
out the work to minorities but retain most of the
funding, or they ask for volunteers from the
community, she complained.
Ms. Benally reported her organization currently is
working on a proposal for a project that specifies
the use of scientists, medical personnel, and
community members. She reported that Dine
CARE is proposing to fill those positions with
indigenous peoples. She said the proposal will
advance consultation with traditional medicine
people and traditional Indian philosophers, rather
than doctors and scientists from academia.
Ms. Salway-Black expressed her support for
cultural research, as opposed to conventional
mainstream methodology that uses conventional or
traditional practitioners. She told the
subcommittee that there is a need to recognize the
well documented fact that non-native peoples are
awarded most of the research money to study
native peoples. There are resources within the
native community that can do such research, she
said.
Dr. McBride articulated his concern that people of
color become side-tracked by these "nontraditional
and non-mainstream avenues" at the expense of
dismissing the power of science and technology.
Dr. McBride agreed that there is a place for
nontraditional approaches but added that he wanted
to see existing technologies given to all citizens,
regardless of environmental justice issues. Ms.
Salway-Black responded that she does not oppose
the use of the power of science and technology,
but she said she sees a need to recognize the value
of the cultural component in research and
medicine. She mentioned that society has adopted
the principles of resource management of
indigenous peoples, and pointed out how the
mainstream community can benefit from the
ancient knowledge of indigenous peoples.
Mr. Martin, commented that most indigenous
groups do not make routine searches of the Federal
Register. He identified that as one factor that may
contribute to a lack of competitiveness by native
organizations in applying for research dollars. He
3-20
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Health and Research Subcommittee
suggested that the subcommittee investigate
whether EPA's American Indian Environmental
Office (AIEO) can serve as a clearinghouse for
RFPs related to environmental justice (particularly
those that affect indigenous peoples) issued by
federal agencies.
Dr. Bullard said that the current grant process
favors the award of grants to non-native groups.
He strongly supported the position that the grant
process should be reformed to require native
peoples in key positions and to target research
organizations that have appropriate environmental
justice experience. Even with such changes, Dr.
Bullard said, until the composition of the grant
review and award panel changes to reflect that of
the community being studied, funding will
continue to go to non-native organizations.
Mr. Poje encouraged Ms. Benally in her effort to
include only indigenous peoples in the upcoming
proposal effort. He advised her to make sure the
proposal emphasizes that the people proposed for
the project are the best qualified to speak to the
populations at risk. He urged her to articulate
clearly the experience of the Indian project team.
7.0 RESOLUTIONS
This section of the report lists the resolutions to
NEJAC that the Health and Research
Subcommittee discussed throughout the two days.
Resolution #1: NEJAC resolves that EPA should
be applauded for speaking against the use of risk
assessment and cost/benefit analysis as the sole
criterion to evaluate the merit of environmental
laws and regulations. However, we also urge EPA
to consider the well-recognized and well-
documented limitations of quantitative risk
assessment and cost/benefit analysis as decision-
aiding tools. Furthermore, we urge EPA to
promote the use of community-driven risk and
impact assessments, as an essential component of
wise and just environmental decisions.
Resolution #2: NEJAC resolves that there is a
need to coordinate research addressing
environmental justice across agencies of the federal
government and support the IWG Task Force on
Research and Health in its call to hold a senior
science manager meeting using the model for
stakeholder participation.
Resolution #3: NEJAC resolves that the NEJAC
Subcommittee on Health and Research engage the
IWG Task Force Research and Health through the
HHS Environmental Health Policy Committee,
instructing the DFOs and chairs to coordinate
agendas.
Resolution #4: NEJAC resolves that Dr. Bullard,
Chairperson for the Subcommittee on Health and
Research, and his designee from the subcommittee
be included as formal peer reviewers of OPPE's
Cumulative Risk Assessment document, entitled
Cumulative Risk and Environmental Justice.
Resolution #5: NEJAC resolves that EPA reserve
judgment on the recommendations of the HUD
Lead Report Controlling Lead Hazards in the
Nation's Housing until issues raised by the
minority dissenting opinion, and other reservations
expressed by task force members, are addressed
and a response forwarded to the NEJAC. We ask
that the Administrator assign this function to the
appropriate office or review board.
Resolution #6: NEJAC resolves that EPA, in its
promulgation of the final regulations on regulating
munitions wastes, fully consider its environmental
justice impact, especially as it concerns health and
safety issues.
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 13 and 14, 1995
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Approved - But Not Signed
EIifc4beth Bell Walter Bresette
Designated Federal Official Chair
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
MEETING OF THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee convened
for the first time at the December 1995 meeting of
the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NETAC). The subcommittee was
established hi response to concerns expressed by
several members of NEJAC that issues important
to indigenous peoples had not been addressed
adequately by the existing committee structure of
NEJAC. At the July 1995 meeting of NEJAC,
members voted unanimously to establish the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee to ensure that
NEJAC would address issues related to
environmental justice that are of concern to
indigenous peoples.
During a meeting of the NEJAC on December 12,
1995, Mr. Walter Bresette was elected to serve as
chair of the subcommittee. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) American
Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) has agreed to
sponsor the subcommittee. Ms. Elizabeth Bell,
EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) and
AIEO, was appointed to serve as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) for the subcommittee.
A quorum of members was not present for the
two-day subcommittee meeting. However,
arrangements were made to achieve a quorum for
votes by sending the proposed recommendations
and action items by facsimile to the members who
were not present. (See Section 3.4, Administrative
Issues, for further discussion of this issue.)
This chapter, which provides a detailed discussion
of the deliberations of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, is organized in five sections that
summarize the proceedings of the December 13
and 14, 1995 meeting of the subcommittee.
Section 1.0, Introduction, contains this
introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes
the remarks provided by the chair, the Designated
Federal Official (DFO), and the members of the
subcommittee. Section 3.0, Purpose of the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, contains a
summary of the subcommittee's relationship and
coordination with other NEJAC subcommittees and
with EPA's Tribal Operations Committee (TOC).
Section 4.0, Environmental Justice Issues Related
to Indigenous Peoples, describes the issues
previously reported to NEJAC, as well as those
deemed important by the subcommittee.
Presentations made to the subcommittee are
summarized in Section 5.0, Presentations.
2.0 REMARKS
Mr. Bresette, Chair of the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee, opened the subcommittee meeting
by welcoming the members present and Ms. Bell,
the DFO. Table 1 presents a list of members who
attended the meeting and identifies those members
who were unable to attend.
Table 1
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 13 - 14, 1995
Ms. Elizabeth Bell, DFO
Mr. Walter Bresette, Chair
Ms. Astel Cavanaugh
Ms. Janice Stevens
List of Members
Who Did Not Attend
Mr. Carl Anthony
Ms. Jean Gamache
Mr. Jewell James
Mr. Richard Monette
Ms. Velma Veloria
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Bell, described the role of the DFO as that of
a facilitator for the subcommittee. The chair of
the subcommittee, she noted, should assume the
lead role in moving the subcommittee in certain
directions. Ms. Bell also stated that the
subcommittee has the responsibility to make
recommendations to NEJAC and to report to
NEJAC on its progress. She added that the
subcommittee should use the DFO as an
information resource.
The members of the subcommittee briefly
described their backgrounds:
• Mr. Bresette, who is a member of the Lake
Superior Chippewa of Wisconsin, said he
has been involved in community work to
support the efforts of Native American
tribes to develop multicultural alliances.
• Ms. Astel Cavanaugh, who is a member of
the Devils Lake Sioux Tribe, stated that she
is employed by the Sioux Manufacturing
Corporation, North Dakota, which holds
contracts with the Department of Defense
(DoD) to develop and produce hazardous
and toxic chemicals. Ms. Cavanaugh is
involved with community members who
recently established an environmental
quality commission to oversee and provide
regulations to address long-term
environmental issues related to the facilities
of the corporation.
« Ms. Janice Stevens, who is a member of the
Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, said she
serves as an environmental coordinator for
the tribe's effort to develop an
environmental infrastructure and regulations
within the tribal government.
The members of the subcommittee reviewed and
discussed the agenda which called for the members
to discuss environmental justice issues related to
indigenous peoples and to establish administrative
mechanisms for the new subcommittee. Ms. Bell
noted that, for future meetings, the members of the
subcommittee can develop the agenda themselves,
during telephone conference calls. The members
present agreed to the agenda and the meeting
proceeded.
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
The Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee chose as its
mission the improvement of interagency
coordination and communication among agencies
on environmental justice issues related to
indigenous peoples. The following subsections
discuss the relationships that the subcommittee
wishes to strengthen — specifically, relationships
with other subcommittees of NEJAC, EPA's TOC,
and other members of NEJAC who represent
indigenous peoples. Specific mechanisms to
facilitate communication among the subcommittee
and indigenous people who serve on other NEJAC
committees also was discussed. In addition, this
section also summarizes the discussion on
administrative issues to be addressed by the
subcommittee.
3.1 Relationship And Coordination With
Other Subcommittees of NEJAC
Mr. Bresette introduced Mr. Thomas Goldtooth, a
member of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee of NEJAC, to begin the discussion
of the relationship between the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee and the other subcommittees of
NEJAC. Mr. Goldtooth raised the issue of the
lack of representation of Native Americans on
other subcommittees of NEJAC. In the past, he
explained, if a subcommittee had no Native
American members that subcommittee would not
address Native American issues. Citing the Waste
and Facility Siting Subcommittee as an example,
Mr. Goldtooth noted that the lack of a Native
American member on the subcommittee resulted hi
issues of concern to Native Americans not being
addressed adequately. For that reason Mr.
Goldtooth said, he now gives priority to his
participation on the subcommittee. He therefore
believes it is very important to develop strong lines
of communication to ensure that Native American
issues are addressed fully by the other
subcommittees of NEJAC' on which Native
Americans may not be represented adequately.
Mr. Goldtooth suggested that each of the NEJAC
subcommittees exchange reports to ensure that the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee is informed of
the activities of the other subcommittees. He
pointed out that remaining well informed is
4-2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
especially important to the members if issues being
addressed by other subcommittees have an effect
on indigenous peoples. Ms. Stevens also
recommended that subcommittees share their
agendas with the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
before NEJAC meetings so that the various
subcommittees can coordinate areas of mutual
concern that are related to indigenous peoples.
In addition, Ms. Bell suggested that the
subcommittee could hold joint sessions with other
subcommittees. She pointed out that, by its
nature, the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee is
different from the other subcommittees because the
issues that this subcommittee will address are
cross-cutting with those that also will be addressed
by other subcommittees. For example, she said,
if the Health and Research Subcommittee
investigates an issue that will have an effect on the
health of indigenous peoples, the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee should be aware of those
discussions and participate in them. Or the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee can send a
representative to participate in the meetings of
other subcommittees.
3.2 Relationship And Coordination With
EPA's Tribal Operations Committee
The Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee discussed
holding a joint meeting with the TOC. The
purpose of the meeting would be to discuss the
relationship between the two groups, identify areas
of mutual concern, and avoid duplication of
efforts. Mr. Bresette asked how the subcommittee
could request a meeting with the TOC. Ms.
Stevens and Ms. Bell agreed that the subcommittee
should request that NEJAC arrange a meeting
between the subcommittee and the TOC. Ms. Bell
stated that she also can contact Ms. Caren
Rothstein, AIEO, who is the liaison between EPA
and the TOC, to ask the members of the TOC if
they would be interested in meeting with the
members of the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee.
Mr. Goldtooth suggested that the subcommittee
identify the members of the TOC. The only
information known by the subcommittee, he said,
is that representatives of Native American tribes
from each of the EPA regions sit on the TOC.
The subcommittee should learn who those people
are, he added. Many aspects of the relationship of
the subcommittee and the TOC and how each fits
into the EPA process are unknown, Mr. Goldtooth
said. He then expressed his agreement that a joint
meeting between the two groups would be an
important step in exploring those unknown factors.
3.3 Relationship And Involvement With
Other Members of NEJAC Who
Represent Indigenous Peoples
Mr. Bresette stated that one of the goals of the
subcommittee should be to facilitate
communication between the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee and other members of NEJAC who
represent indigenous peoples. Mr. Goldtooth
pointed out that indigenous peoples who are
members of NEJAC will look to the subcommittee
to facilitate communication among them.
Participation by these members is worthwhile, Mr.
Goldtooth continued; all should understand how
EPA's activities affect indigenous peoples.
Mr. Bresette suggested that any briefing materials
and agendas distributed to the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee also should be sent to the members
of NEJAC who represent indigenous people. Ms.
Stevens agreed, stating that many issues are of
concern to more than one subcommittee. In
addition, she recommended that, when the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee develops
agendas for future meetings, the other indigenous
members of NEJAC be invited to participate in the
discussions. Doing so, she said, would be one
way to ensure that all environmental justice
concerns and issues related to indigenous peoples
are addressed.
3.4 Administrative Issues
During its meeting, subcommittee members had
the task of developing administrative mechanisms
for the subcommittee. This subsection of the
report summarizes their discussions of those
issues.
Mr. Bresette expressed two concerns about the
structure of NEJAC. Mr. Bresette stated that he
is both impressed and confused by issues that are
brought before NEJAC. He inquired whether it is
the subcommittee's responsibility to bring issues
before NEJAC and, if so, then the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee has a crucial and active role
4-3
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
to play in NEJAC. Mr. Bresette stated that his
first concern therefore is that the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee not become "lost in the
dust" of the other subcommittees. However, he
acknowledged that the subcommittee is a new one,
and its members will spend some time "coming up
to speed" with the other subcommittees.
However, he emphasized that the subcommittee
will have equal stature with NEJAC.
Mr. Bresette stated that his second concern is how
the subcommittee avoids "getting lost." He
inquired of Ms. Bell whether the subcommittee has
a budget, whether the subcommittee can conduct
site visits, and whether the subcommittee can
conduct meetings in addition to those regularly
scheduled during NEJAC meetings. Ms. Bell
answered that subcommittees do not have
individual budgets; however, such activities as
telephone conference calls can be conducted and
that it is reasonable to request additional meetings,
she added.
Mr. Bresette inquired further whether a protocol
exists within the structure of NEJAC that governs
subcommittees. Ms. Bell explained that a
subcommittee makes recommendations to NEJAC
which then decides whether to approve the
recommendation. Ms. Bell also stated that, if a
subcommittee is to make formal recommendations
to NEJAC, a quorum of subcommittee members is
required to vote on the recommendations. Ms.
Bell recommended that, although a quorum of
members was not present at this meeting, the
subcommittee could send any proposed
recommendations by facsimile to the members who
were not present. When those members registered
their votes, she pointed out, the subcommittee
would have a quorum. The subcommittee agreed
to that plan.
Mr. Bresette noted that the number of members
absent from the meeting reinforced his concern
that the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee function
well and effectively so that it will have an effect
on NEJAC. Addressing the issue, Ms. Bell
encouraged the members of the subcommittee to
contact each other before meetings to ensure that
a quorum will be present. She also encouraged the
subcommittee to draft a charter outlining its
mission, goals, and administrative procedures.
The subcommittee also discussed the vacant
position on the International Subcommittee of
NEJAC and agreed to recommend to NEJAC that
Mr. Bill Simmons of the International Indian
Treaty Council be selected to fill the position. The
subcommittee registered its belief that the
representation of indigenous peoples on all
subcommittees is crucial to ensure that
environmental justice issues related to indigenous
peoples are addressed.
Members of the subcommittee stressed the need
for subcommittee meetings in addition to those
regularly scheduled during NEJAC meetings. Ms.
Bell again noted that the subcommittee can hold
additional meetings or conduct conference calls.
The subcommittee discussed the locations of future
NEJAC meetings. The subcommittee expressed
concern that, if NEJAC is to address fully the
concerns of indigenous peoples, a meeting should
be held in Indian country. The subcommittee
agreed to recommend that NEJAC consider how it
could coordinate the scheduling of its next meeting
with the National Tribal Environmental
Management Conference, which is to be held in
Montana during the same week of May 1996. In
addition, the subcommittee requested NEJAC hold
the fall 1996 meeting in Wisconsin, in conjunction
with the regional environmental justice meeting to
be conducted by the Wisconsin Tribal
Environmental Committee.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES
RELATED TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
This section of the chapter discusses environmental
justices issues related to indigenous peoples,
including those previously reported to NEJAC.
Also this section of the chapter describes
environmental justice issues or cases related to
indigenous peoples that the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee agreed to address.
4.1 Update on Issues Previously Reported to
NEJAC
The Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee asked Ms.
Bell to provide the members an update on formal
testimonies related to indigenous peoples that had
been previously presented to NEJAC at earlier
meetings. The cases include those involving the
4-4
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
California Indian Basket Weaver Association, Dine
Alliance, Dine CARE, and Torres Martinez Indian
Tribe. Mr. Bresette asked if the subcommittee
should consider any of the cases further. Ms. Bell
stated that only the Dine CARE case has not been
addressed adequately. She added that the only
mechanism for receiving updates on previously
reported cases is to make a request through
NEJAC for a report from the appropriate EPA
office. The members of the subcommittee then
asked Ms. Bell to present an overview of the cases
she had mentioned. Her discussion is summarized
below.
4.1.1 California Indian Basket Weaver
Association
The case, brought before NEJAC approximately
one and one-half years ago, affects women of
approximately 100 tribes in Arizona and California
who use reeds gathered hi state and national
forests to weave baskets. The case states that the
lumber industry sprays pesticides in the forests to
kill small plants and trees that compete with the
growth of timber that is to be harvested for
lumber. There is a high rate of cancer of the
mouth, throat, and stomach among the basket
weavers because, as the women weave the baskets,
they place the contaminated reeds in their mouths
to hold and tear the reeds. In addition, the baskets
are used to store food. The Basket Weaver
Association has requested that EPA establish
pesticide-free zones throughout the forests. EPA
Region 9, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation are
conducting studies.
4.1.2 Dine Alliance
Dine Alliance of the Big Mountain community hi
Nevada presented formal testimony to NEJAC to
protest the operation of the Peabody Coal Mines
on Navajo and Hopi lands and the coal slurry line
located on Black Mesa. Dine Alliance claims that
the coal slurry line will have harmful effects on
the air, surface water, and groundwater.
Approximately one year ago, an interagency team
was formed to investigate the issue. The team was
comprised of representatives of EPA Region 9, the
Office of Surface Mining of the Department of
Interior (DOI), the Navajo EPA, the Navajo Office
of Surface Mining, and Dine Alliance. The
interagency team conducted an investigation into
the mining operations at Black Mesa. EPA issued
a grant to Dine Alliance for participation in the
interagency team. As a result of the site
inspection, an investigation has been undertaken
under the Superfund program.
4.1.3 Dine CARE
Dine CARE, a grassroots organization, had
presented formal testimony to NEJAC on the
destruction to the Navajo lands caused by current
uranium mining operations. Mr. Bresette deferred
discussion on this case until later when Ms.
Christine Benally, Executive Director of Dine
CARE, could speak with the members of the
subcommittee about claims that EPA Region 9 has
not responded adequately to Dine CARE's request
that EPA investigate uranium mining taking place
on Navajo lands.
According to Ms. Benally, the issue was referred
to EPA Region 9 after her organization presented
formal testimony to NEJAC. The region,
however, did not follow through adequately with
an investigation, she stated.
Ms. Benally also asked the subcommittee to
examine the award process for environmental
justice grants. She explained that an
environmental justice grant of approximately
$20,000 had been awarded to Tufts University in
Massachusetts; however, by the time
representatives of the university arrived at the
uranium site, only $2,000 of the grant money was
left to support the site investigation. Ms. Benally
pointed out that many universities are looking at
environmental justice grants as "business as
usual." That should not be so, Ms. Benally stated,
because environmental justice demands active
participation by the affected community. A
researcher no longer can perform traditional
observations; the investigators must actively
involve the community in the research process.
She urged EPA to make the award process more
stringent.
After the presentation, Ms. Stevens suggested that
the subcommittee recommend that EPA's OEJ
develop criteria for the award of environmental
justice grants to ensure that recipients of such
4-5
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
grants involve the local communities in their
studies and investigations.
The subcommittee agreed that NEJAC should
reexamine Dine CARE's case. The subcommittee
agreed to include in its action items a
recommendation that EPA Region 9 contact Dine
CARE directly about the uranium mines on lands
of the Navajo Nation. In addition, the
subcommittee proposed that EPA Region 9 conduct
a site visit to the area to investigate effects on
human health and the environment from the mining
and milling operations, especially contamination of
soil and groundwater. The subcommittee agreed
to request that the region conduct radon screenings
of potentially contaminated homes.
4.1.4 Torres Martinez Indian Tribe
The Torres Martinez Tribe in Southern California
presented formal testimony to NEJAC about a
sludge facility operating on its lands. EPA Region
9 has addressed the issue, and action is currently
underway.
4.2 Additional Environmental Justice Issues
Related to Indigenous Peoples
After Ms. Bell discussed the cases, Mr. Bresette
asked what new cases and issues the subcommittee
could explore. Ms. Bell replied that the
subcommittee can hold public comment periods or
invite indigenous peoples to give testimony to both
the subcommittee and NEJAC.
This subsection of the chapter describes additional
environmental justice issues and general concerns
that were discussed throughout the two-day
meeting.
4.2.1 Proposed Rule on Military Munitions
Mr. Goldtooth submitted a letter from the Military
Toxics Project, in which the Military Toxics
Project requests NEJAC urge EPA to study the
effects related to environmental justice of EPA's
proposed rule governing military munitions.
Issues related to environmental justice are not
identified in the preamble of the rule, the letter
stated. Ms. Bell commented that the Military
Toxics Project is not an organization of indigenous
peoples and there is concern about how responsive
the Military Toxics Project is to grassroots
organizations. Ms. Cavanaugh noted that she has
tried to contact the group to obtain information and
the group was unable to provide assistance. Mr.
Goldtooth then announced that the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee would address the
issue. The subcommittee therefore decided not to
pursue the issue further.
4.2.2 Ward Valley, California
Mr. Goldtooth also submitted a letter from the
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of California requesting
that NEJAC address the tribe's concerns about
land transfers in Ward Valley. The tribe requested
the assistance of EPA in preventing the transfer of
land in Ward Valley to the state of California from
DOI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
According to the letter, the land is slated for
storage of low-level nuclear waste. The Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe also requested a meeting with
President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt of DOI.
The subcommittee agreed to recommend the
requests of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe to
NEJAC.
4.2.3 Tribal Environmental Programs
Mr. Goldtooth stated that an important role of the
subcommittee was to support the emerging
environmental programs of tribal governments.
He pointed out that tribal environmental policies
and laws are "young and vulnerable" and that they
must be nurtured. Mr. Goldtooth also indicated
that many tribal government leaders are afraid of
environmental laws and regulations because their
first priority is to foster economic growth and
employment of their people. Groups like Dine
CARE are very important, he said, because their
membership can address and put forth to tribal
governments environmental priorities when the
environmental office of the federal, state, or local
government agency cannot.
Mr. Goldtooth also observed that, if tribal
governments are to be truly sovereign, they must
develop their own environmental infrastructures.
The problem once again, he declared, is finding a
balance between economic growth and protecting
human health and the environment. Mr. Goldtooth
requested that the subcommittee educate itself
about environmental justice issues related to
4-6
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
indigenous peoples so that the subcommittee can
provide effective support for tribal environmental
programs.
Ms. Cavanaugh expressed concern about existing
pollution prevention programs of EPA. She
explained that pollution prevention programs, as
they exist, do not meet the needs of companies
located in Indian country. Because of the constant
struggle between economic growth and saving the
environment, Ms. Cavanaugh noted that companies
in Indian country are not investing in pollution
prevention technologies because of the costs
associated with such investments. Ms. Stevens
agreed, stating that sustainable development needs
to be a priority among tribes. Ms. Stevens also
went on to discuss the need for tribal leadership to
understand the hazards of waste and the need for
environmental regulations.
Ms. Bell suggested the subcommittee request that
EPA coordinate a meeting of representatives from
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention, the
Common Sense Initiative, the XL Community Pilot
Program, and other programs to assist the
subcommittee in developing sustainable
development programs tailored to the needs of
indigenous populations. The subcommittee agreed
with the suggestion and decided to list it as a
recommendation to NEJAC.
5.0 PRESENTATIONS
This section of the report summarizes the
presentations that were made to the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee.
5.1 Report on Environmental Justice at EPA
Ms. Bell presented an overview of issues arising at
EPA that are related to environmental justice.
Starting with a brief overview of the OEJ, she
outlined the major activities OEJ has undertaken,
including:
• Development of EPA's strategy on
environmental justice
• Assistance in the development of EPA's
annual report on environmental justice
• Establishment of NEJAC as EPA's advisory
board for issues related to environmental
justice
• Establishment of an institutional structure
within EPA to coordinate environmental
justice activities and issues among EPA
regional offices
• Assembling a senior management team
dedicated to issues related to environmental
justice
• Development and coordination of the
Interagency Work Group on Environmental
Justice (IWG)
Currently, she added, OEJ is developing the
implementation plan for EPA's strategy on
environmental justice.
Ms. Bell also noted that EPA established the AIEO
in October 1994. Ms. Bell did explain that a
guiding principle of OEJ and AIEO will be
identification of areas in which the efforts of the
two offices can be integrated.
When Ms. Bell opened the floor to questions, Ms.
Stevens asked Ms. Bell to clarify the role of a
"circuit rider" within EPA. Ms. Stevens explained
that a circuit rider had visited her tribe hi EPA
Region 6 to discuss the tribe's environmental
issues. Ms. Bell responded that a number of EPA
regions use circuit riders (hi addition to regional
Indian coordinators) to maintain a field presence in
Indian country. For example, she said, hi Region
5, there are tribal environmental liaisons located hi
each state. The liaisons live on or near the
reservations and are readily available to address
environmental issues raised by Native Americans,
she added.
Ms. Bell requested that the subcommittee review
the Native American section of EPA's
environmental justice implementation plan to OEJ
and submit comments by January 5, 1996.
5.2 Tribal Operations at EPA
Ms. Caren Rothstein of AIEO presented an
overview of the functions of AIEO. She explained
the AIEO is EPA's central coordinating point for
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
all its tribal program development activities. Ms.
Rothstein added that EPA established the TOC to
improve the agency's communications and
relationship with tribes. The TOC interacts
regularly with EPA as a co-regulator. Ms. Bell
explained that EPA may delegate or authorize the
administration of regulatory programs to any
federally-recognized tribe and, in turn, the tribe
co-regulates the program with EPA.
Ms. Rothstein explained that the members of the
TOC include 19 representatives of Native
American tribes who are either tribal leaders or
tribal environmental officials selected by tribal
leaders. In addition to the tribal representatives,
several senior EPA officials serve on the TOC.
The TOC is an important body that serves as a
resource to EPA, she added. Ms. Rothstein
described the TOC's current activities, which
include developing a charter and ensuring that the
Indian program budget for EPA is as large as
possible and is sensitive to the priorities of the
tribes. Last fiscal year, she pointed out, the TOC
met with EPA senior management at the agency's
annual budget meeting. The TOC has reviewed
and commented on regulations that have direct
effects on Native Americans, she added. Ms.
Rothstein also commented that EPA regions are
establishing regional tribal operation committees to
increase participation by tribes in that area.
Ms. Cavanaugh expressed concern that
communication has not improved since the
establishment of the TOC. Ms. Cavanaugh
explained that many tribes are not informed about
meetings and do not receive any information. In
addition, Ms. Cavanaugh pointed out the need for
a consensus among all tribes about the direction
EPA should take on issues of importance to Native
Americans; however, consensus will not occur
unless all tribes are able to participate in the
processes, she said. Ms. Rothstein agreed that the
TOC should include in its charter a participation
process that would represent all tribal points of
view. Ms. Rothstein also mentioned that, although
the TOC was established to facilitate access to
EPA, the TOC is not the only means of access to
EPA. Tribes have access to EPA individually, she
said.
Mr. Bresette asked whether the TOC had concerns
about its relationship with the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee. Ms. Rothstein confirmed that the
TOC does have concerns about the role the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee will be playing
in its dealings with EPA. Ms. Rothstein stated
that Ms. Cindy Thomas, a former member of
NEJAC and a current member of the TOC,
expressed frustration that NEJAC focused more on
urban issues than issues of concern to indigenous
peoples. Ms. Rothstein stated that Ms. Thomas
had resigned from NEJAC because she believed
the structure of NEJAC was not changing. Ms.
Bell pointed out, however, since Ms. Thomas'
resignation from NEJAC, the character of NEJAC
has changed. The establishment of Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee is a sign of that change,
added Ms. Bell.
Mr. Bresette acknowledged that the focus of
NEJAC is an issue, but that his concern is how the
TOC perceives non-official tribal representatives in
the EPA process. Ms. Rothstein stated her belief
that there is no such issue for the overall TOC.
Ms. Rothstein indicated that the focus of AIEO
was on government-to-government relationships;
however, that focus does not prevent delegates
who are not official tribal representatives from
communicating with EPA. Ms. Bell responded
that the environmental justice movement has
helped to facilitate access for such delegates. She
explained further that the TOC actually has
referred environmental justice issues related to
Native Americans to NEJAC.
Mr. Bresette stressed once again that he is
concerned about the effectiveness of the
subcommittee if it is not seen as having a
legitimate, recognized role. Mr. Bresette stated
that he would like reassurance that EPA would not
overlook the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee of
NEJAC because it does not comprise officially
recognized tribal delegates. Ms. Bell responded
that such is not the perception of the TOC or EPA
and that the subcommittee will be seen as an
effective body in addressing environmental justice
issues related to Native Americans.
Mr. Bresette also asked whether a distinction
exists, within NEJAC, between official delegates
of tribal governments and individuals who are not
officials of tribal governments but who are
indigenous. Ms. Bell answered that EPA has
attempted to make that distinction, but the issue
4-8
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
has not been clarified at NEJAC's level. Ms. Bell
suggested that the Indigenous Peoples
Subcommittee might consider bringing this issue
before NET AC. It is an important distinction to
make, she said, because the term "tribal" does not
capture the diversity of all Native American
interests. Mr. Bresette agreed with Ms. Bell,
stating that grassroots organizations have an
important and legitimate role to play in the
process.
Ms. Rothstein asked Ms. Bell whether the TOC
and the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee could
participate in a dialogue to discuss such concerns.
Ms. Bell agreed that the two groups should have a
dialogue, in addition to sharing written
communication. Ms. Stevens pointed out that the
formal mechanism for representing a tribe is the
"resolution." If a member of a tribe is
participating in such a meeting, formal
documentation must accompany that representative,
she said. Ms. Stevens explained that Native
American people are reassured by documentation
that a representative is legitimate. She
recommended that, if the subcommittee were to
meet with the TOC, such a "resolution" might be
necessary.
Ms. Rothstein asked the subcommittee what type
of relationship it would wish to establish with the
TOC. Mr. Bresette answered that there is an
essential role for grassroots organizations in the
EPA decision-making process and that such
organizations are a legitimate voice. It is that
concern he stated that he wishes to communicate to
the TOC. Ms. Rothstein agreed to report Mr.
Bresette's concern to the TOC. In addition, Ms.
Rothstein encouraged the subcommittee to
participate in the TOC's monthly conference calls
as an initial step in opening a dialogue between the
TOC and the subcommittee.
Mr. Bresette requested clarification of the
relationship between AIEO and NEJAC. Ms.
Rothstein explained that AIEO is available to
address any issues raised by grassroots
organizations and will continue to work with Ms.
Bell and OEJ. Ms. Bell emphasized the
relationship between AIEO and OEJ is one of
working together to address and integrate issues
that affect both offices.
Ms. Stevens asked whether the National Indian
Work Group is different from the TOC. Ms.
Rothstein replied that the work group is a separate
committee from the TOC. The work group
comprises only staff of EPA from all regional
offices and Headquarters program offices and
meets twice a year to review policies that affect
Native Americans.
5.3 Transboundary Pollution Affecting Tribes
in the U.S., Mexico, And Canada
Ms. Lena Nirk, Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management, EPA, reported on
committees that have been established to address
issues related to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). (See Chapter Five,
International Subcommittee, Section 3.4, for
further discussion of issues related to NAFTA.)
The Good Neighbor Board was created by the
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1992,
to advise the President and Congress on issues
related to the United States and Mexico borders.
The board was established by Congress in 1994 as
a way to obtain additional input from citizens of
border states and to improve intergovernmental
coordination regarding environmental and
infrastructure issues along the border. The board
does not specially target environmental issues, she
continued, but includes environmental justice
concerns when appropriate.
Ms. Nirk explained that two other advisory
committees, the National Advisory Committee and
the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) were
created as a result of agreements related to
NAFTA. The National Advisory Committee is
made up of representatives of industry,
environmental nongovernmental organizations
(NGO), and academic institutions. The GAC
comprises state, local, and tribal government
officials. GAC advises EPA Administrator Carol
Browner in her capacity as the United States
representative to the Commission on
Environmental Cooperation.
Ms. Nirk announced that, in 1996, the GAC will
sponsor a conference focused on tribal
transboundary issues of indigenous peoples who
live along the borders of the United States and
Mexico or the United States and Canada.
4-9
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Nirk then described a database created jointly
by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, that
itemizes the environmental laws and environmental
standards for each country. Ms. Stevens asked
when the database would be completed. Ms. Nirk
replied that the database now is available on the
Internet through the home page of the Commission
on Environmental Cooperation. She added that the
database is organized by subject. Ms. Nirk then
observed that the main differences among the
environmental laws of the three countries is
mechanisms for enforcing regulations.
5.4 Environmental Justice And Tribal Water
Rights
In response to a request of subcommittee member
Mr. Jewel James (who did not attend the meeting),
Mr. Herb Becker, Director of Tribal Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) presented an
overview of tribal water rights and the relationship
of such water rights to environmental justice
issues. Mr. Becker first stated that tribal water
rights are centered on federal case law. He cited
as example, a 1908 case (Winters v. United States)
in which the state of Montana argued before the
U.S. Supreme Court that tribes do not have water
rights and the rights tribes did possess should be
regulated by the state. The Supreme Court
rejected the state of Montana's argument and
declared that, when the federal government
establishes a reservation, the federal government
implicitly reserves water to meet the present and
future needs of the tribe. Second, the Court ruled
that, on the tribe's aboriginal land, the tribe
reserves the right to sufficient supply of water to
meet present and future needs.
Mr. Becker then discussed the 1963 Supreme
Court decision (Arizona v. California), in which
the Court decided that tribes are entitled to
sufficient amount of water to irrigate lands and to
meet additional future domestic needs of the tribe.
These two cases are the cornerstones of decisions
on future tribal water right cases, he noted:
Winters confirms the recognition of the right to
water, said Mr. Becker, while Arizona established
the standard for quantifying the right of
measurement.
Mr. Becker added that DOJ has advocated that the
test standard used to determine water rights for
tribes be based on a homeland standard, not an
agricultural standard. Using a homeland standard
would enable tribes to pursue other industries and
not be limited to farming, he said. The homeland
standard is a three-step process that includes
inventorying present use of water, projecting
future use of water, and consulting experts to
optimize the future uses of water. The process,
called adjudication, said Mr. Becker, is the method
by which a tribe's right to water is decided. Mr.
Becker pointed out that the process must be taken
seriously and performed carefully because tribes
have only one opportunity to undergo adjudication.
Ms. Stevens echoed Mr. Becker's concern that
tribes are documenting their rights to water
forever. Ms. Stevens stated that she also wished
to point out that a tribe undergoing adjudication
should never separate surface water and
groundwater; both should be adjudicated together,
she said.
Mr. Bresette inquired whether the homeland
standard ever has been applied in the case of a
tribe located east of the Mississippi River. Mr.
Becker said he does not believe so, because
rainfall east of the Mississippi River is sufficient to
meet everyone's needs.
Mr. Becker then stated that U.S. Attorney General
Janet Reno recently had visited with her Canadian
counterpart to discuss a number of issues related to
tribes whose lands lie on both sides of the border.
Follow-up meetings are expected to take place in
Canada with the Canadian justice department. Mr.
Becker offered to bring forward and discuss at
such a meeting any concerns of the Indigenous
Peoples Subcommittee related to such issues.
Mr. Goldtooth expressed concern about tribes in
the Great Lakes region who might be losing water
supplies because of the free trade agreements with
Mexico and Canada. Mr. Goldtooth explained that
existing plans to divert water to factories in
Mexico would result in a significant loss of water
for tribes. Mr. Becker explained that laws do
exist in the United States to protect tribes against
diversion of water supplies.
Mr. Becker concluded his presentation by
encouraging subcommittee members to contact him
if they had any further questions. He stated his
4-10
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
telephone and fax numbers, phone: (202) 514-
8812; fax: (202) 514-9078.
5.5 Pending Legislation Affecting Native
Americans
Mr. John Dossett, National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI), presented a report on legislation
pending in the U.S. Congress that will effect
Native Americans. Mr. Dossett explained that the
mandate of NCAI is to track such legislation. Of
primary concern, he said, are bills in Congress
that would restrict tribal jurisdiction over non-
Indian landowners who live on the reservation.
He stated that the majority of such cases have
originated in Montana, where non-Indian
landowners resist the water quality standards
established by tribal governments. The concern of
the non-Indian landowners is that the tribe will
establish high water quality standards, he added.
Mr. Dossett stated that a lobbying effort was
conducted to request an amendment to the Clean
Water Act that would prevent tribes from
regulating any non-Indian or nontribal member
residing on a reservation. If the amendment
passes, he declared, it would leave the landowners
unregulated because only federal laws apply on
reservation land. States do not have jurisdiction
on reservation land, he added. The environmental
justice concern is that a tribe's right to regulate its
own environmental programs is being restricted,
said Mr. Dossett.
Mr. Dossett then discussed how the reauthorization
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) would
affect the ability of tribes to clean up hazardous
waste sites and protect the environment. The
proposed bill shifts the authority to determine the
direction of Superfund programs from EPA to the
state governments, he said. He cautioned that
there are no corresponding provisions to grant
such authorities to the tribes, creating the
possibility that interference by states in tribal
efforts to clean up hazardous waste sites will
increase. Mr. Dossett also explained that the
reauthorization bill would repeal the ability to
recover "nonuse" damages — that is, the loss of a
non-economic natural resource. This provision has
a direct effect on indigenous peoples, he said,
because the loss of a noneconomic natural resource
can prevent the conduct of religious ceremonies.
Mr. Dossett then explained the effects of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995, which would
replace the version enacted in 1982. He stated
that in the bill, the Department of Energy (DOE)
will be directed to build an interim storage facility
at the Nevada Test Site and to begin accepting
high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel
by January 31, 1998. Financial assistance will not
be extended to affected Indian tribes for review of
program activities, although it will be extended to
the state of Nevada and affected local
governments, he pointed out. Preemption
provisions included in the Senate version of the
bill would be harmful to tribal sovereignty, he
stated, because they would preempt the application
of any state or tribal law to any activity under the
act, including the transportation of waste.
Changing his focus, Mr. Dossett explained that the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is viewed as the
big environmental battle of the year. Alaska's
congressional delegation has inserted language in
the Senate and House reconciliation bills that will
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
development. That move, said Mr. Dossett, would
have an effect on indigenous peoples who live in
villages in Alaska. The environmental justice
concern is the possible effect on cultural human
rights and traditions that oil development might
exercise, he concluded.
5.6 Native American Task Force of the IWG
Mr. Robert Faithful, Special Assistant for
Environmental Justice for the U.S. Department of
Interior (DOI), began his presentation with
background information on Executive Order
12898. He explained the requirement in the
Executive order for EPA to form the Interagency
Work Group on Environmental Justice (IWG).
The IWG is comprised of representatives from the
agencies listed in the Executive order that are
required to comply with the order. The mission of
the IWG is for interagency coordination of
resources and programs to avoid duplication of
efforts and to save money.
Mr. Faithful further explained that the IWG is
divided into a number of task forces to pursue
4-11
-------
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
individual topics in greater detail. The Native
American Task Force of the IWG has put together
information to help tribes. Mr. Faithful then
distributed several hand-outs to the members of the
subcommittee containing information related to
environmental justice and indigenous peoples.
Interagency Work Group on
Environmental Justice
As required by Executive Order 12898, the
EPA Administrator formed the IWG to
address issues of environmental justice and
develop guidelines to assist federal agencies
required to implement a strategic plan for
action related to environmental justice.
The IWG hosted a public meeting on
environmental justice in Atlanta, Georgia,
on January 20, 1995.
4-12
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 13 and 14, 1995
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Xorraine Frigeno
Designated Federal Official
Approved - But Not Signed
Baldemar Velasquez
Chair
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
MEETING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The International Subcommittee convened for the
first time at the December 1995 meeting of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NETAC). The subcommittee was established to
identify, and provide advice to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on
international environmental justice issues which
merit attention. At the July 1995 meeting of the
NEJAC, members voted unanimously to establish
the International Subcommittee.
During a meeting of the NEJAC Executive Council
on December 12, 1995, Mr. Baldemar Velasquez
was elected to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. Lorraine Frigerio, EPA's Office of
International Activities (OIA), was appointed to
serve as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) for
the subcommittee. OIA has agreed to serve as
sponsor of the subcommittee.
Due to flight delays, Mr. Velasquez did not arrive
until the meeting was in session. The members of
the subcommittee elected Mr. John O'Leary to
serve as acting chair until Mr. Velasquez arrived.
Table 1 presents a list of the members, all of
whom attended the meeting.
This chapter, which provides a detailed discussion
of the deliberations of the International
Subcommittee, is organized in four sections that
summarize the proceedings of the meeting of the
subcommittee. Section 1.0, Introduction, contains
this introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, discusses
the remarks of the DFO and the director of the
Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ). Section
3.0, Presentations, describes each of the
presentations and summarizes the members'
discussion of that presentation. Section 4.0,
Subcommittee Activities, contains a summary of the
discussion to define the mission and scope of the
subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
This section of the chapter summarizes the opening
remarks of the DFO and remarks presented by the
Director of OEJ. In addition, this section contains
the introductions provided by the members of the
subcommittee.
2.1 Remarks of the DFO
Ms. Frigerio welcomed members to the meeting.
She discussed several administrative matters
related to procedures for the meeting. She
reviewed the agenda, stating that it was developed
to be responsive to the areas of interest expressed
by the subcommittee members. The topics
presented provided the members with an overall
understanding of EPA's international activities.
She indicated that the agenda also allowed
members several periods during the day for
"brainstorming" after the various presentations to
identify areas where environmental justice could be
addressed.
Table 1
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 13, 1995
Ms. Lorraine Frigerio, DFO
Mr. Baldemar Velasquez, Chan-
Mr. Jose T. Bravo
Mr. John C. Borum
Ms. Denise Ferguson-Southard
Dr. Mildred McClain
Mr. John O'Leary
Dr. Janet Phoenix
Ms. Patricia Williams
5-1
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Frigerio noted that a general overview was
provided by Mr. Alan Sielen, Deputy Assistant
Administrator (AA) of OIA, to the NEJAC
Executive Council on December 12, 1995.
2.2 Remarks of the Director of OEJ
Dr. Gaylord began her remarks with a discussion
of the creation of the subcommittee, explaining the
process used to form the subcommittee. She
briefly reviewed the activities of NEJAC, stating
that issues related to environmental justice at the
international level were among the council's early
concerns hi 1993. Such concerns included the
Basel Convention on the Transboundary Shipment
of Hazardous Waste, the sale in other countries of
pesticides banned in the United States, and issues
affecting the joint border of the United States and
Mexico.
Dr. Gaylord explained that in 1995, concerns
about environmental justice related to international
activities were raised once again among members
of the NEJAC. At the July 1995 meeting of the
NEJAC Executive Council, members called for
and approved the establishment of two new
subcommittees, to address concerns related to
international issues and indigenous peoples, she
continued.
Dr. Gaylord reported that NEJAC was able to
establish the two subcommittees by assuring EPA
that: 1) NEJAC could no longer ignore these
international issues, and 2) the total number of
NEJAC members would not change. Dr. Gaylord
indicated that, because of budget issues, her office
could not support activities for two new
subcommittees. She therefore worked with other
offices in the agency, obtaining their support as
"sponsors."
Dr. Gaylord then discussed the types of issues the
subcommittee could consider. She explained that
the NEJAC and its six subcommittees, provide
advice only to EPA and not other federal agencies.
In addition, recommendations made by the
subcommittee must be brought to a vote by the
NEJAC Executive Council; only after approval by
that body may the issues be forwarded to EPA.
Dr. Gaylord identified several subjects where
NEJAC had expressed interest in having the
subcommittee address the following:
• Issues related to the implementation of the
Basel Convention
• Issues related to the environmental justice
platform recently adopted at the United
Nations (UN) Fourth Conference on
Women
During Dr. Gaylord's presentation, Ms. Patricia
Williams asked whether such federal agencies such
as the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) are now members of the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG).
Dr. Gaylord indicated USAID is now a member of
the IWG.
2.3 Introduction of Subcommittee Members
The members of the subcommittee introduced
themselves briefly and indicated the areas of the
subcommittee's responsibilities where their specific
interests were.
Ms. Williams commented that she previously had
worked at EPA's Office of Enforcement. She has
traveled extensively and always has been interested
in international environmental issues, she said.
Ms. Williams added that she is concerned
particularly about environmental issues as they
affect Africa. She observed that there appears to
be little interest within the United States to
examine the role of environmental issues in that
region.
Dr. Janet Phoenix explained that she is a physician
by training. She said she has worked in eastern
and central Europe on a variety of environmental
and safety issues. Dr. Phoenix declared that her
interest in serving on the subcommittee arose from
her observation that there are a number of
compelling environmental justice issues in places
other than the United States.
Mr. John O'Leary stated that he has been a
member of the NEJAC since its inception. He
said he has attended several international meetings
dealing with issues related to environmental
justice. He added that he also assisted in the
5-2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
drafting of legislation to establish in Bolivia a
Ministry of Sustainable Development, the first of
its kind hi the world. He stated he is interested hi
environmental justice issues as they apply to
multinational corporations and their environmental
practices overseas.
Dr. Mildred McClain said she has traveled
extensively throughout Africa and the Caribbean,
having lived for two years in Tanzania and six
years in Nicaragua. She said that, recently she
had escorted a group of children on a tour through
Africa which emphasized issues there that are
related to environmental justice.
Ms. Denise Ferguson-Southard said that she has
worked for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the EPA Office of Enforcement. She noted
that while at DOJ she worked hi civil and criminal
environmental enforcement, especially for cases
arising on the border of Texas and Mexico.
Currently, in her work with the Maryland
Department of Environment, she is evaluating the
potential effect on Maryland businesses of the
General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)
and the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).
Mr. John Borum said he hopes to bring a
corporate perspective to the members'
deliberations while also developing a greater
understanding of their concerns. He said he is
concerned about the ability of multinational
corporations to operate in countries that have little
or no regulatory infrastructure. He also stated that
he hopes to act as a sounding board for the
members regarding how corporations view
international issues related to environmental
justice.
Mr. Jose Bravo announced that he is one of the
authors of the New River Petition that resulted in
the largest single enforcement action taken by EPA
to date. Mr. Bravo expressed concern that
American firms abandon their operations hi
Mexico without performing cleanup necessitated
by those operations. Mr. Bravo also expressed
concern about ongoing nuclear weapons testing by
France.
When the members had completed their remarks,
Ms. McClain requested that a Native American
representative be included as a member of the
international subcommittee. Several members of
the subcommittee agreed, but the matter was tabled
to await the arrival of Mr. Velasquez.
3.0 PRESENTATIONS
Presentations given at the meeting acquainted the
members of the subcommittee with EPA's current
international environmental activities. Staff of
OIA, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA), the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), and the Office of
General Counsel (OGC), made presentations,
which are summarized below. Discussion of the
observations made and questions asked by the
members of the subcommittee follows the
summary of each presentation. In a few cases,
observers in the audience were given the
opportunity to ask questions or make observations;
those comments also are included.
3.1 Multilateral Environmental Policy
Initiatives
Mr. Paul Cough, Director of the Office of
International Environmental Policy, OIA, provided
an overview of the policy office and the issues and
organizations with which his office currently deals.
He explained that the policy office employs a staff
of 12, who are responsible for a range of
environmental issues and for coordinating EPA
involvement in the environmental activities of
international organizations. Some staff members
track various issues and assist other federal
agencies, such as the Department of State hi
formulating their positions on environmental
issues, he said. Mr. Cough noted that OIA
participates hi such issues as: trade policy,
transboundary shipments of hazardous waste as
governed under the Basel Convention;
transboundary and urban air pollution;
biodiversity; pesticides and toxic substances;
dumping of radioactive waste; environmental
security; and the development of codes of conduct
for environmental activities.
Mr. Daniel Magraw, Director of International
Law, EPA's OGC, provided a brief overview of
OGC's international activities. He reported that
currently, his office is assisting hi the development
of the framework for the Habitat II conference, to
5-3
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Multilateral Policy Initiatives
The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade
(GATT) is dedicated to harmonizing trade
among all the nations of the world.
The North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) is a recently approved agreement
among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to
lower trade barriers among the three
countries.
be held in Istanbul, Turkey in 1996, which will
focus on providing shelter for the needy, in both
urban and rural areas. Mr. Magraw identified the
themes of the meeting as enhancing sustainable
development, human health, ensuring public
participation, and developing follow-up
mechanisms.
Ms. Williams asked him to define environmental
security issues. Mr. Magraw noted that his office
considers environmental security to include issues
related to the cleanup of international military
bases that have been returned to host countries, as
well as environmental problems that can lead to
famine and civil and international wars.
Mr. O'Leary asked Mr. Cough to identify the
responsibilities of bis staff members. Mr. Cough
explained that each of the staff is responsible for
one or more of issues and organizations. Each
attends meetings as official representatives and
develops technical briefing documents in support
of official positions of the United States, he said.
In that manner, OIA can influence interagency
positions on various issues.
3.2 Environmental Justice and the United
Nations Fourth World Conference on
Women
Ms. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo discussed her
experience as a participant in the UN Fourth
World Conference on Women, held in Beijing,
China in 1995. Ms. Coleman-Adebayo indicated
that her presentation also would touch on her
recent trip to South Africa as part of the Gore-
M'Becki Commission. She also suggested that,
because of the large number of environmental
justice issues of international concern, the
members of the subcommittee and OIA staff
should consider then- relationship as an ongoing
dialogue.
She reported that at the Beijing conference, the
UN for the first time examined women's
relationship to the environment, including such
issues as then- right to reimbursement for the use
of their intellectual property, their relationship to
agriculture, and then- exposure to toxic chemicals.
Ms. Coleman-Adebayo stated that not only did the
EPA Task Force on Women draft the language
related to women and the environment, they were
able to include issues related to environmental
justice. The Task Force, which consists of men
and women representing every level and office of
EPA, met with a group of approximately 1,000
women to identify major environmental justice
issues that affect women. Drawing on the results
UN Fourth World Conference on Women
The United Nations (UN) Fourth World
Conference on Women: Action for
Equality, Development and Peace, was the
fourth conference on women the UN has
held in the past 20 years. While there have
been many advances in women's issues,
progress lags in many areas. The purpose
of the conference was to evaluate such
questions as:
• How much have these advances
improved the life of the average
woman?
• In view of the sustained social and
economic crises facing much of the
world today, just how deep is the
commitment of governments to
eliminating discrimination against
women?
The conference attempted to assess the
progress and the shortfalls of the past two
decades and identify action to be taken.
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
of that meeting, the Task Force prepared the
language for the section of the report on women
and the environment. The Task Force considered
internationalizing environmental justice one of its
crucial tasks. When Task Force members brought
up the issue of environmental justice planning in a
meeting for the conference the international
delegates demonstrated little understanding of the
issue. After the meeting, however, members of
the Task Force educated the delegates about issues
related to environmental justice. Eventually the
Task Force was successful in including a strong
definition of environmental justice hi the final
language.
Ms. Coleman-Adebayo explained that the inclusion
of the definition of environmental justice in an
official UN document has strong implications for
UN policy. Once such language is accepted by the
UN, it becomes official UN policy and people can
use that language in communicating their plight to,
and seeking redress through, the UN. Ms.
Coleman-Adebayo urged participants to "breathe
life" into the document by developing a series of
steps to implement the language in everyday
affairs.
Ms. Coleman-Adebayo reported that her recent
trip to South Africa as a member of the Gore-
M'Becki Commission, revealed a situation that is
complex. Although the political power is now in
the hands of the black majority, economic power
remains in the hands of the whites, she said,
adding that the economic plight of the blacks
persists. She also noted that disease, particularly
cholera, is a serious and continuing problem. She
added that internal political problems in the
squatter areas add to the seriousness of the
situation.
Ms. Coleman-Adebayo asserted that the problem
has arisen hi part because the African National
Congress (ANC) initially did not target the South
African Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism (DEAT) as an area for change. As a
result, she explained, DEAT has remained largely
in the hands of the managers and staff who served
under the previous government. The new
government therefore has been unable to get the
agency to act on behalf of the poor, she said.
Although some blacks who fled the country and
gamed environmental training outside South Africa
have returned, she said, few blacks have the
appropriate training to staff DEAT. She stated
that the Gore-M'Becki Commission sees the need
for training local people to assist in managing the
country's environmental problems.
Ms. Coleman-Adebayo also stated that the
Commission is taking steps to implement some of
the activities it has identified as priorities. Such
steps include working with USAID and local
businesses in a roundtable meeting to identify
resources and interests. The Commission also
plans to work with a group known as Earth Vision
to establish six Internet links between schools hi
Cleveland, Ohio and schools in several South
African townships and squatter areas. IBM
already has supplied the hardware for the effort
she noted. The Commission also is working to
establish sister cities programs between cities hi
the United States and South Africa.
Ms. Ferguson-Southard asked what is the extent of
the network of schools that the Commission works
with, while Dr. Phoenix added an inquiry about
whether the Commission is working with all
universities? Ms. Coleman-Adebayo responded
that the Commission works with most of the
historically black colleges and universities that
have strong science programs, including Tuskegee
University, Howard University, and the University
of the District of Columbia. Those and other
historically black schools became involved at the
request of the South African government, she said.
A group of fishermen from the Caribbean also had
been brought to South Africa to assist in
developing local fishing techniques, added Ms.
Coleman-Adebayo.
Dr. McClain suggested the Commission investigate
the possibility of using grassroots organizations
and examine the capabilities of using smaller
schools such as Savannah State College hi
Georgia. Dr. McClain also asked what other
federal agencies the Commission works with. Ms.
Coleman-Adebayo responded that members of the
Commission met with Secretary Hazel O'Leary of
the Department of Energy (DOE) while they were
in South Africa. The Department of Interior
(DOI) also is a major sponsor of the Commission.
Ms. Coleman-Adebayo explained that two
members of the Commission are EPA staff and the
other members represent nongovernmental
5-5
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
organizations (NGO). Dr. McClain observed that
there is some distinction between community
organizations and NGOs. Ms. Coleman-Adebayo
responded that both are needed, and added that
Ms. McClain could communicate to her any
interest of serving on the Commission.
Dr. Phoenix asked what other initiatives had been
identified by the Commission. Ms. Coleman-
Adebayo stated that the issues include bridging the
data gap in the area of women's environmental
health issues and including women as decision
makers in community empowerment.
Mr. Bravo was interested in knowing who
developed the language for the Beijing document.
He expressed concern about the use of the word
"disproportionate" which, he said, does not
translate well into many languages. Ms. Coleman-
Adebayo acknowledged Mr. Bravo's concern and
explained that the word had been used to indicate
that poverty is too highly concentrated in a given
area, not that poverty should be more evenly
distributed.
Ms. Coleman-Adebayo noted that the lack of funds
is a major barrier to achieving the Commission's
goals. Ms. Coleman-Adebayo stated that the
Commission so far had been able to raise $90,000
and was attempting to obtain an additional $50,000
to $100,000 from USAID. Ms. Coleman-Adebayo
estimated that five to ten million dollars would be
needed to fund necessary activities.
Ms. Ferguson-Southard asked whether the
Commission was attempting to find money from
multinational sources. Ms. Coleman-Adebayo
responded that South Africa specifically had
rejected the World Bank as a source of funds;
however, the Commission was talking with such
organizations as the UN Development Program
(UNDP) and UN Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO).
Mr. O'Leary asked which members would be
interested in joining the Commission, representing
their own organizations. When all members
indicated interest, Ms. Coleman-Adebayo stated
that the next meeting of the Commission was
scheduled for June 1996 hi Washington, D.C. She
pledged to keep the members of the subcommittee
updated.
3.3 Enforcement on the International Front
Mr. Michael Alushin, Director of EPA's
International Enforcement Program, OECA,
reported that the charter of his division is to assist
other countries in implementing enforcement
programs, whether through the development of
regulations or by providing training hi enforcement
methodologies.
Mr. Alushin outlined the work the division is
doing to address issues related to enforcement
policy along the United States and Mexico border.
He described the border as a magnet for poor
people in search of jobs because of the rapid
industrialization on both sides of the border.
Dealing with the influx of people, he said, is one
area in which his division has been able to assist
states hi developing enforcement strategies to assist
the people living hi colonias and by awarding
funds from NAFTA. Such grants, made to various
state attorneys general, have been used to fund
task forces that investigate zoning and health issues
and the enforcement of regulations related to
zoning, allowing the residents better access to
potable water and adequate sewer systems.
Mr. Alushin stated that EPA and Mexico have
established a formal work group to foster
cooperation in enforcement, in part as a result of
the La Paz Agreement, signed in 1983. The
agreement covers issues related to air pollution,
water pollution, and enforcement. Through the
work group, EPA works with civil authorities in
Mexico on enforcement issues and pursues training
and capacity building opportunities with Mexico.
The division also is working with customs agents
of both Mexico and the United States to develop
programs to tram agents to recognize hazardous
waste shipments and deal with such shipments on
both sides of the border.
Mr. Alushin added that the government of Mexico
recently agreed to establish work groups in several
border locations to help identify problems and
issues that affect the interests of both countries.
He asked the subcommittee provide
recommendations about ways to help strengthen
the division's program hi this area.
5-6
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Turning his attention to voluntary compliance
programs, Mr. Alushin stated that the division has
sent letters to numerous companies of the United
States that operate maquilladora facilities in
Mexico. The letters encourage American parent
companies to assist their facilities in Mexico to
achieve compliance with Mexican regulations, he
said. The division also is developing for
distribution to the maquilladora facilities, videos
demonstrating pollution prevention activities.
Mr. Alushin pointed out that the division also has
developed a course on conducting multimedia
inspections. The course is designed to train
inspectors in Mexico on the particular processes
that they are to inspect. The training program is
especially important, he said, because in Mexico,
the inspector is the key enforcement person.
Mexico's inspectors, he added, have considerably
greater authority than their counterparts in the
United States. A course in sampling techniques
also is planned, he concluded.
Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Bravo asked what action
OECA could take to alleviate the problems in
which a smelter operation had been abandoned by
its American parent company. Mr. Bravo stated a
particular interest in the public right to know in
such situations, especially about the shipment of
waste.
Mr. Alushin responded that there was little the
United States could do directly. He suggested that
OECA might be able to provide assistance to Peru
as a follow-up under legal and enforcement
programs that resulted from agreements reached
during the Summit of the Americas (SOA). OECA
could assist the Peruvian government in the
development of new regulations or new
enforcement policies, he added. Ms. Koshel stated
that the American embassy in Peru should be
aware of such a situation; she added that USAID
conducts a pollution prevention program in Peru
under which the smelter might obtain assistance.
Mr. Cough commented, however, that little could
be done directly, since Peru is a sovereign
country. He further stated that this single incident
was covered by the media but that thousands of
such incidents probably occur around the world.
He stated that in the long term, the adoption of
ISO 14,000 will help eliminate such problems,
along with encouraging multinational corporations
to set high environmental standards for all of their
facilities, no matter where they are located.
Responding to Mr. Bravo's comments about
community right-to-know, Mr. Alushin stated that
the issue of public access to information is key in
Mexico. He observed that the Mexican authorities
do not share information as openly as do United
States federal agencies because the government of
Mexico bars the publication of the name of any
corporation about which it has adverse
information. The names of firms that have
compliance problems cannot be released to the
public. Mr. Alushin stated that the best hope of
resolving the issue is through the development of
trilateral NAFTA negotiations. That statement
produced an immediate reaction from Mr.
Velasquez, who asked if Mr. Alushin was
implying that it is not possible to publish the
names of Mexican companies that have compliance
problems. Mr. Alushin replied, "Yes."
Mr. Borum asked what information is available
from EPA about such international compliance
problems. Mr. Alushin responded that Mexico has
been very reluctant to share data, precisely
because the United States makes such data more
widely available to the public than does Mexico.
OECA, he said, would evaluate the release of data
case by case. Mr. Sperling added that, in Mexico,
government officials have been jailed for making
public the names of companies that have
compliance or odier legal problems. He stated that
the law governing the naming companies in public
recently has been changed, but that government
officials are still interpreting cases in light of the
old law. There may be some changes, he added,
when Mexico's new ecology law becomes final.
Such changes might then allow disclosure of the
names of firms that have compliance problems.
Mr. O'Leary then suggested that there may be
other approaches to encourage compliance among
U.S. multinational corporations. He stated that
EPA could work with various international
governments to help them implement or strengthen
their laws. However, he noted that such an
approach takes tune. Another approach he
suggested is to deal directly with corporations,
spotlighting both those companies "doing it right"
and companies "doing it wrong."
5-7
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Alushin quickly embraced both suggestions
and promised to take them up with other staff in
OECA. He stated that the subcommittee and
OECA should be advocates for the rest of the
world. He added, however, that the major
problem in gaining support for such an approach
is the continued downsizing of EPA and the belief
of some in the United States that we should clean
up our own problems before helping the rest of the
world. He suggested that many nations, including
South Africa, countries in eastern Europe, and
others, need help in both setting and enforcing
standards. He added that he must, in part, work
within the limits of U.S. foreign policy interests.
He further added that an effective way to
maximize the effectiveness of the subcommittee's
actions was to attempt to tie such actions to foreign
policy.
Mr. Bravo expressed a desire to understand how
foreign policy affects Mr. Alushin's division,
asking specifically whether there must be a foreign
policy mandate before work can be done. Dr.
Phoenix suggested that, if the office can respond
only to foreign policy interests, most of Africa will
be overlooked because, he said, U.S. foreign
policy does not recognize issues in Africa as
important.
Mr. Alushin said that EPA can and does go
beyond the priorities for foreign policy. One
means by which members could expand activities,
he said, would be implementation of a section of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
which encourages the United States to assist other
countries.
Ms. Pat Koshel, OIA, added that, traditionally at
OIA, the concern had been to address issues along
the United States borders with Mexico and
Canada. However, she stated that over the past
five years, OIA had become more involved in
environmental issues affecting eastern Europe,
South America, and the Caribbean. Ms. Koshel
added that more work will be done in the
Caribbean. Her office, she said, is always eager
to provide information to anyone who requests it.
She acknowledged that it is more difficult to
provide actual assistance because of budget
constraints.
Dr. Phoenix then asked whether Mexico was
making an effort to implement ISO 14,000. Mr.
Sperling stated that at a recent intergovernmental
conference in which Canada, the United States,
and Mexico participated, representatives from
Mexico expressed interest and concern related to
the effects ISO 14,000 registration might have on
small and medium-size firms. All three
governments have general questions about how to
"embrace the process;" they agreed to continue to
explore the issues related to implementation of ISO
14,000.
3.4 Panel Discussion on Bilateral and
Trilateral Affairs in North America
Ms. Koshel; Ms. Pam Teel, U.S.-Mexico
Program, OIA; and Ms. Lena Nirk, DFO for the
NAFTA environmental advisory committee;
comprised the panel which discussed bilateral and
trilateral affairs in North America.
Ms. Koshel started the discussion by staling that
OIA conducts projects all over the world but that
its primary focus is Canada and Mexico. The
United States, she said, has had a long relationship
with Canada and Mexico in the area of
environmental activities.
Ms. Koshel reported that poverty rates on the
Mexico and United States border are the highest in
United States. She indicated that, in an attempt to
combat problems associated with such poverty,
EPA has allocated $100 million for water
infrastructure projects on the border and $50
million for projects in the colonias. The projects
are conducted under the border plan developed by
OIA and issued in 1992, she explained.
Dr. Phoenix was interested in enforcement
mechanisms for the countries of firms violating the
agreement. Ms. Nirk stated that the North
American Commission on Environmental
Cooperation (NACEC) suggests ways to address
violations, adding that any citizen or country can
file a complaint against an individual country for
failure to enforce a particular country's
environmental regulations. Mr. Borum pursued
that subject, asking what consequences result when
a firm loses a case. Ms. Koshel stated that, were
Mexico to lose such a case, trade sanctions would
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
be employed; if Canada were to lose a case, she
added, fines would be levied.
Ms. Teel then discussed the International Border
Environmental Plan, which was in effect from
1992 until 1995. The plan will be replaced by the
new Border 21 Plan, which is intended to operate
until 2020. She discussed the criticisms levied
against the original plan, including its short-term
nature, its failure to establish sustainable
development as a goal, the lack of public
participation hi developing the plan, and the lack
of interagency coordination. The original plan,
currently is being updated to take environmental
activities on the border into the next century. She
explained that, in response to complaints about the
manner hi which the first plan was developed,
public participation hi the development of the
Border 21 Plan has been extensive. A draft of the
plan is scheduled to be released hi March 1996.
Mr. Velasquez asked what land of work OIA was
doing hi the agricultural sector hi Mexico, and
whether OIA was engaged hi any efforts outside of
Mexico. Ms. Koshel responded that OIA had done
some agricultural work hi Mexico, most of it
related to air pollution associated with pesticide
spray ing operations. OIA is interested hi doing
more work in the agricultural sectors, she said.
She added that, outside Mexico, there has been a
little more activity. US AID had provided funds to
train exporters of South American fruit and
vegetables on pesticide residue levels and the
acceptance of the produce by the United States.
OIA also has worked on issues related to pesticide
disposal hi Africa, she said.
Mr. Sperling indicated that OECA also had a
"keen awareness" of pesticide issues and has
provided training on end-use requirements for
pesticides in Mexico. He stated that the major
problem in increasing involvement hi pesticide
issues is that the states, rather than the federal
government, have authority over most pesticide
use. Ms. Koshel added that USAID is interested
hi the issues and had funded training for field
application techniques for pesticides.
Noting that such agricultural issues appear to be
pertinent to the foreign policy concerns of the
United States, Mr. Velasquez asked why EPA does
not exhibit greater concern about them. Ms.
Koshel replied that there had not been much
activity, but that she would provide the members
of the subcommittee with a list of the cases that do
exist. Mr. Sperling indicated that Mexico has
expressed concern about the drift of pesticides
across the border from the United States and has
admitted to the existence of similar problems hi
Mexico. He also stated that OECA is working
with the states to develop end-use standards for
exposure of workers and is encouraging
representatives of the Mexican government to join
in that effort.
Ms. Ferguson-Southard pointed out that EPA does
have some authority under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Practically
speaking, she continued, there is more than
adequate federal authority over issues related to
non-point source pollution from pesticides.
Mr. Velasquez stated that there is much resistance
to enforcement of the current Worker Protection
Standards hi the United States. He added that,
whatever the policies are, they should be made
relevant to the people hi need of the protection —
the poor. Without that focus, he stated, "there is
nothing to deliberate." Mr. Velasquez recalled a
recent trip to Nogales, New Mexico, during which
he and several members of Congress were told by
representatives of EPA, the U.S. Border Patrol,
and the U.S. Customs Department, that "the laws
are written to protect the rich." He added that
there is no incentive hi this country to protect the
people at the bottom. Mr. Valasquez stated
further that, when negotiations are conducted with
Mexico about such issues, it would be wise to
involve grassroots organizers in the negotiations.
Ms. Koshel replied that OIA is continuing to get
down to lower levels hi its work.
Ms. Teel agreed to provide the members with
copies of the first draft of the Border 21 Plan
when it is released.
3.5 Update on the Basel Convention
Ms. Denise Wright, International and Special
Projects Branch of OSWER, spoke about EPA's
work with the Basel Convention on the
Transboundary Transport of Hazardous Waste and
Their Disposal. Ms. Wright explained that the
5-9
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
United States has signed but not yet ratified the
convention, which provides a framework for
managing the transportation of hazardous wastes
from one country to another. Ms. Wright reported
that OSWER provides technical support to the
Department of State, which plays the lead role in
negotiating the treaty. OSWER staff attend
technical meetings and have been very active in
the drafting of the technical annexes to the
document, she said.
The Basel Convention on the
Transboundary Transport of Hazardous
Waste and Their Disposal
The Basel Convention on the Transboundary
Transport of Hazardous Waste and Their
Disposal is an international treaty to which
more than 20 nations are party. Under the
terms of the Convention, those parties must
ban the import and export of hazardous
wastes from and to countries that are not
party to the Convention, unless such
shipments are covered by other agreements
between those countries.
The Convention includes a ban in certain
cases on the transportation of hazardous
wastes across international boundaries. The
Convention also requires notice of the
shipment and consent on the part of the
country to which the waste is being sent.
The Convention also provides for regional
and sub-regional training centers.
Ms. Wright explained that the main reason the
United States has not yet ratified the Convention is
that the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), which is the regulatory vehicle through
which the convention would be implemented,
regulates the export of hazardous waste but does
not provide regulations stringent enough to meet
the requirements of the Convention. Another
reason, she added, is that RCRA does not regulate
the management of household wastes, which also
are covered by the Convention.
Dr. Phoenix inquired whether a process exists to
ensure that the waste shipped actually arrives at its
destination. Ms. Wright responded that there are
always ways to circumvent the manifesting
process. Dr. McClain then asked who inspects the
wastes that are being shipped. Ms. Wright
indicated that each country is responsible for
inspections of waste in transit. When Mr.
Velasquez asked what regulations provide for
oversight of hazardous waste, Ms. Wright replied
that, within the United States, RCRA governs such
matters.
Dr. McClain commented that, while in Senegal,
she had observed that the Exxon Corporation
generates and improperly disposes of hazardous
waste. She asked what authority EPA had to deal
with such situations -- that is, how Senegal could
request help from EPA and whether EPA has a
responsibility in that area. Ms. Wright responded
that regulations of the United States do not apply
to operations hi other countries. However, she
added, EPA could provide assistance to the
government of Senegal under the terms of the
Basel Convention. Mr. Sperling related that EPA
has provided similar assistance to the government
of Mexico and wishes to assist all countries
through technical cooperation.
Mr. O'Leary noted that the Human Rights Treaty
signed hi either 1990 or 1991 includes provisions
for environmental justice. He asked whether the
provisions of that treaty can be applied in cases
such as that of Senegal. Ms. Wright answered
that, because she is unaware of the provisions of
the treaty, she could not comment. Ms. Frigerrio
responded that she would provide a copy of the
treaty to the members.
Dr. Phoenix raised the issue of where waste being
imported to the United States originates and where
hi the United States it ultimately is disposed. Ms.
Wright responded that most of such waste comes
from Canada and Mexico and that, if it is
hazardous, it must be disposed of in a RCRA
facility. She pointed out that, except hi a very few
cases, neither RCRA nor the Basel Convention
covers radioactive waste.
3.6 Follow-up Initiatives to the Summit of the
Americas
Mr. Paul Almeida, OIA's Latin America Program,
spoke about environmental justice issues in Latin
America. He introduced himself, explaining that
5-10
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
he had worked on environmental issues for the
Summit of the Americas (SOA), held in Miami,
Florida hi 1994.
Mr. Almeida said that the Summit had produced
an action plan that included 23 items in three
broad categories: free trade, sustainable
democracy, and sustainable development. To
address the environmental aspects of the three
categories, he said, OIA developed the Western
Hemisphere Integration Team (WHIT), which
identified as its goals, the major points of
sustainable development: economic viability,
environmental soundness, and social responsibility.
Mr. Almeida then described some of the projects
on which his group is working:
• In Mexico, as part of the NAFTA process,
staff from EPA, the states located along the
joint border of the United States and
Mexico, and the government of Mexico, are
using public participation techniques to help
identify the needs of people living hi border
areas.
• Another working group has been established
in Central America to harmonize those
countries' environmental laws to facilitate
trade among them. OIA is assisting that
working group by providing technical
assistance and conducting community
demonstration projects.
• OIA also has provided to Chile several
technical assistance groups to assist that
country.
Mr. Almeida went on to describe a recent meeting
in San Juan, Puerto Rico, where 23 Latin
American and Caribbean countries discussed
"where they were environmentally." Some of the
areas they discussed included lead in gasoline,
drinking-water quality, pesticide management, and
sustainable tourism.
Mr. Almeida commented that, because of budget
constraints, the group currently had no other
projects. He added that most of EPA's work had
been conducted in cooperation with US AID. The
group has identified four additional projects and is
attempting to interest multinational lenders in
funding them, he added.
Observing that sustainable development had been
moving forward hi Latin America but that
environmental justice is not progressing, Mr.
O'Leary asked what is being done to introduce
concepts of environmental justice into the dialogue
about development. Mr. Almeida responded that
environmental justice issues are becoming more
important and that NGOs are beginning to
emphasize them. He added that, since WHIT had
made social responsibility one of its goals,
environmental justice would begin to play a more
important role hi all OIA's activities in the western
hemisphere.
Mr. O'Leary stated mat EPA should include more
forcefully environmental justice hi all its
international efforts. Mr. Almeida responded that
he believes OIA is very receptive to doing so, but
he requested specific examples that the office
might focus on. He added a suggestion that the
work the office was doing on the border involved
environmental justice issues.
A member of the audience, Dr. Abigail Jahiel of
the Center for Energy and Environmental Biology
at the University of Delaware, suggested that, hi
the case of marine parks, tourists might have an
even greater negative effect on reef ecosystems
than the fishermen who necessarily would be
excluded from such areas. She stated her concern
about who would be selected to operate such parks
and whether the process of awarding of those
concessions would be equitable.
Mr. Velasquez asked how fishermen might have a
negative effect on a reef ecosystem. Mr. Almeida
answered that fisherman were excluded because
they might overfish the resource. Ms. Ferguson-
Southard suggested that, when the project on
carrying capacity begins, EPA might wish to
investigate work done on the Chesapeake Bay.
3.7 Progress on Lead Phaseout
Ms. Michelle Keene, the point of contact for the
International Lead Initiative in OIA, discussed
EPA's programs and activities in this area. Ms.
Keene began by stating that over the past two
years there has been significant global support for
TJl
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
lead risk reduction and that much of this
momentum can be attributed to Administrator
Browner's efforts and strong interest in this issue.
She stated that EPA launched its lead risk
reduction work at the meeting of the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development hi Spring
1994, where Administrator Browner called for a
global phaseout of lead in gasoline. Ms. Keene
continued by stating that at the SOA held in
December 1994, thirty-four heads of State
committed to develop action plans to phase lead
out of gasoline in the Western Hemisphere.
Subsequent to these commitments, EPA and the
Mexican Environment Ministry co-hosted an
international workshop on phasing lead out of
gasoline in the Spring 1995. Ms. Keen explained
that this workshop brought together over twenty-
five government officials from developing
countries to share information and focus on
specific obstacles and successes in achieving lead
phaseouts.
Ms. Keene went on to explain that EPA currently
is working with several countries and regions on
their lead risk reduction efforts, including Latin
America and the Caribbean, China and Asia,
Egypt, Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and
Canada. In addition, EPA is pursuing its lead risk
reduction agenda in an international forum,
including the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development, and the
UN Economic Commission for Europe. She said
that EPA's efforts seek to develop the capabilities
of policy makers to identify options that eliminate
the use of lead, while also identifying appropriate
lead substitutes that contribute to the improvement
of local and global air quality. Ms. Keene
explained that EPA's approach stresses cooperation
and participation of all stakeholders, including
government, industry, and the public to ensure
success hi reaching the goal of lead risk reduction.
In addition Ms. Keene stated that EPA's lead risk
reduction efforts include reducing lead from major
sources including emissions from smelters and
manufacturing facilities, drinking water, paint,
food containers, ceramics, and crystal ware.
However, she continued, much of the work has
been focused on lead hi gasoline—most often the
largest single source of lead exposure. Ms. Keene
also said that OIA is working with international
financial institutions to assist in identifying
financing that is necessary for changes in industry
to make the conversion to unleaded gasoline.
Specifically, EPA and other federal agencies are
working with the World Bank and governments in
Latin America and the Caribbean to create a
project that will assist hi the development of
national action plans to phase lead out of gasoline
hi the Americas. Ms. Keene said that EPA
expects countries to report their progress, as a
result of such efforts, at the Bolivia Summit on
Sustainable Development in 1996. Mr. Bravo
stated that EPA might focus on identifying what
opportunities exist hi other countries and regions
with whom we have trade agreements. Mr.
Velasquez asked whether the use of funds from the
World Bank for regulatory development programs
produces a conflict of interest for EPA. Ms.
Keene responded that EPA does not consider it to
be a conflict of interest for EPA but rather an
opportunity to leverage resources and to assist hi
program development.
Dr. McClain asked whether similar efforts have
been undertaken hi Africa. Ms. Keene responded
that currently there is not a program on lead risk
reduction underway hi Africa, largely due to the
lack of funds for EPA to work hi this region. Ms.
Keene explained that EPA receives funds from
USAID hi the form of an inter-agency agreement
to develop programs hi Central and Eastern
Europe, Russia and Asia, and without funding it is
difficult to effectively implement a program. Ms.
Keene added that the lack of funds does not
preclude EPA from promoting lead risk reduction
at the policy level. Dr. McClain suggested that
OIA initiate a program in Africa. Dr. Phoenix
then observed that Africa seems to have been
ignored by the United States.
4.0 SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Mr. Velasquez opened the session by saying he
hoped to use it to develop the thoughts of the
members about the purpose of the subcommittee
and its goals. Mr. Velasquez stated that, despite
the briefings by the EPA staff about the amount of
activity on the border, he has seen little change
over time. He stated that EPA should focus its
efforts on certain industrial, agricultural, or rural-
urban issues.
5-12
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Mr. O'Leary stated his belief in the need to define
EPA's role in the extra-territorial conduct of
United States multinational corporations, especially
in light of such incidents as the smelter in Peru,
problems in Peru related to pesticide applications,
and pollution of a river in Guyana by runoff from
a mine. He added that he believes that EPA
should develop a way to influence multinational
corporations to behave in a more moral manner.
Dr. McClain added that another example of
problems caused by multinational corporations is
the problem in Senegal caused by Exxon. Ms.
Ferguson-Southard suggested that EPA might wish
to focus on forging links between governments and
communities. Dr. McClain likened such links to
public participation. She stated that, in Dakar,
Senegal, neighborhood organizers are attempting
to find ways to develop partnerships with the
companies in their communities. Dr. McClain
voiced concern about whether there is a need to
identify issues more clearly. She cited as an
example the continued export to Senegal of
pesticides that have been banned hi the United
States.
Mr. Bravo then expressed concern about the
possible involvement of EPA staff in immigration
issues that effect the colonias. He stated that EPA
staff should investigate this allegation. Mr. Bravo
asked when the focus will shift from holding
meetings to implementing activities. Finally, he
strongly stated emphatically his belief that lack of
resources and failure to use resources effectively to
implement ideas are real problems.
The members developed a list of subjects of
interest to the subcommittee, recorded in the flip
charts. The subcommittee agreed to evaluate the
following:
• Encourage partnerships between
corporations and communities
• Foster government-to-local community links
• Ensure the effective use of resources and
evaluate the consequences of lack thereof
• Contribute to upcoming international
initiatives for incorporation of
environmental justice in the development of
conference agendas
• Clarify links between U.S. domestic and
international efforts
• Determine what resources are dedicated by
agencies (odier than EPA) to international
environmental justice issues
• Propose that EPA include an environmental
justice standard in their policy input to
multilateral institutions through NET AC
• Establish a mechanism for dialogue with the
Department of Labor to address issues
related to the protection of foreign workers
• Propose that technical assistance requests
made to EPA by other federal agencies
(related to environmental justice issues) go
through NEJAC
• Effect change hi the extra-territorial conduct
of U.S. companies
• Incorporate inclusion of environmental
justice language into negotiation of
environmental management standards, such
as ISO 14,000
The subcommittee agreed that a working group
(consisting of Dr. McClain, Dr. Phoenix and Mr.
Velasquez) will develop a purpose statement and
priority goals for the subcommittee to review.
Mr. Velasquez stated that the group use the
Enforcement Subcommittee's statement as a basis
for its work. Also approved unanimously was that
members of the working group will report to the
subcommittee at the next meeting of the NEJAC.
Mr. O'Leary asked how EPA can foster the
inclusion of issues related to environmental justice
into the agendas for the Habitat II and the follow-
up meetings for the SOA. Dr. McClain stated her
belief that there is a need to articulate the links
between domestic and international issues. Dr.
Phoenix said she believes that the committee must
have access to other federal agencies to perform its
work. She believes there is a need to address the
"disconnect" between EPA and other agencies.
Mr. Velasquez then suggested that the
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
subcommittee recommend that "requests that deal
with environmental justice issues by other federal
agencies to EPA should go through NET AC." He
further suggested that EPA include a standard of
environmental justice when it comments on policy
input for multinational funding agencies. Mr.
Borum made the suggestion that language related
to environmental justice be inserted into the ISO
14,000 standards.
Mr. Velasquez stated a concern about the
movement of foreign workers into areas in which
potential risk is high. He recommended
establishment of a mechanism for dialogue with the
U.S. Department of Labor to address issues related
to the protection of foreign workers.
Mr. O'Leary suggested that the members also
might wish to concentrate on evaluating and
discussing the Basel Convention. Mr. O'Leary
also expressed interest in knowing what resources
other agencies dedicate to issues of environmental
justice.
A member of the audience, Mr. Khalil Abdullah of
the National Caucus of Black State Legislators,
stated that he thought telecommunications would
be a key to environmental justice issues, especially
in Africa, where there is very little access to
Internet data. Mr. Abdullah said that effective
telecommunications is crucial to the success in
addressing environmental justice issues. He also
stated his belief that states can play a role in
generating greater attention on an international
level.
Mr. Bravo distributed copies of language proposed
for a recommendation against continued nuclear
testing by France. Dr. McClain requested that the
language be amended to include a ban on testing in
Africa and the members agreed. Dr. Phoenix
asked whether EPA could have any influence on
that subject. Mr. Bravo stated that concerns of
that type can be included as environmental justice
issues. The members voted unanimously to
forward the amended recommendation to the full
NEJAC council.
Mr. Velasquez brought to the floor a request from
the International Indian Treaty Council that Mr.
Bill Simmons be included as a member of the
subcommittee. Mr. Bravo stated that the
Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee also had
requested that he be nominated. The members
voted unanimously to request resumes for further
consideration.
Mr. Bravo reported that many individuals present
at the downlink from Puerto Rico could not be
accommodated because of time constraints. He
recommended "some sort of follow-up" with those
individuals.
Mr. Velasquez stated that the report to the NEJAC
Executive Council would consist of the areas to be
included in the purpose statement. He then
scheduled a conference call for the last week of
February 1996.
5-14
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 13 and 14, 1995
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Robert
Designa
ederal Official
Peggy Saika
Chair
-------
CHAPTER SIX
MEETING OF THE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
AND ACCOUNTABILITY SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Public Participation and Accountability
Subcommittee of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) conducted a
two-day meeting on Wednesday and Thursday,
December 13 and 14, 1995, during a three-day
meeting of the NEJAC in Washington, D.C.
During a meeting of the Executive Council on
December 12, 1995, Ms. Peggy Saika was
reelected to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. Robert Knox, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Office of Environmental Justice
(OEJ), continues to serve as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) for the subcommittee.
This chapter, which provides a detailed discussion
of the deliberations of the Public Participation and
Accountability Subcommittee, is organized into
eight sections, including this Introduction. Section
2.0, Remarks, summarizes the remarks provided
by the subcommittee members, as well as
observers present during the meeting. Section 3.0,
Work Plan, contains a summary of the discussions
related to the development of a work plan for the
subcommittee. Section 4.0, Improving the Public
Participation Process, focuses on the discussions
about the role of the subcommittee in the process,
changes to the model for public participation, and
suggestions to institutionalize the process for
public participation. Section 5.0, RCRA Final
Rule, focuses on eliciting comments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
final rule. Section 6.0, EPA Grant Process,
contains a discussion of funding inequities within
the EPA grant programs. The section also
contains a summary of the presentation about the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
research project on strategies for community
participation. Section 7.0, General Concerns,
describes the discussions about improving the
effectiveness and visibility of the subcommittee.
Section 8.0, Resolutions, includes a list of the
resolutions proposed by the subcommittee.
Table 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 13 - 14, 1995
Mr. Robert Knox, DFO
Ms. Peggy Saika, Chair*
Ms. Dolores Herrera
Mr. Lawrence G. Hurst
Mr. Haywood Turrentine*
Dr. Beverly Wright
List of Members
Who Did Not Attend
Mr. Domingo Gonzales
Mr. Dune Lankard
Hon. Salomon Rondon-Tollens
*attended December 13, 1995 only
2.0 REMARKS
Ms. Saika, Chair of the Public Participation and
Accountability Subcommittee, opened the meeting
by welcoming the new and veteran members of the
subcommittee, as well as Mr. Knox, Deputy
Director of OEJ and the DFO for the
subcommittee. Now in her second year of service
on NEJAC, Ms. Saika said she enjoys the
opportunity to serve on the subcommittee. She
briefly discussed the importance of accountability,
and acknowledged that there remain some things
the subcommittee must accomplish. Table 1
presents a list of members who attended the
6-7
-------
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
meeting and identifies those members who were
unable to attend.
2.1 Introduction of Members
Ms. Saika asked each of the members present to
introduce themselves:
• Ms. Dolores Herrera spoke briefly about
her background in socioenvironmental
areas. Noting that there are two Superfund
sites located in her community, Ms. Herrera
emphasized that community work is her
focus. In her second year as a member of
NEJAC, Ms. Herrera stated that she finds
participation on the NEJAC a challenging
and unique experience and added that the
national environmental justice program is
new to her.
• Dr. Beverly Wright discussed her
background and experience as a sociologist
and stated that she has conducted research
in the area of environmental justice for die
past 15 years. She noted that she is the
founder of and serves as the director of the
Deep South Center for Environmental
Justice at Xavier University for the past
three years. Also in her second year as a
member of NEJAC, Dr. Wright stated that
she also lives hi a community affected by
environmental justice issues.
• Mr. Haywood Turrentine opened his
remarks by stating that he is a two-year
appointee to NEJAC, representing die
Laborers-AGC Education and Training
Fund. He discussed his involvement in
providing education and training
opportunities for members of low-income
communities. He concluded his remarks by
mentioning that he has taken to task the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and other federal
agencies for their failure to comply with
Tide VI of the Civil Rights Act.
• Mr. Lawrence Hurst stated that, as a
representative of the Business Network for
Environmental Justice, he is committed to
bringing die business community into the
environmental justice field, but
acknowledged the reluctance of many
representatives of business and industry to
attend public meetings. His goal, he stated,
is to build tools and methods for industry
diat will encourage its representatives to
become more involved hi the community
and to understand the importance of public
participation to their neighboring
communities.
2.2 Introduction of Observers
When the members finished dieir introductions,
Ms. Saika requested that those individuals in
attendance who were not members of the
subcommittee also introduce diemselves:
• Ms. Renee Goins, OEJ, stated that she is an
environmental protection specialist for EPA
who has budget responsibilities for, and
administers, the EPA Environmental Justice
Grant program and EPA's agencywide
intern program.
• Ms. Delta Pereira, OEJ, briefly commented
on a recent trip to Chile and die enthusiastic
response in Chile to the model for public
participation.
• Dr. Gerry Ppje, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),
talked about his involvement in coordinating
minority health programs at the National
Institutes of Health (NTH). Referring to his
participation in die Interagency Public
Meeting on Environmental Justice held
January 1995, he reported diat he hopes to
participate hi the current NEJAC meeting,
particularly in discussions of opportunities
to incorporate the model for public
participation. He noted that in his work he
focuses on research, education, and policy
issues.
The members of die subcommittee invited the
observers to participate hi die deliberations of die
subcommittee. Otiier observers who attended
portions of die subcommittee meeting included Dr.
Clarice Gaylord, Director of OEJ.
6-2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
3.0 WORK PLAN
Subcommittee members discussed plans for
specific projects to be under-taken by the
subcommittee. Ms. Saika began the discussion of
the work plan with a request for a list of items to
be included in the document. Her goal, she
emphasized, was to complete a work plan by the
end of the morning session. Several highlights of
the discussion included (1) a general
acknowledgement that public participation is a
cross-cutting issue, (2) an expression of the desire
to establish improved coordination among the
subcommittees of the NEJAC, and (3) a
recognition of the need to pursue additional
involvement with other federal agencies.
Dr. Wright specifically recommended joint
meetings be conducted with the other
subcommittees. Agreeing, Ms. Saika went on to
emphasize the need to reaffirm with all the
subcommittees the cross-cutting aspect of public
participation.
Mr. Turrentine echoed an earlier comment by Mr.
Hurst about the need to train EPA staff to better
understand and facilitate environmental justice
issues and meetings. Dr. Wright also agreed, but
pointed out that representatives of EPA are more
likely to understand environmental justice issues
than representatives of other federal agencies. She
added that, based on her experience,
representatives of NIEHS would rank second in
terms of their familiarity with environmental
justice.
Dr. Poje reiterated an earlier recommendation to
establish coordination among the subcommittees.
He offered to carry forward any messages to
future meetings of personnel of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
about coordination among federal agencies and
NEJAC subcommittees. Ms. Saika agreed that
more involvement with other federal agencies is a
crucial issue.
Mr. Hurst also commented that "NEJAC-like"
councils are being established all over the country,
but they have less expertise and experience than
NEJAC, he noted. He suggested that NEJAC
develop a plan that is saleable to all states so the
process need not be reinvented. He added that
NEJAC provides a "marvelous opportunity" to
develop a model to sell to all state agencies.
Mr. Hurst also suggested that the subcommittee
consider developing a professional development
course, planning a forum (for example, in the
southwestern United States), and securing funding
from states and other sources to bring people
together to teach them how to use the model. Dr.
Poje agreed and acknowledged that federal
agencies must build external partnerships to
establish a forum in which to discuss these issues.
Ms. Herrera inquired about the follow-up activities
agreed to at the last meeting of NEJAC. Dr.
Gaylord then suggested that the subcommittee
address the issue of accountability and make
specific recommendations to NEJAC. The
subcommittee should think about how to ensure
that NEJAC follows up on issues raised by
commentors, she stated. She also asked how
NEJAC holds the EPA regions accountable for
follow-up. Dr. Wright reiterated the importance
of providing response because the questions asked,
she believes, are very important.
The members of the subcommittee agreed to
include the following subjects in the work plan:
• Enhance training programs for government
employees
• Implementation of a pilot project:
(Proposed locations and sponsors include
Puerto Rico, NIEHS, the Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice
(IWG), other NEJAC subcommittees, and
OEJ)
• Use of satellite downlinks
• Improve the functionality of the model for
public participation:
Identify customers
Identify potential stakeholders
Identify experts
6-3
-------
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
• Conduct meetings with other subcommittees
and stakeholders (particularly to review
various parts of model)
• Complete unfinished business
• Develop a resource bank
4.0 IMPROVING THE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION PROCESS
This section of the chapter focuses on the
discussions about the role of the subcommittee in
the public participation process, changes to the
model for public participation, and suggestions to
institutionalize the process for public participation.
In addition, the section summarizes the
subcommittee's discussions related to the Puerto
Rico downlink.
4.1 Role of the Subcommittee
Dr. Wright emphasized the unique, cross-cutting
characteristic of the subcommittee and
recommended that the subcommittee work to
become more visible. Dr. Gaylord agreed, adding
that she believes it is time for the subcommittee to
become proactive. For example, she commented
that the subcommittee should not depend on the
IWG to implement the public participation model.
Dr. Poje stated that he was meeting with a HHS
committee about a major study supported by 15
federal agencies. He explained that the study is
intended to research issues of environmental
justice, education, and policy. Dr. Poje added that
the process through which the study is being
conducted lends itself to improved public
participation. He stated that he has recommended
that the study include public sessions in:
• Chicago, Illinois (to discuss urban and
pediatric issues)
• New Orleans, Louisiana (to discuss
industrial activities in the Mississippi delta
area)
• El Paso, Texas (to discuss farm worker
problems and health issues)
• Hanford, Washington nuclear site (to
discuss the responsibilities of federal
agencies at federal sites).
Dr. Poje noted, however, that the committee had
not yet adopted his recommendations. Dr. Poje
also indicated that the meetings may become the
"body of record" for the Academy of Medicine.
As such, he suggested that the subcommittee
should consider participating in the meetings.
4.2 Institutionalizing Public Participation
Ms. Saika suggested that the subcommittee think
more strategically about institutionalizing the
process for public participation and recommended
that the group establish targets and markers for
1996. She cautioned, however, that the
subcommittee should consider the EPA's capacity
for resources, specifically the availability of funds
and personnel.
Mr. Hurst recommended the development of a
resource bank of the people involved with, and
working on, issues of environmental justice. The
members agreed, commenting that such a list
might be a useful tool for communities. The
resource bank, they determined, could include
speakers, technical material, and advisors. Dr.
Wright noted that it would be helpful to identify
those individuals with expertise in environmental
justice issues. She recommended that OEJ prepare
such a resource bank. Citing the Directory of
People of Color Environmental Groups, Mr. Knox
responded that such a resource of environmental
justice advocates already exists. Ms. Pereira
commented that the preparation of an
environmental justice resource bank is compatible
with the development of a pilot program and it
would be useful to identify resources available
from other sources.
After some discussion, the members of the
subcommittee agreed to develop a process to
incorporate public participation in all activities of
NET AC. Key activities include:
• Ensuring communication among
subcommittees
Schedule a monthly conference call
among the chairs and members of
6-4
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
other NEJAC subcommittees to
discuss activities of each
subcommittee
Revise meeting agendas to allow
approximately one hour at the
beginning of each subcommittee
meeting for representatives of the
other subcommittees to brief the
members on activities and receive
responses from them
Ensuring that the mission statement of the
subcommittee and the NEJAC model for
public participation are incorporated by, and
used for, NEJAC and other related activities
Identify and present the model for
public participation at meetings of
state and local officials (for example,
the National Governors' Association,
the National Council of Mayors, the
International Association of Public
Participation Practitioners,
nongovernmental organizations
(NGO), and other business groups)
Identify opportunities to facilitate
satellite downlinks and other means of
communication (direct mail, flyers,
and other tools) for meetings of
NEJAC and its subcommittees to
ensure that the public (including the
hearing-impaired and those for whom
English is not the primary language)
has adequate access
Participate in the development of all
public participation guidance on rule-
making within EPA and, when
possible, within other federal agencies
Provide training in the model to a
wide audience, including members of
NEJAC and its subcommittees,
employees of federal and state
agencies, representatives of industry
and business, and citizens of
communities affected by
environmental justice
• Develop a resource bank of technical
expertise, as well as such resources as
funding, speaker training, a calendar of
events, issues and a list of documents for
review
4.3 NEJAC Model for Public Participation
During the October 1994 meeting of the NEJAC,
the subcommittee developed a model for public
participation that consisted of three guiding
principles and five critical elements. Ms. Saika
suggested that a preamble to the model on public
participation was needed. Several members noted
that the preamble, developed at the last meeting of
the subcommittee, described what the
subcommittee is doing. Mr. Knox and Ms.
Pereira agreed to distribute a copy of the preamble
to all members for their review and comment.
Ms. Pereira offered to collect all comments and
incorporate changes in the text in response to those
comments.
When Ms. Saika asked whether the model for
public participation should continue to be referred
to as a "draft document," a discussion ensued of
the adoption of the model as "living document."
Mr. Hurst suggested that the subcommittee adopt
the draft model (as modified by the discussions
today) as a living document to be reviewed
annually and revised as needed. The
subcommittee members agreed and voted
unanimously to recommend to the NEJAC
Executive Council that NEJAC adopt the model as
a living document.
Ms. Saika also reminded the subcommittee that at
previous meetings of the subcommittee, members
had proposed the development of a "road map" of
the environmental decision making process. The
road map would identify the points at which public
comment is needed and at which points public
participation should be solicited.
4.3.1 List of Stakeholders
Ms. Saika indicated a need to reaffirm the list of
stakeholder groups that should actively be involved
in preparing for public participation meetings. A
brief discussion then followed about the definition
of a "stakeholder," as compared to that of a
"customer." Mr. Knox asked Mr. Hurst to explain
how he differentiated between the two.
-------
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Responding that customers generally supply and
define requirements, Mr. Hurst defined a
stakeholder as anyone in the community who uses
a process or product and who has a vested interest
in the outcome of that process or product.
Ms. Herrera suggested that the list of stakeholders
be revised to include international groups. The
members agreed that the list will require
modification before it is presented to an
international group.
As stakeholders were identified, Mr. Knox
commented that industry and business should be
involved in public participation to process
encourage them to become "good neighbors" to the
communities in which they operate. When asked
about why industry previously had not been
included on the original list of stakeholders, Dr.
Wright noted that the subcommittee had been very
"anti-industry" at earlier meetings but that its
perspective of industry has changed. Commenting
that members of the industry are sometimes
victims as well, Mr. Hurst suggested that the
subcommittee view stakeholders as those
individuals and organizations the subcommittee
wants to educate. Ms. Herrera added that, just as
with the subcommittee, her perspective of industry
has evolved to where she now recognizes industry
as a stakeholder.
Mr. Hurst expressed his frustration with the
current issue since it was primarily only
government and the "three-legged stool" analogy
about the relationship among the community,
government, and industry. Commenting that the
equation neglects the issue of who is paying or
bringing in the funds, Mr. Hurst stated that the
equation ignores the question of how to draw in
people who can make things happen for
communities with needs. Mr. Hurst suggested that
the subcommittee identify a process that does not
perpetuate the role of government as merely a
regulating body, but instead brings business to the
table early on. He cautioned against indicting
whole groups of industries because of the actions
of a few. The subcommittee should examine
ways to bring everyone together, he said, and
develop more tools to encourage business people
to come to the table to discuss issues.
After further discussion, the subcommittee
identified the following stakeholder groups that
should be considered for participation in
environmental decision making:
• Academia and educational institutions
• Neighborhood and community groups
• Business and industry
• Environmental organizations
• Government agencies (federal, state,
county, local, and tribal)
• NGOs
• Religious communities
• Spiritual communities
• Community service organizations (health,
welfare, and others)
• Medical community
4.3.2 Testing the Model
Dr. Gaylord reported that OEJ has been
distributing the model for public participation to
various EPA program offices. She noted that EPA
Administrator Carol Browner had requested that
OEJ attend a meeting on the Common-Sense
Initiative (CSI) task force to help address some of
the problems experienced under the program in
approaching communities. She explained that
Administrator Browner had requested that she and
Mr. Knox meet with the group to discuss why OEJ
was not involved in the project and to address the
perception that there was no commitment to the
environmental justice representatives of the
community. Based on these concerns, Dr.
Gaylord noted that she had recommended that the
CSI program use the NEJAC model for public
participation. She and Mr. Knox had thought CSI
appeared receptive to that suggestion, but she
noted that she did not know the current status of
her recommendation.
Dr. Wright noted that her involvement with the
refinery sector project conducted under the CSI
6-6
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
was a very frustrating experience. According to
Dr. Wright, the process by which to reach
consensus about recommendations was a disaster
because the project was "stacked" with
representatives of industry who had their own
agenda. She characterized this agenda as the
desire of industry to streamline regulations. She
also stated that the representatives of industry were
not concerned about community participation, nor
were they concerned about eliciting comment from
other stakeholders. In response to Dr. Wright's
comments, Dr. Gaylord noted that Dr. Wright's
experience in the refinery sector project was
similar to that of others who had been involved in
other sector projects.
Participants proposed several recommendations for
testing the model. Ms. Conchita Rodriguez,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS), suggested testing the model
in ongoing initiatives and projects intended to
improve standards for the protection of farm
workers. While agreeing with Ms. Rodriguez's
suggestion, Mr. Hurst recommended further that
the model could be used for several projects, not
just one, and could be used separately for each
project.
Ms. Pereira, pointing to the enthusiastic response
in Chile to the model, commented that circulating
the model would be an excellent idea. She spoke
briefly about her experiences in Chile and said she
was very impressed with the involvement of the
community, particularly the indigenous members.
Ms. Pereira also noted that the model is very
advanced, but might be a good model to use for
other countries.
Mr. Turrentine discussed an upcoming project,
scheduled to begin in January 1996, to establish
training programs in Puerto Rico. There are no
local unions, he noted, but Puerto Rico is
committed to providing space and facilities for the
training. He suggested that the project could serve
as a benchmark for other programs. Dr. Wright
agreed that the idea was good and added that she
thinks Puerto Rico feels a "major disconnect"
from the United States. She stated her belief that
the training program could be a good opportunity
to allay such feelings.
Dr. Gaylord commented that EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
conducts an extensive public participation effort,
specifically throughout its Office of Outreach and
Special Projects. She suggested that staff should
be consulted about testing the model. The
members agreed that the subcommittee would
contact the director of that office.
The members agreed to recommend to the NEJAC
Executive Council that NEJAC encourage the
conduct of pilot projects for the model for public
participation. The subcommittee also identified the
following groups who could sponsor such a
project:
• IWG (for example, as part of the
implementation plans for environmental
justice strategies)
• Labor organizations (for example, the
worker training program in Puerto Rico
sponsored by the Laborers-AGC Education
and Training Fund)
• Federal agencies (for example, NIEHS)
• NGOs
• Local communities
• Business and industry
4.4 Review of the Puerto Rico Downlink
Mr. Knox raised several questions about the
downlink with Puerto Rico on December 13, 1995,
wondering whether the subcommittee members
thought the effort was effective. Ms. Saika stated
that in general, the subcommittee supports the use
of downlinking for public forums and supports the
need to report on issues raised in public forums.
She noted that to really make technology work,
perhaps it would be a good idea to assess the
capacity, resources, and needs of potential
downlink sites within a region. She stated that the
structure of EPA lends itself to regional
assessments. Dr. Wright agreed with Ms. Saika's
comment that the use of technology is very
important for increasing effectiveness.
6-7
-------
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Ms. Saika recommended that a formal process be
developed and asked for a motion to recommend
that NEJAC continue to use satellite downlinks to
broaden public access to the NEJAC meetings.
Mr. Hurst agreed, but recommended that the
motion include a provision that funding for
downlinking should be added to the budget. Ms.
Saika also suggested that the downlink process
could serve as another model for other agencies to
adopt as part of their community involvement
plans.
Dr. Wright added that she thought the downlink
was an excellent idea, but believed that the session
conducted at the Atlanta meeting was "smoother."
She acknowledged, however, that the Atlanta
downlink was conducted in a studio, a fact that she
believed had a significant effect on the outcome.
Mr. Knox pointed out that the downlink was not
conducted like other similar sessions, referring to
the lack of monitors and a map of Puerto Rico.
Agreeing with Mr. Knox, Dr. Gaylord observed
that the lack of monitors detracted from the public
comment session.
Mr. Hurst remarked that there was not enough
tune available during the downlink session to
address everyone's concerns. Specifically, he
explained that some people did not have an
opportunity to present comments because other
individuals exceeded the established time limits.
His comments led to a general discussion about
cultural differences and their role in making it
difficult to "cut people off" when they exceed the
time limit for comments. In addition, Mr. Hurst
questioned whether NEJAC raised "false hope" in
those people who offered comments but who did
not receive responses from NEJAC. Dr. Gaylord
responded that the purpose of the public comment
session is to provide an opportunity for everyone
to speak and to serve as a listening session for the
members of NEJAC. She stressed that the
members are very careful to avoid raising false
hopes, but agreed that follow-up activities are very
important.
The members agreed that the subcommittee would
recommend strongly that NEJAC consider: 1) the
continued use of downlinking and other innovative
technologies and translating capabilities to meet the
needs of participating audiences, and (2) the
establishment of procedures that ensure
accountability for responding to public comments.
The members also agreed that NEJAC should
recommend that future EPA budgets include the
costs of using the downlink technology.
5.0 RCRA FESTAL RULE
Ms. Saika remarked that she had received inquiries
from the media about the subcommittee's position
on the final rule for expanded public participation
under RCRA. In response to Ms. Saika's request
to review the history and background of the rule,
Mr. Knox explained that the final rule was
published in 1994 and was open for public
comment. He indicated that the subcommittee
initially had agreed to analyze the comments and
prepare a summary analysis that set forth NEJAC's
opinion about the impact of the rule on
environmental justice. Unfortunately, he added,
subcommittee members had missed the early
opportunity to comment, but the subcommittee still
had an opportunity to submit comments about
NEJAC's position.
RCRA Rule on Expanded
Public Participation
On December 11, 1995, EPA announced that
it is issuing new regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The new regulations are designed to
improve the process for granting permits for
facilities that store, treat, or dispose of
hazardous waste, by providing earlier
opportunities for public involvement hi the
process. The regulations also provide for
expanding public access to information
throughout the permitting process and
throughout the operation lives of the facilities.
Mr. Knox suggested that the subcommittee address
Section 124.30 of the proposed rule, in which EPA
proposed to require facilities and permitting
agencies to "make all reasonable efforts" to ensure
equal opportunity for the public to participate in
the permitting process. Mr. Knox also asked the
members to comment about EPA's decision to
promote "equitable public participation" in
guidance rather than through regulatory language.
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
In response to Mr. Hurst's inquiry about the
availability of guidance documents, Mr. Knox
stated that he did not think such documents were
available at this time. Mr. Knox remarked that the
final rule is a major achievement because this was
the first time, to his knowledge, that concerns
related to environmental justice had been
incorporated into a final rule.
Mr. Hurst noted that, while he did not disagree
with Mr. Knox, he thinks it is more important to
participate in the development of the guidance
documents for the final rule. Mr. Hurst also
commented that it will be easier for the
subcommittee to address the guidance documents,
because they will be more specific than the final
rule. He then mentioned a meeting at which the
RCRA rule was discussed. He indicated that the
first draft of the rule was very general and broad,
but EPA wished to narrow the definition of public
participation.
The participants discussed various definitions of
the terms contained within the rule, such as
"affected communities" and "sound science." Ms.
Herrera questioned the use of the term "sound
science," adding that communities do not like the
term either. Dr. Wright agreed, citing her dislike
of the term. Mr. Hurst replied that decisions must
be based on factual data, or decisions will lead to
supposition. He expressed interest in whether the
term is a commonly accepted legal one used
frequently by EPA or the Department of Energy
(DOE).
Mr. Knox recommended that Dr. Wright, who
would act as chair on December 14 because Ms.
Saika would be absent, inform the NEJAC
Executive Council that the subcommittee is
reviewing the rule and considering comments to be
submitted. He also suggested that the
subcommittee recommend to NEJAC that the
subcommittee participate in the early review of the
guidance documents for the RCRA final rule.
Commenting that EPA staff are participating on a
team on public participation under RCRA, Mr.
Knox said he thought he could arrange to involve
members of his staff. He added that the standard
period for comment had already passed, but that
he thinks it is important that the subcommittee
provide comment. He also suggested the
subcommittee meet with the Waste and Facility
Siting Committee to discuss the rule. Mr. Knox
also suggested that the subcommittee prepare
comments for the NEJAC.
At the conclusion of their discussion, the
subcommittee members agreed to recommend that
NEJAC support the subcommittee's participation in
the early review of guidance documents for the
RCRA final rule that called for expanded public
participation.
6.0 EPA GRANT PROCESS
This section of the chapter summarizes the
discussion of the Public Participation and
Accountability Subcommittee regarding the EPA
grant process.
6.1 Funding Inequities
Several members expressed concern about apparent
inequities and difficulties experienced by members
of NEJAC and community groups in obtaining
grants, compared with universities like MIT and
Harvard University. Dr. Wright noted that the
issue is "sticky" among other NEJAC members
who do not sit on the subcommittee.
Dr. Wright discussed the struggle for funding and
questioned whether being affiliated with an
institution like MIT is advantageous hi obtaining
funding. She pointed to the struggle to develop
links for people who lack the "inside connections"
and for the innovators who are not "connected,"
but, she emphasized, whose ideas are taken by
those who are "connected." Dr. Wright pointed to
difficulties experienced by institutions such as the
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, that
arise because large universities (like MIT or
Harvard) who are experienced grant writers are
continually awarded grants.
Mr. Turrentine also cited a request for proposal
for a minority worker program. He stated that,
although the "popular belief is that $1 million of
grant funding is awarded to minorities for training,
the reality is that, out of the eight or nine grant
recipients, only two or three historically black
universities or colleges or similar organizations
receive funding; the remaining funds go to
historically white universities, he noted.
6-5
-------
Pubttc Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Offering a perspective different from what he
described as the "50,000-foot view," Mr. Hurst
agreed with the perspectives and opinions of those
who had spoken, but expressed his belief that there
are people with degrees and credentials within the
environmental justice community who want to
reach people or organizations. He suggested that
NEJAC develop partnerships with people who
have connections to spread the concept of
environmental justice; he noted that such an
approach could be a useful tool and also could
benefit the goals of environmental justice. Dr.
Wright replied that she is not opposed to
establishing partnerships and, in fact, has pursued
partnerships, but she believes that the partnerships
are never equal. Dr. Poje urged all members to
consider establishing and testing successful models
for partnerships.
Many questions were raised about the awarding of
a grant to MIT. Participants questioned why other
universities or schools, particularly historically
black or latino colleges, were not awarded the
grant. Dr. Gaylord responded that the awarding of
grants "boils down to grant-writing skills." She
spoke briefly about the process of writing grants,
citing a recent national competition based on the
concept of partnerships between community
organizations and big universities. Stating that
EPA had received 54 proposals, Dr. Gaylord
explained that the well-written proposals came
from big-name universities because they have the
expertise in grant writing. She confirmed that all
proposals were reviewed by a peer review board
consisting of people of color. Dr. Gaylord noted,
however, that some of the "beautifully-written
proposals'1 were not "grounded in reality." She
acknowledged that the communities should have
been involved in the grant process because the
communities now will not cooperate with the
universities that were awarded the grants.
In response to the many concerns registered about
the grant award to MIT, Mr. Turrentine observed
that many of the concerns are directed at EPA and
not necessarily at MIT or its project leader.
6.2 MIT Research Project
Dr. Nicolas Ashforth, MIT, presented information
about the research project "Development of
Strategies for Community Participation in
Contaminated Communities." Dr. Ashforth
summarized highlights of the project and reviewed
two community involvement projects at MIT. The
first, he said, was a historical study conducted hi
1991 to monitor the community for exposure and
disease, and the second is an ongoing project to
develop strategies for community participation at
contaminated sites.
Dr. Ashforth explained that the current project is
a three-year project which is funded by three
federal agencies, the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), DOE, and EPA.
The project will be conducted at six sites and will
focus on sites located in communities of people of
color and low-income populations at which two or
more agencies are involved. Acknowledging the
bias against academic institutions in similar
projects, Dr. Ashforth stated that the intent of the
project is to send people of color into communities
of color. He stated that the goal of the project is
to foster broad representation of low-income and
minority communities.
Dr. Ashforth went on to identify several activities
designed to increase community participation,
including:
• Obtaining comment from communities
• Developing criteria for public participation
• Documenting community participation
activities
• Describing successful tools and mechanisms
• Identifying conditions of success
• Producing draft reports to be shared with
and commented on by members of the
community
• Revising and widely distributing a final
monograph that reflects the concerns of the
stakeholders
Dr. Ashforth also reviewed the project's focus on
measures that build skills and capabilities hi the
community, support increased community
participation, and provide for more predictable
communication. Discussing what he defined as
6-10
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
four essential factors, he identified those factors as
resources, information, openness, and trust.
During his discussion, several subcommittee
members suggested putting trust first among the
factors; Dr. Ashforth agreed.
At the conclusion of Dr. Ashforth's presentation,
Ms. Saika thanked Dr. Ashforth and commented
that she believed that everything he described
about the project is based on the concepts of
environmental justice, particularly the public
participation process. She added that the concepts
he outlined and his sensitivity were "right on
target," but questioned the community perspective
of the project, specifically the traditional nature of
the relationship among researchers, academia and
affected communities. She remarked that Dr.
Ashforth's approach puts the "community under a
microscope." Stating that his project represents
the traditional relationship among communities,
researchers, and academia, Ms. Saika stressed that
the community must be engaged at the point of
conceptualization. She continued to discuss the
crucial benefits of "building capacity" in
communities, citing several examples from her
experiences with the Asian Pacific Environmental
Network.
Dr. Gaylord asked about the percentage of
minorities involved in the first study. Dr.
Ashforth stated that there were none. Dr.
Gaylord, citing studies that often blame health
problems on lifestyle and diet, also noted that one
of the most difficult things to demonstrate is the
relationship between exposure and health
problems. She inquired how MIT identifies the
health problems of exposed communities. Dr.
Ashforth responded that the point was very
important and noted that the issue is driven by
"statistically significant" science.
Ms. Herrera asked about the issue of
compensation. Declaring that her community does
not want litigation or "lawyers making all the
money," Ms. Herrera emphasized that her
community wants reinvestment. Dr. Ashforth
replied that compensation refers to illness, the loss
of property, or demonstrable damages for people
who have been exposed; he stressed that the
compensation and liability issue is the force behind
participation by community and stakeholders.
When Dr. Gaylord inquired about using "united"
rather than "divided" communities, Dr. Ashforth
replied that the site selection process includes a
review of the participatory characteristics of the
site, as well as the identification of participation
mechanisms that already exist. Dr. Ashforth also
said that he does not consider "divided"
communities a success and reaffirmed that a
stringent "filter system" had been applied in the
selection of six communities for the study.
Dr. Ashforth then asked the members of the
subcommittee for suggestions about how he can
ensure that the community is involved early in the
public participation process. Stating that he is not
a community activist, Dr. Ashforth noted that he
chooses to influence government decision makers
and thinks he has been successful in doing so. He
emphasized that he is not trying to tell
communities what to do, but is trying to tell
government what to do to allow communities to
flourish.
Dr. Gaylord explained the importance of training
the community and the importance of
empowerment; she suggested that, instead of
providing communities with resources, members of
communities should be trained so they can invest
and participate in the cleanup of the community.
Ms. Saika also responded that it is crucial to
engage the community at every level so decisions
are made in a collaborative manner to ensure
public participation. She noted that she defines
"resources" to include funding and training.
Ms. Herrera asked Dr. Ashforth whether MIT
plans to ask the community for permission to
conduct the study. Dr. Ashforth responded that
those conducting the project want an enthusiastic
response and endorsement from the community—
they wish to feel welcomed by the community.
When questioned about why MIT received the
grant, Dr. Ashforth indicated that he thinks the
project was selected because of his track record
and the three years of work he did for ATSDR.
Dr. Gaylord added that Dr. Ashforth's value is his
"label" with MIT and his ability to work with and
bring value to government agencies. She pointed
out that the government arena is his venue into
issues of environmental justice.
-£77
-------
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Turrentine commented that the anger exhibited
by many of the subcommittee members symbolizes
the anger of stakeholders in general. He echoed
Ms. Saika's observation that MIT should have
engaged the community at the onset as the grant
proposal was being written. Dr. Ashforth
interjected that EPA did not require community
involvement at that stage. Mr. Turrentine then
continued to discuss Ms. Saika's earlier comments
about the importance of involving the community
early to build partnerships and recommended that
the members of the subcommittee read Black and
White: America in Crisis. He stated that the book
discusses how blacks and whites see things
differently.
7.0 GENERAL CONCERNS
The members of the subcommittee discussed their
observations about the overall effectiveness of the
subcommittee and their recommendations for
improving the role and visibility of the
subcommittee.
Expressing concern about the shrinking size of the
subcommittee, Dr. Wright stated that membership
on the subcommittee is decreasing while that of the
other subcommittees (for example, the Health and
Research and the Waste and Facility Siting
subcommittees) seem to have "people falling out of
the room." Noting that she did not know the
reason for the decline in the number of
subcommittee members, Dr. Wright suggested that
perhaps other members of NET AC think that other
subcommittees are accomplishing more.
Mr. Knox agreed with Dr. Wright's observations,
but added that the members of the subcommittee
have accomplished several things, including the
model for public participation. Suggesting that the
subcommittee recruit more members to increase
the representation of the subcommittee and become
more involved in initiatives like the RCRA final
rule, Mr. Knox also stated that the members of the
subcommittee should explore developing tools to
encourage and facilitate public participation within
the activities of the other NEJAC subcommittees.
Echoing an observation repeated by several
members of the subcommittee, he also emphasized
the cross-cutting nature of public participation and
accountability with the other subcommittees.
Pointing out that the other subcommittees are
meeting between NEJAC conferences, Ms.
Herrera wondered why the members of this
subcommittee do not meet more often or schedule
conference calls. Dr. Wright then suggested that
the subcommittee schedule monthly conference
calls. After further discussion, the members of the
subcommittee agreed to schedule conference calls
among all subcommittee members on the first
Friday of every month at 11:00 a.m. eastern
standard time. Ms. Pereira offered to solicit
agenda items and send agendas to all members
during the week preceding the conference call.
Suggesting that the subcommittee could increase its
visibility by becoming involved in the satellite
downlinks, Mr. Knox recommended that the
members of the subcommittee become actively
involved in the scheduling of downlmking,
including decisions about how and where it will be
done. He also suggested that the subcommittee
assume responsibility for that activity since he
believes that downlinking is a crucial element of
NEJAC's future activities.
The members of the subcommittee then discussed
the feasibility of inviting speakers to attend future
subcommittee meetings. Dr. Wright commented
that the other subcommittees invite speakers to
educate the members about issues important to
environmental justice and recommended that the
subcommittee invite speakers to future
subcommittee meetings. Inviting speakers to their
subcommittee meetings will allow the
subcommittee members to establish relationships
with representatives of environmental justice and
government agencies, she noted.
Mr. Knox inquired whether there are industry
representatives who would come to future
subcommittee meetings to discuss environmental
justice issues. Mr. Hurst recommended Ms. Pat
Delbridge, citing her active involvement with
many NGOs and companies in facilitation of a
variety of community issues. The subcommittee
members also discussed inviting Dr. Vincent
Covello to attend a future subcommittee meeting.
Dr. Covello is the founder and director of the Risk
Communication Center at Columbia University,
located in New York City. Some concerns were
expressed about Dr. Covello's fees, but it was
agreed that Mr. Hurst would invite him to the next
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
NEJAC meeting at no fee. Mr. Hurst suggested
that Dr. Covello and Ms. Delbridge be asked to
review and comment on the model for public
participation and attend the next meeting prepared
to discuss their comments and recommendations.
Dr. Wright agreed, but reminded the subcommittee
members that changes or revisions proposed for
the model for public participation must be
discussed and approved by all members of the
subcommittee.
8.0 RESOLUTIONS
The members of the subcommittee then briefly
reviewed their resolutions to be made to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC.
J Resolution #1: Recommend that NEJAC
adopt the draft model for public
participation as a living document that will
be reviewed annually and revised as
necessary
/ Resolution #2: Recommend that NEJAC
consider the continued use of satellite
downlinks and other innovative technologies
and translating capabilities to meet the
needs of participating audiences (for
example, non-English speaking and hearing-
impaired audiences); suggest that NEJAC
recommend that future EPA budgets include
costs of using this technology
6-13
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
of the
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 13 and 14, 1995
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Meeting Summary Accepted by:
£^K
Jair-Young ^ /
Designated Federal Official
Charles Lee
Chair
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
MEETING OF THE
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee of the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) conducted a two-day meeting on
Wednesday and Thursday, December 13 and 14,
1995, during a three-day meeting of the NEJAC in
Washington, D.C. During a meeting of the
NEJAC Executive Council, Mr. Charles Lee was
reelected to serve as chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. Jan Young, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Outreach and Special Projects
Staff (OSPS), continues to serve as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) for the subcommittee.
This chapter, which provides a detailed discussion
of the deliberations of the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee, is organized in seven
sections, including this Introduction. Section 2.0,
Remarks, summarizes the remarks provided by the
chair, and members of the subcommittee. Section
3.0, Presentations, contains summaries of the
presentations made to the subcommittee. Section
4.0, Update on Urban Revitalization and the
Brownfields Initiative, summarizes the Brownfields
Initiative and reviews the subcommittees efforts in
the area of urban revitalization. Section 5.0,
Issues of Significance to Indigenous Peoples,
summarizes several discussions about
environmental justice issues related to indigenous
peoples. Section 6.0, General Issues, contains a
summary of discussions about a wide-range of
issues, including the effects of budget limits on
efforts to increase community involvement and the
involvement of state and local governments in the
decision-making processes of federal agencies.
Section 7.0, Resolutions, contains a list of the
resolutions discussed by the subcommittee.
2.0 OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Lee, Chair of the Waste and Facility Siting
Subcommittee, opened the meeting and welcomed
members and Ms. Young, DFO. Table 1 presents
a list of members who attended the meeting and
identifies those members who were unable to
attend.
Table 1
WASTE AND FACILITY SITING
SUBCOMMITTEE
List of Members
Who Attended the Meeting
December 13 and 14, 1995
Ms. Jan Young, DFO
Mr. Charles Lee, Chair
Ms. Sue Briggum
Dr. Teresa Cordova
Mr. Donald Elisburg
Mr. Tom Goldtooth
Mr. Michael Guerrero
Mr. David Hahn-Baker
Ms. Lillian Kawasaki *
Mr. Tom Kennedy
Mr. Jon Sesso
Mr. Lenny Siegel
Ms. Connie Tucker
Ms. Nathalie Walker
List of Members
Who Did Not Attend
Mr. Scott Kayla Morrison
Dr. Jean Sindab
* Attended December 13, 1995 only
Mr. Lee provided a brief overview of the activities
of the subcommittee during May 1994 through
November 1995. He said these activities reflect
the subcommittee's effort to ensure that
opportunities are provided for public participation
in decision making about issues related to waste
and hazardous waste facilities. Mr. Lee
distributed copies of the report of these activities
7-1
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
prepared by the DFO, which also discusses the
subcommittee's work to ensure that the interests of
communities are represented in that process.
Environmental justice, Mr. Lee added, "should be
something that starts and ends in the community."
Mr. Lee suggested that a review of the report
might be helpful in understanding the process to
implement environmental justice considerations.
He commended the atmosphere of "listening and
hearing the issues" he had discerned during
briefings presented for him by staff of EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER).
Mr. Lee then introduced Mr. Timothy Fields,
Deputy Assistant Administrator (AA) for OSWER.
Mr. Fields thanked the subcommittee for its
support in the development and promulgation of
OSWER's action agenda on environmental justice,
calling it the first environmental justice strategy to
be adopted by a major federal program. He then
expressed his pleasure at the increase in
participation on the subcommittee by Native
Americans. Mr. Fields added that the EPA's
Science and Policy Council is developing a
statement of policy on the issue of cumulative risk
and that the Council's efforts will have an outreach
component designed to involve communities. Mr.
Fields also pledged OSWER's continued support of
the subcommittee's activities.
When Mr. Fields concluded his remarks, Mr. Lee
recognized the efforts of Ms. Young, who in her
role as DFO was instrumental in bringing issues to
the attention of OSWER. He also lauded the
contributions of Dr. Jean Sindab, who, he said,
continues to contribute to the dialogue about
environmental justice while recovering from the
illness that prevented her attendance at the
meeting.
3.0 PRESENTATIONS
This section of the report contains summaries of
the presentations provided during the meeting.
3.1 LandView H
Mr. Peter Gattuso, OSWER's Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office,
conducted a demonstration of the LandView II
Satellite Mapping system. He noted that
LandView II is not really a satellite system, but
rather a set of 10 independent CD-ROM disks that
provide census maps of the United States combined
with a variety of geographic and demographic
information. Mr. Gattuso discussed the system's
usefulness to communities in evaluating
environmental risks and identifying areas of
concern related to issues of environmental justice.
He then demonstrated each of the capabilities of
the system, producing examples of the information
it can provide.
In response to a question from Mr. Michael
Guerrero, Mr. Gattuso confirmed that information
from state databases developed by various state
agencies currently is not included hi LandView II.
However, Mr. Gattuso stated that adding such data
would be a fairly easy task. Prompted by another
question, Mr. Gattuso stated that there are plans to
update the system and to make it available on the
Internet.
LandView n
LandView II is an innovative "community
right-to-know" software tool. Published as
an electronic atlas on CD-ROM discs,
LandView II can be used on standard
personal computers. The information that
LandView II displays in maps and tables
combines information from EPA databases
with geographic features and statistics on
demographics and economics from the 1990
U.S. Census. LandView II is the product of
a collaboration among EPA, the Bureau of
the Census, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
While LandView II lends itself to a myriad
of applications, two principal uses are to
help local communities evaluate
environmental risks and identify areas of
concern for environmental justice.
Mr. Tom Kennedy expressed concern about the
accuracy of the reports, explaining that data in
EPA's Biennial Reporting System (BRS), one of
the sources of the information in LandView II, is
self-reported; as such data from generators that do
not report emissions may not be included in the
LandView II database. Mr. David Hahn-Baker
added the observation that the information in the
7-2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
database should be maintained, even if a facility's
reporting status changes. Such data could prove
useful, he added.
Ms. Linda Garczynski, OSPS, stated that EPA
recently had distributed the LandView II disks to
personnel of facilities that are serving as pilot
project sites under the agency's Brownfields
Initiative. Data from LandView II, she added,
soon will be available on the Internet through
EPA's Community-Right-To-Know electronic
bulletin board. In answer to a question about cost,
the group was informed that LandView II costs
$75 per set. Mr. Lee added that he had requested
of both EPA's Office of Environmental Justice
(OEJ) and OSWER that LandView II be provided
to communities, noting that OSWER had made 10
sets of the system available to NEJAC. He
suggested that the chair of each subcommittee of
the NEJAC be provided a set.
Mr. Lee suggested that the subcommittee should
discuss how the LandView II system can be used
and how it can be integrated with activities already
underway. He added that the subcommittee then
should prepare recommendations for fostering full
use of the system.
Mr. Lee recalled his recent experience at a
meeting related to the Brownfields Initiative. The
demonstration of LandView II presented at that
meeting, he said, produced data for the section of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in which the meeting
was taking place. He cited one of the sample
printouts produced during the demonstration as an
example of how the software can graphically
illustrate the relationship between the availability
of transportation options and the location of waste
facilities.
Ms. Connie Tucker suggested that her organization
(which, she pointed out, receives no federal
funding) should have the system, because it is the
only environmental network in the South.
Observing that LandView II is useless unless it is
hi the hands of the people, Mr. Lee endorsed both
requests.
Ms. Tucker then suggested that the subcommittee
endorse the folio whig recommendations:
• That organizations that work with a number
of communities affected by issues related to
environmental justice be provided copies of
the LandView II program
• That EPA place LandView II in community
libraries, at historically black colleges and
universities, and at institutions that serve
low-income communities
Mr. Hahn-Baker expressed concern that there
might be an effort underway to privatize the
LandView II program. Such a move might
increase the price of the system, placing it out of
the reach of the communities that need it, he
cautioned. Ms. Sue Briggum then suggested that
the subcommittee recommend that the federal
government retain control of the program,
providing updates as needed. Mr. Lee added that
the subcommittee should make a positive statement
about the value of LandView II as a tool that gives
communities access to crucial data. Mr. Kennedy
noted that the focus should be on a credible,
quality-assured product that need not be cost-
prohibitive; the government, he said, could
influence both those factors. Mr. Halm-Baker then
raised the issue of property rights, asking whether
the system is in the public domain. He added that
data generated by activities of the federal
government should remain in the public domain
and be easily accessible to the public.
Mr. Lenny Siegel stated that differentiation within
the data among different racial and ethnic groups
was important to the communities of concern. He
asked to what extent LandView II is capable of
making such distinctions. Mr. Tom Goldtooth also
identified a need to examine how the program
defines Indian lands. Treaty rights affect some
areas that are not necessarily populated by Native
Americans, he pointed out and LandView II should
identify such lands. Mr. Lee observed that the
issue of treaty rights merits further discussion.
Mr. Siegel stated that the system would be more
useful if the data from government agencies were
made standard. For example, he said, formerly
used defense sites (FUDS) should be plotted in the
system, as well as corrections to inaccurate data
currently plotted in the system. Mr. Siegel asked
whether the Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice (IWG) should examine the
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
issue. Mr. Lee responded that the subcommittee
should recommend that databases and systems
currently existing in different formats be made
compatible.
Mr. Lee's suggestion prompted Dr. Teresa
Cordova to question how the data can be improved
and to ask what are the limitations of such data.
She noted that the inclusion of only "selected"
EPA sites prompts questions about the limitations
of the system. What percentage of sites, she
asked, does the system not include? In response,
Mr. Gattuso stated that the data in LandView II
had been imported "as is" from EPA databases--
some data are less accurate than others. Mr. Lee
suggested that members of the subcommittee
follow up the issue direcdy with Mr. Gattuso.
When the discussion ended, Ms. Lillian Kawasaki
suggested two recommendations:
• That more "integral" data, selected for their
usefulness to communities, be provided
• That pilot project studies be conducted to
determine the effectiveness of the system
and identify ways in which it could be
improved
Ms. Tucker also suggested that the subcommittee
recommend that the program developers utilize an
integrated approach to improve the database. She
strongly suggested that provisions be made for the
inclusion of data from nonfederal sources. She
also suggested the preparation of a brochure that
explains the limitations of the data. Mr. Donald
Elisburg then asked whether the developers of the
system can identify what data are missing.
Communities, he observed, would not be able to
know what is not included in the system without
such a list.
Mr. Jon Sesso then added that a direct correlation
exists between the issues identified by the
subcommittee and the work of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and the federal geographic data
council, which is addressing issues related to the
transmission and dissemination of geographical
data. Mr. Sesso suggested that the subcommittee
coordinate its efforts with the work of that council.
Perhaps the subcommittee should request the
opportunity to address the next meeting of the
council, he suggested.
The data included in the LandView II system,
continued Mr. Sesso, should be truly useful to
people at the local level who wish to base their
decisions on the data. He suggested the
development of explicit instructions for adding data
to the system. He also pointed out that users will
require training and that computer literacy on the
part of potential users should not be assumed.
3.2 Reports of Work Groups
The members of the subcommittee heard reports
from two work Groups sponsored by the
subcommittee and EPA managers working on
those issues. The Public Health Work Group
provided an update on EPA activities to develop a
policy to address the relocation of residents living
on or near environmental hazards. The Work
Group on Siting examined issues related to the
siting of hazardous waste facilities. Those reports
are summarized in the following subsections, along
with the discussions among members of the
subcommittee the reports prompted.
3.2.1 Presentations on Relocation
Ms. Suzanne Wells, EPA's Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) and a member of
the Public Health Work Group, distributed the
minutes of a conference call conducted by OERR
for the Work Group on May 30, 1995. The
document summarized the history of relocations,
discussed federal legislation and regulations
governing them, set forth EPA's plans to develop
a policy on relocation, provided recommendations
for future action on addressing issues related to
relocation, and presented a list of permanent
relocations conducted under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
Ms. Wells stated that EPA had participated in the
conference call to discuss with the subcommittee
the criteria EPA applies in selecting a remedy at a
Superfund site. She added that the Work Group
had formed a planning committee, composed of
representatives of EPA, NEJAC, and other
concerned parties, to help EPA plan a Community
Roundtable on Relocation at which EPA will elicit
7-4
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Community Roundtable on Relocation
For more than a year the Waste and
Facility Siting Subcommittee has been
examining the issue of relocating residents
living on or near environmental hazards,
an issue of critical importance to many
people of color and low-income
communities. The purpose of the
roundtable is to:
• identify community concerns about
issues related to relocation
• document and analyze past and
present experiences related to
relocation
• assemble relevant expertise on the
issue
• explore new and practical
approaches for meeting the
relocation needs of communities
• provide information and
recommendations for development
of an EPA policy on relocation
comment from communities about issues related to
relocation. The first such meeting, she added, will
be held in Crystal City, Virginia in March 1996.
[Subsequently the location has been changed to
Pensacola, Florida in May, 1996.]
When Ms. Wells concluded her remarks, Ms.
Tucker cited the need for comment from
communities about current laws and regulations
that govern relocation. Ms. Tucker also identified
three historical problems related to the issue:
• Devaluation of property
• Inability of relocated residents to find
comparable housing for the amount of funds
provided for relocation
• Cost of temporary relocation, which
sometimes exceeds the cost for permanent
resolution of environmental hazards.
Mr. Sesso added that, current approaches to
implementation of laws and guidelines do not
"treat people the way they should be treated." He
expressed the hope that individuals who have
"stories to tell" can be identified so they can
provide advice about how policies should be
changed. Mr. Siegel then cautioned that issues
related to relocation as they affect indigenous
peoples also must be addressed.
Mr. Hahn-Baker inquired whether the Work Group
had examined pertinent state programs. Mr. Lee
responded that the purpose of the planning
committee is to form appropriate agendas for
roundtable discussions, rather than to discuss
issues. Mr. Lee also requested that members of
the NEJAC submit to EPA the names of
individuals whose participation in the roundtable
discussions would be appropriate. He added that
travel funds expected to be available to support
attendance by selected participants who otherwise
would not be able to attend.
When Mr. Guerrero asked whether EPA has a
current policy on relocation, Ms. Wells responded
that the criteria mat EPA applies when selecting
cleanup remedies also are used when making
relocation decisions. She noted, however, that
EPA has no separate, detailed guidelines, or
regulations governing relocation itself. Ms. Wells
added that EPA has conducted only 12 permanent
relocations, in addition to numerous temporary
relocations that have been successful.
When asked by Mr. Guerrero, what are the
sources of funding for relocations, Ms. Wells
responded that funds designated for environmental
cleanup are used. If the potentially responsible
party (PRP) is conducting the cleanup, she
elaborated, the PRP is responsible ~ if the cleanup
is funded under Superfund, EPA takes
responsibility.
Mr. Elisburg asked whether data is available which
shows how communities have been affected by
relocation. In response, Mr Guerrero cited the
case of a community in the Southwest that wished
to relocate; no clear process for achieving that end
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
existed at the time, he said. He added that the
community's experience sparked the development
of the current process. Mr. Hahn-Baker observed
that, because no criteria exist, it is not possible to
determine which communities would or would not
be eligible for relocation.
Articulating the perspective of indigenous peoples,
Mr. Goldtooth stated that, because of spiritual and
cultural factors, such people generally do not wish
to relocate. Although different opinions and points
of view do exist, he stated, indigenous peoples
usually have a deep spiritual and reciprocal
relationship with the place in which the community
is located, and they therefore will not relocate.
However, Mr. Goldtooth commented that not all
communities of indigenous peoples oppose
relocation. He added that policy recommendations
that affect Native Americans are a serious issue.
The nature of the trust obligation inherent in tribal
sovereignty, coupled with the availability of public
land that can be put into trust for use as relocation
property, are among issues of significance to
Native Americans, he said.
Elaborating on that statement, Mr. Lee commented
that participants at a recent meeting had concluded
that, in some cases, relocation is not always in the
best interest of the community. He added that the
purpose of the proposed roundtable discussions —
to bring community concerns to light and to build
partnerships to support the decision-making
process — is pertinent to the issue raised by Mr.
Goldtooth.
3.2.2 Presentations on Siting
Mr. Vern Myers, OSWER, opened his
presentation with an overview of recent trends in
siting hazardous facilities. Noting that the market
for new storage facilities has shrunk in recent
years, Mr. Myers stated that current siting efforts
are concentrated in existing facilities that wish to
expand their operations, rather than in permitting
new facilities. He noted, however, that there is a
need for increased capacity among nuclear
facilities that must dispose of nuclear waste.
Mr. Myers reported that the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) had conducted surveys of hazardous waste
facilities to identify what facilities exist and how
they are used for storage, as well as to identify
environmental justice concerns that are pertinent to
the operations of the facilities. OSW also
compared state regulations governing the handling
of hazardous waste to federal regulations and
determined that regulations and processes differ
from state to state. Through an analysis of trends
in the states, he said, OSW made the following
determinations:
• States in the Southeast and Southwest,
where many petrochemical companies are
located, project the greatest need for storage
capacity
• An analysis of needs in eight states
(Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Arkansas,
Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, and
Ohio) projects a 75% increase in total
storage activity for the next few years
Mr. Myers stated that OSW would like to conduct
similar analyses for California, Georgia, Kentucky,
and Oklahoma, but noted that the project has been
suspended because of limits on funding.
In response to questions, Mr. Myers stated that the
analysis of the eight states identified above has
been completed. He added that each state had
been asked to report information about the criteria
governing siting that are different than those
imposed under federal regulations, the
requirements for public participation in siting
decisions, and the provisions of state regulations
governing the right of appeal. In response to Mr.
Guerrero's question about the existence of such
analyses in the international arena, Mr. Myers
stated that some analysis of projections for Mexico
and Canada had been conducted in the recent past
and noted that there are restrictions on the
shipping of wastes to those two countries. Mr.
Myers agreed to provide copies of the regulations
that pertain to international issues.
Ms. Nathalie Walker asked how the eight states
had been selected, inquiring specifically why
Mississippi had not been included. Mr. Myers
explained that the selection was based on the
number of facilities expected to be sited; in
Mississippi, he said, fewer such projects were
planned than in the states selected. Ms. Walker
then suggested that, in the future, Mississippi be
included because most projects in that state are
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
located in African American communities. Ms.
Kawasaki then expressed concern that the data
from the analyses be used to ensure the protection
of communities located in areas in which large
numbers of new facilities are expected to be
located. She also expressed concern that
environmental justice is not necessarily a criterion
governing decisions about siting, since states that
have been delegated authority in that area are not
required under the regulations to consider
environmental justice. Mr. Goldtooth concurred.
Mr. Goldtooth also asked whether any Indian
tribes have been delegated authority to operate
their own hazardous waste programs. Mr. Myers
responded that the Menomonie Tribe in EPA
Region 5 operates such a program. Other tribes,
he added, have filed applications to do so, but the
applications have not yet been approved.
Mr. Myers also distributed copies of the OSWER
draft report "Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities."
The report outlines the process of siting a
hazardous waste management facility.
When Ms. Walker characterized the report as
"disappointing," lengthy discussion ensued. Ms.
Walker stated that communities do not need the
information included in the brochure about the
siting process. In particular, she criticized
references that she said indicate that the federal
government will play no role in siting decisions
and that the states will have that authority.
Communities, she said, want the federal
government to be involved in those decisions.
Other members echoed Ms. Walker's expression of
dissatisfaction with the brochure.
Mr. Kennedy expressed that the brochure should
not be the vehicle to convey policy concerning
siting, and that the basic purpose of the brochure
should be clarified and also be part of an overall
policy.
When asked about EPA's decision not to pursue
new regulations governing siting, Mr. Myers
stated that EPA had determined it would be more
effective to identify real problems and to devise a
better decision-making process. Cumulative risk,
he added, is the heart of the issue; it cannot be
addressed by creating new regulations. Mr.
Guerrero then observed that the subcommittee
should devise ways to inform the public about how
to become involved in siting decisions and should
prepare guidelines for governments to use in
making siting decisions.
4.0 UPDATE ON URBAN
REVITALIZATION AND THE
BROWNFEELDS INITIATIVE
Mr. Lee began the discussion with a review of the
Brownfields Initiative and the subcommittee's past
efforts in the area of urban revitalization. EPA
Administrator Browner issued her action agenda
for addressing issues related to the Brownfields
Initiative in January 1995, he said. At that tune,
the NEJAC expressed concern that the action
agenda did not provide sufficiently for community
involvement. To allay such concerns, EPA and
the NEJAC together hosted a series of five public
dialogues on "Urban Revitalization and
Brownfields" during June and July of that year.
The meetings, held in Boston, Massachusetts;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Detroit, Michigan;
Oakland, California; and Atlanta, Georgia, brought
together more than 500 representatives of local
communities and staff of 15 federal agencies, he
added.
4.1 Review of the Public Dialogues
Mr. J-.ee stated that the dialogues were themselves
an experiment hi public participation, as well as an
opportunity to learn from state and local officials
how they viewed their roles in the Brownfields
process. He men solicited the subcommittee
members' impressions of the dialogues.
In response, Ms. Kawasaki declared that the
dialogues had been an important step, but there
must be a commitment to "building infrastructures"
in communities. Ms. Briggum added that the
participation of community leaders hi the dialogues
made it clear that they are able to play a vital role
in ensuring fair treatment of their communities.
The level of the challenge cannot be
underestimated, she cautioned, especially in
providing job opportunities to the local
community. She commended the "sense of
relationship-building" she had observed at the
meetings.
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Mr. Elisburg stated that the documents included in
the briefing books for the dialogues successfully
put the issues in perspective and the dialogues
served as a "reality check" for those concerned
about the issues.
Ms. Tucker then pointed to the success of efforts
undertaken in Atlanta, Georgia. The city, she
said, had submitted an application under the
Brownfields Initiative for construction of a parking
lot. The city was persuaded to support a project
that better reflects the concept of sustainable
development, she said.
Mr. Hahn-Baker also noted the contributions
government agencies had made during the Atlanta
dialogue; he said such contributions will be a
crucial factor in the success of pilot projects
initiated under the Brownfields Initiative.
Ms. Martha Matsuoka, representing the San
Francisco area's Urban Habitat Program,
distributed copies of the goals and principles that
organization had prepared for efforts undertaken
under the Brownfields Initiative, along with a
summary of the dialogue session held in Oakland,
California. She said that the dialogue had given
the community an opportunity to voice its opinions
and concerns.
4.2 Issues from the Public Dialogues
Mr. Elisburg said that communities, EPA
Headquarters, and the EPA regions seemed to
have different visions of the Brownfields Initiative.
He suggested that established standards and a
common understanding are needed so that all
parties can clarify the objectives of the Initiative
and then- expectations of it. Mr. Elisburg added
that designation as a site under the Brownfields
Initiative does not guarantee that jobs will be
created.
Mr. Siegel noted that interest in Brownfields is
high hi communities. He added, however, that he
has noticed tensions between "visionary" and
"practical" approaches to issues as well as between
those individuals who adopt a "national" focus and
those concerned with "local" issues. An ongoing
organization is necessary to deal with local issues,
he added.
Noting that rural development is the "other side"
of urban revitalization, Ms. Tucker said that some
people have expressed concern about an
inequitable focus on urban issues. In contrast, Mr.
Lee stressed the importance of the urban rather
than rural focus of projects conducted under the
Brownfields Initiative. A regional and integrated
approach, he said, is necessary "to holistically
address issues of revitalization and development."
Ms. Kawasaki cautioned that redevelopment must
be viewed in the context of productive use and
conservation, while Dr. Cordova expressed
concern about the possibility that "gentrification"
might accompany development.
When the discussion turned to the incorporation of
the vision of the community into the Brownfields
efforts, Mr. Elisburg identified programs in
Detroit and San Francisco as having developed
clear and systematic ways of defining community
vision. Ms. Tucker added that the real measure of
success is the extent to which local governments
involve communities hi such pilot projects. She
stated her belief that the visions of the community
currently are "not a major part of the process."
She suggested that the proceedings of the
subcommittee be published and distributed to
representatives of those governments to
demonstrate to them the importance of public
participation hi Brownfields Initiative.
Ms. Marjorie Buckholtz, EPA, then told the group
that the five dialogues have had significant effect
on how EPA defines communities. EPA learned,
she said, that its message had not been reaching
communities. The contacts made and relationships
begun in arranging for the dialogues provided EPA
the opportunity to meet and come to know leaders
of the communities in which the sessions were
held.
Referring to requirements for public participation,
Ms. Garczynski told the subcommittee that EPA
had attempted to verify the levels of public
participation cited hi applications under the
Brownfields Initiative by calling representatives of
the communities themselves. After such checks
were made, some applications lost points hi the
scoring, she said. Ms. Garczynski stated that,
through the workshop to be conducted in February
1996, EPA will attempt to build awareness among
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
local government officials of the necessity of
public participation in Brownfields pilot projects.
The National Workshop on Brownfields, she
added, also will help cities and their citizens
devise mutual goals.
Referring to Ms. Kawasaki's statement about the
sustainability of development, Mr. Hahn-Baker
pointed out that the proper role of the
subcommittee is to offer advice on involving the
community in decision making, not to advise what
outcomes of specific development efforts should
be. Mr. Siegel endorsed that statement.
4.3 Brownfields Pilot Projects
The members then turned to a discussion of the
subcommittee's role in implementing pilot projects
under the Brownfields Initiative. Ms. Katherine
Dawes, OSPS, requested the assistance of the
subcommittee in several areas: review of data,
advice to regions in which programs are
underway, training, and participation in the
planned national meeting on the Brownfields
Initiative.
Ms. Dawes described the success of the small
community of Cape Charles, Virginia in
integrating public participation into the pilot
project it is conducting under the Brownfields
Initiative. She suggested that the subcommittee's
expertise in environmental justice and issues of
concern to African Americans could be applied to
help towns like Cape Charles implement the
Brownfields pilot projects.
Mr. Elisburg added that Brownfields pilot projects
in such cities as Cleveland, Ohio and Bridgeport,
Connecticut, have provided training in
management of hazardous waste to minority
workers. The training, he said, focused on areas
of importance to the Brownfields pilot projects.
Mr. Lee suggested that the pilot projects should
provide the subcommittee with a list of their
objectives. The subcommittee, he said, then could
evaluate the success of the project in meeting those
objectives.
Mr. Siegel observed that communities may be
tailoring then- programs to fit "EPA's mold,"
rather than proposing projects that reflect the needs
of the community. Mr. Lee added that the success
of the program will depend on the ability of
communities to formulate their visions.
When Mr. Goldtooth asked how tribal
governments fit into the Brownfields process, Ms.
Garczynski responded that, by law, EPA must
work through the tribal authority. Currently, she
said, EPA has three applications from tribal groups
and is considering a special outreach effort aimed
at tribal groups. Mr. Goldtooth replied that there
are appropriate tribal groups, such as the Oneida
Tribe hi Green Bay, Wisconsin; Mr. Lee noted
that the issue merits further discussion.
Mr. Sesso commented that applicants should be
required to demonstrate hi their grant proposals
that community organizations will be involved
throughout the pilot project; EPA should require
that proposed pilot projects be tied to plans
formulated in and by communities. Mr. Elisburg
agreed, stating that attention should focus on what
happens after the grant has been awarded. Ms.
Kawasaki cautioned that the local government may
be best qualified to promote community
involvement. If the demands imposed on local
governments are excessive, she said, they might
not apply for the grants.
Mr. Lee then spoke about the importance of
stating the subcommittee's concern that the
principles espoused hi the dialogues be sustained hi
pilot projects conducted under Brownfields
Initiative. The subcommittee, he added, should
develop a means of evaluating projects to
determine whether such is the case. He
recommended further that the subcommittee
publicize the success stories that its efforts have
produced. As an example, he named Detroit, a
city he said which has "moved from depression to
determination." The public dialogue held hi
Detroit, Mr. Lee stated, helped shape the
discussion of the Brownfields Initiative. Lenders
and developers have raised $10 million for
development hi the city, he said. The city in turn,
he said, held a roundtable meeting on sustainable
development, and the Michigan Department of
Environmental conservation also had become
involved hi the revitalization.
When the subject of success stories was raised,
Ms. Walker, stated that the chief means of
ensuring that authentic success stories will be
7-9
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
available is to ensure that projects are ''community
driven, not just community supported."
The members turned to a discussion of the need to
focus on how sites actually are going to be cleaned
up. Mr. Elisburg observed that, although much
dialogue has occurred, it has not necessarily been
dialogue with those who actually apply for grants.
Mr. Kennedy added that, because sites probably
will be cleaned up under state programs, the
question arises how concerned groups can become
involved in those programs. Ms. Briggurn
suggested that the solution is to involve those
responsible for cleanup in the dialogue at the
beginning of the decision-making process, even
though the state or federal authority eventually will
determine cleanup levels. The issue takes on even
greater significance, added Ms. Kawasaki, in light
of the effort of federal legislators to delegate
responsibility for many programs to state and local
governments. Often, she noted, community
involvement seems to conflict with the notion of
"streamlining government."
Ms. Kristie Parker of the Keystone Center,
provided an update on the activities of the Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue
Committee (FFERDC) formed by the Center to
address improving the environmental restoration
process. She reported that FFERDC had
completed preparation of an interim report that
addresses the dissemination of information, public
involvement, the role of advisory boards, and
involvement of the public in the budget process.
The final report, due in January 1996, will be
distributed to the members of the subcommittee,
she said. Ms. Parker added that the committee
had begun addressing issues related to the
Brownfields Initiative through such aspects as jobs
and community involvement. The committee's
efforts to take up the issue of housing, however,
had been thwarted somewhat, she said, because
some agencies do not consider that issue pertinent
to their responsibilities. It is difficult, she
concluded, to "move beyond environmental
restoration into economic issues."
Dr. Mildred McClain, who is a member of
FFERDC, then asked how information about that
committee's work could be disseminated to
members of the NFJAC subcommittee. Mr. Lee
commented that subcommittee members consider
many of the issues under consideration by
FFERDC to be interdependent and that "cross-
fertilization" between the two groups seems to be
increasing.
Mr. Siegel recommended establishment of a
mechanism by which issues pertinent to the
Brownfields Initiative and issues related to base
closure can be integrated, to the ultimate benefit of
the entire community. Mr. Fields observed that
EPA recently had discussed that very issue with
the Department of Defense (DoD). The two
agencies, he said, hope that a Brownfields pilot
project can be conducted in a city that also is
affected by closure of a DoD installation. Such a
circumstance would demonstrate the relationships
between the Brownfields Initiative and the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program, he
declared. When Mr. Siegel then observed that a
member of the subcommittee become involved in
discussions with DoD on the subject, Mr. Fields
invited Mr. Siegel to attend the upcoming meeting
on the Brownfields Initiative.
Mr. Keith, Presidents' Council on Sustainable
Development, then presented to the subcommittee
his thoughts on sustainable development. He
stated that our goal as a nation should be "to build
sustainable communities through a bottom-up
process." He identified four key principles in
decision making:
• base decisions on shared values
• integrate economic and social goals
• base decisions on the realities of the
particular place
• ensure that the decision-making process is
inclusive
Currently, he explained, program development is
based on how agencies are structured, rather than
what communities need. That circumstance, he
urged, must be reversed.
Ms. Harriet Tregoing, Office of Policy, Planning
Evaluation (OPPE), stated that there have been
success stories among programs predicated on the
cooperative efforts of communities, local
governments, and local activists to achieve a
7-10
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
common vision of environmental, social, and
economic justice. She then cited the sustainable
development grant program "Strengthening
Communities," sponsored by the United States
Conference of Mayors, as an example of such
efforts.
Citing a need to move from "rhetoric" to "reality,"
Mr. Elisburg stated that the proliferation of
programs and groups dealing with the same issues
is hampering action on those issues. He declared
that it is "time to decide which programs to push
and move forward with a focused effort."
5.0 ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE
TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Mr. Goldtooth opened his presentation with a
discussion of the potential impacts of EPA's
proposed rule on regulating munitions wastes on
communities of color living near military
munitions facilities. Citing testimony provided in
a letter from the Military Toxics Project, Mr.
Goldtooth stated the proposed rule does not
address issues of environmental justice, even
though military munitions activities heavily impact
many communities of color, and particularly the
lands of Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and
Native Hawaiians.
Mr. Goldtooth briefly summarized a number of
events that have led to the current environmental
conditions on tribal lands. On such lands, he said,
the management of solid waste often is overlooked
because there is no infrastructure to support such
programs. He added that Indian tribes were
forgotten when environmental laws were enacted;
such laws established no authority to allocate funds
to tribal governments. However, Mr. Goldtooth
said, amendments to the Clean Air Act enacted in
the 1970s do allow the transfer of funds to tribal
governments; that change, said Mr. Goldtooth,
opened the door for tribal governments to develop
environmental programs. The legislation to
reauthorize the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) also allows assistance to
Indian tribes. Nevertheless, he pointed out, of the
more than 550 distinct Native American
communities, fewer than 20 have any form of
environmental infrastructure. He added that the
Indian Health Service also has a responsibility to
provide support services to tribal governments,
especially with solid waste issues. However, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs seems to leave tribal
issues to EPA, he charged.
Proposed Rule on Munitions
Pursuant to the Federal Facilities
Compliance Act of 1992, EPA is engaged
in a rule making to determine when
military munitions become hazardous
waste. The regulation is required to
"assure protection of human health and
the environment." As such, the rule
could affect communities located near
active and former DoD munitions ranges,
as well as munitions storage, treatment,
and disposal facilities.
Mr. Goldtooth then identified the dumping of
waste into open areas as a major problem on
Indian lands. Open dump areas contain
"everything from household waste to unknown
materials," he said, adding that such areas must be
assessed before they are capped. The dilemma, he
continued, is how can the tribes shut down, cap,
and close such areas when they have no funds, no
infrastructure, and no technical assistance to
perform the work. Mr. Goldtooth cited the fact
that very few EPA staff are charged with
addressing tribal issues, as a contributing factor.
Mr. Goldtooth stated that potential Superfund sites
are likely to be found in large numbers on Indian
lands as the problem of dumping of solid waste on
those lands is addressed. Sites at which
underground storage tanks (UST) and leaking
USTs are located pose additional problems for
tribes, he said.
Ten sites located on Indian lands already are listed
on the National Priorities List (NPL), stated Mr.
Goldtooth, but there are numerous waste sites that
have not been so listed. An issue among Native
Americans, he said, is the criteria for such listing.
Why, the Indian people ask, have so many sites
not been listed? Another issue is emergency
response, he added. In some areas, he said,
emergency personnel refuse to respond to incidents
that occur on Indian lands.
7-11
-------
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
When Mr. Goldtooth concluded his presentation,
Mr. Lee, noting that OSWER devoted a chapter of
its environmental justice implementation strategy
to issues of concern to Native Americans,
suggested Mr. Goldtooth take advantage of an
opportunity to help shape OSWER's policy. Ms.
Charlene Dunn, OSWER, then commented that
OSWER had distributed the OSWER strategy to all
federally recognized tribes and already had
undertaken efforts to respond to the issues raised
in responses to that survey.
She added that OSWER had developed an
interactive electronic database for communicating
with those tribes and has initiated steps to ensure
that all such tribes will be online by 1997. There
is a "success stories" home page on this system,
which is called "IndianNET." Ms. Dunn then
emphasized that EPA is aware of the problems that
exist on Indian lands and is open to suggestions.
Mr. Lee suggested the subcommittee establish a
working group to address Native American issues
and help OSWER realize its environmental justice
strategy.
6.0 GENERAL ISSUES
The members of the subcommittee then conducted
a wide-ranging discussion of issues related to
coordination of the activities of various federal
agencies, involvement of state and local
governments in the decision-making processes of
those agencies, possible duplication of effort
among various programs, the effects of budget
limitations on efforts to increase community
involvement, and the roles of various grant
programs.
Mr. Fields responded that OSWER could pursue
such matters as:
• Conduct of a Brownfields-BRAC pilot
project under the grant program of the
Brownfields Initiative
• Establishment of expanded dialogue with
other federal agencies about overlap
between the Brownfields Initiative and the
BRAC program
• Continuation of analysis to identify both
similarities and differences in the
Brownfields and BRAC programs
• Examination of all projects conducted under
the Brownfields Initiative to ensure that
communities remain the focus of those
projects.
Declaring that the morning's discussion was "a
start," Mr. Lee suggested that the subcommittee
members take under consideration three questions:
• What happens when agencies face "cross-
cutting "issues?
• How do those involved in the efforts under
discussion view communities—are
communities seen as more than "collections
of problems"?
• How can those involved strengthen
relationships and build partnerships?
Mr. Elisburg then presented the motion that the
subcommittee had requested on the proposed
rulemaking on munitions as hazardous waste. The
motion advises NEJAC that the proposed rule does
not address issues related to environmental justice
and recommends that it do so. The motion was
adopted as presented.
Mr. Lee then reviewed the areas in which, during
their two days' discussion, the members of the
subcommittee had identified action items. His
review sparked additional discussion of such issues
as concern that EPA continue to address matters
related to siting of facilities and the need to assess
progress on the regional level in implementing the
environmental justice strategies developed by
various agencies.
7.0 RESOLUTIONS
The subcommittee agreed to the following
resolution to be presented to the NEJAC Executive
Council:
/ Resolution #1: Draft resolution for NEJAC
concerning the promulgation of regulations
that govern the effects of the operations of
munitions facilities on communities
concerned with environmental justice issues
7-12
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF NEJAC MEMBERS
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
1995-96 List (25 Members)
Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
Dr. Clarice Gaylord
Director
Office of Environmental Justice (3103)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6357
Chairperson
Mr. Richard Moore
(505) 242-0416
ACADEMIA - 4
Dr. Robert Bullard - 1 year
Environmental Justice Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
223 Brawley Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Dr. Mary R. English - 2 years
Associate Director
Waste Management Research and Education
Institute
327 South Stadium Hall
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
Dr. Richard Lazarus - 2 years
Visiting Professor
Georgetown Unversity Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Dr. Beverly Wright - 1 year
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
Xavier University
8131 Aberdeen Road
New Orleans, LA 70126
INDUSTRY - 4
Mr. John C. Borum - 2 years
Vice President, Environment and Safety
Engineering
AT&T
131 Morristown Road
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
Mr. Charles McDermott - 1 year
Director of Governmental Affairs
Waste Management, Inc.
1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Mr. Lawrence G. Hurst - 2 years
Director, Communications
Motorola, Inc.
Mail Drop R 3125
8220 East Roosevelt
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
Mr. Michael Pierle - 1 year
Monsanto
800 North Lindburgh Street
St. Louis, MO 63167
COMMUNITY GROUPS - 3
Ms. Dolores Herrera 2 years
Executive Director
Albuquerque/San Jose Community Awareness
Council, Inc.
2401 Broadway Boulevard, SE
Albuquerque, NM 87102-5009
Ms. Hazel Johnson - 1 year
Executive Director
People for Community Recovery
13116 South Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60627
Dr. Jean Sindab - 1 year
National Council of Churches
475 Riverside Drive, Room 572
New York, NY 10115-0050
-------
NON-GOVERNMENT - 4
Mr. Charles Lee - 2 years
Director of Research
United Church of Christ Commission for
Racial Justice
475 Riverside Drive, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10015
Mr. John O'Leary, Esq. - 1 year
Pierce, Atwood & Scribner
1 Monument Square
Portland, ME 04101
Mr. Baldemar Velasquez - 1 year
Director
Farm Labor Organising Committee
507 South St. Clair Street
Toledo, OH 43602
Mr. Haywood Turrentine - 2 years
Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund
P.O. Box 37
37 Deerfield Road
Pomfret Center, CT 06259
STATE/LOCAL - 3
Honorable Salomon Rondon-Tollens - 2 years
President, Natural Resources and
Environmental Quality Commission
Capitolio San Juan, PR 00901
Ms. Velma Veloria - 1 year
House of Representatives
Washington State Legislature
403 John L. O'Brien Building
P.O. Box 40622
Olympia, WA 98504-0622
OR 1511 South Ferdinand Street
Seattle, WA 98108
Mr. Arthur Ray, Esq. - 2 years
Deputy Director
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
TRIBAL - 3
Ms. Gail Small - 1 year
Executive Director
Native Action
Box 316
Lame Deer, MT 59043
Ms. Jean Gamache, Esq. - 2 years
Tlignit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
125 Christensen Drive
P.O. Box 104432
Anchorage, AK 99510
Mr. Walter Bresette - 2 years
Lake Superior Chippewa
Route 1, Box 117
Bayfield, WI 54814
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS - 4
Mr. Richard Moore - 1 year
Southwest Network for Environmental and
Economic Justice
211 10th Street, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Ms. Peggy Saika - 2 years
Asian Pacific Environment Network
3126 California Street
Oakland, CA 94602
Ms. Nathalie Walker - 1 year
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
400 Magazine Street, Suite 401
New Orleans, LA 70130
Ms. Deeohn Ferris - 1 year
Washington Office for Environmental
Justice
1511 K Street, NW, Suite 1026
Washington, DC 20005
-------
EPA NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
1996
STAKEHOLDER BREAKDOWN
() = Term of Appointment
*Denotes NEJAC Council Member
AC = Academia
EV = Environmental Group
CG = Community Group SL = State/Local Govt. TR = Tribal
IN = Industry NG = Nongovernmental Organization
Enforcement Subcommittee - 10 members (6 NEJAC)
TR Gail Small* (1)
EV Richard Moore* (1)
SL Art Ray* (2)
AC Richard Lazarus*(l)
EV Deeohn Ferris* (Chair)(l)
IN Charles McDermott*(l)
AC Grover Hankins (2)
CG Peggy M. Shepard (2)
AC Pamela Tau Lee (2)
NG Rex L. Tingle (2)
Health and Research Subcommittee
AC Bailus Walker (1)
CG Hazel Johnson* (1)
AC Robert Bullard* (Chair)(l)
AC Mary English* (2)
IN Michael Pierle* (1)
EV Kekuni Blaisdell (2)
NG Paula Gomez (2)
TR Sherri Salway Black (2)
SL Andrew McBride (2)
Native Action
SW Network for Env. & Econ. Justice
Maryland Department of the Environment
Georgetown University
Washington Office for Env. Justice
Waste Management, Inc.
Texas Southern University
West Harlem Env. Action, Inc.
University of California
AFL-CIO
- 9 members (4 NEJAC)
Howard University
People for Community Recovery
Clark Atlanta University
University of Tennessee
Monsanto
Ka Pa Kau Kau, HI
Brownsville Community Health Center
Lakota/First Nations
Stamford, CT, Health Dept.
International - 9 members (3 NEJAC)
NG
NG
IN
EV
NG
EV
SL
CG
AC
Janet Phoenix (2)
John O'Leary* (1)
John Borum* (2)
Pat Williams (1)
Baldemar Velasquez* (1)
Jose Bravo (2)
National Lead Information Center
Pierce, Atwood & Scribner
AT&T
National Wildlife Federation
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
SW Network for Env. & Econ. Justice
Denise Ferguson-Southard(l)State of Maryland
Mildred McClain (2) Citizens for Environmental Justice
Vacant
Indigenous Peoples - 8 members (3 NEJAC)
TR/NG Jean Gamache* (2)
TR/CG Walter Bresette* (2)
EV Carl Anthony (1)
SL Velma Veloria* (1)
TR/AC Richard Monette (2)
TR/IN Astel Cavanaugh (1)
TR Janice Stevens (1)
TR Jewel James (2)
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Lake Superior Chippewa
Earth Island Institute & Urban Habitat
Washington State Legislature
Univ. of Wisconsin
Sioux Manufacturing Corp.
Sac and Fox Nation
Lummi Indian Business Council
Public Participation and Accountability - 8 members (6 NEJAC)
NG Domingo Gonzales (1)
CG Dolores Herrera* (2)
EV Peggy Saika* (Chair)(2)
AC Beverly Wright* (1)
IN Lawrence Hurst* (2)
SL Salom6n Rond6n-Tollens*(2)
NG Haywood Turrentine* (2)
TR Dune Lankard (2)
Texas Center for Policy Studies
Albuquerque/San Jose Comm. Awareness
Asian Pacific Environment Network
Xavier University
Motorola, Inc.
P. R. Natural Resources & Env. Quality
Laborers-AGC Education & Training Fund
EYAK Rainforest Preservation Fund
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee - 15 members (3 NEJAC)
CG Jean Sindab* (1)
NG Lenny Siegel (2)
SL Lillian Kawasaki (2)
NG Tom Kennedy (2)
IN Sue Briggum (2)
EV David Hahn-Baker (2)
NG Michael Guerrero (1)
NG Charles Lee* (Chair)(2)
NG Connie Tucker (2)
NG Donald Elisburg (2)
SL Jon Sesso (2)
EV Nathalie Walker* (1)
AC Teresa Cordova (1)
TR Scott Morrison (1)
TR Tom Goldtooth (1)
National Council of Churches
Pacific Studies Center
Los Angeles Department of Environment
ASTSWMO
WMX Technologies, Inc.
Inside-Out
SW Organizing Project
UC of Christ Commission for Racial Justice
Southern Organizing Committee
Laborer's Intl. Union of North Amerfca
Silverbow Ml. Planning Committee
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
University of New Mexico
Choctaws for Democracy
Red Band of Chippewa Indians
-------
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
1995-96 List (10 Members)
Designated Federal Official (DFO)
Ms. Sherry Milan
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (2261)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9807
Chairperson
Ms. Deeohn Ferris
(202) 637-2467
Ms. Deeohn Ferris - 1 year
Washington Office on EJ
1511 K Street, NW, Suite 1026
Washington, DC 20005
Mr. Grover G. Hankins - 2 years
Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Texas Southern University
3100 Clebume Avenue, Room 212
Houston, TX 77004
Dr. Richard Lazarus - 2 years
Visiting Professor
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Mr. Charles McDermott - 1 year
Director of Governmental Affairs
Waste Management, Inc.
1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Mr. Richard Moore - 1 year
Southwest Network for Environmental and
Economic Justice
211 10th Street, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Mr. Arthur Ray, Esq. - 2 years
Deputy Director
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Ms. Gail Small - 1 year
Executive Director
Native Action
Box 316
Lame Deer, MT 59043
Ms. Peggy M. Shepard 2 years
Executive Director
West Harlem Environmental
Action, Inc.
465 West 140th Street
New York, NY 10031
Ms. Pamela Tau Lee - 2 years
Center for Occupational and
Environmental Health
University of California
2515 Channing Way
Berkeley, CA 94720
Mr. Rex L. Tingle - 2 years
AFL-CIO, Dept. Of Occupational
Safety and Health
815 Sixteenth Street, NW Room 704
Washington, DC 20006
-------
HEALTH AND RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
1995-96 List (9 Members)
Designated Federal Official (DFO)
Mr. Lawrence Martin
Office of Research and Development (8105)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7667
Chairperson
Dr. Robert Bullard
(404) 880-6920
Ms. Sherri Salway Black - 2 years
First Nations Development Institute
Oglala Lakota Tribe
11917 Main Street
Brownsville, TX 78521
Mr. Kekuni Blaisdell, MD - 2 years
Ka Pa Kau Kau
3333 Kaohinani Drive
Honolulu, HI 96817
Dr. Robert Bullard 1 year
Environmental Justice Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
223 Brawley Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Dr. Mary English 2 years
Associate Director
Waste Management Research and Education
Institute
327 South Stadium Hall
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
Ms. Paula Gomez - 2 years
Brownsville, TX, Community Health Center
2137 East 22 Street
Brownsville, TX 78521
Ms. Hazel Johnson - 1 year
Executive Director
People for Community Recovery
13116 South Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60627
Mr. Andrew McBride, MD - 2 years
Director, Department of Health
888 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06904-2052
Mr. Michael Pierle - 2 years
Monsanto
800 North Lindburgh Street
St. Louis, MO 63167
Dr. Bailus Walker - 1 year
Professor of Enn. & Occ Medicine
Howard University College of Medicine
520 West Street, NW
Washington, DC 20059
-------
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SUBCOMMITTEE
1995-96 List (S Members)
Designated Federal Official (DFO)
Ms. Elizabeth Bell
Office of Environmental Justice (3103)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-8106
Chairperson
Pending
Mr. Carl Anthony - 1 year
Earth Island Institute & Urban Habitat
300 Broadway, Suite 128
San Francisco, CA 94133
Mr. Walter Bresette - 2 years
Lake Superior Chippewa
Route 1, Box 117
Bayfield, WI 54814
Mr. Astel Cavanaugh - 1 year
Sioux Manufacturing Corp.
P.O. Box 100
St. Michael, ND 58370
Ms. Jean Gamache, Esq. 2 years
Tlignit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
125 Christensen Drive
P.O. Box 104432
Anchorage, AK 99510
Mr. Jewell James - 2 years
Lummi Indian Business Council
2616 Kwina Road
Bellingham, WA 98226-9298
Mr. Richard Monette - 2 years
University of Wisconsin Law School
Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53706
Ms. Janice Stevens - 1 year
Sac and Fox Nation
Realty Department
Route 2, Box 246
Stroud, OK 74079
Ms. Velma Veloria 1 year
House of Representatives
Washington State Legislature
403 John O'Brien Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0622
OR 1511 South Ferdinand Street
Seattle, WA 98108
-------
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1995-96 List (8 Members)
Designated Federal Official (DFO1 Chairperson
Ms. Lorraine Frigerio Pending
Office of International Activities (2621)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6623
Mr. Jose T. Bravo - 2 years Ms. Patricia Williams - 1 year
Southwest Network for Environmental and National Wildlife Federation
Economic Justice 1400 16th Street, NW
16717 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20036
San Diego, CA 92101
Mr. John C. Borum - 2 years
Vice President
Environment and Safety Engineering
AT&T
131 Morristown Road
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
Ms. Denise Ferguson-Southard - 1 year
State of Maryland
Office of Attorney General
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Dr. Mildred McClain - 2 years
Citizens for Environmental Justice
P.O. Box 1841
Savannah, GA 31402
Mr. John O'Leary, Esq. 1 year
Pierce, Atwood & Scribner
1 Monument Square
Portland, ME 04101
Dr. Janet Phoenix, Director 2 years
Public Health Programs
National Lead Information Center
1019 19th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-5105
Mr. Baldemar Velasquez 1 year
Director
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
507 South St. Clair Street
Toledo, OH 43602
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY SUBCOMMITTEE
1995-96 List (8 Members)
Designated Federal Official (DFO)
Mr. Robert Knox
Office of Environmental Justice (3103)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-8195
Chairperson
Ms. Peggy Saika
(510) 834-8920
Mr. Domingo Gonzales 1 year
Texas Center for Policy Studies
164 Pearl Street
Brownsville, TX 78521
Ms. Dolores Herrera - 2 years
Albuquerque/San Jose Community Awareness
Council, Inc.
P. O. Box 12297
Albuquerque, NM 87195-2297
Mr. Lawrence G. Hurst - 2 years
Director, Communications
Motorola, Inc.
8220 East Roosevelt
Mail Drop R 3125
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
Mr. Dune Lankard - 2 years
EYAK Rainforest Preservation Fund
P.O. Box 460
Cordova, AK 99574
Ms. Peggy Saika - 2 years
Asian Pacific Environment Network
3126 California Street
Oakland, CA 94602
Honorable Salomon Rondon-Tollens - 2 years
President, Natural Resources and
Environmental Quality Commission
Capitolio San Juan, PR 00901
Mr. Haywood Turrentine - 2 years
Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund
P.O. Box 37
37 Deerfield Road
Pomfret Center, CT 06259
Dr. Beverly Wright - 1 year
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
Xavier University
8131 Aberdeen Road
New Orleans, LA 70126
-------
WASTE & FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
1995-96 List (15 Members)
Designated Federal Official (DFO)
Ms. Jan Young
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5101)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1692
Chairperson
Charles Lee
(212) 870-2077
Ms. Sue Briggum - 2 years
WMX Technologies, Inc.
1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Ms. Teresa Cordova, PhD - 1 year
University of New Mexico
Community and Regional Planning Program
School of Architecture and Planning
2414 Central Avenue, SE
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Mr. Donald Elisburg - 2 years
Donald Elisburg Law Offices
11713 Rosalinda Drive
Potomac, MD 20854-3531
Mr. Tom Goldtooth - 1 year
Red Band of Chippewa Indians
P.O. Box 485
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Mr. Michael Guerrero - 1 year
SW Organizing Project
211 10th Street, SW
Bemjidi, MN 56601
Mr. David Hahn-Baker - 2 years
Inside Out, Inc.
440 Lincoln Parkway
Buffalo, NY 14216
Ms. Lillian Kawasaki - 2 years
Los Angeles Department of the Environment
City Hall-Mail Stop 177
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Mr. Tom Kennedy - 2 years
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
444 North Capitol Street, Suite 388
Washington, DC 20001
Mr. Charles Lee 2 years
Director of Research
United Church of Christ Commission for
Racial Justice
475 Riverside Drive, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10015
Mr. Scott Kayla Morrison - 1 year
President
Choctaws for Democracy
P. O. Box 11
Talinia, OK 74571
Mr. Jon Sesso - 2 years
Planning Director
Silverbow Mt. Planning Committee
155 West Granite Street
Butte, MT 59701
Mr. Lenny Siegel - 2 years
Pacific Studies Center
222-B View Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Dr. Jean Sindab - 1 year
Director
National Council of Churches
475 Riverside Drive, Room 572
New York, NY 10115-0050
Ms. Connie Tucker - 2 years
Southern Organising Committee
P.O. Box 10518
Atlanta, GA 30310
Ms. Nathalie Walker - 1 year
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
400 Magazine Street, Suite 401
New Orleans, LA 70130
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
-------
List of Commentors
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Sandra Hill, National Association of State Foresters
Mr. Robert Boone, Anacostia Watershed Society
Ms. Deborah Matthews, Alton Park/Piney Woods Neighborhood Improvement Coalition
Dr. Grace Hewell, Local Resident
Ms. Valerie Wilk, Farm Worker Justice Fund
Mr. Tom Goldtooth for the Cahuilla Band of Indian People
Ms. Connie Tucker
Mr. Jose Bravo, Southwest Network
Ms. Marina Lamarque, Local Resident of Calexico, California
Mr. Daniel Luna, Calexico, California High School Student
Ms. Cynthia Marques, Local Resident of Mexicali, California
Mr. Cesar Luna, San Diego Environmental Health Coalition
Mr. Robert Faithful for the D.C. Coalition on Environmental Justice
Mr. Don Edwards, U.S. Network for Habitat H
Mr. Damu Smith, Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice
Ms. Christine Benally, Dine CARE
Mr. Phil Harrison, Navajo Reservation
-------
Good morning, My name is Debra Matthews and I am the chair person
of the Alton Park Piney Woods Neighborhood Improvement Corporation.
Greetings from the alleged Environmental City, Chattanooga,
Tennessee. It is very ironic that our city was chosen as a
Sustainable Environmental Community by the Presidents Council for
Sustainable Communities. In Chattanooga, I live in the Alton Park
neighborhood. Our community has 41 toxic waste sites and the
Chattanooga Creek Superfund site which is listed on the National
Priorities List. We are surrounded by 32 polluting industries
which have been located in our community for over a half a century.
These industries spew into our air, water and land the most toxic
substances known to man.
Our children suffer from respiratory problems, hyperactivy,
attention deficits, learning disabilities, neurological problems
and a range of other developmental and reproductive disorders. The
adult population is sick and dying from a variety of illnesses.
We have had vegetation kills, yet the US EPA has not determined any
adverse human health impacts due to exposure to these deadly
chemicals.
Recently the EPA Office of Environmental Justice awarded a $300,000
Community/University Partnership Grant to Tennessee Technological
University for the Chattanooga Creek Watershed Community, the
neighborhoods located near the Chattanooga Creek Superfund site.
The Community Partners named in the grant include the Bethlehem
Community Center and the Chattanooga Neighborhood Network. The
Bethlehem Community Center is operated by the Holston Conference of
United Methodist out of New York. The center operates an
elementary after school program that is primarily run by local
United Methodist churches located out-side of our community, a sort
of missionary effort. Most importantly, we are unaware of any
efforts by the Bethlehem Center to address any of the socio-
economic and environmental concerns in our community.
The board of directors of the Bethlehem Community Center was not
aware of the Center's involvement in the Community University grant
application until after the grant had been awarded by the EPA. The
Bethlehem Center's director who signed the letter of intent/MOA for
the grant has been subsequently terminated from employment the
Bethlehem Center.
The other so called community partner, the Chattanooga Neighborhood
Network is not an Alton Park organization and is unknown to our
community.
There is obviously a problem here. If a Community/University
Partnership grant was awarded and the community partner was not
aware of it, then where is the Community part of the Partnership?
It would take very little time to answer this question. This is a
process that is repeated in many of the underserved communities of
color across our country. It is a process we call the "Flat Rock
-------
Grant", a Grant that hits the community and skips clean across the
surface with barely a ripple.
Tennessee Tech is a majority white institution, located in the
Cumberland Mountains, over 100 miles from our community. Prior to
this grant, they had no relationship to the community, and it
appears, no knowledge of environmental justice or the socio-
economic conditions of African Americans. They primarily serve a
white middle class student body and community.
Once we alerted the community and involved all sectors of our
community to challenge Tennessee Tech, the University is now
running around reshuffling the so-called community partners, but
using the same people with different organizational names.
Although they have included Wheeler Homes Tenant Association in
this new configuration, they have yet to include the overwhelming
majority of home owners in Alton Park who are permanent, non-
transient residents.
They have also included a new organization, A United Community
Alliance. It was formed just for this grant by the terminated
director of the Bethlehem Community Center who is not a resident of
Alton Park. We find this unacceptable.
We also find it unacceptable that Tech calls all the shots for a
program of work in our community. They alone are determining who
the Community Partners will be.
We also find the program of work outlined in the proposal
unacceptable. Why do we need to conduct soil, water and air
testing for a Superfund Site. Isn't this required as a part of the
Superfund remediation? Why provide grant money for an activity
already covered under Superfund?
We charge TN Tech and the community non-partners with conspiracy to
make money off of our community's suffering and we will not stand
for this.
We are presently developing an exhaustive statement that chronicles
the unethical conduct of TN Tech and the community non-partners,
and request that the NEJAC review this document when complete to
form recommendations to the EPA to prevent further exploitation of
communities for federal funds.
We also request the EPA Environmental Justice office to not approve
any revisions to the grant proposal until their is real community
involvement in an amended plan of work that reflects the needs of
the community.
-------
EDUCATION
State Cl^epresentative -. cen , .
SUITE 36. LEGISLATIVE PLAZA Mouse of <%>resetitati ves
TENNESSEE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 28tft 9[eciisfative ^District v\fmoer or Committees
NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 37243-01 28 ;?
TELEPHONE: (615)741^374 CnattaHOOfla CALENDAR AND RULES
" FINANC E. WAYS AND MEANS
Dr. Martha Wells
Tennessee Technical University
Center for Management Protection and Utilization of Water
Resources
P.O. Box 5033
Cookville Tennessee 38505
Re: Conunumty/University Environmental Justice Partnership
Program
Dear Dr. Wells:
Recent news media stories and conversations with several of my
constituents regarding the proposed Community/University
Environmental Justice Partnership program earmarked for the
Chattanooga Alton Park-Piney Woods communities suggest that we
should confer. While your project may hold the promise for positive
outcomes for the target community, it has spawned a number of
negative externalities. Perhaps, had we conferred before submission
of your proposal we may have been able to spare the community the
recent moments of turmoil. Most of all, we may have been able to
reach an understanding of how this community defines
"involvement, representation, and partnership."
Notwithstanding, I am, hereby, requesting the following information
from you regarding the project:
1 . A complete listing of dates, times, and places of all
meetings with the target community, and specify
organizational representatives, other principals,
original and subcontractors,
2. A copy of the call for proposals for this grant,
3. A copy of the complete grant application including
line item budgets and work plans, detailing information
-------
Dr. Martha Wells
November 30, 1995
regarding personnel, job descriptions, and salaries
(breaking out data by race and sex).
4. Justification for how your grant process complies
with Title Six and Title VH of the Civil Rights Act.
Your prompt reply is deeply appreciated.
Yours truly,
Tommie F. Brown, DSW
Copies to:
Mr. Jerry Ayers, Associate Vice President for Research
Mr. Dennis B. George, Interim Director Research,
Dr. Mustafa Ali
Ms. Deborah Matthew, Alton Park-Pine Woods Neighborhood
Corporation
Mr. Milton Jackson, STOP
-------
December 14. 1995
Dine CARE
P.O.Box 1992
Shiprock. NM 87420
Richard Moore
Chairperson of NEJAC
Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice
211 1 Oth Street, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Dear Mr. Moore:
We, the Dine CARE, have been attending environmental justice meeting addressing our issues
and requesting to have a position on NEJAC or on one of its sub-committees as
recommendations since the Arlington meeting. I feel we have justified our position and our
input will contribute to the purpose of environmental justice.
Dine CARE organized in the late 1980's to address environmental issues on the Navajo Nation.
We have grown to having two staff members, an executive director and community organizer,
plus more than 30 active members. The opportunity has come again to make this request with
the vacancy of Gail Small's position on NEJAC. We have sent Dine CARE representatives to
the Arlington. Albuquerque, Atlanta, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC meetings. Dine CARE
should have this open position. In addition, there are a number of empty seats in the
subcommittee meetings as the NEJAC, it is critical that these empty seats be occupied, if other
parties are not as committed to attending the meetings we should occupy these seats. Empty
chairs does injustice to all indigenous environmental issues.
Dine CARE had previously submitted its recommendation of names for representation
previously. Those names on the recommended list were Dr. Christine Benally, Mr. Earl Tulley,
Ms. Adella Begay and Mr. Phil Harrison. Our recommendation is to sit Dr. Christine Benally to
occupy the vacancy.
Thank you for the consideration and appointment. We hope to continue our collaborative effort
toward true environmental justice, in this case for the indigenous communities and people.
Sincerely,
Earl Tulley
President of the Board
Dine CARE
-------
December 14. 1995
Dine CARE
P.O. Box 1992
Shiprock, NM 87420
Dr. Clarice Gaylord
Director
Office of Environmental Justice (2710)
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Dr. Gaylord:
We, the Dine CARE, have been attending environmental justice meeting addressing our issues
and requesting to have a position on NEJAC or on one of its sub-committees as
recommendations since the Arlington meeting. I feel we have justified our position and our
input will contribute to the purpose of environmental justice.
Dine CARE organized in the late 1980's to address environmental issues on the Navajo Nation.
We have grown to having two staff members, an executive director and community organizer,
plus more than 30 active members. The opportunity has come again to make this request with
the vacancy of Gail Small's position on NEJAC. We have sent Dine CARE representatives to
the Arlington, Albuquerque, Atlanta, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC meetings. Dine CARE
should have this open position. In addition, there are a number of empty seats in the
subcommittee meetings as the NEJAC, it is critical that these empty seats be occupied, if other
parties are not as committed to attending the meetings we should occupy these seats. Empty
chairs does injustice to all indigenous environmental issues.
Dine CARE had previously submitted its recommendation of names for representation
previously. Those names on the recommended list were Dr. Christine Benally, Mr. Earl Tulley,
Ms. Adella Begay and Mr. Phil Harrison. Our recommendation is to sit Dr. Christine Benally to
occupy the vacancy.
Thank you for the consideration and appointment. We hope to continue our collaborative effort
toward true environmental justice, in this case for the indigenous communities and people.
Sincerely,
Earl Tulley
President of the Board
Dine CARE
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Washington, DC meeting
December 12-14, 1995
I advise you reconsider your requirements on funds available to our communities.
Universities, non-Navajo organizations, states, governmental agencies, etc., continue to
absorb our resources. We have experienced since natural resources were "discovered"
on our land. Corporations, federal agencies and politicians have exploited our natural
resources leaving behind waste from gas and oil wells, (surface and underground) coal
and uranium mines, coal fired electrical generating stations, high voltage power
electrical transmission lines. The people are left with living in the mist of the waste.
Now universities and these same polluters are tapping clean up resources set up to the
communities just because they look good on paper. And we do not want to go into
partnership with anyone whose going to absorb 99% of the grant and have these grant
stay in the cities. The review committees need to look at what works, what is more
efficient, it has to come from the community, you can not continue to give money to
white groups, or white groups with a token Indian.
While we appreciate the interest and concern of universities, federal agencies, and
environmental organizations as Land and Water Fund (Boulder, CO), Tafts University
(Boston, Mass.), Forest Conservation Council, Forest Guardians (Santa Fe, NM),
Citizens Coal Council (somewhere back east) and many others for our environment.
And we know, however, that the political, cultural and geographical uniqueness of the
Navajo Nation make our problem one that must be solved by our own people. Many
outside groups have come to the Navajo Nation with the best intentions of preserving
our land. Most have failed because they have not allowed the local people, the people
with an incredible stake in the success of such projects, the freedom to conduct the
efforts as they see fit. We are interested in results. This is our homeland. Our
umbilical chords are buried here. If this land, air and water are ruined, we have
nowhere to go. That is why we are willing to make such sacrifices and apply for funding
directly. For to long western scientific and medical researches have obtained research
dollars and published on behalf of the Navajo communities, yet our people still lack the
basic needs most American take for granted as electricity (>50%), running water
(>50%), heat/cooling system (99%) and telephone (99%). The e-mail, internet and fac
are near non-existence. This shows decades of research has not provided the basic
needs for the Navajo. Our people, who are and continue to be the victims of
industrialist pollution, are living with cancer, breathing polluted air and drinking polluted
water.
We, as a community based organization, have been in existence since 1988. We have
a strong membership and network of professional and technical community based
active group. Our strategy in the proposal is to be the fiscal agent and consult with our
and additional professional and technical people from the stand point of both Navajo
-------
and Western philosophies to successfully develop, implements and evaluate the
project. The Navajos continue to have deep value in the Navajo philosophies. This is
notwithstanding of the fact that western medical and scientific communities devalue the
Navajo principles just because our traditionalist do not have MDs, PhDs or other
acronyms after their name.
We have some constituents who have advocated on our behalf for funding but a large
amount of environmental justice, research and project dollars have gone and are still
going into hands and pockets of organization who so call claim projects on Native land,
just because they look good on paper. Dine1 CARE, as the single organization most
responsible for defending the Navajo land, air, water and mountain forests with limited
funds since 1988 for halting the illegal commercial logging, for our mapping project.
Our members have sacrificed tremendous amounts for this cause.
The goal of our organization is to improve environmental and living conditions and
opportunities for personal growth among the Navajo people. In conjunction with this
goal Dine CARE strives to protect the environment of the Navajo homeland, and to help
local Navajo people defend their rights to promote a traditional way of life which is in
harmony with the environment. One of the objectives of our projects is to conduct a
thorough mapping of the Chuskas in order to actively promote a proactive approach to
protecting the forest environment. Integrated in with this objective is to use the
information from the mapping project to promote an appropriate plan based on the
Navajo cultural and environmental values. In addition, the emphasis of these traditional
methods are the strength and the basis of our approach to our projects, research or
other.
• What this requires, therefore, is a measure of trust, commitment and
accountability on the part of the directors and proposal review committee of the
Environmental Justice and other funds. The concern with addressing local
concerns must be met with an equal amount of trust in local communities to take
the appropriate action. Make the proposal format and review process grassroots
based friendly, accessible and available. We do not have the funds to hire a
grant writer, university or institution driven proposals should not be fund. Give
these resources to the effected people. The slick grant writeisdo not live in the
middle of uranium mines, mill tailings, breathe air pollution form the power plants.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
J. Benally, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Dine CARE
P.O. Box1992
-------
C O V E R
S H E E T
To: Christine Benally
Fax #: (202) 232-4158
Subject: PRESS RELEASE
Date: December 13, 1995
Pages: ONE, including this cover sheet.
On December 1, the U.S. District Court signed an order affirming a negotiated
settlement of Dine' Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment (Dine' CARE)'s lawsuit
against the BIA. The lawsuit, which asked the BIA to follow the law and consult with the
US Fish & Wildlife Sendee on the 1982 Navajo Forest Management Plan, was filed by
Dine* CARE to protect the Chuskas mountains and the Navajo people who live there
from farmer desecration by Navajo Forest Products Industries (NFPI).
The settlement of the lawsuit represents a significant victory in Dine' CARE's
efforts to preserve indigenous sovereignty and the right of communities to speak up for
actions die communities believe are right, despite government opposition. The BIA and
me Navajo Nation government have, for years, refused to accept the need to keep the
rhngirag intact and to maintain traditional Navajo culture. With the settlement, the BIA
apd the Navajo Nation government are now legally bound to refrain from, any commercial
logging in Navajo forests until a new forest management plan is put in place.
Accompanying that forest management plan will need to be an Environmental Impact
Statement, something former President Zah committed to in 1991.
Dine' CARE has always believed diat the needs of community people, whether for
firewood, basic utilities or materials for a hogan, must be addressed first. This settlement
ensures #»»* community people will be able to collect firewood or get fence poles, as they
always have. In addition, the settlement enables efforts to hook up additional
communities with electricity to continue.
The protections built into die settlement would not have been possible without the
support and prayers of the people who live on the mountain and the chapters who passed
resolutions of support for Dine' CARE's efforts.
Dine3 CARE would, therefore, like to thank these
people and communities. Prora te °° 03°l
(970) 25M199
Fax:(970)259-3413
-------
12/12/95 18:09 IEN NfiTIONflL OFC -» 202 234 0015 218 751 0551 NO. 167 002
""" "MTP pe\i PAGE 01
fl«nii»«n •(Net
'.O.SM2U HI* tut str«ti
Nomr.«E |4*M SllFiiMiiC*. Cl l*H«
••mil: «III«JH JttMt
URGENT
VIA FAX 202-260-0852 3 pages
December 11, 1995
Dr. Clarice E. Gaylord
Director, EPA Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Dr. Gaylord:
The Military Toxics Project would like to submit the following two pages as public
testimony for this week's NEJAC meeting. The testimony describes problems faced by
communities of color living near military munitions facilities and the EPA's proposed
rule on regulating munitions wastes.
The Military Toxics Project, founded in 1989, is a national network that unites activists,
peace and environmental organizations, veterans and communities in campaigns for cleanup of
military pollution; empowerment of local communities to participate in decisions that affect
their health and environment; and advancement of the development and implementation of
preventative-based solutions to the toxic and radioactive pollution caused by U.S. military
activities. MTP currently has 130 members who participate in our three campaigns:
Conventional Munitions, Depleted Uranium Weapons, and Base Closure.
Please feel free to call me (207-743-2541) if you have any questions about this testimony. I
would also appreciate your help in forwarding copies of the testimony to the persons listed
below as they may not have received it before their flights.
Sincerely,
Cathy Hinds
Executive Director
enclosure: public testimony
cc: Richard Moore, Chair, NEJAC
Charles Lee, Chair. NEJAC Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Lenny Siegel, Member, NEJAC Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
Tom Goldtooth, Member. NEJAC Health & Research Subcommittee
\ /
-------
Nliionii Dttlet OenlopniMl etllai
r.O. IDI 2*0
Urwn. Mt OktU
8MI0: ZD7-743-H4I
i:207-7U-ZMI
mtii: Mtpeiac.tpe.ori
: oou9lia.igt.an
PUBLIC TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NEJAC)
December II, 1995
Pursuant to the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 (Sec. 107), the Environmental
Protection Agency is engaged in a rulemaking that directly affects the many communities in
which present and former Department of Defense munitions ranges, as well as munitions
storage, treatment, and disposal facilities, are located. In that legislation, Congress directed the
EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations determining when military munitions become a
hazardous waste. The law clearly states, "Any such regulations shall assure protection of
human health and the environment" EPA published a proposed rule November 8, and it has
pledged to promulgate the final version by October 31, 1996.
Our preliminary review of problems associated with military munitions facilities, particularly
impact ranges and burning areas, suggest that military munitions activities heavily impact
many communities of color, other poor rural communities, and particularly the lands of native
Americans, native Alaskans, and native Hawaiians. Here are a few examples:
* A 2,500-acre portion of the land taken from the Oglala Sioux during World War II, at
great hardship to the residents, remains in Air Force hands because the Air Force will not or
cannot remove unexploded munitions. The military also appears unwilling to investigate and
remove munitions contamination on the other 300,000 acres already returned to the Sioux
nation.
* After World War II, the military retained control of the culturally significant Makua
Valtey, jn Hawai'i, against the wishes of the Hawaiian government, because it said it could
not make the Valley safe. In Waikane Valley, on the far side of Oahu, the military actually
condemned (repossessed with minimal compensation) culturally significant land from a
munitions impact range previously returned to a Native Hawaiian family because it said it
could not afford to remediate it.
* At Fort Ord, California, the military opposition to external regulatory oversight of the
former impact range is likely to expose the nearby population, in the largely
African-American community of Seaside, to explosive and other environmental hazards.
-------
* At the Sierra Army Depot, in northern California, the Army's open burning and open
detonation of munitions wastes and waste munitions creates environmental and public health
hazards on Pyramid Lake Faiute land. A large share of that activity was moved there after
residents of the San Jose area forced the severe restriction of similar activities there
Unfortunately, in no place in the extensive preamble accompanying the proposed rule
does EPA mention Environmental Justice. Once again, Environmental Justice ha» been
segregated from a mainline EPA activity affecting communities of color. This is a serious
oversight in itself, and we believe it runs counter to the Environmental Justice Executive
Order, as well as EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy.
We call upon the National ErrvironmentalJustice Advisory Council to urge that EPA, in its
promulgation of the final regulations, fully study and consider the environmental Justice
impact of the munitions rule. Are communities of color or other low-income communities
disproportionately impacted by pollution and explosive hazards from munitions facilities? Do
the military's policies and practices on munitions threaten the relationship of native peoples to
culturally and historically significant land?
-------
D.C. COALITION
ON
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
The D.C. Coalition on Environmental Justice
envisions clean, healthy, safe, and productive
neighborhoods for all D.C. residents.
We are a partnership of community activists,
attorneys, medical and public health professionals,
and academics working together to effect change.
Because vibrant neighborhoods are the building blocks
of a healthy city, we have combined our skills,
resources, and voices to undertake projects designed to
improve the quality of life in the District.
Like most major cities, the District suffers from a
host of environmental problems: air, water, and motor
vehicle pollution, inadequate hazardous waste
disposal, leaking underground storage tanks, drinking
water contamination, exposure to lead and other toxic
substances, and illegal dumping in our streets, alleys,
and streams.
We consistently suffer high incidences of cancer
and respiratory diseases. We do not fully understand
the extent to which our illnesses are environmental in
origin, but we do know that the burden of our
environmental, public health, and safety failures
falls disproportionately on our most struggling
residents.
Faced with this challenge, we have 4 goals:
* to listen to the voices of our most neglected
neighborhoods and, in partnership with them, develop
strategies rooted in on-the-ground knowledge,
* to focus public attention on environmental,
health and safety hazards and, through education,
reduce their impact on our population.
-------
* to act to assure full recognition of community
voices in environmental decision-making, and
* to enable ourselves and others to respond
consistently and creatively to the challenge.
Sponsoring organizations include:
African American Environmentalists Assn.
American Rivers
Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership
Anacostia Museum. Smithsonian Institution
Anacostia Watershed Society
D.C. Bar
• D.C. Bar District ot Columbia Affairs Section
D.C. Bar Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Section
D.C. Commission on Public Health
D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. Environmental
Regulation Administration
Environmental Law Institute
Georgetown University Law School
Howard University School of Biology
Howard University School of Nursing
Lawyers Committee for'Civil Rights Under Law
Medico Chirurgical Society of the District of Columbia
National Wildlife Federation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington Bar Association
Our aim: by acting together, to be a catalyst for
change within the District and a model for communities
throughout the nation.
-------
DEC-08-1995 13=44
ENU HEfiLTH COflLITION
P.02
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH qOALITION
1717 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100 • San Diego, CA 9210J • (619) 235-0281 Fax (619) 232-3670
Board of Directors
Beairiz Barraza-Roppe, President
Shaip The Birth Place
Michael Shames, Vice President
Utility Consumer Action Network
Sharon Kalemkiarian. Secretary
LSD Children's Advocacy
Institute
Tony Pettina. MA. Treasurer
S.D. Community College District
Doug Ballis
Internationa) Association of
Iron Workers
Jim Bell
Ecological Life Systems Institute
Scott Charfield
101 KGB FM
MarcCummuigs
Nathan Cumrmngs Foundation
Laura Durazo
Proyecio Fronterizo de Educacion
Ambiental
Rath Heifeiz. MD. MPH
UCSD School of Medicine
Richard Juarez
Metropolitan Area Advisory
Committee
LynLacye
Lacye &. Associates
Josi LaMoni Jones
Gompers Secondary School
Dan McKiman. Ph.D.
UCSD School of Medicine
Mark Mande)
Kashi Company
Reynaldo Pisafio
Jay Powell
Affiliations noted far identification
purposes only
Executive Director
Diane Takvorian
Decembers, 1995
Dr. Clarice E. Gaylord
Office of EnvironmentaJ Justice
USEPA
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
MC-3103
Dear Dr. Gaylord:
Please be informed that we will be present at the December NEJAC meeting
which will be held at the Omni Hotel in Washington D.C. As< I expressed in my
phone message, four citizens, including myself, would like to testify during the
public comment period.
The purpose of the testimony is to bring to attention the environmental
justice issues associated with the New River in the County of Imperial,
California and Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. As you may be aware, the
New River poses serious health and environmental concerns to people of color
and low income communities on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico Border.
I
The list of people who wish to testify include:
Marina Lamarque
Daniel Luna
Kimberley Herrera
CdsarLuna
concerned citizen, Calexico, CA
student, Calexico, CA
student, Calexico, CA
NGO representative, San Diego, CA
We are scheduling to be in Washington D.C. early next week. Because of
the nature and expense of this trip, we sincerely hope your office can assist us
in presenting our concerns to the Commission in the best possible way in order
to bring more efforts to remediate this situation. Thank you for you attention.
Mission Statement
Environmental Health Coalition is
dedicated to the prevention and
cleanup of toxic pollution
threatening our health, our
communities, and the environment.
We promote environmental justice.
monitor government and industry'
actions that cause pollution.
educate communities about toxic
hazards and toxics use reduction.
and empower the public to join our
Cesar tana
Director, Border
Environmental Justice Campaign
Pri
TOTftL P.02
-------
Meeting LoartJoni
TELEVISED COMMENT PERIOD
12, 1995
fl
A/
/CO -
u
006-74
f^ " (fir .
(
CQ^riCAM/664 -02,12
/
-------
DEC-13-1995 17: 16
£pfl
J.O
-------
OEC-13-1995 17: 15 FROM EPfl T0
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL VU
ADVISORY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING
i TELEVISED COMMENT PERIOD
1995
912022500852 ?.15
Meeting Location:
'xrtfgggiw.
7^'OOOD
'
\
\
\
\
\
-------
DEC-13-1S95 11:55
EPfl
TO
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ADVISORY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING
TELEVISED COMMENT PERIOD
December 12,1995
Sign-In Sheet
M«ang Location: #*Wa5 «?/?/f. 9?-?^*^^
«//S L-Jiffrrt ! tie IP* A
L J/COf
/
06ft ^. -^.t^ A <>/
c f 5 O-1 Cy&ta^-
'
\\
/I
•M -
FAX TRANSMITTAL
cfpaqw*
F-om
-------
TO
LW--13-1S95 17:15 FROM EPfl
NATIONAL El
j ADVISORY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING
j TELEVISED COMMENT PERIOD
i
i
Deeanbir tt, 1993
; Sigft-Ih Sheet
M-flng bo*.
912022600852 P.. 16
X^MN
\
^^^^
\
X^^^^
\
^•^^^
\
\
V
\
\
Y
I
Jk«^^
\
\
X
-------
TO
DEC-13-1595 11:55 FROM EPR
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL,
j ADVISORY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING
1 TELEVISED COMMENT PERIOD
Deoaabw 12,1995
Sign-In Sheet
Meeting Location:
912022600552 P.02
tj
\
S3?-
\
y
\
-------
Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico
Facuttad de Derecho
Clinica de Asistencia Legal
Proyecto Especial de Derecho Ambiental
December 18, 1995
NEJAC
C/O Miss Marva E. King
Office of Environmental Justice
• Mail Code 3103
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Sirs/Mams:
Enclosed is the brief exposition addressed to NEJAC on December 12,
1995 Via Satellite.
"Good evening. My name is Diana Lopez-Peliciano, Professor of
Environmental Law and the Environmental Law Clinic of the Inter
American University, School of Law. The Clinic commenced on
January, 1995 due to the existing need of legal services by low
income individuals and communities. It is the first and only
Clinic in the whole Island of Puerto Rico which consists of 3.5
million people.
Tonight I want to expose some matters which the Clinic encountered
during the past year with the clients that have problems related to
environmental matters and/or pollution.
The Clinic receives more cases that what it can handle. Based on
the aforementioned and other data, we can conclude the following:
l) The local and federal government do not provide a solution
to all the cases they receive.
2) Many of the problems could he solved if education and
legal advise could be provided to Puertorricans as to: a) the
cause of the environmental problems; b) the available resources to
prevent the problems,- and/or c) the available remedies that could
solve the problems.
-------
NEJAC
Page 2
December 18, 1995
Therefore, we request funds for the non-governmental organizations
and the environmental law clinics, such as the one we have
established, that provide education and advise free of charge to
the low income Puertorricans pursuing environmental justice.
Thank you . "
I appreciated the comments made by Ms. Dolores Herrera from San
Jose University, Thank You. I also appreciate Mr. John O'Leary
concern and would like to receive the directory of attorneys he
mentioned.
I hope to receive feedback on my request in order to continue our
program..
Sincerely,
DIANA LOflBfc-^LICIANO, ESQ
Professor
DLF/nop
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council Meeting
Washington, D.C.
December 12-14, 1995
List of Attendees
Khalil Abdullah
Communications Director
National Black Caucus of State
Legislators
444-N. Capitol Street, NW
#622
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-624-5457
Fax: 202-508-3826
Joseph Alexander
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 8101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-7676
Fax: Not Provided
Sha-King Alston
Center for Family, Work and
Community (CFWC)
1 University Avenue
Lowell, MA 01854
Phone: 508-934-3296
Fax: 508-934-3026
Kathleen Backer
Attorney Advisor
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2272)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-6703
Fax: Not Provided
Don Beck
Deputy Director
U.S. DOE
1000 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20854
Phone: 202-586-7635
Fax: 202-586-4622
Herbert A. Becker
Director
Office of Tribal Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
9th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: 202-514-8812
Fax: 202-514-9078
Elizabeth Bell
U.S. EPA
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8106
Fax: 202-260-0852
Christine Benally
Executive Director
Dine CARE
Box 1992
Shiprock, NM 87420
Phone: 505-S
Fax: Not Provided
Kent Benjamin
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
401 M Street, SW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-6606
Fax: Not Provided
Marjorie Boekholtz
Brownfields Team Leader
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-9605
Fax: 202-260-6754
Darlene Boerlage
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2261)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-0413
Fax: 202-260-9437
John C. Borum
Vice President
AT&T
131 Morristown Road
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
Phone: 908-204-8600
Fax: 908-204-8212
Nicolaas Bouwes
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW MC (7406)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1622
Fax: Not Provided
Jose Bravo
SW Network for Environmental &
Economic Justice
1717 Kettner Boulevard
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-239-8030
Fax: 619-239-8505
Walter Bresette
Lake Superior Chippewa
ANISHINABE NIIJII
Route 1
Box 117
Bayfield, Wl 54814
Phone: 715-779-5071
Fax: 715-779-4010
Dana Brewington
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
401 M Street SW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4610
Fax: 202-260-3527
Sue Briggum
WMX
1155 Connecticut Avenue
Technology, Inc., NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-467-4480
Fax: 202-659-8752
Walter Brodtman
Ecosystem Team Leader
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2225A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4181
Fax: 202-564-0028
Susan E. Bromm
Deputy Office Director
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2271)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4823
Fax: 202-260-3106
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of Attendees
Page 2
Janice Bryant
U.S. EPA
Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
401 M Street, SW (MC 2125)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-2730
Fax: 202-260-0174
Robert Bullard
Clark Atlanta University
Environmental Justice Resource Center
223 Brawley Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Phone: 404-880-6920
Fax: 404-880-6909
Rose Burgess
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (2245 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4049
Fax: 202-564-0023
John G. Buscher
Office of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun
320 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20025
Phone: 202-224-2854
Fax: 202-228-1318
Brad Campbell
White House Council on Environmental
Quality
17th and Pennsylvania Avenue
Room 360, Old Executive Office
Building
Washington, DC 20503
Phone: 202-456-6224
Fax: Not Provided
Marcia Carpentier
Health Physicist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 6604J)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-233-9711
Fax: Not Provided
Astel Cavanaugh
Sioux Manufacturing Corporation
P.O. Box 100
St. Michael, ND 58370
Phone: 701-766-4211
Fax: 701-766-4359
Velma Charles-Shannon
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th and Indiana, SW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-690-3509
Fax: 202-690-2345
Carol Christensen
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 7405)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8129
Fax: 202-260-8850
Angela Chung
U.S. EPA
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Phone: 202-260-3595
Fax: 202-260-0852
Kathy M. Clark
U.S. EPA
Multimedia Enforcement Division
401 M Street, SW (MC 2248-A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-6013
Fax: 202-564-0010
Marsha Coleman-Adeboyo
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2620)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-3826
Fax: 202-260-4770
Ted Coopwood
Biologist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2223A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-7058
Fax: Not Provided
Teresa Cordova
University of New Mexico
2414 Central Avenue, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Phone: 505-277-7535
Fax: 505-277-0267
Olga Corey
939 26th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
Robert Coronado
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-5431
Fax: Not Provided
Paul Cough
EPA/OIA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8975
Fax: 202-260-4470
Amy Crumpton
Center for the Study of Science in
Society
Lane Hall 335
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0127
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: 540-231-7013
Richard D. Cunningham
Director, Environmental Support
Services
OGDEN Environmental Energy Services
3211 Jermantown Road
P.O. Box 10130
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 703-246-0777
Fax: 703-246-0939
Nimmi Damodaran
Senior Analyst
DynCorp
6101 Stevenson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22304
Phone: 703-461-2032
Fax: 703-461-2020
Nana Ohene Darko
President/CEO
World Africa Chamber of Commerce
3 Bethesda Metro Center
Suite 750
PO Box 33144
Washington, DC 20033
Phone: 301-493-5894
Fax: 301-530-2876
Michael Davis
Superfund Report
1225 Jefferson Davis Highway
Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 703-416-8526
Fax: 703-416-8543
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of Attendees
Page 3
Katherine Dawes
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Outreach/Special Project
Staff
401 M Street, SW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8394
Fax: 202-260-6606
Georges R. Domingos
4801 Kenmore Avenue, #721
Alexandria, VA 22304
Phone: 703-212-0989
Fax: 703-212-0242
Phyllis Donahue
Information Management Specialist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of Attendees
Page 4
Pamela Font
U.S. EPA
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-2571
Fax: 202-260-0852
Renee Goins
U.S. EPA
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-5745
Fax: 202-260-0852
David Hahn-Baker
Inside-Out Political Consultants
440 Lincoln Parkway
Buffalo, NY 14216
Phone: 716-877-2004
Fax: 716-877-2004
Chris Foreman
Senior Fellow
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, iNW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-797-6087
Fax: 202-797-6144
Laurie Frazier
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202-208-6191
Fax: Not Provided
Linda Garczynski
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1223
Fax: Not Provided
Pat Garvey
U.S. EPA
1550 Wilson Boulevard
Rosslyn, VA 22209
Phone: 703-235-5571
Fax: 703-557-3186
Clarice Gaylord
Director
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Room 2710
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-0850
Fax: 202-260-3347
Danny Gogal
U.S. EPA
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-0392
Fax: 202-260-0852
Lynn Goldman
Assistant Administrator
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic
Substances
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 7101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-2902
Fax: Not Provided
Tom Goldtooth
Indigenous Environmental Network
P.O. Box 485
Bemjidi, MN 56601
Phone: 218-751-4967
Fax: 218-751-0561
Ron Grandon
Editor
PTCN
1101 Pennsyvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC
Phone: 202-544-1980
Fax: Not Provided
Michael Guerrero
SW Organizing Project
211 10th Street, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phone: 505-247-8832
Fax: 505-247-9972
Robert Haehnle
Environmental Engineer
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1315 East-West Highway (OA3X1)
Silver Spring, MD 20550
Phone: 301-713-0845
Fax: 301-713-0219
Loren Hall
U.S. EPA
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics
401 M Street, SW (MC 7408)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-3931
Fax: 202-401-8142
Marty Halper
U.S. EPA
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-2452
Fax: 202-260-0852
Jeff Hamburg
Attorney
Jefferson Group
1341 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-626-8500
Fax: Not Provided
Grover Hankins
Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Texas Southern University
3100 Cleburne Avenue
Room 212
Houston, TX 77004
Phone: 713-313-7287
Fax: 713-313-1087
Joseph Harris
ICF KAISER
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, VA 22031
Phone: 703-934-3769
Fax: 703-218-2669
Phil Harrison
URVC
Dine CARE
PO Box 1526
Shiprock, NM 87420
Phone: 505-368-5688
Fax: Not Provided
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of Attendees
Page 5
Rose Harvell
U.S. EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (MC 2273-G)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-6056
Fax: Not Provided
Amahra Hicks
Manager Commencement 2000
USDA Forest Service
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-705-2604
Fax: 415-705-2836
Abigail Jahiel
Center for Energy and Environmental
Policy
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19711
Phone: 302-831-1683
Fax: 302-831-3098
Steven M. Hassur
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
(MC 7406, Room E-349A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1735
Fax: 202-260-0981
Susan Hoff
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Outreach/Special Projects
401 M Street, SW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-0840
Fax: 202-260-6606
Sarah James
Geiechin Nation
PO Box 51
Arctic Village, AK 99722
Phone: 907-587-5315
Fax: 907-258-6814
Tina Hayes
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20249
Phone: 202-208-6191
Fax: 202-208-6970
Grace L. Hernell
807 W. 40th Street
Chattanooga, TN 37410
Phone: 423-821-7286
Fax: Not Provided
Dolores Herrera
Albuquerque San Jose Community
Awareness Council, Inc.
P.O. Box 12297
Albuquerque, NM 87195-2297
Phone: 505-243-4837
Fax: 505-243-3085
Rachel Herzig
Alliance to End Childhood Lead
Poisoning
227 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-543-1147
Fax: 202-543-4466
Jeanne Heying
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 7506-C)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-305-7666
Fax: 703-308-2962
Cheryl Hogue
Daily Environment Report
1231 25th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202-452-4600
Fax: 202-452-4150
Arthur M. Holloway
U.S. EPA
Indoor Environments Division
401 M Street, SW (MC 6604J)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-233-9426
Fax: 202-233-9652
Brian Holtzclaw
U.S. EPA
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: 404-347-3555 ext. 61 77
Fax: 404-347-3085
Bob Huggett
Assistant Administrator for Research
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 8101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-7676
Fax: Not Provided
Lawrence G. Hurst
Director, Communications
Motorola, Inc.
8220 East Roosevelt
Mail Drop R 3125
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
Phone: 602-441-3210
Fax: 602-441-3965
Ellen Jessen
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2245A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4041
Fax: 202-564-0020
Susan Jewell
Attorney
U.S. EPA
Office of Civil Rights
401 M Street, SW (MC 1205)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4585
Fax: 202-260-4580
Hazel Johnson
People for Community Recovery
13116 South Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60627
Phone: 312-468-1645
Fax: 312-468-8105
William Jordan
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 7506C)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-305-7410
Fax: 703-308-2962
Lillian Kawasaki
L.A. Department of Environment Affairs
201 N. Figueroa, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 213-580-1045
Fax: 213-580-1084
Kevin Keaney
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 750-C)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-305-7666
Fax: 703-308-2962
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of Attendees
Page 6
Tom Kennedy
Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials
Hall of States, Sute 388
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
Man/a King
U.S. EPA Office of Environmental
Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-0141
Fax: 202-260-0852
Toshia King
U.S. EPA
Office of Waste
401 M Street, SW (MC 5303W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-7033
Fax: 703-308-8617
Molly Kirchner
Community Affairs Research Assistant
Molten Metal Technology
51 Sawyer Road
Waltham, MA 02154
Phone: 617-768-4527
Fax: 617-487-7870
Seth Kirshenberg
ICMA
777 North Capitol Street, NE, #500
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-962-3663
Fax: 202-962-3500
Cathy Kronopolus
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 7506C)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-305-7666
Fax: 703-308-2962
Marina E. Lamarque
Community Representative
PO Box 446
Calexico, CA
Phone: 619-357-9077
Fax: Not Provided
Robin P. Lancaster
Attorney
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2245A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4172
Fax: 202-564-0035
Richard Lazarus
Visiting Professor
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-662-9129
Fax: 202-662-9408
Charles Lee
Director of Research
Commission for Racial Justice
United Church of Christ
475 Riverside Drive
16th Floor
New York, NY 10015
Phone: 212-870-2077
Fax: 212-870-2162
M. Lopez-Otin
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555
Phone: 301-415-3528
Fax: 301-415-3502
C£sar Luna
Director Bordes Environmental Justice
Campaign
Environmental Health Coalition
1717 Ketterer Building
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-235-0281
Fax: 619-238-3670
Daniel Luna
Student
1620 Rockwood, Apt. B
Calexico, CA 92231
Phone: 619-359-4319
Fax: Not Provided
James L. Maas
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
401 M Street, SW (MS 5104)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8927
Fax: 202-260-6606
Rhonda Maddox
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (MC 2242-A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-7026
Fax: 202-564-0015
Chris Kirtz
Director
Consensus and Dispute Resolution
Program
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2136)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-7565
Fax: 202-260-5478
Robert Knox
Deputy Director
Office of Environmental Justice
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Room 2710
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8195
Fax: 202-260-0852
Lily Lee
U.S. EPA
Office of the Administrator
401 M Street, SW (MC 1101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4724
Fax: 202-260-4852
Peter LeRoy
Licensing Manager
2600 Virginia Avenue
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 704-382-2834
Fax: 704-382-8770
Cynthia Marquez
704 Ethel Street
Calexico, CA 92231
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
Lawrence Martin
U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development
401 M Street, SW (MC 8104)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-0673
Fax: 202-260-0507
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of Attendees
Page 7
Juan Martinez
U.S. EPA
Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-9096
Fax: Not Provided
Martha Matsuoka
The Urban Habitat Program
300 Broadway, Suite 28
San Francisco, CA 94133
Phone: 415-788-3666
Fax: Not Provided
Debra L. Matthews
Alton Park/Piney Woods Neighborhood
Improvement Corp.
P.O. Box 2485
Chattanooga, TN 37409
Phone: 423-266-2751
Fax: Not Provided
Andrew McBride
Director
Stamford, CT Health Department
888 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06904-2052
Phone: 203-977-4396
Fax: 203-977-5882
Mildred McClain
Citizens for Environmental Justice
P.O. Box 1841
Savannah, GA 31402
Phone: 912-233-0907
Fax: 912-233-5105
Charles McDermott
Director of Government Affairs
WMX Technology, Inc.
1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-467-4480
Fax: 202-659-8752
James McDonald
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2245A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4043
Fax: 202-564-0023
Margo Meeks
U.S. EPA
Office of Environment and Compliance
Assurance
401 M Street, SW (MC 2243A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4058
Fax: 202-564-0054
Sherry Milan
U.S. EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
401 M Street, SW (MC 2201)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-9807
Fax: 202-260-7553
Richard Moore
Chairman
Southwest Network for Environmental
and Economic Justice
117 7th Street, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phone: 505-242-0416
Fax: 505-242-5609
Mike Northridge
Attorney
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-3586
Fax: Not Provided
Myrtle C. Nsekela
Senior Accountant
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20249
Phone: 202-208-6970
Fax: Not Provided
John O'Leary
Pierce & Atwood
One Monument Square
Portland, ME 04101
Phone: 207-773-6411
Fax: 207-773-3419
Mary O'Lone
U.S. EPA
Office of General Counsel
401 M Street, SW (MC 2322)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1487
Fax: 202-260-8393
Carol Parker
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-305-7666
Fax: 703-308-2962
Shirley Pate
U.S. EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
401 M Street, SW (MC 2221)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8318
Fax: 202-260-7553
Delta Pereira
U.S. EPA Translator
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-3565
Fax: 202-260-0852
Yvette Perez-Hellyer
U.S. EPA Biologist
401 M Street, SW (MC 2245-A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4033
Fax: 202-564-0020
Carolyn Perry
Analyst
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20249
Phone: 202-208-6191
Fax: Not Provided
Sandca Peters
c/o Charles Lee
United Church of Christ
475 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10115
Phone: 212-870-2077
Fax: 212-870-2162
Virginia Phillips
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-8761
Fax: 703-308-8638
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of Attendees
Page 8
Michael Pierle
Monsanto
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard (A3NA)
St. Louis, MO 63167
Phone: 314-694-8882
Fax: 314-694-8957
Peggy Saika
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
1221 Preservation Parkway
2nd Floor
Oakland, CA94612
Phone: 510-834-8920
Fax: 510-834-8926
Catherine M.. Sheaf or
Director of Environmental Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
10th & Constitution Avenues, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: Not Provided
Fax: Not Provided
Jerry Poje
Scientist
NIEHS
Bethesda, MD
Phone: 301-496-3511
Fax: Not Provided
Arthur Ray
Maryland Department of the
Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD21224
Phone: 410-631-3086
Fax: 410-631-3888
Lee Salamone
Manager
Chemical Manufacturer's Association
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202-887-6944
Fax: 202-778-4177
Sherry Salway Black
Lakota/First Nations
11917 Main Street
Brownsville, TX 78521
Phone: 210-548-7400
Fax: 210-544-7859
Peggy M. Shepard
West Harlem Environmental Action,
Inc.
271 W. 125th Street, #211
New York, NY 10027
Phone: 212-961-1000
Fax: 212-961-1015
Lenny Siegel
Pacific Studies Center
222-B View Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: 415-961-8918
Fax: 415-968-1126
Doretta Reaves
U.S. EPA
Office of Communication, Education &
Public Affairs
401 M Street, SW (MC-1702)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-3534
Fax: 202-260-0130
Donna Robbins
U.S. Department of Interior
Environmental Justice
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20249
Phone: 202-208-6169
Fax: 202-208-6970
Milton Robinson
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2232)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-9009
Fax: Not Provided
Conchi Rodriguez
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 7506C)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-2951
Fax: 703-308-2962
Shruti Sanghavi
U.S. EPA
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (MC 2225A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4158
Fax: 202-564-0028
William Sanjour
Policy Analyst
U.S. EPA (MC 5304)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4502
Fax: Not Provided
Antoinette G. Sebastian
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
451 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: 202-708-4251
Fax: 202-708-3363
Jon Sesso
Butte-Silverbow Planning Board
Courthouse
155 W. Granite
Butte, MT 59701
Phone: 406-723-8262 x274
Fax: 406-782-6637
Jon Silberman
Special Assistant
U.S. EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
Phone: 202-260-3914
Fax: 202-260-0500
Patricia Sims
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (MC 2245A)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-564-4048
Fax: 202-564-0023
Damu Smith
Greenpeace USA
1436 U Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-319-2598
Fax: 202-462-4507
Southern Organizing Committee
Phone No: 404-876-8566
Fax: 404-892-7601
Bruce Smith
Vigyan, Inc.
1953 Gallows Road, Suite 320
Vienna, VA 22182
Phone: 703-761-0200
Fax: 703-761-9620
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of Attendees
Page 9
Linda Smith
U.S. EPA
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4604
Fax: 202-260-0852
Lisa L. Sutton
Clark Atlanta University
Environmental Justice Resource Center
223 James P. Brawley Drive, SW
Atlanta, QA 30314
Phone: 404-880-6911
Fax: 404-880-6909
Haywood Turrentine
Laborers International Union
4221 Chace Lake Fairway
Hoover, AL 35244
Phone: 205-985-9579
Fax: 205-988-4359
Robin Snyder
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2125)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-8331
Fax: 202-260-0174
Angela Souder Blackwell
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 2366)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-6952
Fax: 202-260-0584
Elaine Stanley
Director
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (MC 2221 A)
Phone: 202-564-2280
Fax: 202-564-0037
Deb Starkey
National Conference of State
Legislatures
1560 Broadway, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-830-2200
Fax: 303-863-8003
Janice Stevens
Sac and Fox Nation
Route 2
Box 246
Stroud, OK 74079
Phone: 918-968-2583
Fax: 918-968-4727
Janice Y. Stewart
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: CETEC-OD-DC
Alexandria, VA 22315
Phone: 703-355-2968
Fax: 703-355-0070
Pam Teel
U.S. EPA
Office of International Activities
401 M Street, SW (MC 2621)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4896
Fax: Not Provided
Andrew Teplitzky
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, SW (MC 5306W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-7275
Fax: 703-308-8686
Michael Terrell
Assistant to Brad Campbell
Council on Environmental Quality
Old Executive Office Building
Room 360
Washington, DC 20501
Phone: 202-456-6224
Fax: Not Provided
Yolanda Ting
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 52046)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-603-8835
Fax: 703-603-9103
Rex L. Tingle
AFL-CIO Department of Occupational
Safety and Health
815 16th Street, NW
Room 704
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-637-5003
Fax: 202-508-6978
Connie Tucker
Southern Organizing Committee
P.O. Box 10518
Atlanta, GA 10518
Phone: 404-755-2855
Fax: 404-755-0575
Michael Tydings
34 Silent Brook Place
The Woodlands, TX 77381
Phone: 713-656-5582
Fax: Not Provided
Alex Varela
U.S. EPA
Office of Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (MC 3103)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-3504
Fax: 202-260-0852
Baldemar Velasquez
Director
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
507 South St. Clair Street
Toledo, OH 43602
Phone: 419-243-3456
Fax: 419-243-5655
Edna Villanueva
U.S. EPA
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW (MC 4504F)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-6059
Fax: Not Provided
Nathalie Walker
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
400 Magazine Street, Suite 401
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: 504-522-1394
Fax: 504-566-7242
Max Weintraub
National Safety Council
1019 19th Street, NW #401
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-293-2270 x 934
Fax: 202-659-1190
Virgil P. Whitehurst
Analyst
TMS
18759 N. Frederick
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Phone: 301-670-6390
Fax: Not Provided
-------
NEJAC Meeting December 12, 1995
List of A ttendees
Page 10
Valerie A. Wilk
Co-Director
Farmworker Justice Fund
2001 S Street, NW, #210
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-462-8192
Fax: 202-462-0472
Elizabeth Zanowiak
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-233-9417
Fax: Not Provided
Amina Wilkins
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 8603)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-5056
Fax: 202-260-1722
Mia Zmud
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 5306W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-7263
Fax: 703-308-8686
Patricia Williams
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-797-6887
Fax: 202-797-6646
Terry Williams
U.S. EPA
American Indian Environmental Office
401 M Street, SW, (MC 4104)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-7939
Fax: 202-260-7509
Beverly Wright
Xavier University
Deep South Center for Environmental
Justice
7325 Palmetto Street
P.O. Box 45B
New Orleans, LA 70125
Phone: 504-483-7340
Fax: 504-488-7977
Jan Young
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
401 M Street, SW (MC 5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1691
Fax: 202-260-6606
Barbara Yuhas
ICMA
777 North Capitol Street, NE
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202-962-3536
Fax: 202-962-3500
------- |