H
RAI
MENTA
JUSTICE
CONFE
ENCE
May 15 & 16, 1995
aponsorea by:
Hostea oy;
JDept. or Justice ana
Environmental Protection
Dept. of tne Interior
.gency
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
MAY 15-16, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Conference Agenda.
2. Focus Group Assignments.
3. Conference Registration List. ^,.
4. Executive Order No. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. February
11,1994.
5. Presidential Memorandum, Executive Order on Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, February 11, 1994.
6. Statement of Carol M. Browner, Environmental Justice Executive Order,
February 11,1994.
7. Statement of Janet Reno, Environmental Justice, February 11, 1994.
8. Executive Order No. 12250, Leadership and Coordination of
Nondiscrimination Laws. November 2, 1980.
9. Executive Order No. 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know
Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements, August 3, 1993.
10. Background on Environmental Justice.
11. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Department of Justice
Implementing Regulations. «
12. Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies That Provide
Federal Financial Assistance.
13. Background on Title VI.
14. Remarks by Deval Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division, Department of Justice, Before the Title VI Conference, May 5,
1995.
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
MAY 15-16, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
15. National Environmental Policy Act and CEQ Implementing Regulations.
16. The Environmental Impact Assessment Process Under The National
Environmental Policy Act.
17. Preliminary Draft Guidance for Consideration of Environmental Justice in
Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews.
18. Hypothetical Fact Situation for Focus Group Discussion.
19. Interim Revised EPA Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy.
20. National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Public Participation
Model.
21. Interagency Working Group Public Participation Checklist.
22. EPA Environmental Justice Monitor Special Edition on Atlanta Meeting.
23. Background Materials on the Community Relations Service and Regional
Contacts.
24. The Community Relations Service Approach to Conflict Resolution.
25. " Materials on Geographic Information Systems.
26. Materials on the Interagency Working Group.
27. Materials on the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
28. EPA Environmental Justice Contacts.
29. Bibliographies.
30. Evaluation Forms and Notepaper.
•2-
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
MAY 15-16, 1995
AGENDA
DAY ONE
8:30 - 9:00 Registration
Pick-up name tags, schedules, focus group assignments, and other
materials.
9:00 - 9:20 Welcome and Introductions
LOIS J. SCHIFFER
Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources Division,
Department of Justice
DANIEL J. RONDEAU
Director,
Office of Civil Rights
Environmental Protection Agency
9:20 - 9:35 Introduction to Environmental Justice
ROBERT J. KNOX
Deputy Director,
Office of Environmental Justice,
Environmental Protection Agency
9:35 - 9:45 Opening Remarks
BRADLEY M. CAMPBELL
Associate Director,
Toxics and Environment Education,
Council on Environmental Quality
9:45 - 10:00 Preview of Conference
A brief review of what we want to accomplish and how we will do it.
RODNEY J. CASH
Associate Director,
Office of Civil Rights,
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
10:00 - 10:30
10:30 - 10:45
10:45 - 11:30
11:30 - Noon
Noon - 1:00
1:00 - 2:15
Panel Presentation - Civil Rights
Brief remarks on Title VI.
"Equal Protection"
MARY M. O'LONE
Senior Environmental Justice Counsel,
Office of General Counsel,
Environmental Protection Agency
"Title VI: Federal Financial Assistance, Program and Activity, and the
Pinpoint Provision"
ANDREW STROJNY
Acting Deputy,
Coordination and Review Section,
Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice
"Jurisdictional Issues Raised in the Title VI Complaint Evaluation
Process"
RICHARD L. ALBORES
Attorney-Advisor,
Office of Civil Rights,
Environmental Protection Agency
"Harm"
MARY ST. PETER
Attorney-Advisor,
Office of Civil Rights,
Environmental Protection Agency
Break
Civil Rights Panel Presentation, continued
Questions and Discussion - Civil Rights Panel
Lunch on your own (cafeteria in building)
Panel Presentation - NEPA
"Brief remarks on the National Environmental Policy Act.
"The Nuts and Bolts of NEPA"
ELIZABETH BLAUG
Attorney,
Council on Environmental Quality
-------
"Environmental Justice Guidance"
MARSHALL CAIN
Senior Legal Advisor,
Office of Federal Activities,
Environmental Protection Agency
"Reducing Risk of Environmental Justice Litigation"
NADIRA CLARKE
Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General,
Office of the Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources Division,
Department of Justice
"Environmental Justice Issues in Litigation"
CHARLES (SPINNER) FINDLAY
Attorney,
General Litigation Section,
Environment and Natural Resources Division,
Department of Justice
2:1 5 - 2:45 Questions and Discussion - NEPA
2:45 - 3:00 Break
3:00 - 3:20 Presentation of Fact Situation for Focus Groups
CATHY SHEAFOR.
Director of Environmental Justice,
Office of the Associate Attorney General,
Department of Justice
3:30 - 4:20 Focus Groups
Audience divides into five groups to discuss fact situation with panel
teams.
4:25 - 5:00 Summary of Focus Groups
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
MAY 15-16, 1995
AGENDA
DAY TWO
9:00 - 9:20 Welcome and Introduction to Day Two
JEAN C. NELSON
General Counsel,
Environmental Protection Agency
9:20 - 10:00 Review of Focus Groups and Discussion of Unresolved Issues
DANIEL A. SEARING,
Attorney-Advisor,
Coordination and Review Section,
Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice
10:00 - 10:30 Tribal Jurisdiction
ELIZABETH HOMER
Director,
Office of American Indian Trust,
Department of the Interior
10:30 - 11:00 Panel Presentation on Prevention and Remedies
Brief remarks on preventing environmental justice controversies and on
remedial approaches under civil rights and environmental statutes.
"Retaliation"
ROSEZELLA CANTY-LETSOME
Attorney-Ad visor,
Office of Civil Rights
Environmental Protection Agency
"Civil Rights Remedies"
LOUIS STEWART
Attorney-Ad visor,
Coordination and Review Section,
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice
-------
"Supplemental Environmental Projects"
DAVID HINDIN
Acting Branch Chief,
Multimedia Enforcement Branch,
Office of Regulatory Enforcement,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
Environmental Protection Agency
"Risk, Cost Benefit Analysis, and Other Potential Impediments to
Effective Enforcement"
BRADLEY M. CAMPBELL
Associate Director,
Toxics and Environment Education,
Council on Environmental Quality
11:00-11:15 Break
11:15 - 12:15 Panel on Prevention and Remedies, continued
12:15 - 12:30 Questions on Remedies Panel
12:30 - 1:30 Lunch on your own (cafeteria in building)
1:30 - 2:15 Panel Presentation on Public Participation
Public participation issues under both Title VI and NEPA.
"Environmental Justice and Public Participation"
DR. CLARICE E. GAYLORD
Director,
Office of Environmental Justice,
Environmental Protection Agency
"Public Participation under Title VI"
MIKE MATTHEISEN
Attorney-Advisor,
Office of Civil Rights,
Environmental Protection Agency
"Public Participation under NEPA"
WENDELL STILLS
Policy Analyst,
Council on Environmental Quality
2:15 - 2:30 Questions and Discussion of Public Participation
2:30 - 2:45 Break
-------
2:45 - 3:15 Using the Community Relations Service and Conflict Resolution
Processes
GAIL PADGETT
Associate Director,
Office of Technical Assistance and Support,
Community Relations Service,
Department of Justice
GEORGE HENDERSON
Attorney-Advisor,
Office of Technical Assistance and Support,
Community Relations Service,
Department of Justice
DAVID C. BATTSON
Alternative Dispute Resolution Liaison,
Environmental Protection Agency
3:15 - 3:30 Break
3:30 - 4:30 Tools - Individual Presentations
Presentations on Landview and other GIS systems.
LANDVIEW
PETER GATTUSO
Systems Analyst
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Permitting Office,
Environmental Protection Agency
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SPATIAL ANALYSIS TOOLS
LOREN HALL
Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DESERENE WORSLEY
Director,
Geographic Information Systems Group
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
JULIE MACPHERSON
Computer Specialist
Geographic Information Systems Group
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
-------
4:30 - 4:45 Questions and Discussion of Tools
4:45 - 5:00 Closing Remarks
LORETTA KING
Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice
-------
FOCUS GROUPS
MAY 15, 1995
GROUP A
GROUP LEADERS: Andrew Strojny and Marshall Cain
NAME AFFILIATION
Alston
Bordeaux
Campbell
Corcoran
Dowell
Friedman
Gaylord
Gladstein
Gogal
Grill
Guadagno
Hill
Howard
Hume
Humphries
King
Marchese
Marmolejos
Mays
Merritt
Mesa
Montare
Moreno
Nagy
Quintana
Ratliff
Richeson
Riege
Rountree
Shea
Varela
White
Wilson
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Council on Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Department of Transportation
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S Air Force
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Justice
Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Justice
-------
GROUPS
GROUP LEADERS: Mary O'Lone and Nadira Clarke
NAME AFFILIATION
Austin
Charles-Shannon
Connors
Corbin
Curtis
DeSai
Fox
Franco
Freese
House
Knox
Kumor
Liss
Meeks
Milan
Montoya
Penman
Powell
Rudolph
Sait
Sambrano
Schoenecker
Sheehan.
Taylor
Totten
Vail
Waterhouse
Wilds, Jr.
Woodley-Jones
Worsley
Zippay
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture
Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command
Department of the Army
U.S. Air Force
Defense Logistics Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
HQ Naval District Washington
U.S. Air Force
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aviation & Space Administration
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Justice
Department of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
Department of Justice
U.S. Air Force
Department of Justice
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
GROUP C
GROUP LEADERS: Richard Albore and Elizabeth Blaug
NAME AFFILIATION
Acevedo
Alexander
Carey
Chamblin
Crawford
Crucian!
Diaz
Durbin
Edmonson
Featherson
Haley
Harteneau
Henderson
Hindin
Homer
Johnson
Lebuc
London
Malone
Manzano
McKellar
Moran
Nemeth
Pennington
Pulliam
Ray
Reich
Ryan
Sacks
Shumway
Smith
Stills
Sussman
Wetsel
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
SAIC
Department of Energy
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Energy
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Department of Energy
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Energy
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Energy
-------
GROUP D
GROUP LEADERS: Charles Findlay and Mary St. Peter
NAME AFFILIATION
Alsop
Anderson
Aterrio
Bell
Biehl
Birnie
Blackwell
Boyd-Stewart
Calvert
Cante-Letzome
Carabello
Cash
Chung
Fuller
Hellier
Laster
Matheissen
Micklin
Northridge
O'Connor
Owens
Padgett
Rhodes .
Rodriguez
Rosen
Stewart
Takai
Wilkerson
Department of
Department of
Environmental
Environmental
Department of
Department of
Environmental
Department of
Department of
Environmental
Department of
Environmental
Environmental
Department of
Environmental
Department of
Environmental
Department of
Environmental
Department of
Environmental
Department of
Department of
Department of
Department of
Department of
Department of
Department of
Transportation
Transportation
Protection Agency
Protection Agency
Transportation
Transportation
Protection Agency
Transportation
Transportation
Protection Agency
Justice
Protection Agency
Protection Agency
Transportation
Protection Agency
Transportation
Protection Agency
Transportation
Protection Agency
Transportation
Protection Agency
Justice
Transportation
Justice
Transportation
Justice
Transportation
Transportation
-------
GROUP E
GROUP LEADERS: Mike Matheissen and Andrea Kuhn
NAME
Blackenship
Bochar
Clark
Creswell
Davis
Faithful
Fowler
Harley
Horwitz
Iderditzin
Johnson
Jones
Kedzie
Kelsey
Kuhn
Lancaster
Lopez-Otin
Maddox
Marquez
McNeer
Meisner
Miller
Mills
Monteferrante
Nagle
Nelson
Peterson
Porter, Jr.
Styles
Taggart
Thompson
Walter
Walton
AFFILIATION
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Health & Human Services
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of the Navy
Environmental Protection Agency
Nuclear Regulatory Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Department of Commerce
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
Department of Health & Human Services
Department of the Interior
Department of Commerce
Department of Commerce
Department of Commerce
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of Commerce
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
REGISTRATION LIST
NAME
Camille Acevedo
Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations
Richard L. AJbores
Attorney-Advisor
Samuel L. Alexander
S. Reid Alsop
Michael Alston
Attorney Advisor
Erin Anderson
Kathleen (Kathy) Aterno
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Rose Austin
Civil Works Fellow
Elizabeth Bell
Environmental Protection Specialist
Scott A. Biehl
Assistant Chief Counsel
Doug Birnie
Angelia Blackwell
Doug Blankenship
Elizabeth Blaug
Staff Attorney
Robert Bochar
Program Analyst
JoAnn J. Bordeaux
Deputy Director
of Environmental Torts
DEPARTMENT
Regulations
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of Civil Rights
Environmental Protection Agency
Program Compliance Division
Fair Housing & Employment Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of the General Counsel
Environmental and Right-of-Way Law Branch
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
Office of Justice Programs
Department of Justice
Office of the General Counsel
MARAD
Maritime Administration
Department of Transportation
Civil Rights Division
Administration & Resources Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Army Environmental Policy Institute
Department of Defense
Office of Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Chief Counsel
Federal Transit Administration
Department of Transportation
Office of Civil Rights
Federal Transit Administration
Department of Transportation
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Division
Office of General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
Council on Environmental Quality
Bureau of Reclamation
Department of Interior
Civil Division
Departmenl of Justice
PHONE
202 708-2084
202 260-4587
202 708-2618 ext. 204
202 366-0791
202 307-0692
202 366-5320
202 260^600
404 892-3099
202 260-6357
202 366-0952
202 366-4018
202 260-6952
202 452-5079
202 395-5754
202 208-5673
202 616-4204
FAX
202 401 0349
202 260-4580
202 708-1425
202 366-7499
202 307-0086
202 366-5192
202 260-0835
404 892-9381
202 260-0852
202 366-3809
202 366-3475
202 260-0584
202 452-5112
202 395-3744
202 208-3484
202 616-4473
-------
Alyce Boyd-Stewart
Marshall Cain
Senior Legal Advisor
Tina L. Calvert
Bradley M. Campbell
Associate Director
Rozella Cante-Letzome
Attorney Advisor
Josephine Carabello
Conciliator
Harry L. Carey
Assistant General Counsel
Rodney J. Cash
Associate Director
Caroline Charablin
Senior Public Programs Manager
Dr. Velma Charles-Shannon
Environmental Justice Manager
Angie Chung
Environmental Protection Specialist
Horace G. Clark
Attorney Advisor
Nadira Clarke
Special Assistant to the
Assistant Attorney General
Capt. Tracy D. Connors
Director
Michael A. Corbin
Howard Corcoran
Associate General Counsel
Susan Creswell
Environmental Protection Coordinator
Linda Crucian!
Deputy Assistant,
General Counsel
Office of Civil Rights 202 366-9366
Department of Transportation
Office of Federal Activities 202 260-8792
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Civil Rights 202 267-0044
Policy, Planning & External Programming
U.S. Coast Guard
Department of Transportation
Council on Environmental Quality 202 456-6224
Office of Civil Rights 202 260-4567
Environmental Protection Agency
Community Relations Service 617 424-5715
Department of Justice
Fair Housing Enforcement Division 202 708-0570
Office of Civil Rights
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of Civil Rights 202 260-4568
Environmental Protection Agency
SAIC 703 734-5536
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement 202 690-3509
Department of Agriculture
Office of Environmental Justice 202 260-3595
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Solicitor 202 208-6848
Department of the Interior
Office of the Assistant Attorney General 202 514-8046
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Congressional & Public Affairs 703 602-9831
Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command
Office of the Judge Advocate General 703 696-1230
U.S. Army Environmental Law Division
Department of the Army
Grants and Intergovernmental Counsel 202 260-5317
Office of General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Quality Division 202 208-4274
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Fair Housing Enforcement Division 202 708-0570
Office of General Counsel
Department of Housing & Urban Development
202 366-9371
202 260-0129
202 267-4282
202 456-2710
202 260-4580
617 424-5727
202 708-2537
202 260-4580
703 506-9689
202 690-0681
202 260-0852
202 219-1790
202 514-0557
703 602-1659
703 696-2940
202 260-8393
202 208-4260
202 708-2537
-------
Thomas Curtis
Depuly Assistant General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Environment & Installations
U.S. Air Force
Vermeil Davis Office of Surface Mining
Environmental Protection Coordinator Department of the Interior
Dr. Ramcsh Desai
Environmental Protection Specialist
Nelson A. Diaz
General Counsel
Gavin C. Dowell
Trial Attorney
Deborah Durbin
Brenda Edmonson
Robert Faithful
Special Assistant for
Environmental Justice
Clarence E. Featherson
Charles (Spinner) Findlay
Trial Attorney
Melvin Fowler
Equal Employment
Opportunity Manager
Thomas R. Fox -
Attorney Advisor
Bob Franco
Deputy Director
Elizabeth M. Freese
Henry Friedman
Senior Attorney
Daphne A. Fuller
Manager
Environmental and Safety Policy Office
Defense Logistics Agency
Office of General Counsel
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Program Compliance Division
Fair Housing & Employment Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Program Compliance Division
Fair Housing & Employment Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of Environmental Protection
Department of the Interior
703 693-9331
202 208-2807
703 274-7275
202 708-0636
202 307-3803
202 708-2333
202 708-2333 ext. 250
202 208-6191
Office of Site Remediation 202 260-2868
Regional Support Division
Environmental Protection Agency
General Litigation Section 202 272-6960
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity 202 208-3455
Department of the Interior
Office of the General Counsel 202 720-2320
Research & Operations Division
Department of Agriculture
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement 202 720-5212
Disputes Resolutions, Policy & Planning
Department of Agriculture
Safety/Environmental Department . - 202 433-7181
HO Naval District Washington
Environmental Enforcement Section 202 514-5268
Environmental & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 202 267-3199
Environmental Law Branch
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
703 693-1567
202 208-3106
703 274-7851
202 708-3389
202 514-1116
202 708-1425
202 708-1425
202 208-6970
202 260-3069
202 272-6815
202 208-3430
202 720-5837
202 205-2891
202 433-6831
202 616-2427
202 267-7257
-------
Dr. Clarice Gaylord
Director
Richard Gladstein
Trial Attorney
Danny Gogal
Environmental Justice Specialist
Andrea Grill
Attorney Advisor
Barbara Grimm-Crawford
Special Assistant
Tony Guadagno
Assistant General Counsel
Barry Haley
Marsha Harley
Environmental Protection Specialist
Christopher Hartenau
Yvette Hellier
George E. Henderson
Attorney Advisor,
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Barry Hill
Director
David Hindin
Acting Branch Director
Elizabeth Homer
Director
Ann Hooker
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Damn Howard
Attorney Advisor
Sylvia Horwitz
Jacqueline A. House
Office of Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Enforcement Section
Environmental & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Office of Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Justice Programs
Department of Justice
Office of Environment, Safety & Health
Department of Energy
Intergovernmental Branch
Grants and Intergovernmental Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Civil Rights
Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Justice
Department of the Interior
Environment
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Technical Assistance and Support
Community Relations Service
Department of Justice
Office of Hearings & Appeals
Department of the Interior
Multimedia Enforcement Branch
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of American Indian Trust
Department of the Interior
Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
Office of General Counsel
Legislative & Correctional Issues
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Department of Justice
Inspector General Division
Office of General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Air Force
202 260-6357
202514-1711
202 260-0392
202 307-2125
202 586-3964
202260-1137
202 586-2267
202 208-6191
202 708-9987
202 564-4033
301 492-5969 ext. 135
703 235-3810
202 564-6004
202 208-3338
202 493-4018
202 307-2105
703 235-5337
703-697-5840
202 260-0852
202 514-8395
202 260-0852
202 307-0086
202 586-2268
202 260-8393
202 586-8134
202 208-6970
202 708-5689
202 564-0023
301 492-5984
703 235-9014
202 260-6848
202 208-7503
202 267-5594
202 307-2995
703 235-5355
703 697-3216
-------
Gaye Hume
Attorney
Kim Humphries
Special Assistant to the
Assistant Attorney General
Sarah Iderditzin
Georgia R. Johnson
Judith Johnson
Attorney Advisor
Voting Section 202 307-6302
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Office of the Assistant Attorney General 202 514-9908
Civil Division
Department of Justice
Office of the Solicitor 202 208-6670
Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Justice 202 586-2593
Department of Energy
Office of the General Counsel 202 619-0732
Civil Rights Division
Department of Health & Human Services
202 307-3961
202 514-8071
202 219-1792
202 586-3075
202 619-0550
Josie Woodley Jones
Acting Chief
Kathy Jones
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Glen Kedzie
Angela Kelsey
Attorney
Loretta King
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Robert Knox
Deputy Director
Andrea Wohlfeld Kuhn
Chief of Naval Operations
Kenneth Kumor
NEPA Coordinator
Robin Lancaster
Ira Laster, Jr.
Ed LeDuc
Attorney
Susan M. Liss
Counsellor to the Assistant
Attorney General
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement 202 720-5212
Evaluation & Adjudication
Department of Agriculture
National Biological Service 703 358-2069
Department of the Interior
Office of Regulatory Enforcement 202 564-6033
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Solicitor 202 208-4361
Department of the Interior
Office of the Assistant Attorney General 202 616-1278
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Office of Environmental Justice 202 260-6357
Environmental Protection Agency
Naval Facilities Engineering Command 703 325-0521
Department of the Navy
Environmental Management Division 202 358-1112
National Aviation & Space Administration
Office of Regulatory Enforcement 202 564-4172
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Secretary 202 366-4859
Office of Environment, Energy & Safety
Department of Transportation
Office of the Deputy General Counsel for 202 586-6947
Health Safety & Environment
Department of Energy
Office of the Assistant Attorney General 202 514-4016
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
202 205-2891
703 358-2292
202260-6848
202 219-1791
202 514-6293
202 260-0852
703 325-2261
202 358-2861
202 260-6848
202 366-7618
202 586-7373
202 514-0293
-------
Dwayne London
Maria E. Lopez-Otin
Federal Liaison
General Counsel for Environment
Department of Energy
Nuclear Regulatory Agency
202 586-6947
301 415-2598
202 586-7373
301 415-3502
Rhonda Maddox
Environmental Engineer
Maura Malone
Sara Manzano
Special Assistant
April Marchese
Special Assistant to the
Chief Counsel
Policarpio (Poli) Marmolejos
Special Assistant to the
Assistant Attorney General
Melissa Marquez
Mike Matheissen
Attorney-Advisor
Tammy Mays
David McKellar
Richard H. McNeer
Attorney
Margo Meeks
Environmental Protection Specialist
Kevin Meisner
Attorney
Anstonia Merrill
Secrelary
Nilda Mesa
Assislanl Deputy for Environment
Dave Micklin
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Sherry Milan
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Tim Miller
Acting Chief, Natural Water
Assessment Program
Office of Regulatory Enforcement 202 564-7026
Environmental Protection Agency
Civil Rights/Liligalion 202 708-0300
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of General Counsel 202 708-0636
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of the Chief Counsel 202 366-0740
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
Office of the Assistant Attorney General 202 307-3111
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Contracts, Claims, and Property Law Division 202 260-7513
Office of General Counsel
Environmental Proteclion Agency
Office of Civil Rights 202 260-4587
Environmental Proteclion Agency
Office of Justice Programs 202 616-9032
Department of Justice
Office of Program Compliance & Disability Rights 202 708-2333 ext. 130
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of the Solicitor 202 208-4671
Department of the Interior
Office of Regulatory Enforcement 202 564-4058
Environmental Proteclion Agency
Office of Ihe Solicilor 202 208-6526
Departmenl of the Interior
Administration Resource Management 202 260-4521
Support Slaff
Environmenlal Proteclion Agency
Air Force Office of Environment, Safety & 703 693-7706
Occupational Health
Office of Environment and Energy 202 267-3270
Federal Aviation Administralion
Department of Transportation
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 202 260-9807
Environmental Proteclion Agency
Geological Survey
Departmenl of Ihe Inlerior
703 648-6868
202 260-6848
202 708-3351
202 708-3389
202 366-7499
202 514-0293
202 260-1790
202 260^1580
202 307-0086
202 708-1425
202 219-1789
202 564-0024
202 219-1791
202 260-7839
703 693-9337
202 267-5565
202 260-7553
703 648-5722
-------
Natalie Mills
Environmental Protection Specialist
Ada Montare
Frank Monleferrante
Senior Environmental Protection
Specialist
David Montoya
Director
Michael Moran
Ignacia S. Moreno
Counsel to the Assistant
Attorney General
Eric Nagle
Elizabeth A. Nagy
Associate General Counsel
Johnny L. Nelson
Deputy Director
Gabe Nemeth
Michael Northridge
Cecile O'Connor
Staff Attorney
Mary O'Lone
Senior Environmental Justice Counsel
James Owens
Gail Padgett
Associate Director
Lynn Penman
Trial Attorney
Kathleen M. Pennington
Don Peterson
Economic Development Administration 202 482-4208
Department of Commerce
Community Relations Service 215 597-2344
Department of Justice
Economic Development Administration 202 482-4208
Department of Commerce
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement 202 720-5212
Department of Agriculture
Environment 202 708-1793
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of the Assistant Attorney General 202 514-5243
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Office of the Solicitor 202 273-3448
Division of Energy and Resources
Department of the Interior
Office of the General Counsel 202 307-1240
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of Civil Rights
Department of Health and Human Services
Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Site Remediation Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Chief Counsel
Environmental Law Branch
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Transportation
Grants and Environmental Justice Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regional Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Technical Assistance and Support
Community Relations Service
Department of Justice
Environmental Enforcement Section
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Civil Rights
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
202 619-2742
202 708-3390
202 260-3586
202 267-3199
202 260-1487
617 565-3322
301 492-5969 ext. 139
202 514-4485
202 708-0570
703 358-2183
202 482-0995
215 597-9148
202 482-0995
202 205-2891
202 708-2575
202 514-0557
202 219-1792
202 514-8482
202 619-3818
202 708-0044
202 260-4632
202 267-7257
202 260-8393
617 565-1141
301 492-5984
202 616-6583
202 708-2575
703 358-1869
-------
William J. Porter, Jr.
EEO Spec., Compliance Dir.
Carole Powell
Confidential Assistant
John Pulliam
Unit Leader
Eduardo Quintana
Jeff Ratliff
Site Selection Specialist
Eileen Ray
Trial Attorney
Edward Reich
Environmental Appeals Judge
Julie Riege
Attorney
Julia A. Rhodes
H. Leonard Richeson
Joseph M. Rodriquez
Debra J. Rosen
Attorney
Tamara Rountree
Attorney
Doris Rudolph
Acting Chief
Besty Ryan
Steven Sacks
Trial Attorney
Mary St. Peter
Attorney-Advisor
Farook Sail
Executive Assistant
Office of Civil Rights
Department of Commerce
Office of Civil Rights
Department of Agriculture
Office of National Environment Policy Act
Project Activities Division
Department of Energy
Office of Regional Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Site Selection and Environmental Review Branch
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of General Counsel
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Environmental Appeals Board
Environmental Protection Agency
Employment Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Office of General Counsel
Department of Transportation
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary
Environmental Security
Department of Defense
Community Relations Service
Department of Justice
Office of General Counsel
Department of Transportation
Appellate Section
Environmental & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement
Program Complaints & Adjudication Division
Department of Agriculture
Program Compliance Division
Fair Housing & Employment Opportunity
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of General Counsel
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of Civil Rights
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement
Dispute Resolution, Policy & Planning
Department of Agriculture
202 482-4993
202 720-5212
202 586-4597
303 294-7530
202 524-8697
202 708-0570
202 501-7060
202 514-2189
202 366-6984
703 604-5583
816 374-6525
202 366-9167
202 514-1174
202 720-5212
202 708-2333 ext. 238
202 708-0570
202 260-4967
202 720-5212
202 482-5375
202 205-2891
202 586-3915
303 294-7500
202 616-6024
202 708-2537
202 501-7580
202 514-1105
202 366-9170
703 604-5934
816-374-6530
202 366-9170
202 514-4240
202 205-2891
202 708-1425
202 708-2537
202 260-4580
202 205-2891
-------
Richard Sambrano
Lee Schoenecker
Dan Searing
Attorney-Advisor
Bridget Shea
Assistant General Counsel
Catherine (Cathy) Sheafor
Director of Environmental Justice
Chuck Sheehan
John B. Shumway
Nathaniel K. Smith
Elizabeth (Betty) Sorrells
Louis M. Stewart
Attorney
Wendell Stills
Andy Strojny
Acting Deputy
Kathleen M. Styles
Monica Hilton Sussman
Deputy General Counsel
Paul Taggart
Harry Takai
Gus Taylor
Jim Thompson
Community Relations Service
Department of Justice
Division of Environmental Planning
Environmental Quality Directorate
Office of Civil Engineer - U.S. Air Force
Office of Civil Rights
Environmental Protection Agency
General and Information Law Division
Office of General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Associate Attorney General
Department of Justice
Policy Legislation and Special Litigation Section
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Environment
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Program Evaluation Division - FHEO
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Federal Railroad Admin., Chief Counsel's Ofc.
Department of Transportation
Coordination and Renew Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Council on Environmental Quality
Coordination and Review Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Office of General Counsel
Department of Commerce
Office of General Counsel
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of Executive Assistance Management
Department of Commerce
Office of Civil Rights
Division of Policy, Planning & External Affairs
U.S. Coast Guard
Department of Transportation
Community Relations Service
Department of Justice
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
214 655-8175
703 695-8942
202 260-1487
202 260-9635
202 514-2704
202 514-4361
202 708-9988
202 708-2740 ext. 267
202 366-0637
202 616-7779
202 395-5750
202 616-5526
202 482-4732
202 708-0636
202 482-4115
202 267-6024
214-655-8175
202 564-4024
214 655-8184
703 695-8943
202 260-8393
202 260-0020
202 307-3904
202 514-4231
202 708-5689
202 708-4445
202 366-7718
202 307-0595
202 395-3744
202 307-0595
202 482-5858
202 708-3389
202 482-3270
202 267-4282
214-655-8184
202 564-4024
-------
Arthur Totten
Environmental Protection Specialist
Jeffrey Vail
Alex Varela
Legal Advisor
James Vigil
Assistant to the Associate
Attorney General
Robert E. Walter
Assistant Solicitor
Kimberly Walton
Acting Chief, Compliance Director
Carllon Waterhouse
Annie Wetsel
Public Participation Specialist
Beverly White
Staff Assistant
Jettie B. Wilds, Jr.
Deputy Director
Mark Wilkerson
Deserene Worsley
Director
Nina Zippay
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 202 260-5905
Office of Federal Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the General Counsel
Department of Agriculture
Office of Environmental Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Associate Attorney General
Department of Justice
Office of the Solicitor
Equal Opportunity Compliance
Division of General Law
Department of the Interior
Office of Civil Rights
Department of Commerce
Office of Regional Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Management
Office of Public Accountability
Department of Energy
Enforcement Compliance Outreach Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Civil Rights Enforcement
Evaluation & Adjudication
Department of Agriculture
Office of Civil Rights
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Department of Transportation
Geographic Information Systems Group
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
Office of Regional Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
202 690-0055
202 260-6357
202 514-9645
202 208-6848
202 482-4993
404 347-2641 ext. 2281
202 586-7739
202 260-6119
202 720-5212
202 366-4762
202 616-3971
312 353-6726
202 260-0129
202 690-2730
202 260-0852
202 307-3904
202 219-1790
202 482-5375
404 347-5246
202 586-4622
202 260-7839
202 205-2891
202 366-1746
202 616-2184
312 886-7160
- 10 -
-------
Federal-Register .
Vol. 59. No. 32
Wednesday. February 16. 1994
7629
Presidential Documents
Title 3—
The President
Executive Order 12098 of February 11, 1994
Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
By .the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1-1. IMPLEMENTATION.
IrrlOl. Agency Responsibilities. To the greatest extent practicable and per-
mitted by law, and consistent with the principles set.forth in the report
on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achiev-
ing environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing.
as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environ-
.mental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations
and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and
possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands.
1-102. Creation of an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
(a) Within 3 months of the date of this order, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency ("Administrator") or the Administrator's
designee shall convene an interagency Federal .Working Group on Environ-
mental Justice ("Working Group"). The Working Group shall comprise. the
heads of the following executive agencies and offices, or their designees:
(a) Department of Defense; (b) Department of Health and Human. Services:
.(c) Department of Housing and Urban Development: (d) Department of Labor;
(e) Department of Agriculture; (f) Department of Transportation; (g) Depart-
ment of Justice; (h) Department of the Interior; (i) Department of Commerce;
(j) Department of Energy; (k) Environmental Protection Agency; (1) Office
of .Management and Budget; (m) Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(n) Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy;
(o) Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; (p) National
Economic, Council; (q) Council of Economic Advisers; and-(r) such other
Government officials as the President may designate. The Working Group
shall report to the President through the Deputy Assistant to the President
for Environmental Policy and the Assistant to the President for Domestic
Policy.
(b) The Working Group shall: (l) provide guidance to Federal agencies
on criteria for identifying disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income popu-
lations;
(2) coordinate with, provide guidance to, and serve as a clearinghouse
for, each Federal agency as it develops an environmental justice strategy
as: required by section i—103 of this order, in order to ensure that the
.administration, interpretation and enforcement of programs, activities and
policies are undertaken in a consistent manner; .
(3) assist in coordinating research by, and stimulating cooperation among,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other
agencies conducting research or other activities in accordance with section
3-3 of this order;
(4) assist in coordinating data collection, required by this order;
-------
7630 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 32 /.Wednesday. February -16. 1994 /Presidential Documents
(5) examine existing data and studies on ^rivirpnmental justice; . .
(6) hold public meetings as required in section 5^502(dj of this order;
•. and ;. : ' "
(7) develop interagency model projects on environmental justicethat- evi-
dence cooperation among Federal agencies.
: 1-1O3. Development of Agency Strategies, (a) Except as provided in section
6-605 of this order, each Federal agency shall develop an agency-wide
environmental Justice strategy, as set forth in subsections- (b)-{e) of this
section that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its programs,'policies, and activities
on' minority populations and low'-income 'populations. The > environmental
. |ustice'.strategy shall list programs, policies, planning and public participation
. processes,, enforcement, and/or.:rulemakings related:.tp hunjan health or:the
environment that should be revised to, at a minimxun: (i)-prbmote enforee-
:ment .of all health and', environmental .statutes in areas :.with; minority popu-
lations arid..low-income populations; (2) ensure greater public participation;
(3) improve research.and data collection relating to the health of and environ-
ment of minority populations and low-income populations; and (4) identify
differential patterns of consumption of natural resources; among minority
populations and - low-income populations. In addition, the .environmental
justice strategy shall include; where appropriate, a timetable for undertaking
identified, revisions and consideration'of economic and social Implications
of the-revisions, .. .-..•. • '..
(b) Within 4 months of the'date of this order.--each Federal agency-shall-
identify an. internal administrative process for-developing.its-environmental -
justice strategy; and shall inform the Working Groupof the process,:.-
(c) Within 6 .months of the date of this order^ each Federal.agency shall
provide the Working Group with an outline of its proposed environmental
justice strategy. • - •".""' •"•'.'.
(d) Within 10 months-of the date of this order, each ^Federal agency
shall provide.the Working Group withi:rts>;pfoposed. environmental justice
strategy.. :- '.!' ', • . . ; : '-.".••
(e) Within-12 months of the date of this, order. «ach ^Federal- agency
shall finalize its environmental justice strategy and. provide '& copy and
written-description of its strategy to the Working Group. During the 12
month period from the date of this order, each Federal agency, as part
of its environmental justice strategy, shall identify several specific projects
that can be promptly undertaken to address particular concerns identified
during the development of the proposed environmental justice strategy, and
a schedule for implementing those projects. '
(f) Within. 24 months of the-date of this order,- each -Federal agency
shall report to the Working' Group on its progress in Implementing its
agency-wide environmental justice strategy.
(g) Federal agencies shall provide additional periodic reports to the Work-
ing Group as requested by the Working Group.
1-104. Reports to the President. Within 14 months of the date, of this
order; the. Working Group shall submit to the President, through the Office
. of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy and the
Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a report that
describes the implementation of this order.' and includes the final environ-
mental justice strategies, described in section l-103(e) of this order.
Sec. .2-2. FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS.. Each
Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that sub-
stantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures
that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding
persons (including populations) from participation in,, denying'persons (in-
cluding .populations) the benefits of. or subjecting persons (including popu-
-------
. Federal-Register .7-Vol. 59, No. 32 /. .Wednesday. .iFebruary ,16, M994 ;/ .Presidential ^Documents -.7631
lations) to. discrimination under, such programs, policies, and activities,
because of their race, color, or national origin.
Sec. 3-3. RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS.
3^-301. Human Health and Environmental Research and Analysis, (a) Envi-
ronmental human health research, whenever practicable and appropriate,
shall include diverse segments of the population in epidemiological and
clinical studies, including segments at high risk from environmental hazards,
such as minority populations, lowrincome populations and workers who
may be exposed to substantial environmental hazards.
(b) Environmental human health analyses, whenever practicable and appro-
priate, shall identify multiple and cumulative exposures.
(c) Federal agencies shall provide minority populations and low-income
populations the opportunity to comment on the development and design
of research strategies undertaken pursuant to this order.
3-302. Human Health and Environmental Data Collection and Analysis.
To the extent permitted by existing law, including' the Privacy Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. section 552a): (a) each Federal agency, whenever prac-
ticable and appropriate, shall collect,. maintain, and .analyze information
.assessing.and comparing environmental and human health risks borne by
populations identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent
practical and appropriate; Federal agencies shall use this information to
determine whether their programs, policies, and activities have disproportion-
ately high and adverse human health or environmental .effects .on minority
populations and low-income populations;
(b) In connection with the development and implementation of agency
;strategies in section -1-103 .of-this order,"each -Federal agency, whenever
.practicable and appropriate,' shall collect, maintain and analyze information
on the. race, national origin, income level, and otherreadily accessible and
appropriate information ibr areas surrounding -facilities-or sites expected
. to have a substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect on
the surrounding populations^ when such facilities or sites become the subject
of a substantial Federal environmental administrative or judicial action.
Such information shall be made available to the public, unless prohibited
by law: and
(c) Each Federal agency, whenever, practicable and appropriate, shall col-
• lect, maintain, and.analyze information on the race, national origin, income
level, and. other readily accessible.and appropriate information for areas
surrounding: Federal facilities ^that-are: (1) subject: to-the reporting require-
ments under the Emergency Planning-and Community Right-to-Know Act,
42 ILS.C section 11001-11050 as mandated in Executive Order No: 12856;
and (2) expected to have a substantial environmental, human health, or
economic effect on surrounding populations. Such information shall be made
available to the public, unless prohibited by law.
(d) In carrying out the responsibilities in this section, each Federal agency,
whenever practicable and appropriate, shall share information and eliminate
unnecessary duplication of efforts through the use of existing data systems
and cooperative agreements among Federal agencies and with State, local,
and tribal governments.
Sec. 4-4. SUBSISTENCE CONSUMPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.
4-401; Consumption Patterns. In order to assist in identifying the heed
for ensuring protection of populations with differential patterns of subsistence
consumption of .fish and wildlife.. Federal agencies, .'whenever practicable
and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze information on the
consumption patterns of populations who principally rely 'on fish and/or
wildlife for subsistence. Federal agencies shall communicate to the public
the risks of those consumption patterns.
-------
.-7632 . ;.Federal Registerj / Vol. .59>:N6. ;:32 YgWednesday. February: '
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 59. No. 32 / Wednesday. February 16, 1994 /Presidential. Documents 7633
enfprceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies,
its officers, or any person. This order shall not be construed to create
any right to-judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance
of. the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with
;t_s_ —i— • ' • • " -
this order.
THE WHITE HOUSE.
February 11, 1994.
(PR Doc. 94-3685
Filed 2-14-9-4; 3:07 pm)
Billing code 319S-01-P . .
Editorial note: For the memorandum that was concurrently issued on Federal environmental
program reform, see issue No. 6 of the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents.
-------
6381
Federal Register
''Vol. 60, No. 21
..Wednesday.- Fetxtiary V.-1995
Title 3—
The President
Presidential Documents
Executive Order 12948 of January 30, 1995
Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898
By the authority vested in me as President by;;the' Coristitutiori.,imd the.
laws of the United States of America and in, order to-; amend Executive
Order No. 12898,: it is hereby: ordered .thai section lr-lQ3(ej of that order
is amended by deleting the phrase "Within 12.months of the date of this
order,''^and inserting the phrase "By March 24, 1995," in lieu-thereof and :
rby deleting,- in the second sentence-of section- l-103(e}, the phrase "During -
the 12 month period from the date of this order;- and inserting the phrase
."From the date of this order through March 24, 1995," in lieu thereof.
^
JFRDoc 95-2687
^ed^1-3.1T95;. 10:39 pml
ptlng .cpde 3t9S-OT-P.
; VVHITE .HOUSE.
January 30, 1995.
-------
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA« M INOTON
February 11, 1994
KXMORAND'JM FOR TH£> HEADS OP ALL DEPARTMENTS AMD AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-income Populations
Today I have issued an Executive order on Federal Actions
to Address'Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations. That order is designed to focus Fedtral
attention on the environmental and human health conditions in
minority communities and low-income communities with the goal
of achieving environmental justice. That order is also intended
to promote nondifcrimination in Federal programs substantially
Affecting human health and the environment, and to provide
minority communities amd low-income communities access to public
information on, and an opportunity for public participation in,
matters relating to human health or the environment.
f
The purpose of this separate memorandum is to underscore certain
prevision of existing law that can help ensure .that all communi-
ties and persons across this Nation live.in a safe and healthful
environment. Environmental and civil rights statutes provide
many opportunities to address environmental hazards in minority
communities and low-income communities. Application of these
existing statutory provisions is an important part of this
Administration's efforts to prevent those minority communities
-and low-income communities from being subject to dispropor-
tionately high and adveree environmental effects.
I am therefore today directing that all department and agency
heads take appropriate and necessary steps to ensure that the
following specific directives are implemented immediatelyi
In accordance with Title VT of the Civil Rights Act of-1964,
each Federal agency ehall ensure that all programs or activities
receiving" Federal financial assistance that affect human health
or the environment do not directly, or through contractual or
other arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that
discriminate on tht basis of race, color, or national origin.
-------
Each Federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects,
including human health, economic and social effects, of
Federal actions, including effects on minority communiti««
and low-income communities, when §uch analysis is required by
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
section 4321 et seg. Mitigation measures outlined or analyzed
in an environmental assessment, environmental impact statement,
or record of decision, whenever feasible, should address
significant and adverse environmental effects of proposed
Federal actions on minority communities «nd low-income
communities.
Each Federal agency shall provide.opportunities for community
input in the NZPA process, including identifying potential
effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected
communities and improving the accessibility of meetings, crucial
documents, and notice*.
The Environmental Protection Agency, when reviewing
environmental effects of proposed action of other Federal
agencies under section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
section. 7609, shall er.sure that the involved agency has fully
analyzed environmental effects on minority communities and
low-income communities, including ^ur.an health, social, and
economic efftcte.
Each Federal agar.cy shall ensure'that the public, including
minority communities and low-income communities, has adequate
access to public information relating to human health or
er.vircnrr.entp.l planning, regulations, and enforcement when
retired ur.der the Fr«edom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
section. 552, the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552b, and the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C.
section 11044 .
This memorandum is intended only to improve the internal
rr.a-T.acement of the Executive Sranch and is not intended to,
nor does it create, any right, benefit, or trust responsibility,
substantive or pr6cedural, enforceable at law[or equity by *
party against the United States, its agencies, its officers,
or ar.y person.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'GTCN. 0 C 2C460
Suttmtot of Carol M. Browner
Administrator cci**jmc>ro.i couches 1.0
U.S. EflTiromnenUj Pn>Uctioa Agency
EoTironmenLal Justice Executive Order
February 11,
For too lofif, low -income communities and minority communities have borne i
dijproportionaie burden of modem industrial lift. Today's Executive Order seeki to bring
justice to these communitiex.
All American! deserve to be protected from pollution — txx just those who cm xfford
to liv» in the cletfiMt. uifwt commuoities. All Amcricaxu demvt clean lir, pure wuw.
Und thu U safe to live on, food thit u uf» to eti.
Last April, on Earth D»y, President CUnton caJJrd on federal agencies to ensure
environmental protection to all American*. Today's Executive Onkr tnecns thai federal
wiH addreu environmental inju«ke - put, prw*ot, tod future.
We will develop Jtniejk* to brinf justice to Americans who are suffering
disproportionately - firm workers who are exposed to hlfh-riik pesticides, children who an
exposed to lead paint in old buildinp, people who Ash in polluted waien, those who Uv«
near hazardous wute incioenion.
We will develop stnitfie* to ensure that low-income and minority communities have
acceu to informafioo about their environment - and that they have an opportunity to
participate in shaping government polkie* that iffect their health and their environment.
Th6 Giatoo Admlniitntio&'s proposal to reform our Superfund law speaks to the**
concerns — by iacreaiifif publk participation in Superfund deciiion-makini.
The President has •'VM toe to convene an intenftncy working group to begin to
implement the Executive Order. I kxJc forward to working with my colleagues in this
Administrwion to eas«rB thai til Americans hav» a ufe and healthy environment.
-------
3Bepartnt£nt of
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AG
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1994 (202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1880
STATEMENT BY TBS_Al'JroRrfSr_CI^EKAL_JAJjTgT RjBNO OK
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
The President today has asked us to make environmental
justice a priority. He has asked us to ensure that all
communities in this country, including minority and low-income
communities, receive adequate environmental protection.
Traditionally, this country's environmental policymakers
have focused on protecting the environment by creating lavs that
reduce pollution to acceptable levels. But, until now,
policymakers paid little attention who benefitted from those
lavs.
For years, researchers have collected evidence suggesting
that the poor in genefal, and minorities in particular, are
cllEprpportionately exposed to toxic pollution and that the
environmental needs of their communities are not being fairly
addressed. Today's Executive Order seeks to address these
environmental injustices by promising that the benefits of
environmental protection will be distributed to all communities.
To ensure that the Department fulfills the President's
mandate set forth today, I have asked my counsel, Gerald Torres,
(MORE)
-------
- 2 -
to lead the Department' s efforts to develop an environmental
justice strategy.
We want to help ensure that minority and low-income
communit ies — from farm workers exposed to pesticides, to
children living in lead-laden buildings, to subsistence fishermen
eating contaminated fish -- enjoy the benefits of a clean, safe
and healthy environment.
The Environment and Natural Resources Division, the Civil
Rights Division, and the Civil Division will work closely with
the Environmental Justice Work Group and the Environmental
Protection Agency to develop joint strategies for addressing
environmental injustices.
I am committed to investigating the distribution of
environmental risks. As we work to protect the environment and
to preserve this country's natural resources, we will make every
effort to ensure that environmental regulation and enforcement
are directed at the highest environmental risks, including those
risks vhich disproportionately affect the poor and people of
color .
94-058
-------
Executive Order 12250 of November 2, 1900
Leadership and Coordination of NonoUscriminalion Laws
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of
the United States of America, including section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-l). Section 902 of the Education Amendments of 1S72 {20
U.S.C. 1682). and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United Slates'Code, and in order
to provide, under the leadership of the Attorney General, for the consistent
and effective implementation of various laws prohibiting discriminatory pruc-
Ucea in Federal programs and programs receiving Federal financial assistance,
it is hereby ordered as follows:
1-1. Delegation of Function,
1-101. The function vested in the President by Section 602 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C, 2000d-l). relating to the approval of rules, regulations.
and orders of general applicability, is hereby delegated to the Attorney
General. •
1-102. The function vested in the President by Section 902 of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1632). relating to the approval of rules.
regulations, and orders of general applicability, is Hereby delegated to the
Attorney General ' • •
1-2. Coordination of Nondiscrimination Provisions. -
1-201. The Attorney General shall coordinate the implementation and enforce-
ment by Executive agencies of various nondiscrimination provisions of the
following laws:
(a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).
(b) Tide IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C 1681 et «?
-------
1-^05. The Attorney Cc.Teral shall cita'olkh and implement a schedule for the
i e view c.r Uiu agencies* regulations which implement Uic various nondiscrir.ii-.
nation luws covered by this Order.
1-2UG. The Attorney General shait establish guidelines and standards for the
development of consistent a:id effective rcccrdkccping and reporting require-
ments by Executive agencies; for the sharing and exchange by agencies of
compliance records, flr.dira;*. ar.d supporting documentation; for the develop-
ment of comprehensive employee trainins programs: for the development of
effective information programs; and for the development of cooperative pro-
grams with Slate and local agencies, including sharing of information, defer-
ring of enforcement activities, end providing technical assistance.
1-207. The Attorney General shall initiate cooperative programs between and
among agencies, including the development of sample memoranda of under-
standing, designed to improve the coordination of the laws covered by this
Order. • ..
1-3. Implementation by Uie Attorney CcaeraL
1-001. In consultation with the affected agencies, the Attorney General shall
promptly prepare a plan for the implements lion of this Order. This plan shall
be submitted to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
1-302. The Attorney General shall periodically evaluate the implementation of
the nondiscriminstion provisions of the laws covered by this Order, and
advise the heads of the agencies concerned on the results of such evaluations.
us to recommendations for needed improvement in implementation or en-
forcement :
1-303. The Attorney General shall carry out his functions under this Order.
including the issuance c' such regulations as he deems necessary, in consulta-
tion with affected agencies. -
1-304. The Attorney General shall annually report to the President tarouglrthe
Director of the Office of Management and Budget on the progress in achieving
the purposes of this Order. This report shall include any recommendations for
changes in the implementation or enforcement of the non&scriznination provi-
sions of the laws covered by this-Order.
1-305. The Attorney General shall chair the Interagency Coordinating Council
established by Section 507 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. as amended (29
U.S-C.794C).
1—4. Agency Implementation.
1-4U1. Each'Execulivc a^ncy shall cooperate with the AttorneyGeneral in the
performance 'of the Attorney General's functions under this Order and shall.
unless prohibited by law. furnish such reports and information as the Attorney
General may request
1-402, Each Executive agency responsible for implementing a nondiscrimine-
tion provision of a law covered by this Order shall issue appropriate imple-
menting directives (whether in the nature of regulations or policy guidance).
To lh« extent permitted by law, they shall b« consistent with the requirements
proscribed by the Attorney General pursuant to this Order and snail be
subject lo the approval of the Attorney General, who may require that some or
all of them be submitted for approval be/ore Uking effect
1-403. Within 60 days after a date .set by the Attorney General. Executive
agencies shall submit to the Attorney General their plans for implementing
Iheir responsibilities under this Order.
1-5. General Provisions.
1-501. Executive Order No. 117W is revoked. Tne present regulations of the
Attorney General rtlatir.g to the coordination of enforcement of Title VI cf the
Civil Rights Act of 1S54 shall continue in effect until revoked or modified (23
CFR 42.401 to 42,415).
-------
1-502. Executive Order No. 11014 is revoked. The present regulations of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to the coordination of th«
implementation cf Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. as amended.
shall be deemed to have been issued by the Attorney General pursuant to this
Order and shall continue in effect until revoked or modified by the Attorney
General.
1-503. Nothing in this Order shall vest the Attorney General with the authority
to coordinate the implementation and enforcement by Executive agencies cf
statutory provisions relating to equal employment
1-5C4. Existing agsncy regulations implementing the nondiscriminalion provi-
sions of laws covered by this Order shall continue in effect until revoked or
modified.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 2, 1900.
-------
.Friday,,
Executive Order 12856 of August 3, 1993
The-president Federal Complu
Prevention Requirements
'WHEREAS, the Erilergency^Tlanrimig'and 'CpriiftuMry:-Rig^t-f^ltoow-!Ac)"
of J986: (42 U.S&.:ii001f 11050).^ (EP^
:"'thft'''niin1ir' wtth^fniViinVfflnt infnrTnfltinp "inn'ttia hazardduS and toxic.cherilicals .
'fry ffjaTr''coniiqiiVijitiflji*' fi'pd p$tnr)I{gf|fl^' flVnargflnry planning arid JloUfication >
[irequlrem^
"hazardoussubstances; ,'.:'-.•-,...., ...-,-1. -^'•••-•',•/• • v•-..^.'•.'••.-}\-'_- • :;=•: :;•••• •:'••:•••-•••• -\
; WHEREAS. ;the Federal Goverrmierit should be a good neighbor to local
communities by becoming a leader, to providing information to the. public
concerning toxic,.and hazardous chemicals .and.
-------
-j.xuguat- u.
3» Require JFed,eral -agencies to-xepprt -hi a ^public mariner toxic cheinicals enter^
"~ihg •'aJnyiWas^estream"from their facilities, including any releases. ;tb:theehyi;|
ronment, and to improve local. emergency planning; response, :and accident
notification; and •:../', •'-.' .'.•*...'. :•:'•••. '... s'^&^'S.:'*'^*'' •:'-1^
Help encourage-markets for clean technologies and safe alternatives to ex-;
iremely hazardous substances or toxic chemicals through revisions to.specl-;
fications and standards, the acquisition and procurement ;process, and the
testing of innovative pollution prevention technologies at Federal facilities
or in acquisitions; '.'.'••.'"•.-' .. ' "' • . ' '...::.::;.',•'•.: v. •;••:-, • ;.,^
NOW THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President bv the Con-'
stitution .and-the laws of the United States of America, including the EPCRA;:
the PPA. and section 301 of title 5. United States Code, it is hereby ordered
Section*.Applicability. . ' "i
.1-101. As delmeated below; the head of each Federal agency is responsible
for ensuring that'all necessary actions are taken for the prevention of pollution'
with respect to that agency's .activities and facilities, and .for ensuring that'
agency's compliance with pollution .prevention and-emergency planning
•and community right-to-know provisions established pursuant to all imple-
menting regulations issued pursuant to EPCRA and PPA. , :^
1-102. Except as otherwise noted,, this order is applicable to all Federal
agencies that either own or operate a "facility" as that term is 'defined
in section 329(4) of.EPGRA, If such facility meets the threshold .requirements'
set forth;,in EPCRA for ^compliance as modified by section "3-304(b) of
this order ("covered facilities"). Except as provided in section. 1-103 andj
section 1-104 below, each Federal agency'.must apply all of the provisions
of this order to each of its covered facilities, including those, facilities which:
are subject,-independent of this order/to the provisions of EPCRA arid'
PPA (e.g., certain Govemment-owned/contractor-operated facilities (GOCO's);'
for chemicals meeting EPCRA thresholds). This order does not apply to:
Federal agency facilities outside the customs, territory of the 'United States;'
such as United States diplomatic and consular missions abroad. '•'...' ^,
1-103. Nothing in this order alters the obligations which GOCO's and Govern^
ment corporation facilities have under EPCRA and PPA uidependent-of;
this order or subjects such facilities, to EPCRA or PPA if they are otherwise
excluded.Jiowever, consistent with section 1-104 below, each Federal agency"
shall include the releases and transfers from all such facilities when meeting
all of the Federal agency's responsibilities under this order., -.";,- ' '/.='*;
1-104. To facilitate compliance with this order, each Federal-.agency shall)
•provide, in all future contracts between the agency and its relevant contrac-
tors, for the contractor to supply to the Federal .agency all:' information
the Federal^;agency deems necessary for it to .comply .with-'this tirder. m;
addition, to the extent that compliance with this order is made more difficult
due to lack Of-information from existing contractors, Federal agencies shall'
take practical steps to obtain .the iriformlation needed to comply -with 'tki*j
order from such contractors. -~:
Sec. 2-2, Definitions.
2-201. All definitions found in EPCRA and PPA and implementing regula-j
tions are incorporated in this orderly reference, with the following excep-?
tion: for the purposes of this order, the term "person"', as defined in section;
329(7) of EPCRA, also includes Federal agencies. \ = >^
2-202. Federal agency means an Executive agency,; as defined in 5 U^S.Cj
105. For the purpose, of this1 order, military departments, as defined in
5 U.S.C 102, are covered under the auspices of the Department of Defense.;
2-203.:Pollution Prevention: means "source reduction," as'defined in; the
PPA, arid otherpractices that^reduce oreliminate the creation bf pbllutahtsj
through: ,(a)^increased efSciericy hi tiie use of ravv materials, •energy; •; water?
or Other^'"resoutces;^''brT fbj.p'rotectibn of natural tesources by vCoriservation|
-------
... :. *«•..;'.• .-..-',=.' •e-'.?;V.i.-f.<;»:::A--;jj;J:'f?f'?3J?-'
'V Pr^
-------
Federal Register /.;VpL S8.vNo. 150./.Friday..August. 6, :i993V^PrTOidentialyEiQCiunents
.for measuring reductions for purposes of achieving the 50 percent reduction
.requirement for each Federal agency, shall be the first year in which releases
of toxic pollutants to the environment and off-site transfers of such chemicals
, for treatment and disposal are .publicly reported for each of that Fede^|
agency's facilities encompassed by section 3-301. In no event shall tHj
baseline year be later than the 1994. reporting year. The baseline amount
as to which the 50 percent reduction goal applies shall be the aggregate
amount of toxic pollutants reported by the agency in the baseline year.:
For any toxic-pollutants included by the agency in determining its baseline
under this section, in addition to .toxic chemicals under EPCRA, the agency
shall report on such toxic pollutants annually under the provisions of section
3-304 of this order, if practicable, or through ;an agency report that' is
made available to the public. :_. : \ ~ . .
(d) The head of each Federal agency shall ensure that each of its covered
facilities develops a written pollution prevention plan no later than the!,
end of 1995, which sets forth the facility's contribution to the goal established
in section 3-302(a) of this order. Federal, agencies.shall conduct assessments"
of their facilities as necessary to ensure development of such plans and:
of the facilities' pollution prevention programs.." -
3-303. Acquisition and Procurement Coals, (a) Each Federal agency shall
establish a plan and goals for eliminating or reducing the unnecessary acquisi-';
. tion by that agency of products containing extremely'hazardous substances:1
or toxic chemicals^ Similarly; each 'Federal agency, shall 'establish a plan;
and goal for voluntarily-reducing its own manufacturing, processing, and
.use of .extremely hazardous substances 'and toxic chemicals. Priorities shall
be developed by Federal agencies, in coordination with EPA. for implement- •
Ing this section.- , : . . •' '--••' -; .--•• ": • '" ••-.'• • ". • '.- --.^
(b) Within 24 months of the date of this order, the Department of Defense;
(DOD) and the General Services Administration >(GSA), and other agencies.
as appropriate; shall review their agency's standardized documents, including ?
specifications and standards, and identify opportunities to eliminate or
duce the use by their agency of extremely hazardous substances and
.chemicals, consistent with die safety and reliability requirements of thef
.agency mission. The EPA shall assist agencies in meeting the requirements
of this section, including identifying substitutes and setting priorities for
these reviews. By 1999, DOD, GSA -and other affected agencies shall make
all. appropriate revisions to these specifications and standards.
:; (c) Any revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) necessary
to.implement this order shall be made within-24 months of the date of
this order. '... ,'"'.'••'...•... ''..'/•.'.;'' ' '-'• '.-•.' • ' • '. •;
(d) Federal agencies are .encouraged to develop and test innovative pollu-
tion prevention technologies at. their facilities in order to encourage the
development of strong markets for such technologies. Partnerships should.,
be encouraged between industry,.Federal agencies, Government laboratories, -
academia, and others to assess and deploy innovative environmental tech-r
nologies for domestic use and for markets abroad. -
3-304. Toxics Release Inventory/Pollution Prevention Act Reporting, (a) The
head of each.Federal.agency shall comply with the provisions set forth
in section 313 of EPCRA, section 6607 of PPA, all implementing regulations,
and future amendments to, these authorities, in light of applicable guidance
as provided by EPA. ; " . . .
(bj The head of each Federal agency shall comply with these provisions
without regard to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) delineations
- that apply to the Federal agency's facilities, and such reports shall be foe
all releases, transfers, and wastes at such Federal agency's facility without
regard to the_SIC code of the activity .leading to the release, transfer, or
waste. All other existing statutory or regulatory limitations or exemptions
: on the application of EPCRA section -313 shall apply-to the reporting require-^
ments set forth in section 3-304(a) of this order.
-------
Federal Register 7 rpL 58.,Np. .150 /.Friday. .August .6. 1993 / Presiden«al;t)6caimants
., (c) The first year of compliance shall be no later than for; the 1994 .
calendar year, with reports due on or before July 1,1995, -.:• . .
3-305." Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Eeporting-Re- /
sponsibillties. The head of each Federal.agency shall comply with the provi-
sions set forth in sections 301 through 312 of EPCRA. all. implementing
regulations, and future amendments to these authorities, in light of any
applicable guidance as provided by EPA. Effective dates for compliance
shall be: (a) With respect to the provisions of section 302 of EPCRA. emer-
gency'planning notification shaft i>e made no later than 7 months after
the .date of this order.
. (b) With respect to the provisions of section 303 of EPCRA, all information
.necessary for the applicable Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC's)
to prepare or revise local Emergency Response Plans shall be. provided
no later than 1 year after the date of this order. . .
(c) To the extent that a facility is required to maintain Material Safety
Data Sheets under any provisions of law. or Executive order, information .
required under section 311 of EPCRA shall be submitted no later than
1 year after the date of this order, and the first .year of compliance with
section 312 shall be no later than the 1994 calendar year, with reports
due on or before March 1.1995. .
(d) .The provisions of section 304 of EPCRA shall l>e effective beginning
January:!, 1994^ . • - ••'. •
' (e) These compliance dates are not intended to delay implementation
of earlier'timetables already agreed to by Federal agencies and are inapplica- .
lile. to the extent they interfere with those timetables.
Sec. '4-4. Agency Coordination.
4-401. By February 1,1994, the Administrator, shall convene an Interagency
Task''Force composed of the Administrator, the Secretaries of Commerce,
Defense, and Energy, the Administrator of General,Services, the Administrator
of the Office of Procurement Policy in the Office of Management and Budget,
and such other agency officials as deemed appropriate based upon lists
of potential participants submitted to the Administrator pursuant to this
; section by the'agency head. Each agency head may' designate other senior
agency officials to act.in his/her stead, where appropriate. The Task Force
• will assist the agency heads in the implementation of the activities required
under this order. . -";': • .
4—402. Federal agencies subject to the requirements of this order shall submit
annual progress reports to the Administrator beginning on October 1, 1995. .
These reports shall-include a description of the progress that the agency
.has made in complying with all aspects of this order, including the pollution
reductions requirements. This reporting requirement shall expire after the
report due on October 1,2001. , . : .
. 4-403. Technical Advice. Upon request and to the extent practicable, the.
Administrator shall provide technical advice and assistance to Federal agen-
• cies in order to foster full compliance.' with this order. In addition, to :
the extent practicable, all Federal agencies subject to this order shall provide
technical assistance, if requested, to LEPC's in their development of emer-
gency response plans and in fulfillment of their community right-to-know
and risk reduction responsibilities. ,- ..: , . , •
4—404. Federal agencies shall place high priority on obtaining funding and
resources needed for implementing all aspects of this order, including the
pollution prevention strategies, plans, and assessments required by this order,
by identifying, requesting, and allocating funds through line-item or direct.
funding requests..Federal agencies shall make such requests as required
. in the Federal Agency Pollution Prevention and Abatement Planning Process
.! and .through agency, budget requests as outlined in Office .of Management
...... and jBudget (OMB) Circulars A-106 and A-ll, respectively. Federal: agencies
should aDolv. to -the maximum extent practicable, a life cycle "analysis and
-------
^yjIfrde^ilUigirte^
''. 'total cost Accounting principles to /all- projects needed to'meet the require-
ments of thisorderJOr: : r ;-.4 *-V* * .< ^.-.-''•;••-*':".!.: •:• -.•:'•• '•'- ••••.'•"..'••': • '.---•':;•: ^v.'':>'<
4—405. Federal Government Environmental Challenge. Program. The" Adminis-
trator shall establish a . "Federal ..Government Environmental Challenge /Prpr
gram" to recognize outstanding environmental management 'performance in
Federal agencies and facilities; The program shall consist of two components
that challenge Federal 'agencies; (a) to -agree to e code of environmental
principles to be developed "by EPA,; In "cooperation with', other agencies,
that emphasizes pollution prevention, sustainable development and state-
of-the-art environmental management programs, and (b) to submit applica-
tions to EPA for individual Federal agency facilities for recognition as "Model
Installations." The program shall also include a means for. recognizing indi-
vidual Federal employees who demonstrate outstanding leadership in pollu-
tion prevention. x ' - T ..' .,
Sec. 5-5. Compliance. .......... .. -
5-501;. By; December '31; 1993,'; the head of each Federal agency shall provide
the Administrator^ with a preliminary -list of fac potentially meet
the requirements for reporting winder the threshold" provisions 'of EPGRA;
i___ .'v-: • i«-V* J ••'-* « -~ • •••• '• :: *••-•• i; ^^°'- -. •-• . "^T ; . - • - -. * - • .- - -. ••:-••. .7:. ».
P, PA,. and/mis. order;. .•;..;'•.; :". .- v'";;>:.^v-; •:;.;.•'•' "'. I -, ••• •••'.' .'•'•'''.'. ..;-.-: -,:..'..'-'... ',,',:,,• ^.
5-502. The head of each Federal agency is responsible Tor -ensuring ;that
such agency take all necessary actions to prevent pollution ifl accordance
with this order^ and fbr that agen(^^^<^^
'' - ' ; v
EPCRA; iand '•'• PP^; X^m^lianciB:: with, -EPCflA: jiari'd; ,PPA ;^eans: c6mpliancev
witfc the; same: substantive; rproqe^uial< :aftd "Other • $|aldt6ry J*
.
requirements; ; Aat-^uid: app^
shall be construed as makiiig jUje'proyisidrjs of •Jre^oh^' 'SiS'^nd^S^- of ,
' '" '
EPCRA applicable to^y^lF^e^'^e^cy. or '.fadiityi," except/
that jsuch Federal agency • pr;
5—5041 The 'Adjninistratpjr, infeonsultatiori with-thfl'head r ,-,r..
• may conduct such reviews and. inspections as may be necessary.to.:mbnitor -
compliance with sections^Si-SO^.and 3—1305 ^ this order. Except-as^excluded .;
under section 6-601 of flus; pt&et',; ;alfi^edejal; agencies are; encpuraged; tQ'.^
cooperate fullyjwltii?the'effdrts pif'ffieirAdr&fiiistf^tprtb ensure compliance
^ih.se^qh^'3^^e^.S^^:^\S^^i^r.^''J:i . 'y " ."••"•'':>.•'••••>>:*;:^.";,'"
5-505.. Tederal - agendes-are: fu^er^
and local right-to-know and pbUu^ori preve^
that compliance .with such la^sfiEuid i^uiremente Is n^ ;
mandated. ;•> :'..!',;.-; ••'•.'••/'•'"'.'.:''*' '/"*::.'!-"'.";v-':"'.*'.'.".'r "::.'!"'. :.:"".'' '^'^•^^':''^f- '•'].'•
5^-506. Whehiiver; the. Administrator -notifies • a Federal agericy- 3
^T3%E1PA;shall repbrt ia^u^iy|to^ejPreside>U iott J
compliance with jthe provisions of section-37-304 of .this prder,-i> ; -. j-;
Is withheld tiursuant' tb: sectipn; 6r-6bl;plF.! thi§-'pVderV jib? :-puBlic" shall jtje ',"
afforded: ready Access tp jail strategics, plans, >and reports required ;"tp.>fie
prepared by-Federal /agencies itindef.fthis'iprder .byr the^ageij^.rprepaiing.L.
.the strategy, plan/ or repor^; When th^r ^P^li3"are s^bmitt^j^EPAi j^^ ;;
shall compile the strategies; plans, and^ rerjorti aridi make &em -publicly
available as weU: Federal agencies are «i^uraged to provide^s
.plans,-and reports^ to-thevSt^te ^d*^
: ajre ^located fpr:ariaddiUpnal>pbiM^^ Vr:^^"^"* :J" ?|?^
-------
^:?£tFederal Register / Vol.- 58.;N6.> 150 /.-Friday;.:Augus£6.; 1993 4
(FRl^pc.: 8^19069
FOeiJ ft-4-93; 437 pm)
Billing code 3195-01-P
Sec.6-6. Exemption. -. . - ': ' , . : .• .
6-601. In the interest of national security, the head of a Federal agency
may-request from the President an exemption from "comply ing with the
provisions of any or all aspects of this order for'particular-Federal agency
facilities, provided that the procedures set forth in'section 120(j)(l) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9620(j)(l)), are followed. To the maximum
extent practicable, and without'Compromising national security, all Federal
agencies shall strive to comply with the purposes; goals, and implementation
steps set forth in this order. ., ;. . ; . -
Set. 7-7. General Provisions. • ' . .
7-701, Nothing in'this-order shall create any right or benefit, substantive
or procedural, enforceable by a party agauist the United States, its agencies
or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. >.
THEWHITE HOUSE,
'August 3. 1993.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
BACKGROUND
I. History
In the last several years, the concept of "environmental justice" has become a thriving field for legal
commentators and for environmental and civil rights activists, and an important concern for policymakers
and for industries whose activities may be challenged.
The growth of this movement as a recognized field is usually traced to a few specific instances in
which individual poor or minority communities protested the siting of hazardous facilities in their area as
discriminatory. These protests were followed by studies to determine whether such facilities were
disproportionately sited near poor and minority communities, as the activists suspected. Earlier cases may
have raised similar issues, but did not result in a galvanized "environmental justice" movement.
The following briefly sets forth some of the recent events that led to the development of this
movement.
A. Warren County, North Carolina, 1982
In 1982 the State of North Carolina decided to site a landfill for disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in a predominantly African-American community in Warren County. Former civil rights
activists and local residents organized civil disobedience efforts that led to the arrest of some 500
protesters, including such prominent individuals as the Reverend Benjamin Chavis, Jr., then of the United
Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice; Dr. Joseph Lowry of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, and Democratic Congressman Walter Fauntroy, of the District of Columbia.1
Following these protests, Representative Fauntroy asked the General Accounting Office to conduct
a study to determine whether hazardous waste sites were disproportionately sited in minority
neighborhoods. The General Accounting Office study, released in 1983, concluded that 3 of the 4
hazardous waste dumps in the Environmental Protection Agency's Region IV, which is composed of
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, were
located in predominantly African-American communities, and that "[a]t least 26 percent of the population
in all four communities have income below the poverty level and most of this population is Black-."2
B. United Church of Christ Study
In 1987, the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice released a more comprehensive
study in 1987, which examined the demographics of communities near the 415 sites then listed in EPA's
1 See Richard J. Lazarus, The Meaning and Promotion of Environmental Justice, 5 Md. J. Contemp.
Legal Issues 1,1-2 (1994) (symposium); Rachel D. Godsil, Note: Remedying Environmental Racism. 90
Mich. L. Rev. 394, 394 & n. 3 (1991).
2 U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial
and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities (1983).
1
-------
hazardous waste management system.3 The demographic data was drawn from the 1980 census. Richard
J. Lazarus has summarized the findings of the United Church of Christ study as follows:
The report concluded that "[ajlthough socio-economic status appeared to play an
important role in the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities, race still proved to
be more significant." According to the report's authors, "[tjhis remained true after the
study controlled for urbanization and regional differences."
The UCC study found, in particular, that "[i]n communities with two or more
operating hazardous waste facilities or one of the five largest landfills, the mean minority
percentage of the population was more than three times that of communities without
facilities (38 percent versus 12 percent." Furthermore, "[i]n communities with one
operating commercial hazardous waste facility, the mean minority percentage of the
population was approximately twice that of communities without facilities (24 percent
versus 12 percent)."4 The study also found that "[tlhree out of every five Black and
Hispanic Americans lived in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites."5
Not surprisingly, these findings created considerable controversy and have proven quite influential.
Less frequently cited, however, are some of the Study's less dramatic conclusions, such as that most white
Americans "also live in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites -- the study found that 56.32%
of Black and Hispanic Americans live near such sites, while 53.60% of white Americans do as well."6
Nonetheless, it appears that minorities are substantially more likely than whites to live near more than one
hazardous site.
The need to pay attention to the cumulative effects of multiple siting decisions is exemplified by
one community commonly identified by environmental justice activists as a particularly egregious example
of disproportionate impact on minority and poor communities:
Altgeld Gardens, South Chicago, Illinois (which some have called the "toxic donut"): a poor,
predominantly African-American community built atop a hazardous waste dump is surrounded by industrial
facilities and other pollution sources. Residents claim that the results have been numerous health hazards
and severe degradation to outdoor recreational opportunities, such as fishing in nearby streams. Moreover,
the presence of so many sources of pollution has made the neighborhood decidedly unpleasant.
C. National Law Journal Study
3 Commission for Racial Justice, United Church of Christ, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States:
A National Report on the Racial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste
Sites (1987).
4 Vicki Been has observed that measuring relative percentage of a community that is minority rather than
total minority individuals affected may produce a misleading result. Choosing to site a facility near 100
individuals, 60 of whom are minority, rather than near 1000 individuals, 550 of whom are minority, would
mean that the affected community has a relatively high percentage of minorities; but far fewer members
of the minority group would be affected. See Vicki Been, Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority
Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Siting or Market Dynamics?. 103 Yale L.J. 1383, 1384 n.2 (1994).
5 Richard J. Lazarus, Pursuing "Environmental Justice": The Distributional Effects of Environmental
Protection, 87 Nw. U. L. Rev. 787, 801-02 (1993).
6 Been, supra note 5, at 1384 n.2 (citing United Church of Christ Study at 53).
2
-------
The September 21, 1992, issue of the National Law Journal included a 12-page pullout section
setting forth evidence suggesting that environmental burdens tended disproportionately to be shouldered
by minority and low income communities, and that environmental enforcement in such communities was
more lax than elsewhere.7 Among the most commonly cited results in the study are the following:
-- EPA chose containment rather than treatment of hazardous wastes in Superfund sites more
frequently when the sites were located near communities with the largest percentage of minority
residents;8
-- Superfund sites in the communities with the largest percentage of minority residents took 20%
longer to be placed on the national priority list, following discovery, than did those in communities with the
highest proportion of white residents;
-- EPA enforcement penalties were 46% higher in the communities with the largest percentage of
white residents than in the areas with the largest percentage of minority residents.
- Fines under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs hazardous waste
disposal, averaged $335,565 in areas with the highest proportion of white resident, but only $55,318 in
areas with the highest proportion of minority residents.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency responded, arguing that the sites may
not have been comparable and that the National Law Journal's sampling methods and methods of
determining the demographics of affected communities may have been flawed.9 The agency is now taking
steps to ensure that its enforcement efforts do not inadvertently fail to protect minority communities as
effectively as other communities.
D. More recent developments
In the last few years, a number of law schools have sponsored symposia or conferences on
environmental justice issues; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has
addressed the possibility of discrimination on the basis of race in the distribution of environmental hazards
and in society's determination of which hazards should be addressed first; and communities in many areas
of the country have organized to protest the distribution of environmental hazards on this basis.
Accordingly, we can expect that lawsuits and other actions challenging the distribution of environmental
hazards will be brought in increasing numbers.
7 Marianne Lavelle and Marcia Coyle, Special Investigation: Unequal Protection -- The Racial Divide in
Environmental Law, Nat'l L.J., Sept. 21, 1992, at SI (introductory article). For a critique of some of the
methodology used in the National Law Journal study, see Lazarus, supra note 6, at 818 n. 125 (noting that
the data comparing "white communities" and "minority communities" does not have the meaning one
would at first assume: for Superfund data, the comparison was between communities with more than
98.3% white population and those with less than 84.1% white population; and that for enforcement data,
the comparison was between communities with more than 97.9% white population and less than 79.2%
white population).
8 Containment means capping or walling off the site, but leaving the materials in place and untreated;
treatment -- the statutorily preferred method — means eliminating the waste or ridding it of toxins. It is not
clear whether there are differences in the waste involved that may account for this disparity, or whether
it is primarily a function of the race and political power of the communities affected.
9 William K. Reilly, Letter to the Editor, Nat'l L.J., Jan. 25, 1993, at 16.
-------
To ensure that the federal government's environmental protection activities do not fail to protect
poor and minority communities. President Clinton signed an executive order entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations on February 11,1994.
Executive Order No. 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16. 1994). That order requires each federal agency
whose activities may affect the health and environment to design a strategy to address "disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities" on minority
and low income populations, id. § 1-101, by promoting the equal enforcement of civil rights, health, and
environmental statutes; by ensuring greater public participation in decisions affecting human health and the
environment; by improving research and data collection involving human health and the environment; and
by identifying differential patterns of consumption of natural resources, jcT § 1-103(a)(1)-(4).'°
II. Definition
Environmental Justice calls for a fair distribution of environmental hazards. But there is
considerable disagreement as to what a fair distribution would be. The following are examples of means
of defining "fair distribution" for environmental justice purposes that may form the underlying motivation
for a particular community to challenge a site:
A. No intentional discrimination: Intentional discrimination may violate the
Constitution or federal civil rights laws, depending on whether there is state action or
whether the activity is governed by those statutes, but it can be difficult to prove.
Lingering effects of past intentional discrimination or segregation could expose a
government to present liability.
B. Fair siting procedures: disproportionate impact is acceptable if the affected
community consents, if statutory procedural requirements were complied with, and if fair
notice was provided to all affected communities. There will be disagreements in individual
settings as to whether consent was voluntary, and as to who speaks for the community.
There will also be disagreements among policymakers as to the point at which legal
authority should set minimum requirement to assist communities in bargaining with
potential polluters to protect communities from unconscionable bargains without denying
them the freedom to take reasonable risks in exchange for other benefits. Thus, for
example, many critics doubt that the jobs that are often promised will in fact be occupied
by residents of the affected community. Policymakers may want to guarantee that some
minimum level of benefits will actually be delivered to the affected community.
C. _ No disproportionate impact: communities should receive equal benefits and
burdens-. Disproportionate impact may result from process failures or from a lack of
political power (including an inability to form coalitions with other communities or political
splits on other issues that leave minority and poor communities without political allies),
from successful not-in-my-backyard movements waged by more prosperous communities,
from underenforcement in communities with other pressing problems that draw the
attention of officials and citizens alike; from the decisions of wealthier citizens to move
away from unpleasant land uses, etc.
10 Executive Order No. 12898 does not create a new legal remedy. Rather, as an internal management
tool of the executive branch, the Order directs federal agencies to take action to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority and low-income populations and federally-recognized Indian tribes.
-------
Here there is general agreement on the basic principle that, all things being equal, citizens
should bear equal benefits and burdens; but considerable disagreement over what factors
justify deviation from this starting point. Where enforcement of federal environmental laws
is at issue, equal enforcement is the underlying principle. Disproportionate enforcement
may inadvertently occur, but represents a failure to meet the government's obligations.
Accordingly, pursuant to Executive Order 12898, the federal government is taking steps
to ensure that all communities receive the full protection of federal environmental laws,
regardless of race, ethnicity, or income.
D. No disproportionate health impact: a more controversial ethical theory would
require that richer communities shoulder more of the environmental hazards, since they
have a greater capacity to protect themselves from the resulting harms. Poorer
communities may need to be cleaner because the population is more vulnerable.
Additionally, while the term "environmental justice" is most commonly used to describe
hazards related to waste facilities and industrial sites that release pollution into the
surrounding community, it may also be used to refer to disproportionate exposure to toxic
substances in housing or in the workplace. One of the clearest examples of a
disproportionate exposure to a toxic substance is that African-American children have
disproportionately high rates of lead poisoning.1'
E. Costs should be internalized: Those who benefit from the undesirable facility
should bear the costs. This principle would militate against placing garbage generated in
a wealthy community and depositing it in a poorer neighborhood.
III. Explanations for why environmental hazards may be distributed unfairly
Although some critics have questioned the assertion of advocates that environmental hazards are
in fact distributed unfairly, the General Accounting Office, United Church of Christ, and National Law
Journal studies do support this assertion, and there are a number of explanations offered for how this has
come about.
A. Variations in political power
Some argue that environmental hazards may be distributed unevenly because of the relative
ineffectiveness of poor and minority communities in persuading governmental agencies to bar the siting of
undesirable land uses in their neighborhoods. They may be unaccustomed to monitoring and appearing at
zoning hearings and unable to find the time or resources to present enforcement authorities with the
evidence needed to take action. Minority communities that have a lack of political allies may find it difficult
to form allegiances with others to oppose sitings. The cumulative effects may be a concentration of
undesirable facilities in the least politically active communities. Furthermore, to the extent that industrial
actors expect greater resistance from more politically sophisticated communities, they may avoid building
plans that would elicit such resistance. Such decisions may fail to take into account the increased
environmental activism of minority communities, and the added costs of responding to such protests late
in the siting process.
B. The nature of environmental laws and regulations
11 See, e.g., Lazarus, supra note 6, at 815-16; Regina Austin & Michael Schill, Black, Brown, Poor &
Poisoned: Minority Grassroots Environmentalism and the Quest for Eco-Justice, 1 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Policy
69, 71 (describing lead poisoning due to lead smelters in Dallas, Texas).
5
-------
Environmental laws do not eliminate harms, but reduce them and redistribute them, in ways that
may not have neutral distributional effects.12 While policymakers initially assumed that anti-pollution laws
would, if anything, provide disproportionate benefits to the poor and to ethnic minorities, who tend more
often to live in heavily polluted central cities, commentators now doubt that minorities have received such
benefits. Some believe that because environmental suits are often complex and expensive to litigate,
poorer, less sophisticated communities may be less likely to undertake the effort, and less likely to prevail
when they do. Enforcement agencies may be more likely to respond to the most vociferous victims of
pollution, rather than the most vulnerable ones, leading to a siphoning off of enforcement resources to
wealthier communities that are more likely to object to environmental hazards.
In addition, the political majority's choice of which harms to tackle first, through environmental
statutes, regulations, and enforcement procedures, may result in a lack of attention to harms that
disproportionately affect poor or minority communities, such as lead poisoning, workplace hazards, or toxic
substances that do not spread far from the source. Environmental justice activists have criticized
mainstream environmental groups for being more concerned with wildlife and natural resource issues than
with toxic substances that have a direct effect on the health of urban residents.
C. Lingering effects of past discrimination
The evidence suggests that deliberate siting of undesirable land uses near minority populations
occurred, at least in the past; the surrounding communities may continue to suffer the effects of those
decisions. To the extent that past discrimination in education, employment, and other areas has increased
the level of poverty in minority communities, minorities may be more likely to live in inexpensive housing
near undesirable land uses.
D. Expulsive zoning
Once a neighborhood contains some undesirable land uses, it often becomes an attractive source
for others, and may be rezoned to accommodate those uses.
E. Discrimination: intentional or unintentional
While plaintiffs have a very difficult time proving intentional discrimination, many suspect that
politicians and industries choose to site undesirable facilities in their neighborhoods because of
discriminatory impulses: a lack of concern for the affected population; a desire to avoid siting in the
politicians' own neighborhood, or in one where people "more like them" live; a perception that minorities
and the poor are less likely to object.
12
See Lazarus, supra note 6, at 811-22.
-------
TITLE VI
OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
42 U.S.C:
§ 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in.
denial of benefits of, and discrimination under Feder-
ally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or
national origin
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color.
or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
(Pub.L. 88-352, Title VI. § 601. July 2. 1964, 78 Stat 252.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports of the provisions of this subchapter by the
1964 Acts. Senate Report No. 872 and Attorney General, see section 1-201 o»
House Report No. 914. see 1964 U.S. £x.Ord. No. 12250. Nov. 2. 1980. 45 F.R.
Code Cong, and Adm. News. p. 2355. 7,995. sel out ^ a note under
Coordination of Implementation and En- 2000d-l of this title.
forcement of Provisions
For provisions relating to the coordina-
tion of implementation and enforcement
-------
§ 2000d—1. Federal authority and financial assistance to pro-
grams or activities by way of grant, loan, or con-
tract other than contract of insurance or guaranty;
rules and regulations; approval by President-
compliance with requirements; reports to Con-
gressional committees; effective date of adminis-
trative action
-Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to
extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity. "by
way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance'or
guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of
section 2000d of this tide with respect to such program or activity by
issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which
shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute-
authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the
action is taken. No such rule, regulation, or order shall beconn-
effective unless and until approved by the President. Compliance
with any requirement adopted pursuant to this section may be-
effected (1) by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue
assistance under such program or activity to any recipient as to
whom there has been an express finding on the record, after opportu-
nity for hearing, of a failure to comply with such requirement, but
such termination or refusal shall be limited to the particular political
entity, or part thereof, or other recipient as to whom such a finding
has been made and, shall be limited in its effect to the particular
program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so
found, or (2) by any other means authorized by law: Provided,
however, That no such action shall be taken until the department or
agency concerned has advised the appropriate person or persons of
the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that
compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means. In the case of
any action terminating, or refusing to grant or continue, assistance
because of failure to comply with a requirement imposed pursuant to
this section, the head of the Federal department or agency shall file
with the committees of the House and Senate having legislative
jurisdiction over the program or activity involved a full written report
of the circumstances and the grounds for such action. No such
action shall become effective until thirty days have elapsed after the
filing of such report.
(Pub.L. 88-352. Title VI, § 602, July 2. 1964, 78 Star. 252.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports Nov. 2. 19SO. 45 F.R. 72995. set out as a
1964 Acts. Senate Report Xo. £72 and note under this section.
Ho-se Report No. 914. see 19=4 U.S. Equa, Opportunity in Federal Employ-
Code Cong, and Adrn. News. p. 23;:'. mem
Xondiscrimination in government em-
Deleeaiion of Functions ployment and in employment by eoverr.-
.-•jncv.on o. :he Presicent rc:j'.;ng to mem contractors and subcomrzc'.ors. st:
approval of rules, regulations, and orders Ev.Ord. No. 112-6 S-->t. 2-1. 1?;5. 30
ol" cene.-al applicability under this sec- F.R. 12319 and Ex.Ord. Xo. 1I-TJ. A-JS.
::on. is delegated to the A:torne\ General. S. I9o9. 34 F.R. I29S5. set OL:: is noies
'?;
-------
§ 2000d—2. Judicial review; administrative procedure provi-
sions
. Any department or agency action taken pursuant to section
2000d-l of this title shall be subject to such judicial review as may
otherwise be provided by law for similar action taken by such
department or agency on other grounds. In the case of action, not
otherwise subject to judicial review, terminating or refusing to grant
or to continue financial assistance upon a finding of failure to comply
with any requirement imposed pursuant to section 2000d-l of this
tide, any person aggrieved (including any State or political subdivi-
sion thereof and any agency of either) may obtain judicial review of
such action in accordance with chapter 7 of Title 5, and such action
shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion
within the meaning of that chapter.
(Pub.L. 88-352. Title VI, § 603. July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 253.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports "that section", respectively, on authority
1964 Acts. Senate Report No. 872 and of section 7(b) of Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6.
House Report No. 914. see 1964 U.S. 1966. 80 Stat. 631. section 1 of which
Code Cong, and Adm. News, p. 2355. enacted Title 5, Government Organiza-
Codlflcatlons tion'and Employees. Prior to the enact-
"Chapter 7 of Tide 5" and "that chap- mem of Title 5. section 10 of the Adminis-
ter" were substituted for "section 10 of trative Procedure Act was classified to
the Administrative Procedure Act" and section 1009 of Tide 5.
-------
§ 2000d—3. Construction of provisions not to authorize admin-
istrative action with respect to employment prac-
tices except where primary objective of Federal
financial assistance is to provide employment
.i
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to autho-
rize action under this subchapter by any department or agency wit"
respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment
agency, or labor organization except where a primary objective of the
Federal financial assistance is to provide employment.
(Pub.L. 88-352, Title VI, § 604, July 2. 1964. 78 StaL 253.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports
1964 Acts. Senate Report No. 872 and
House Report No. 914, see 1964 U.S.
Code Cong, and Adm. News. p. 2355.
-------
§ 2000d—4. Federal authority and financial assistance to pro-
grams or activities by way of contract of insurance
or guaranty
Nothing in this subchapter shall add to or detract from any existing
authority with respect to any program or activity under which
Federal financial assistance is extended by way of a contract of.
insurance or guaranty.
(Pub.L. 88-352. Tide VI. § 605. July 2. 1964. 78 Stat. 253.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports
1964 Acts. Senate Report No. 872 and
House Report No. 914. see 1964 U.S.
Code Cong, and Adm. News. p. 2355.
-------
§ 2000d—4a. "Program or activity" and "program" defined
For the purposes of this subchapter, the term "program or activi-
ty" and the term "program" mean all of the operations of—
(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other
instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
(B) the entity of such State or local government that distrib-
utes such assistance and each such department or agency (and
each other State or local government entity) to which the assis-
tance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local
government;
(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution,
or a public system of higher education; or
(B) a local educational agency (as defined in section
198(a)(10) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act uf
1965), system of vocational education, or other school system;
(3) (A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private
organization, or an entire sole proprietorship—
(i) if assistance is extended to such corporation, partner-
ship, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole;
or
(ii) which is principally engaged in the business of provid-
ing education, health care, housing, social services, or parks
and recreation; or
(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geographically sepa-
rate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in
the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organiza-
tion, or sole proprietorship; or
(4) any other entity which is established by two or more of the
. entities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3);
any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.
(Pub.L. 88-352, Title VI. § 606, as added Pub.L. 100-259. § 6. Mar. 22.
1988, 102 Stat. 31.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports References in Text
1988 Acts. Senate Report No. 100-64. Section 19S(a)(10) of the Elementary
see 19S8 U.S. Code Cong, and Adm. anrd Secondary Education Act of 1965.
\"eu-s n 3 referred to in par. (2){B). is section 19S of
' P' Pub.L. 89-10. tide I. as added by Pub.L.
95-561. tide I, § 101(a). Nov. 1. 1978. 92 form or pay for an abortion, see section 8
Stat. 2198. which was classified to sec- of Pub.L. 100-259. set out as a note un-
tion 2S54 of Tide 20. Education, prior to der section 16SS of Tide 20, Education.
die complete revision of Pub.L. 89-10 by
Pub.L. 100-297. Apr. 28. 19SS. 102 Stat. Exclusion from Coverage
140. For definitions, see section 2891 of ™s se"ion not » £ .?°S?:?edAtO "^
-|-.j in tend application of Civil Rights Act ot
' 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2CQOa et seq.] to ultimate
Abortion Neutrality beneficiaries of Federal financial assis-
This section not to be construed to tance excluded from coverage before
force or require any individual or hospi- Mar. 22. 19oS. see section 7 of Pub.L
ta! or anv other institution, procram. or 100-2?°; set o~t as a Construction note
activity receiving Federal funds to per- under section I 657 cf Title 20. Education.
-------
§ 2000d—5. Prohibited deferral of action on applications by
local educational agencies seeking federal Funds
for alleged noncompliance with Civil Rights Act
The Secretary of Education shall not defer action or order action
deferred on any application by a local educational agency for funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act. by the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C.A. § 2701 et seq.]. by the
Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874. Eighty-first Congress).
[20 U.S.C.A. § 236 et seq.] by the Act of September 23, 1950 (Public
Law 815, Eighty-first Congress) [20 U.S.C.A. § 631 et seq.]. or by the
Cooperative Research Act [20 U.S.C.A. § 331 et seq.]. on the basis of
alleged noncompliance with the provisions of this subchapter for
more than sixty days after notice is given to such local agency of such
deferral unless such local agency is given the opportunity for a
hearing as provided in section 2000d-l of this title, such hearing to
be held within sixty days of such notice, unless the time for such
hearing is extended by mutual consent of such local agency and the
Secretary, and such deferral shall not continue for more than thirty
days after the close of any such hearing unless there has been an
express finding on the record of such hearing that such local edu-
cational agency has failed to comply with the provisions of this
subchapter: Provided, That, for the purpose of determining whether a
local educational agency is in compliance with this subchapter.
compliance by such .agency with a final order or judgment of a
Federal court for the desegregation of the school or school system
operated by such agency shall be deemed to be compliance with this
subchapter, insofar as the matters covered in the order or judgment
are concerned.
(Pub.L. 89-750. Tide I. § 182. Nov. 3. 1966. 80 Stat. 1209; Pub.L. 90-2-47.
Title I. § 112. Jan. 2, 1968. 81 Stat. 787; Pub.L. 96-88, Title III. § 301(a)U>.
Tide V, § 507. Oct. 17, 1979. 93 Stat. 677. 692.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports 96-459. see 1979 U.S. Code Cons. anJ
1966 Acts. House Report No. 1814. see Adm. KCV.-S. p. 1514.
1966 U.S..Code Cong, and Adm. News. p.
3S44. References in Text
.1968 Acts. Senate Report No. 726 and This Act., referred to in text, is Pub.L
Conference Report No. 1049. see 1967 89-750. Nov. 3. 1966. 80 Sta'.. 1191. '•»
U.S. Code Cons, and Adm. News. p. amended, known as the Elementary aru!
2730. Secondary Education Amendments oi
• 1979 Acts. Senate 'Report No. 96-S9 1966. For complete classification of i^'
and House Conference Report No. Act to the Code, see Short Tiiie of 1 ^'••~
-------
Amendment note set out under section
2701 of Title 20. Education, and Tables.
The Elementary and Secondary Edu-
cation Act of 1965. referred to in text, is
Pub.L. 89-10. Apr. II. 1965. 79 Stat. 27.
as amended generally by Pub.L. 100-297.
Apr. 28. 1988. 102 Stat. 140. which is
classified generally to chapter 47 (section
2701 et seq.) of fide 20. For complete
classification of this Act to the Code, see
Short Tide note set out under section
2701 of Title 20 and Tables.
Act of September 30. 1950. referred to
in text, is Act Sept. 30. 1950. c- 1124. 64
Stat. 1100. as amended, popularly known
as the Educational Agencies Financial
Aid Act. which is classified generally to
chapter 13 (section 236 et seq.) of Tide
20. For complete classification of this
Act to die Code, see Short Tide note set
out under section 236 of Tide 20 and
Tables.
The Act of September 23. 1950. re-
ferred to in text, is Act Sept. 23, 1950. c.
995. as amended generally by Act Aug.
12, 1958. Pub.L. 85-620. Tide I. 72 Stat.
548, which is classified generally to chap-
ter 19 (section 631 et seq.) of Tide 20,
Education. For complete classification
of diis Act to die Code, see Tables.
The Cooperative Research Act. referred
to in text..is Act July 26. 1954. c. 576. 68
Stat. 533. which was classified generally
to chapter 15 (section 331 et seq.) of Tide
20, Education, and terminated on July 1.
1975. under provisions of section
402(cXD of Pub.L. 93-380. Tide IV. Aug.
21. 1974. 88 Stat. 544. For complete
classification of this Act to die Code, see
Tables.
Codifications
Section was enacted as part of the Ele- •
mentary and Secondary Education
Amendments of 1966. Pub.L. 89-750. and
not as pan of Pub.L. 88-352 July 2. 1964.
78 Stat. 252. known as the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Tide VI of which enacted
this subchapter.
Amendments
1968 Amendments. Pub.L. 90-247 add-.
ed die proviso to this section.
Effective Dates
1966 Acts. Pub.L. 89-750. § 191. pro-
vided dial: "The pro%isions of diis tide
[enacting diis section and sections 241m,
871 to 880. and 886 of Tide 20. Edu-
cation, amending sections 24 Ib, 241 c.
241e. 241f. 241g. 241h. 241j. 241k. 2411,
244. 331a. 332a. 332b. 821. 822. 823.
841. 842. 843. 844. 861. 862. 863. 864.
883. and 884 of Tide 20. repealing section
24Id of Tide 20, and enacting provisions
set out as notes under sections 24la,
24 Ib, and 24 Ic of Tide 20] shall be effec-
tive with respect to fiscal years beginning
after June 30, 1966. except as specifically
provided odierwise,"
Transfer of Functions
"Secretary of Education" and "Secre-
tary", were substituted for "Commission-
er of Education" and "Commissioner"
pursuant to sections 301(a)(l) and 50? of
Pub.I_ 96-88. which are classified to sec-
tions 3441(aXD and 3507 of Tide 20.
Education, and which transferred all
functions of die Commissioner of Edu-
cation of die Department of Health. Edu-
cation, and Welfare, to die Secretary of
Education.
-------
§ 2000d—6. Policy of United States as to application of nondis-
crimination provisions in schools of local edu-
cational agencies
(a) Declaration of uniform policy
It is the policy of the United States that guidelines and criteria
established pursuant to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42
U.S.C.A. § 2000d et seq.] and section 182 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Amendments of 1966 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d-5] .
dealing with conditions of segregation by race, whether de jure or de
facto, in the schools of the local educational agencies of any State
shall be applied uniformly in all regions of the United States whatev-
"er the origin or cause of such segregation.
(b) Nature of uniformity
Such uniformity refers to one policy applied uniformly to de jure
segregation wherever found and such other policy as may be provid-
ed pursuant to law applied uniformly to de facto segregation wherev-
er found.
(c) Prohibition of construction for diminution of obligation for
enforcement or compliance with nondiscrimination require-
ments
Nothing in this section shall be.construed to diminish the obli-
gation of responsible officials to enforce or comply with such guide-
lines and criteria in order to eliminate discrimination in federally-
assisted programs and activities as required by title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A.-§ 2000d et seq.].
(d) Additional funds
It is the sense of the Congress that the Department of Justice and
the Secretary of Education should request such additional funds as
may be necessary to apply the policy set forth in this section through-
out the United States.
(Pub.L. 91-230. § 2. Apr. 13, 1970. 84 Stat. 121; Pub.L. 96-88. Tide III.
§ 301, Tide V. § 507, Oct. 17. 1979. 93 Stat. 677. 692.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to
1970 Acts. Senate Report No. 91-634 section 2000d-5 of this title.
and Conference Report No. 91-937. see r^in^n™,.
1970 US. Code Cong, and Adxn. News. p. O££^I enacted as pan of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education
1979 Acts. Senate Report No. 96-49 Amendments of J 969. Pub.L. 91-230 and
and House Conference Report No. not as pan of Pub.L. 83-352. July 2.
96-J59. see 1979 U.S. Code Cong, and 1964. 78 Stat. 252. known as the Civil
Adm. News. p. 1514. Rights Act of 1964, Title VI of which
enacted this subchapter.
References in Text _ , r »-
_,.-..._.., . , ,„, , , Transfer 01 Functions
The Civil Rights Act of 1964. referred .._ , .., . .. , .
to in subsecs (a) and (c). is Pub.L. Secretary of Education was subst,-
83-352. July 2. 1964. 78 Stat..241. as tuted for °.ePraru?.e.m °[ Hea/.^ Edu'
j j 4- \ t/« c i. f -i r,- \. A cauon. ana VVeiiare in subsec. (a) pursu-
amended. Title VI of the Cml Rights Act . ,-, , en-. , I. ..
ri-*-. • i .r. , ,, , .?. , ant to sections 301 and 507 of Pub.L.
of I?CT is classified generally to this sub- „, „„ , . , . .,. ,
chapter (section 2000d et* see.). For ?^f' ^'f-V'V-^, ^ l2,Sen™S
complete classification of this Act to the 3"1 t~V;"' ,°f ™e, 2°". Edu«"on-
Code, see Short Ti-Je note set out under t"d ?h!eh. transferred functions and of-
.rciion 2000.-, of this title and Tables Rces (relating to education) of the Depan-
mo:;; a:;^ Secret.-)- of Hoa!:h. Ed-ca:;-:.-..
Section 182 of the Elementary and Sec- and Welfare to the Secretary of Ecu-
onJ-irk Education A~.endmer.is of 1966. cation.
-------
§ 2000d—7. Civil rights remedies equalization
(a) General provision
(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a
violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C.A.
§ 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C.A.
§ 1681 et seq.]. the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C.A.
§ 6101 et seq.]. tide VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A.
§ 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute
prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assis-
tance.
(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to
in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in
equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such-
remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any
public or private entity other than a State.
(b) Effective date
The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall take effect with
respect to violations that occur in whole or in part after October 21,
1986.
(Pub.L. 99-506, Title X § 1003, Oct. 21. 1986. 100 StaL 1845.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports erally to chapter 76 (section 6101 et seq.)
1986 Acts. House Report No. 99-571, of this title. For complete classification
House Conference Report No. 99-955, of this Act to the Code, see Short Title
"and Statement by President, see 1986 note set out under section 6101 of this
U.S. Code Cong, and Adm. News. p. tide and Tables.
3471- The Civil Rights Act of 1964. referred
References in Text to in *ubsec. (a)(l). is Pub.L. 88-352. July
The Education Amendments of 1972. 2- 1964 78 Stat. 241 as amended. Title
referred to in subsec. (a)(l), is Pub.L. ™ °{*e cwl wghts Act of 1964 is
92-318 June 23. 1972 86 Stat. 235, as classified generally to this subchapter
amended. Title DC of that Act is classified {secti°n 2000d et se
-------
§ 2000d— 6. Policy of United States as to application of nondis-
crimination provisions in schools of local edu-
cational agencies
(a) Declaration of uniform policy
It is the policy of the United States that guidelines and criteria
established pursuant to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42
U.S.C.A. § 2000d et seq.] and section 182 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Amendments of 1966 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d-5] .
dealing with conditions of segregation by race, whether de jure or de
facto, in the schools of the local educational agencies of any State
shall be applied uniformly in all regions of the United States whatev-
"er the origin or cause of such segregation.
(b) Nature of uniformity
Such uniformity refers to one policy applied uniformly to de jure
segregation wherever found and such other policy as may be provid-
ed pursuant to law applied uniformly to de facto segregation wherexr-
er found.
(c) Prohibition of construction for diminution of obligation for
enforcement or compliance with nondiscrimination require-
ments
Nothing in this section shall be. construed to diminish the obli-
gation of responsible officials to enforce or comply with such guide-
lines and criteria in order to eliminate discrimination in federally-
assisted programs and activities as required by title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.CA. § 2000d et seq.].
(d) Additional funds
It is the sense of the Congress that the Department of Justice and
the Secretary of Education should request such additional funds as
may be necessary to apply the policy set forth in this section through-
out the United States.
(Pub.L. 91-230. § 2. Apr. 13. 1970. 84 Stat. 121; Pub.L. 96-88. Tide III.
§ 301. Tide V. § 507. Oct. 17. 1979. 93 Stat 677. 692.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to
1970 Acts. Senate Report No. 91-634 section 2000d-5 of this title.
orcr,r ' Codifications .
19/0 L.S. Code Cong, and Adm. News. p. Sfiction ^ enacted M pan rf the £,e.
mentary and Secondary Education
1979 Acts. Senate Report No. 96—49 Amendments of J 969. Pub.L. 91-230 and
and House Conference Report No. not as pan of Pub.L. 88-352. July 2,
96-J59. see 1979 U.S. Code Cong, and 1964. 78 Stat. 252. known as the Ci\il
Adm. News. p. 1514. Rights Act of 1964, Title VI of which
enacted this subchapter.
References in Text _ , , ,_
The Civil Rights Act of 1964. referred Transfer of Functions
to in sobsecsNa) and (c). is Pub.L. Secretary of Educauon was subsu-
83-352. Julv 2. 1964. 78 Stat.. 241. as tuted for °fPfaain.e.nt °[ ""'*• Edu"
, , +. , ... c . -. ., „. , . cation. and vvesiare in subsec. (d) pursu-
amended. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act . , ,-_ , {, , .
c..,..., .c. , .. f. , ant to sections 301 and 507 of Pub L.
of 19c4 is classified generally to this sub-
'
chanter (section 2000d et see.). For ' 'V-, ? SeCM.°nS
conplete classification of this Act to the ^ ^ , ? ?l • Edu"j1OT1f-
,- , 0, ._. i , and v^hicn trans.erred runctior.s and ot-
Code. see Short Tiue noie set out under - , . . , . , ,
action 2000a of this tide =nd Tables. R«s (relating to education) of the Depan-
rno.-.i a.-.c Sccrc-.i.-v- of Hfu!:h. £Juca-.;cr..
Section 182 of ihe Elemeniar\' and Sec- and \Vellare to the Secretary of Ecu-
or.Jjr-. Education A.-r.cndnier.is of 19c6. <
-------
§ 2000d-7. Civil rights remedies equalization
(a) General provision
(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a
violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C.A.
§ 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C.A.
§ 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C.A.
§ 6101 et seq.]. title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A.
§ 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute
prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assis-
tance.
(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to
in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in
equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such-
remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any
public or private entity other than a State.
(b) Effective date
The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall take effect with
respect to violations that occur in whole or in part after October 21.
19S6.
(Pub.L. 99-506, Title X. § 1003. Oct. 21. 1986. 100 Stat 1845.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports erally to chapter 76 (section 6101 et seq.)
1986 Acts. House Report No. 99-571, of this tide. For complete classification
House Conference Report No. 99-955. of this Act to the Code, see Short Title
"and Statement by President, see 1986 note set out under section 6101 of this
U.S. Code Cong, and Adm. News. p. tide and Tables.
3471- The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred
References In Text to in subsec. (aXD. is Pub.L. 88-352. July
The Education Amendments of 1972. 2- I964- 78 Su"- 241. as amended. Tide
referred to in subsec. (a)(l). is Pub.L. ™ of lhe CivU Rights Act of 1964 is
92-318 June 23 1972 86 Stat. 235 as classified generally to this subchapter
amended. Tide DC of that Act is classified (section 2000d et seq.). For complete
principally to chapter 38 (section 1681 et classification of this Act to the Code, see
seq.) of Tide-20. Education. For com- Short Tid= notf set out under secnon
plete classification of this Act to the Code. 2000a of ^ "^ and Tables-
see Short Tide of 1972 Amendments note r «.r
set out under section 1001 of Tide 20 and ^"lcauons
_ ,. • Section was enacted as part of the Re-
habilitation Act Amendments of 19S6.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Pub.L. 99-506. and not as part of Pub.L.
referred to in subsec. (a)(l). is Pub.L. 88-352. July 2. 1964. 78 Stat. 252. known
94-135. Title III. Nov. 28. 1975. 89 Stat. as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of
728, as amended, which is classified gen- which enacted this subchapter.
-------
§ 2000d—6. Policy of United States as to application of nondis-
crimination provisions in schools of local edu-
cational agencies
(a) Declaration of uniform policy
It is the policy of the United States that guidelines and criteria
established pursuant to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 .
U.S.C.A. § 2000d et seq.] and section 182 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Amendments of 1966 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d-5].
dealing with conditions of segregation by race, whether de jure or de
facto, in the schools of the local educational agencies of any State
shall be applied unifojmly in all regions of the United States whatev-
"er the origin or cause of such segregation.
(b) Nature of uniformity
Such uniformity refers to one policy applied uniformly to de jure
segregation wherever found and such other policy as may be provid-
ed pursuant to law applied uniformly to de facto segregation wherev-
er found.
(c) Prohibition of construction for diminution of obligation for
enforcement or compliance with nondiscrimination require-
ments
Nothing in this section shall be.construed to diminish the obli-
gation of responsible officials to enforce or comply with such guide-
lines and criteria in order to eliminate discrimination in federally-
assisted programs and activities as required by title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.CA. § 2000d et seq.].
(d) Additional funds
It is the sense of the Congress that the Department of Justice and
the Secretary of Education should request such additional funds as
may be necessary to apply the policy set forth in this section through-
out the United States.
(Pub.L. 91-230. § 2, Apr. 13. 1970. 84 Stat. 121; Pub.L. 96-88, Title III.
§ 301. Tide V. § 507. Oct. 17. 1979. 93 Stat. 677. 692.)
HISTORICAL AMD STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to
1970 Acts. Senate Report No. 91-634 section 2000d-5 of this title.
and Conference Report !f°;J91-?.37' SCC Codifications .
19/0 US. Code Cong, and Adra. News. p. Section was enacwd M part of the EJe.
, mentary and Secondary Education
1979 Acts. Senate Report No. 96-49 Amendments of J 969, Pub.L. 91-230 and
and House Conference Report No. not as part of Pub.L. 88-352, July 2,
96-^59. see 1979 U.S. Code Cong, and 1964. 78 Slat. 252, known as the Civil
Adm. News, p. 1514. Rights Act of 1964, Title VI of which
enacted this subchapter.
References in Text _ T c ..
,., -..,„., . f ,-.. . f , Transfer or Functions
The Civil Rights Act of 1964. referred ,._ , _ , ... , .
.o in subsecs (a) and (c). is Pub.L. Secretary of Educanon was substt-
83-352. July 2. 1964. 78 Stat..241. as tuted for . °*?f™enl °[ H«Jf- Edu"
j j 4- i i/i i .u /-• -i D- u A cation, and Welfare in subsec. (d) pursu-
amended. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act . ,„, , _„-, f „ , .
{ .„.. . , .f. , ., r. , ant to sections 301 and 507 of Pub.L.
of I^CT is classified generally to this sub- n, 00 , . , . .r ,
, , . ->nnnj ' i ir 96-88. which are classified to sections
chanter (section 2000d et seo.). For ,.., j ,-„_ r -r-i -.r, ITJ
• , . .,. . , ,. • , j441 a.-d j;0, cf Tide 20. Education.
complete classification of this Act to the , , . , , , , . , ,
_,..._., , and \*.'nicn transferred runctions and ol-
Code. see Short Tiue note set out under r , , . , . , , _,
-in/in f u- -i j T ui Rces (relating to education) of the Depan-
secnon JflOOa of tr.is title and Tables. . c 6 ,.. , , .- , .
rno.-it ar.J Sc^.-c-u.")1 of Hijal'.h. Ecfucauor..
Section 182 of the Elementary and Sec- and \Vellare ;o the Secretary' of Ecu-
cation.
-------
S 2000u—7. Civil rights remedies equalization
(a) General provision
(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a
violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C.A.
§ 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C.A.
§ 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C.A.
§ 6101 et seq.]. tide VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A.
§ 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute
prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assis-
tance.
(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to
in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in
equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such-
remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any
public or private entity other than a State.
(b) Effective date
The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall take effect with
respect to violations that occur in whole or in part after October 21,
1986.
(Pub.L. 99-506. Title X, § 1003, OcL 21. 1986, 100 Stat. 1845.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports
1986 Acts. House Report No. 99-571,
House Conference Report No. 99-955,
"and Statement by President, see 1986
U.S. Code Cong, and Adm. News, p.
3471.
References In Text
The Education Amendments of 1972,
referred to in subsec. (a)(l), is Pub.L.
92-318, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235, as
amended. Tide DC of that Act is classified
principally to chapter 38 (section 1681 et
seq.) of Tide 20, Education. For com-
plete classification of this Act to the Code.
see Short Tide of 1972 Amendments note
set out under section 1001 of Tide 20 and
Tables.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975,
referred to in subsec. (a)(l). is Pub.L.
94-135. Title HI. Nov. 28. 1975. 89 Stat.
728. as amended, which is classified gen-
erally to chapter 76 (section 6101 et seq.)
of this tide. For complete classification
of diis Act to die Code, see Short Tide
note set out under section 6101 of diis
tide and Tables.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred
to in subsec. (aXl). is Pub.L. 88-352. July
2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241, as amended. Tide
VI of die Civil Rights Act of 1964 is
classified generally to this subchapter
(section 2000d et seq.). For complete
classification of diis Act to the Code, see
Short Title note set out under section
2000a of diis tide and Tables.
Codifications
Section was enacted as part of the Re-
habilitation Act Amendments of 19S6,
Pufa.L. 99-506, and not as part of Pub.L.
88-352. July 2. 1964, 78 Stat. 252. known
as the Civif Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of
which enacted this subchapter.
-------
Pt.42
such evaluations as to recommendations for
needed improvement in implementation or
enforcement.
1-303. The Attorney General shall carry out
his functions under this Order, including the
issuance of such regulations as he deems nec-
essary, in consultation with affected agen-
cies.
1-304. The Attorney General shall annually
report to the President through the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget on
the progress in achieving the purposes of this
Order. This report shall include any rec-
ommendations for changes in the implemen-
tation or enforcement of the nondiscrlmina-
tion provisions of the laws covered by this
Order.
1-305. The Attorney General shall chair the
Interagency Coordinating Council estab-
lished by section 507 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794c).
1-4. Agency Implementation.
1-401. Each Executive agency shall cooper-
ate with the Attorney General in the per-
formance of the Attorney General's func-
tions under this Order and shall, unless pro-
hibited by law. furnish such reports and in-
formation as the Attorney General may re-
quest.
1-402. Each Executive agency responsible
for Implementing a nondiscrtmination provi-
sion of a law covered by this Order shall
issue appropriate implementing directives
(whether in the nature of regulations or pol-
icy guidance). To the extent permitted by
law. they shall be consistent with the re-
quirements prescribed by the Attorney Gen-
eral pursuant to this Order and shall be sub-
ject to the approval of the Attorney General,
who may require that some or all of them be
submitted for approval before taking effect.
1-403. Within 60 days after a date set by the
Attorney General, Executive agencies shall
submit to the Attorney General their plans
for implementing their responsibilities under
this Order.
1-5. General Provisions.
1-501. Executive Order No. 11764 is revoked.
The present regulations of the Attorney Gen-
eral relating to the coordination of enforce-
ment of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 shall continue in effect until revoked or
modified (28 CFR 42.401 to 42.415).
1-502. Executive Order No. 11914 is revoked.
The present regulations of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services relating to the
coordination of the implementation of sec-
tion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. as
amended, shall be deemed to have been is-
sued by the Attorney General pursuant to
this Order and shall continue in effect until
revoked or modified by the Attorney Gen-
eral.
1-503. Nothing in this Order shall vest the
Attorney General with the authority to co-
ordinate the implementation and enforce-
28 CFR Ch, I (7-1-94 Edition)
ment by Executive agencies of statutory pro
visions relating to equal employment.
1-504. Existing agency regulations imple-
menting the nondiscrimlnation provisions of
laws covered by this Order shall continue in
effect until revoked or modified.
JIMMY CARTER
The White House.
November 2,1980.
[47 FR 32421. July 27. 1982] :
PART 42-NONDISCRIMINATION-
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOR-
TUNITY; POLICIES AND PROCE-
DURES
Subpoit A—Equal Employment Opportunity
Within the Department of Justice
Sec.
42.1 Policy.
42.2 Designation of Director of Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity and Complaint
Adjudication Officer.
42.3 Responsibility for Department of Jus-
tice Equal Opportunity Recruitment Pro-
gram.
Subpart B—(Reserved)
Subpart C—Nondiscrimlnation in Federal?
Assisted Programs—Implementation of
Title VI of the OvO Rights Act of 1964
42.101 Purpose.
42.102 Definitions.
42.103 Application of this subpart.
42.104 Discrimination prohibited.
42.105 Assurance required.
42.106 Compliance information.
42.107 Conduct of investigations.
42.108 Procedure for effecting compliance.
42.109 Hearings.
42.110 Decisions and notices.
42.111 Judicial review.
42.112 Effect on other regulations; form*
and instructions.
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART C—FEDERAL FINAN-
CIAL, ASSISTANCE ADMINISTERED BY no
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO WHICH TK»
SUBPART APPLIES
Subpart D—Nondlscrimination In Fed*c*f
Assisted Programs—Imptementattoo e»
Section 815(c)(l) of the Justice Sy*t«<«
Improvement Act of 1979
42.201 Purpose and application.
42.202 Definitions.
42.203 Discrimination prohibited.
42.204 Applicants' obligations.
42.205 Complaint investigation.
42.206 Compliance reviews.
42.207 Compliance information.
676
-------
Department of Justice
Pt.42
42.208 Notice of noncompliance.
42.209 Compliance secured.
42.210 Compliance not secured.
42.211 Resumption of suspended funds.
42.212 Preliminary hearing-.
42.213 Full hearing.
42.214 Judicial review.
42.215 Other actions authorized under the
JSIA.
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART D— COMMENTARY
Subpart E— Equal Employment Opportunity
Program Guidelines
42.301 Purpose.
42.302 Application.
42.303 Evaluation of employment opportuni-
ties.
42.304 Written equal employment oppor-
tunity program.
42.305 Recordkeeplng and certification.
42^06 Guidelines.
42.307 Obligations of recipients.
42.308 Noncompliance.
Subpart F— Coordination of Enforcement of
Non-discrimination In Federally As-
sisted Programs
42.401 Purpose and application.
42.402 Definitions.
42.403 Agency regulations.
41401 Guidelines.
42.405 Public dissemination of Title VI in-
formation.
41406 Data and Information collection.
41407 Procedures to determine compliance.
41406 Complaint procedures.
41409 Employment practices.
41410 Continuing State programs.
41411 Methods of resolving noncompliance.
41412 Coordination.
41413 Interagency cooperation and delega-
- tlons.
41414 Federal agency staff.
41415 Federal agency Title VI enforcement
plan.
Subpart G— Nondiscrimlnation Based on
Handicap in Federally Assisted Pro-
grams—Implementation of Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Purpose.
Application.
Discrimination prohibited.
Assurances required.
**-S05 Administrative requirements for re-
cipients.
EMPLOYMENT
-------
§42.1
STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING AGE
DISCRIMINATION
42.710 General prohibition.
42.711 Exception; authorized by law.
42.712 Exception; normal operation or statu-
tory objective.
42.713 Exception; reasonable factors other
than age.
42.714 Special benefits.
42.715 Burden of proof regarding exceptions.
42.716-42.719 (Reserved]
DUTIES OF RECIPIENTS
42.720 General responsibility.
42.721 Notice to subreciplents.
42.722 Recipient assessment of age distinc-
tions.
42.723 Compliance information.
42.724 Remedial and affirmative action.
42.725 Assurance of compliance.
42.726-42.729 (Reserved]
COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
42.730 Compliance reviews.
42.731 Complaints.
42.732 Prohibition against intimidation.
42.733 Enforcement procedures.
42.734 Alternative funding.
42.735 Judicial review.
42.736 Private lawsuits.
42.737-42.799 [Reserved]
Appendix A to subpart I of part 42—Federal
Financial Assistance Administered by
the Department of Justice to Which This
Subpart Applies
Appendix B to subpart I of part 42—Age Dis-
tinctions in Federal Statutes or Regula-
tions Affecting Financial Assistance Ad-
~—-ministered by the Department of Justice
Subpart A—Equal Employment
Opportunity Within the De-
partment of Justice
AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 301. 28 U.S.C. 509, 510
E.0.11246, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., E.G. 11375,
3 CFR, 1967 Comp.
§42.1 Policy.
It is the policy of the Department of
Justice to seek to eliminate discrimi-
nation on the basis of race, color, reli-
gion, sex, national origin, political af-
filiation, marital status, physical or
mental handicap, or age in employ-
ment within the Department and to as-
sure equal employment opportunity for
all employees and applicants for em-
ployment in the Department, in con-
formity with the policies and require-
ments of Executive Order No. 11478 of
August 8, 1969, relating to equal em-
28 CFRCh. I (7-1-94
ployment opportunity in the Federal
Government, the Civil Rights Act of
1964. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e-i6)
the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967. as amended (29 U.S.C. 633^).
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a«
amended (29 U.S.C. 791), the Vietnam
Era Veterans' Readjustment Assist-
ance Act of 1974 (38 U.S.C. 2014). and the
regulations of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission which are re-
codified as 29 CFR 1613.201-606 relating
to equal employment opportunity.
(Order No. 960-81. 46 FR S23S7, Oct. 27. 1981]
§ 42.2 Designation of Director of Equal
Employment Opportunity and Com.
plaint Adjudication Officer.
(a) In compliance with the regula-
tions of the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission (29 CFR 1613.204(c)).
the Assistant Attorney General for Ad-
ministration is hereby designated at
Director of Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity for the Department of Justice
with responsibilities for administra-
tion of the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Program within the Depart-
ment. The Director of Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity shall publish and
implement the Department of Justice
regulations, which shall include a posi-
tive action program to eliminate
causes of discrimination and shall in-
clude procedures for processing com-
plaints of discrimination within the
Department.
(b) The Assistant Attorney General
in charge of the Civil Rights Division
shall appoint a Complaint Adjudication
Officer, who shall render final decisions
for the Department of Justice on com-
plaints of discrimination filed by em-
ployees and applicants for employment
in the Department pursuant to the De-
partment's Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Regulations. In rendering deci-
sions, the Complaint Adjudication Offi-
cer shall order such remedial action as
may be appropriate, whether or not
there is a finding of discrimination, but
in cases where no discrimination is
found any remedial action ordered
shall have the prior approval of the As-
sistant Attorney General in charge of
the Civil Rights Division, who shall
678
-------
Department of Justice
§42.102
consult with the Deputy Attorney Gen-
eral on the matter.
(Order No. 420-69, 34 FR 12281. July 25. 1969,
as amended by Order No. 721-77. 42 FR 25725,
May 19, 1977; Order No. 731-77. 42 FR 35646,
July 11. 1977; Order No. 899-80. 45 FR 43703,
June 30. 1980; Order No. 960-«1. 46 FR 52357.
Oct. 27. 1981]
(42.3 Responsibility for Department of
Justice Equal Opportunity Recruit-
ment Program,
The Assistant Attorney General for
Administration shall be responsible for
establishing and implementing: the De-
partment of Justice Equal Opportunity
Recruitment Program under 5 U.S.C.
7201.
(Order No. 865-79. 44 FR 77157. Dec. 31.1979. as
amended by Order No. 960-81. 46 FR 52357.
Oct. 27.1981]
Subpart B—(Reserved)
Subpart C—Nondiscrimination in
Federally Assisted Programs-
Implementation of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964*
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-4; E.O.
12250. 45 FR 72995. 3 CFR. 1980 Comp., p. 298.
SOURCE Order No. 365-66. 31 FR 10265. July
29.1966. unless otherwise noted.
(42.101 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to im-
plement the provisions of title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252
(hereafter referred to as the "Act"), to
the end that no person In the United
States shall, on the ground of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or otherwise be subjected
to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance from the Department of Jus-
tice.
J42.102 Definitions.
As used in this subpart—
(a.) The term responsible Department
official with respect to any program re-
ceiving Federal financial assistance
Weans the Attorney General, or Dep-
1 See also 28 CFR 50.3. Guidelines for
'orcement of Title VI, Civil Rights Act.
en-
uty Attorney General, or such other of-
ficial of the Department as has been as-
signed the principal responsibility
within the Department for the admin-
istration of the law extending such as-
sistance.
(b) The term United States Includes
the several States of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is-
lands, American Samoa, Guam. Wake
Island, the Canal Zone, and all other
territories and possessions of the Unit-
ed States, and the term State includes
any one of the foregoing.
(c) The term Federal financial assist-
ance includes:
(1) Grants and loans of Federal funds,
(2) The grant or donation of Federal
property and interests in property,
(3) The detail of Federal personnel.
(4) The sale and lease of. and the per-
mission to use (on other than a casual
or transient basis). Federal property or
any interest in such property without
consideration or at a nominal consider-
ation, or at a consideration which is re-
duced for the purpose of assisting the
recipient, or in recognition of the pub-
lic interest to be served by such sale or
lease to the recipient, and
(5) Any Federal agreement, arrange-
ment, or other contract which has as
one of its purposes the provision of as-
sistance.
(d) The term program includes any
program, project, or activity for the
provision of services, financial aid, or
other benefits to individuals (including
education or training, rehabilitation,
or other services or disposition, wheth-
er provided through employees of the
recipient of Federal financial assist-
ance or provided by others through
contracts or other arrangements with
the recipient, and including work op-
portunities and cash or loan or other
assistance to individuals), or for the
provision of facilities for furnishing
services, financial aid, or other bene-
fits to individuals. The disposition,
services, financial aid, or benefits pro-
vided under a program receiving Fed-
eral financial assistance shall be
deemed to include any disposition,
services, financial aid, or benefits pro-
vided with the aid of Federal financial
assistance or with the aid of any non-
679
-------
§42.103
Federal funds, property, or other re-
sources required to be expended or
made available for the program to
meet matching requirements or other
conditions which must be met in order
to receive the Federal financial assist-
ance, and to include any disposition,
services, financial aid, or benefits pro-
vided in or through a facility provided
with the aid of Federal financial assist-
ance or such non-Federal resources.
(e) The term facility includes all or
any portion of structures, equipment,
or other real or personal property or
interests therein, and the provision of
facilities includes the construction, ex-
pansion, renovation, remodeling, alter-
ation, or acquisition of facilities.
(f) The term recipient means any
State, political subdivision of any
State, or Instrumentality of any State
or political subdivision, any public or
private agency, institution, or organi-
zation, or other entity, or any individ-
ual, in any State, to whom Federal fi-
nancial assistance is extended, directly
or through another recipient, for any
program, including any successor, as-
sign, or transferee thereof, but such
term does -not include any ultimate
beneficiary under any such program.
(g) The term primary recipient means
any recipient which is authorized or re-
quired to extend Federal financial as-
~ sistance to another recipient for the
purpose of carrying out a program.
(h) The term applicant means one
who submits an application, request, or
plan required to be approved by a re-
sponsible Department official, or by a
primary recipient, as a condition to
eligibility for Federal financial assist-
ance, and the term application means
such an application, request, or plan.
(i) The term academic institution in-
cludes any school, academy, college,
university, institute, or other associa-
tion, organization, or agency conduct-
ing or administering any program,
project, or facility designed to educate
or train individuals.
(j) The term disposition means any
treatment, handling, decision, sentenc-
ing, confinement, or other prescription
of conduct.
28 CFRCh. I (7-1-94 Edition)
(k) The term governmental
tion means the political subdivision for
a prescribed geographical area.
(Order No. 365-66, 31 FR 10265. July 29,
as amended by Order No. 699-77, 42 FR*
Mar. 21, 1977; Order No. 960-81, 46 FR
Oct. 27.1981]
§ 42.103 Application of this subpart
This subpart applies to any prdgram
for which Federal financial assistance
is authorized under a law administered
by the Department. It applies to money
paid, property transferred, or other
Federal financial assistance extended
under any such program after the date
of this subpart pursuant to an applica-
tion whether approved before or after
such date. This subpart does not apply
to: (a) Any Federal financial assistance
by way of insurance or guaranty con-
tracts, or (b) employment practices ex-
cept to the extent described in
§42.I04(c).
(Order No. 365-66. 31 FR 10265. July 29, 1966,
as amended by Order No. 519-73, 38 FR 17955,
July 5.1973]
{42.104 Discrimination prohibited.
(a) General. No person in the United
States shall, on the ground of race.
color, or national origin be excluded
from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected
to discrimination under any program
to which this subpart applies.
(b) Specific discriminatory actions pro-
hibited. (1) A recipient under any pro-
gram to which this subpart applies
may not, directly or through contrac-
tual or other arrangements, on the
ground of race, color, or national ori-
gin:
(i) Deny an individual any disposi-
tion, service, financial aid, or benefit
provided under the program;
(ii) Provide any disposition, service,
financial aid, or benefit to an individ-
ual which is different, or is provided in
a different manner, from that provided
to others under the program;
(iii) Subject an individual to segrega-
tion or separate treatment in any mat-
ter related to his receipt of any disposi-
tion, service, financial aid, or benefit
under the program;
680
-------
Department of Justice
§42.104
(iv) Restrict an individual in any way
in the enjoyment of any advantage or
privilege enjoyed by others receiving
any disposition, service, financial aid,
or benefit under the program;
(v) Treat an individual differently
from others in determining whether he
satisfies any admission, enrollment,
quota, eligibility, membership, or
other requirement or condition which
individuals must meet in order to be
provided any disposition, service, fi-
nancial aid, function or benefit pro-
vided under the program; or
" (vi) Deny an individual an oppor-
tunity to participate in the program
through the provision of services or
otherwise or afford him an opportunity
to do so which is different from that af-
forded others under the program (in-
cluding the opportunity to participate
in the program as an employee but
only to the extent set forth in para-
graph (c) of this section).
(vii) Deny a person the opportunity
to participate as a member of a plan-
ning or advisory body which is an inte-
gral part of the program.
(2) A recipient, in determining the
type of disposition, services, financial
aid, benefits, or facilities which will be
provided under any such program, or
the class of individuals to whom, or the
situations in which, such will be pro-
vided under any such program, or the
class of individuals to be afforded an
opportunity to participate in any such
program, may not, directly or through
contractual or other arrangements,
utilize criteria or methods of adminis-
tration which have the effect of sub-
jecting individuals to discrimination
because of their race, color, or national
origin, or have the effect of defeating
or substantially impairing accomplish-
ment of the objectives of the program
as respects individuals of a particular
race, color, or national origin.
(3) In determining the site or loca-
tion of facilities, a recipient or appli-
cant may not make selections with the
purpose or effect of excluding individ-
uals from, denying them the benefits
of, or subjecting them to discrimina-
tion under any program to which this
subpart applies, on the ground of race,
color, or national origin; or with the
purpose or effect of defeating or sub-
stantially impairing the accomplish-
ment of the objectives of the Act or
this subpart.
(4) For the purposes of this section
the disposition, services, financial aid,
or benefits provided under a program
receiving Federal financial assistance
shall be deemed to include any portion
of any program or function or activity
conducted by any recipient of Federal
financial assistance which program,
function, or activity is directly or indi-
rectly improved, enhanced, enlarged, or
benefited by such Federal financial as-
sistance or which makes use of any fa-
cility, equipment or property provided
with the aid of Federal financial assist-
ance.
(5) The enumeration of specific forms
of prohibited discrimination in this
paragraph and in paragraph (c) of this
section does not limit the generality of
the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(6)(i) In administering a program re-
garding which the recipient has pre-
viously discriminated against persons
on the ground of race, color, or na-
tional origin, the recipient must take
affirmative action to overcome the ef-
fects of prior discrimination.
(ii) Even in the absence of such prior
discrimination, a recipient in admin-
istering a program may take affirma-
tive action to overcome the effects of
conditions which resulted in limiting
participation by persons of a particular
race, color, or national origin.
(c) Employment practices. (1) Whenever
a primary objective of the Federal fi-
nancial assistance to a program to
which this subpart applies, is to pro-
vide employment, a recipient of such
assistance may not (directly or
through contractual or other arrange-
ments) subject any individual to dis-
crimination on the ground of race,
color, or national origin in its employ-
ment practices under such program (in-
cluding recruitment or recruitment ad-
vertising, employment, layoff, or ter-
mination, upgrading, demotion, or
transfer, rates of pay or other forms of
compensation, and use of facilities).
That prohibition also applies to pro-
grams as to which a primary objective
of the Federal financial assistance is (i)
to assist individuals, through employ-
ment, to meet expenses incident to the
commencement or -continuation of
681
-------
§42.105
their education or training, or (ii) to
provide work experience which contrib-
utes to the education or training of the
individuals involved. The requirements
applicable to construction employment
under any such program shall be those
specified in or pursuant to part III of
Executive Order 11246 or any Executive
order which supersedes it.
(2) In regard to Federal financial as-
sistance which does not have providing
employment as a primary objective.
the provisions of paragraph (c)(l) of
this section apply to the employment
practices of the recipient if discrimina-
tion on the ground of race, color, or na-
tional origin in such employment prac-
tices tends, on the ground of race,
color, or national origin, to exclude
persons from participation in, to deny
them the benefits of or to subject them
to discrimination under the program
receiving Federal financial assistance.
In any such case, the provisions of
paragraph (c)(l) of this section shall
apply to the extent necessary to assure
equality of opportunity to and non-
discriminatory treatment of bene-
ficiaries.
[Order No. 365-66. 31 FR 10265. July 29. 1966.
as amended by Order No. 519-73. 38 FR 17955.
July fi. 1973]
(42.105 Assurance required.
_^ (a) General. (1) Every application for
Federal financial assistance to carry
out a program to which this subpart
applies, and every application for Fed-
eral financial assistance to provide a
facility shall, as a condition to its ap-
proval and the extension of any Fed-
eral financial assistance pursuant to
the application, contain or be accom-
panied by an assurance that the pro-
gram will be conducted or the facility
operated in compliance with all re-
quirements imposed by or pursuant to
this subpart. In the case where the
Federal financial assistance is to pro-
vide or is in the form of personal prop-
erty, or real property or interest there-
in or structures thereon, such assur-
ance shall obligate the recipient, or, in
the case of a subsequent transfer, the
transferee, for the period during which
the property is used for a purpose for
which the Federal financial assistance
is extended or for another purpose in-
volving the provision of similar serv-
28 CFR Ch. I (7-1-94 Edition)
ices or benefits, or for as long as the re-
cipient retains ownership or possession
of the property, whichever is longer, in
all other cases, such assurance shall
obligate the recipient for the period
during which Federal financial assist-
ance is extended pursuant to the appu.
cation. The responsible Department of-
ficial shall specify the form of the fore-
going assurances for each program, and
the extent to which like assurances
will be required of subgrantees. con-
tractors, and subcontractors, transfer-
ees, successors in interest, and other
participants in the program. Any such
assurance shall include provisions
which give the United States a right to
seek its judicial enforcement.
(2) In the case of real property, struc-
tures or improvements thereon, or in-
terest therein, which was acquired
through a program of Federal financial
assistance, or in the case where Fed-
eral financial assistance is provided in
the form of a transfer of real property
or interest therein from the Federal
Government, the instrument effecting
or recording the transfer shall contain
a convenant running with the land as-
suring nondiscrimination for the period
during which the real property is used
for a purpose for which the Federal fi-
nancial assistance is extended or for
another purpose involving the provi-
sion of similar services or benefits.
Where no transfer of property is in-
volved, but property is improved under
a program of Federal financial assist-
ance, the recipient shall agree to in-
clude such a covenant in any subse-
quent transfer of such property. Where
the property is obtained from the Fed-
eral Government, such covenant may
also include a condition coupled with a
right to be reserved by the Department
to revert title to the property in the
event of a breach of the covenant
where, in the discretion of the respon-
sible Department official, such a condi-
tion and right of reverter are appro-
priate to the program under which the
real property is obtained and to the na-
ture of the grant and the grantee.
(b) Assurances from government agen-
cies. In the case of any application from
any department, agency, or office of
any State or local government for Fed-
eral financial assistance for any speci-
fied purpose, the assurance required by
682
-------
Department of Justice
§42.106
this section, shall extend to any other
department, agency, or office of the
same governmental unit if the policies
of such other department, agency, or
office will substantially affect the
project for which Federal financial as-
sistance is requested. That require-
ment may be waived by the responsible
Department official if the applicant es-
tablishes, to the satisfaction of the re-
sponsible Department official, that the
practices in other agencies of parts or
programs of the governmental unit will
in no way affect: (1) Its practices in the
program for which Federal financial
assistance is sought, or (2) the bene-
ficiaries of or participants in or per-
sons affected by such program, or (3)
fall compliance with the subpart as re-
spects such program.
(c) Assurance from academic and other
institutions. (1) In the case of any appli-
cation for Federal financial assistance
.for any purpose to an academic institu-
tion, the assurance required by this
section shall extend to admission prac-
tices and to all other practices relating
to the treatment of students.
(2) The assurance required with re-
spect to an academic institution, de-
tention or correctional facility, or any
other institution or facility, insofar as
the assurance relates to the institu-
tion's practices with respect to admis-
sion or other treatment of individuals
ss-students, patients, wards, inmates,
persons subject to control, or clients of
the institution or facility or to the op-
. portunity to participate in the provi-
sion of services, disposition, treatment,
or benefits to such individuals, shall be
applicable to the entire institution or
facility unless the applicant estab-
lishes, to the satisfaction of the re-
sponsible Department official, that the
practices in designated parts or pro-
grams of the institution or facility will
in no way affect its practices in the
Program of the institution or facility
for which Federal financial assistance
to sought, or the beneficiaries of or par-
ticipants in such program. If, in any
such case, the assistance sought is for
the construction of a facility or part of
a facility, the assurance shall in any
*vent extend to the entire facility and
to facilities operated in connection
therewith.
(d) Continuing State programs. Any
State or State agency administering a
program which receives continuing
Federal financial assistance subject to
this regulation shall as a condition for
the extension of such assistance:
(1) Provide a statement that the pro-
gram is (or, in the case of a new pro-
gram, will be) conducted in compliance
with this regulation, and
(2) Provide for such methods of ad-
ministration as are found by the re-
sponsible Department official to give
reasonable assurance that the primary
recipient and all other recipients of
Federal financial assistance under such
program will comply with this regula-
tion.
[Order No. 365-66, 31 FR 10265. July 29. 1966,
as amended by Order No. 519-73. 38 FR 17955,
July 5.1973]
§42.106 Compliance information.
(a) Cooperation and assistance. Each
responsible Department official shall,
to the fullest extent practicable, seek
the cooperation of recipients in obtain-
ing compliance with this subpart and
shall provide assistance and guidance
to recipients to help them comply vol-
untarily with this subpart.
(b) Compliance reports. Each recipient
shall keep such records and submit to
the responsible Department official or
his designee timely, complete, and ac-
curate compliance reports at such
times, and in such form and containing
such information, as the responsible
Department official or his designee
may determine to be necessary to en-
able him to ascertain whether the re-
cipient has complied or is complying
with this subpart. In general, recipi-
ents should have available for the De-
partment racial and ethnic data show-
ing the extent to which members of mi-
nority groups are beneficiaries of feder-
ally assisted programs. In the case of
any program under which a primary re-
cipient extends Federal financial as-
sistance to any other recipient or sub-
contracts with any other person or
group, such other recipient shall also
submit such compliance reports to the
primary recipient as may be necessary
to enable the primary recipient to
carry out its obligations under this
subpart.
683
-------
§42.107
28 CFR Ch. I (7-1-94 Edition)
(c) .Access to sources of information.
Each recipient shall permit access by
the responsible Department official or
his designee during normal business
hours to such of its books, records, ac-
counts, and other sources of informa-
tion, and its facilities, as may be perti-
nent to ascertain compliance with this
subpart. Whenever any information re-
quired of a recipient is in the exclusive
possession of any other agency, institu-
tion, or person and that agency, insti-
tution, or person fails or refuses to fur-
nish that information, the recipient
shall so certify in its report and set
forth the efforts which it has made to
obtain the information.
(d) Information to beneficiaries and
participants. Each recipient shall make
available to participants, beneficiaries,
and other interested persons such in-
formation regarding the provisions of
this subpart and its applicability to the
program under which the recipient re-
ceives Federal financial assistance, and
make such information available to
them in such manner, as the respon-
sible Department official finds nec-
essary to apprise such persons of the
protections against discrimination as-
sured them by the Act and this sub-
part.
(Order No. 365-€6, 31 FR 10265. July 29, 1966,
as amended by Order No. 519-73, 38 FR 17955.
July 5,1973]
$42.107 Conduct of investigations.
(a) Periodic compliance reviews. The re-
sponsible Department official or his
designee shall from time to time re-
view the practices of recipients to de-
termine whether they are complying
with this subpart.
(b) Complaints. Any person who be-
lieves himself or any specific class of
individuals to be subjected to discrimi-
nation prohibited by this subpart may
by himself or by a representative file
with the responsible Department offi-
cial or his designee a written com-
plaint. A complaint must be filed not
later than 180 days from the date of the
alleged discrimination, unless the time
for filing is extended by the responsible
Department official or his designee.
(c) Investigations. The responsible De-
partment official or his designee will
make a prompt investigation whenever
a compliance review, report, com-
plaint, or any other information indi-
cates a possible failure to comply with
this subpart. The investigation should
include, whenever appropriate, a re-
view of the pertinent practices and
policies of the recipient, the cir-
cumstances under which the possible
noncompliance with this subpart oc-
curred, and other factors relevant to a
determination as to whether the recipi-
ent has failed to comply with this sub-
part.
(d) Resolution of matters. (1) If an in-
vestigation pursuant to paragraph (c)
of this section indicates a failure to
comply with this subpart. the respon-
sible Department official or his des-
ignee will so inform the recipient and
the matter will be resolved by informal
means whenever possible. If it has been
determined that the matter cannot be
resolved by informal means, action will
be taken as provided for in §42.108.
(2) If an investigation does not war-
rant action pursuant to paragraph
(d)(l) of this section, the responsible
Department official or his designee will
so inform the recipient and the com-
plainant, if any, in writing.
(e) Intimidatory or retaliatory acts pro-
hibited. No recipient or other person
shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or
discriminate against any individual for
the purpose of Interfering with any
right or privilege secured by section 601
of the Act or this subpart, or because
he has made a complaint, testified, as-
sisted, or participated in any manner
in an investigation, proceeding, or
hearing under this subpart. The iden-
tity of complainants shall be kept con-
fidential except to the extent necessary
to carry out the purpose- of this sub-
part, including the conduct of any in-
vestigation, hearing, or judicial pro-
ceeding arising thereunder.
[Order No. 365-66. 31 FR 10265. July 29, 1966.
as amended by Order No. 519-73. 38 FR 17955.
July 5, 1973]
§42.108 Procedure for effecting com-
pliance.
(a) General. If there appears to be a
failure or threatened failure to comply
with this subpart and if the noncompll-
ance or threatened noncompliance can-
not be corrected by informal means.
the responsible Department official
may suspend or'terminate, or refuse to
684
-------
Deportment of Justice
§42.109
grant or continue. Federal financial as-
sistance, or use any other means au-
thorized by law, to induce compliance
with this subpart. Such other means
include, but are not limited to: (1) Ap-
propriate proceedings brought by the
Department to enforce any rights of
the United States under any law of the
United States (including other titles of
the Act), or any assurance or other
contractual undertaking, and (2) any
applicable proceeding under State or
local law.
(b) Noncompliance with assurance re-
quirement. If an applicant or recipient
fails or refuses to furnish an assurance
required under §42.105, or fails or re-
fuses to comply with the provisions of
the assurance it has furnished, or oth-
erwise fails or refuses to comply with
any requirement imposed by or pursu-
ant to title VI or this subpart. Federal
financial assistance may be suspended,
terminated, or refused in accordance
with the procedures of title VI and this
subpart. The Department shall not be
required to provide assistance in such a
case during the pendency of adminis-
trative proceedings under this subpart,
except that the Department will con-
tinue assistance during the pendency of
such proceedings whenever such assist-
ance is due and payable pursuant to a
final commitment made or an applica-
tion finally approved prior to the effec-
tive date of this subpart.
(c) Termination of or refusal to grant or
to continue Federal financial assistance.
No order suspending, terminating, or
refusing to grant or continue Federal
financial assistance shall become effec-
tive until: (1) The responsible Depart-
ment official has advised the applicant
or recipient of his failure to comply
and has determined that compliance
cannot be secured by voluntary means,
(2) there has been an express finding on
the record, after opportunity for hear-
ing, of a failure by the applicant or re-
cipient to comply with a requirement
imposed by or pursuant to this subpart,
(3) the action has been approved by the
Attorney General pursuant to §42.110,
and (4) the expiration of 30 days after
the Attorney General has filed with the
committee of the House and the com-
mittee of the Senate having legislative
jurisdiction over the program involved,
a full written report of the cir-
cumstances and the grounds for such
action. Any action to suspend or termi-
nate or to refuse to grant or to con-
tinue Federal financial assistance shall
be limited to the particular political
entity, or part thereof, or other appli-
cant or recipient as to whom such a
finding has been made and shall be lim-
ited in its effect to the particular pro-
gram, or part thereof, in which such
noncompliance has been so found.
(d) Other means authorized by law. No
action to effect compliance by any
other means authorized by law shall be
taken until: (1) The responsible Depart-
ment official has determined that com-
pliance cannot be secured by voluntary
means, (2) the action has been approved
by the Attorney General, and (3) the
recipient or other person has been noti-
fied of its failure to comply and of the
action to be taken to effect compli-
ance.
§42.109 Hearings.
(a) Opportunity for hearing. Whenever
an opportunity for a hearing is re-
quired by §42.108(c), reasonable notice
shall be given by registered or certified
mail, return receipt requested, to the
affected applicant or recipient. That
notice shall advise the applicant or re-
cipient of the action proposed to be
taken, the specific provision under
which the proposed action against it is
to be taken, and the matters of fact or
law asserted as the basis for that ac-
tion. The notice shall (1) Fix a date,
not less than 20 days after the date of
such notice, within which the applicant
or recipient may request that the re-
sponsible Department official schedule
the matter for hearing, or (2) advise
the applicant or recipient that a hear-
ing concerning the matter in question
has been scheduled and advise the ap-
plicant or recipient of the place and
time of that hearing. The time and
place so fixed shall be reasonable and
shall be subject to change for cause.
The complainant, if any, shall be ad-
vised of the time and place of the hear-
ing. An applicant or recipient may
waive a hearing and submit written in-
formation and argument for the record.
The failure of an applicant or recipient
to request a hearing under this para-
graph or to appear at a hearing for
which a date has been set shall be
685
-------
§42.110
28 CFR Ch. I (7-1-94 Edition)
deemed to be a waiver of the right to a
hearing afforded by section 602 of the
Act and §42.108(c) and consent to the
making of a decision on the basis of
such information as is available.
(b) Time and place of hearing. Hear-
ings shall be held at the offices of the
Department in Washington. DC, at a
time fixed by the responsible Depart-
ment official, unless he determines
that the convenience of the applicant
or recipient or of the Department re-
quires that another place be selected.
Hearings shall be held before the re-
sponsible Department official or, at his
discretion, before a hearing examiner
designated in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
3105 and 3344 (section 11 of the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act).
(c) Right to counsel. In all proceedings
under this section, the applicant or re-
cipient and the Department shall have
the right to be represented by counsel.
(d) Procedures, evidence, and record. (1)
The hearing, decision, and any admin-
istrative review thereof shall be con-
ducted in conformity with 5 U.S.C. 554-
557 (sections 5-8 of the Administrative
Procedure Act), and in accordance with
such rules of procedure as are proper
(and not inconsistent with this section)
relating to the conduct of the hearing,
giving of notices subsequent to those
provided for in paragraph (a) of this
section, taking of testimony, exhibits,
arguments and briefs, requests for find-
ings, and other related matters. Both
the Department and the applicant or
recipient shall be entitled to introduce
all relevant evidence on the issues as
stated in the notice for hearing or as
determined by the officer conducting
the hearing.
(2) Technical rules of evidence shall
not apply to hearings conducted pursu-
ant to this subpart, but rules or prin-
ciples designed to assure production of
the most credible evidence available
and to subject testimony to test by
cross-examination shall be applied
whenever reasonably necessary by the
officer conducting the hearing. The
hearing officer may exclude irrelevant,
immaterial, or unduly repetitious evi-
dence. All documents and other evi-
dence offered or taken for the record
shall be open to examination by the.'
parties and opportunity shall be given
to refute facts and arguments advanced
on either side of the issues. A tran-
script shall be made of the oral evi-
dence except to the extent the sub-
stance thereof is stipulated for the
record. All decisions shall be based
upon the hearing record and written
findings shall be made.
(e) Consolidated or joint hearings. In
cases in which the same or related
facts are asserted to constitute non-
compliance with this subpart with re-
spect to two or more- programs to
which this subpart applies, or non-
compliance with this subpart and the
regulations of one or more other Fed-
eral Departments or agencies issued
under title VI of the Act, the Attorney
General may, by agreement with such
other departments or agencies, when-
ever appropriate, provide for the con-
duct of consolidated or joint hearings.
and for the application to such hear-
ings of rules of procedure not inconsist-
ent with this subpart. Final decisions
in such cases, insofar as this subpart is
concerned, shall be made in accordance
with §42.110.
[Order No. 365-66. 31 FR 10265, July 29. 1966,
as amended by Order No. 519-73, 38 PR 17955.
July 5.1973]
§ 42.110 Decisions and notices.
(a) Decisions by person other than the
responsible Department official. If the
hearing is held by a hearing examiner.
such hearing examiner shall either
make an initial decision, if so author-
ized, or certify the entire record. In-
cluding his recommended findings and
proposed decision, to the responsible
Department official for a final deci-
sion, and a copy of such initial decision
or certification shall be mailed to the
applicant or recipient. Whenever the
initial decision is made by the hearing
examiner, the applicant or recipient
may, within 30 days of the mailing of
such notice of initial decision, file with
the responsible Department official hU
exceptions to the initial decision, with
his reasons therefor. In the absence of
exceptions, the responsible Department
official may on his own motion, within
45 days after the initial decision, serve
on the applicant or recipient a no"0*
that he will review the decision. Upon
filing of such exceptions, or of such no-
tice of review, the responsible
ment official shall review the
686
-------
Department of Justice
§42.110
decision and issue his own decision
thereon including the reasons therefor.
In the absence of either exceptions or a
notice of review the initial decision
shall constitute the final decision of
the responsible Department official.
(b) Decisions on the record or on review
by the responsible Department official.
Whenever a record is certified to the
responsible Department official for de-
cision or he reviews the decision of a
hearing examiner pursuant to para-
graph (a) of this section, or whenever
the responsible Department official
conducts the hearing, the applicant or
recipient shall be given a reasonable
opportunity to file with him briefs or
other written statements of its conten-
tions, and a copy of the final decision
of the responsible Department official
shall be given in writing to the appli-
cant or recipient and to the complain-
ant, if any.
(c) Decisions on the record whenever a
hearing is waived. Whenever a hearing
is waived pursuant to §42.109(a), a deci-
sion shall be made by the responsible
Department official on the record and a
copy of such decision shall be given in
writing to the applicant or recipient,
and to the complainant, if any.
(d) Rulings required. Each decision of
a hearing officer or responsible Depart-
ment official shall set forth his ruling
on each findings, conclusion, or excep-
tion presented, and shall identify the
requirement or requirements imposed
by or pursuant to this subpart with
which it is found that the applicant or
.recipient has failed to comply.
Ie) Approval by Attorney General. Any
final decision of a responsible Depart-
ment official (other than the Attorney
General) which provides for the suspen-
sion or termination of, or the refusal to
grant or continue Federal financial as-
sistance, or the imposition of any other
•auction available under this subpart
or the Act, shall promptly be transmit-
ted to the Attorney General, who may
approve such decision, vacate it, or
remit or mitigate any sanction im-
posed.
(0 Content of orders. The final deci-
*ion may provide for suspension or ter-
°tfnation of, or refusal to grant or con-
tinue. Federal financial assistance, in
*hole or in part, under the program in-
volved, and may contain such terms.
conditions, and other provisions as are
consistent with, and will effectuate the
purposes of, the Act and this subpart,
including provisions designed to assure
that no Federal financial assistance
will thereafter be extended under such
program to the applicant or recipient
determined by such decision to be in
default in its performance of an assur-
ance given by it pursuant to'this sub-
part, or to have otherwise -failed to
comply with this subpart, unless and
until, it corrects its noncompliance
and satisfies the responsible Depart-
ment official that it will fully comply
with this subpart.
(g) Post-termination proceedings. (1) An
applicant or recipient adversely af-
fected by an order issued under para-
graph (f) of this section shall be re-
stored to full eligibility to receive Fed-
eral financial assistance if it satisfies
the terms and conditions of that order
for such eligibility or if it brings itself
into compliance with this subpart and
provides reasonable assurance that it
will fully comply with this subpart.
(2) Any applicant or recipient ad-
versely affected by an order entered
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this sec-
tion may at any time request the re-
sponsible Department official to re-
store fully its eligibility to receive
Federal financial assistance. Any such
request shall be supported by informa-
tion showing that the applicant or re-
cipient has met the requirements of
paragraph (gXD of this section. If the
responsible Department official denies
any such request, the applicant or re-
cipient may submit a request for a
hearing in writing, specifying why it
believes such official to have been in
error. It shall thereupon be given an
expeditious hearing, with a decision on
the record, in accordance with rules of
procedure issued by the responsible De-
partment official. The applicant or re-
cipient will be restored to such eligi-
bility if it proves at such a hearing
that it satisfied the requirements of
paragraph (g)(l) of this section. While
proceedings under this paragraph are
pending, sanctions imposed by the
order issued under paragraph (f) of this
section shall remain in effect.
[Order No. 365-66, 31 FR 10265. July 29, 1966,
as amended by Order No. 519-73, 38 FR 17956,
July 5, 1973]
687
-------
§42.111
§42.111 Judicial review.
Action taken pursuant to section 602
of the Act is subject to judicial review
as provided in section 603 of the Act.
§42.112 Effect on other regulations;
forms and instructions.
(a) Effect on other regulations. Nothing
in this subpart shall be deemed to su-
persede any provision of subpart A or B
of this part or Executive Order 11114 or
11246, as amended, or of any other regu-
lation or instruction which prohibits
discrimination on the ground of race,
color, or national origin in any pro-
gram or situation to which this sub-
part is inapplicable, or which prohibits
discrimination on any other ground.
(b) Forms and instructions. Each re-
sponsible Department official, other
than the Attorney General or Deputy
Attorney General, shall issue and
promptly .make available to interested
persons forms and detailed instructions
and procedures for effectuating this
subpart as applied to programs to
which this subpart applies and for
which he is responsible.
(c) Supervision and coordination. The
Attorney General may from time to
time assign to officials of the Depart-
ment, or to officials of other depart-
ments or agencies of the Government,
with the consent of such departments
or agencies, responsibilities in connec-
tion with the effectuation of the pur-
poses-of title VI of the Act and this
subpart (other than responsibility for
final decision as provided in §42.110(e)),
including the achievement of the effec-
tive coordination and maximum uni-
formity within the Department and
within the Executive Branch of the
Government in the application of title
VI of the Act and this subpart to simi-
lar programs and in similar situations.
Any action taken, determination made,
or requirement imposed by an official
of another Department or agency act-
ing pursuant to an assignment of re-
sponsibility under this subsection shall
have the same effect as though such ac-
tion had been taken by the Attorney
General.
[Order No. 365-66, 31 PR 10265, July 29, 1966,
as amended by Order No. 519-73, 38 FR 17956,
July 5, 1973; Order No. 568-74, 39 FR 18646.
May 29, 1974]
28 CFRCh. I (7-1-94 Edition)
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART C—FEDERAL
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ADMINIS^
TERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUs
TTCE TO WHICH THIS SUBPART Ap
PLIES.
NOTE: Failure to list a type of Federal as-
sistance in appendix A shall not mean \t
title VI is otherwise applicable, that a pro-
gram is not covered.
1. Assistance provided by the Office of Jug.
tice Programs (OJP), the Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA). the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), the Bureau of Justice Statis-
tics (BJS), and the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), in.
eluding block, formula, and discretionary
grants, victim compensation payments, and
victim assistance grants (title I of the Omni-
bus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 3701-3796. as amended (Pub. L.
90-351, as amended by Pub. L. 93-83. Pub L.
93-415, Pub. L. 94-430. Pub. L. 94-503, Pub" L.
95-115, Pub. L. 96-157, and Pub. L. 98-473); the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
tion Act Of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5601-5751, u
amended (Pub. L. 93-415. as amended by Pub
L. 94-503, Pub. L. 95-115. Pub. L. 96-509, and
Pub. L. 98-473); the Victims of Crime Act of
1984. 42 U.S.C. 10601-10604, (Pub. L. 98-473)).
2. Assistance provided by the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) including technical assistance
to State and local governments for Improve-
ment of correctional systems; training of law
enforcement personnel, and assistance to
legal services programs (18 U.S.C. 4042).
3. Assistance provided by the National In-
stitute of Corrections (MIC) Including train-
ing, grants, and technical assistance to State
and local governments, public and private
agencies, educational institutions, organlit-
tlons and Individuals, in the area of correc-
tions (18 U.S.C. 4351-4353).
4. Assistance provided by the Drug En-
forcement Administration (DEA) including
training, joint task forces, information shar-
ing agreements, cooperative agreements, and
logistical support, primarily to State and
local government agencies (21 U.S.C. 871-886).
5. Assistance provided by the Community
Relations Service (CRS) in the form of dl»-
cretionary grants to public and private agen-
cies under the Cuban-Haitian Entrant Pro-
gram (title V of the Refugee Education A*
sistance Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-422).
6. Assistance provided by the U.S. Parole
Commission in the form of workshops and
training programs for State and local agen-
cies and public and private organizations (U
U.S.C. 4204).
7. Assistance provided by the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation (FBI) including flew
training, training through its National Acad-
emy, National Crime Information Center.
and laboratory facilities, primarily to SUM
and local criminal justice agencies (Omnlbui
688
-------
Department of Justice
§42.202
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
as amended 42 U.S.C. 3701-3796).
8. Assistance provided by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) including
training and services primarily to State and
local governments under the Alien Status
Verification Index (ASVI); and citizenship
textbooks and training primarily to schools
and public and private service agencies (8
U.S.C. 1360, 8 U.S.C. 1457).
9. Assistance provided by the United States
Marshals Service through Its Cooperative
Agreement Program for Improvement of
State and local correctional facilities (Pub.
L. 99-180, 99 Stat. 1142).
10. Assistance provided by the Attorney
General through the Equitable Transfer of
Forfeited Property Program (Equitable
Snaring) primarily to State and local law en-
forcement agencies (21 U.S.C. 881(e)).
11. Assistance provided by the Department
of Justice participating agencies that con-
duct specialized training through the Na-
tional Center for State and Local Law En-
forcement Training, a component of the Fed-
eral Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC), Glenco, Georgia (Pursuant to
Memorandum Agreement with the Depart-
ment of Treasury).
(Order No. 1204-87. 52 FR 24449, July 1.1987]
Subpart D—Nondiscrimination in
Federally Assisted Programs-
Implementation of section
815(c)(l) of the Justice Sys-
tem Improvement Act of 1979
AUTHORITY: Sees. 802(a). 815(c). and 817(d) of
the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979,
12 U.S.C. 3701. et seq., as amended (Pub. L. 90-
351, as amended by Pub. L. 93-83, Pub. L. 93-
415. Pub. L. 94-503, and Pub. L. 96-157 (De-
cember 27, 1979) (JSIA) and Sec. 262 of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
tion Act of 1974. as amended. 42 U.S.C. 5672
(Pub. L. 93-415, as amended by Pub. L. 95-
115)).
SOURCE: 45 FR 28705. Apr. 30. 1980. unless
otherwise noted.
{42.201 Purpose and application.
(a) The purpose of this subpart is to
Implement the provisions of section
815(c) of the Justice System Improve-
ment Act of 1979 (42 U.S.C. 3789d(c);
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
42 U.S.C. 2000d; and title EX of the Edu-
cation Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.
1681, et seq., to the end that no person
to any State shall on the ground of
race, color, national origin, sex, or reli-
gion be excluded from participation in,
be denied the benefits of, be subjected
to discrimination under, or be denied
employment in connection with any
program or activity funded in whole or
in part with funds made available
under either the Justice System Im-
provement Act or the Juvenile Justice
Act by the Law Enforcement Assist-
ance Administration, the National In-
stitute of Justice, or th^e Bureau of
Justice Statistics. These regulations
also implement Executive Order 12138,
which requires all Federal agencies
awarding financial assistance to take
certain steps to advance women's busi-
ness enterprise.
(b) The regulations in this subpart
apply to the delivery of services by,
and employment practices of recipients
administering, participating in, or sub-
stantially benefiting from any program
or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance extended under the Justice
System Improvement Act of 1979. or
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974, as amended.
(c) Where a private recipient which
receives such assistance through a unit
of government Is engaged in prohibited
discrimination, the Office of Justice
Assistance. Research, and Statistics
will invoke the enforcement procedures
of this subpart (§42.208. et seq.) against
the appropriate unit of government for
failure to enforce the assurances of
nondiscrimination given it by the pri-
vate recipient pursuant to §42.204(a).
Where a private recipient receives as-
sistance either directly from the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administra-
tion, the National Institute of Justice,
or the Bureau of Justice Statistics or
through another private entity which
receives funds directly from one of
those agencies, compliance will be en-
forced pursuant to section 803(a) of the
Justice System Improvement Act.
§42.202 Definitions.
(a) JSIA means the Justice System
Improvement Act of 1979, Public Law
96-157, 42 U.S.C. 3701, et seq.
(b) Juvenile Justice Act means title I
and II cif the Juvenile Justice and De-
linquency Prevention Act of 1974, Pub-
lic Law 93-415, as amended by Public
Law 94-503 and Public Law 95-115.
(c) OJARS or Office means the Office
of Justice Assistance, Research, and
Statistics.
689
-------
(Office of tfje j\ttorncg
Basliington,B. (JL 20530
July 14,' 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
THAT PROVIDE FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
SI
FROM:
SUBJECT: Use of the Disparate Impact Standard in
Administrative Regulations Under Title VI .
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
This month marks the 30th anniversary of the passage of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§2000d to
2000d-6), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race/
color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive
Federal financial assistance. The anniversary of this landmark
legislation is a fitting time to remind agencies that admini-
strative regulations implementing Title VI apply not only to
intentional discrimination but also to policies and practices
that have a discriminatory effect- In Guardians Association v.
Civil Service Commission. 463 U.S. 532 (1983), the Supreme Court
held that while Title VI itself requires proof of discriminatory
intent, agencies may validly adopt regulations implementing Title
VI that also prohibit discriminatory effects. Nearly all
agencies have adopted such regulations. In Alexander v. Choate,
469 U.S. 287 (1985) (construing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973), a unanimous Supreme Court restated the holding in
Guardians that disparate impact violations could be addressed
through regulations implementing Title VI.
This Administration will vigorously enforce Title VI.
As part of this effort, and to make certain that Title VI is
not violated, each of you should ensure that the disparate
impact provisions in your regulations are fully utilized so
that all persons may enjoy equally the benefits of federally
financed programs.
Enforcement of the disparate impact provisions is an
essential component of an effective civil rights compliance
program. Individuals continue to be denied, on the basis of
their race, color, or national origin, the full and equal
opportunity to participate in or receive the benefits of programs
assisted by Federal funds. Frequently discrimination results
from policies and practices that are neutral on their face but
-------
- 2 -
have the e-f feet of discriminating. Those policies and practices
must be eliminated unless they are shown to be necessary to the
program's operation and there is no less discriminatory
alternative.
Under Executive Order 12250, the Department of Justice
is responsible for ensuring that funding agencies meet their
responsibilities under Title VI. This Department is committed
to productive and effective enforcement of the civil rights
laws by each agency that extends Federal financial assistance.
Facially neutral policies and practices that act as arbitrary
and unnecessary barriers to equal opportunity must end. This
was the goal of Title VI when it became law and it remains one
of the highest priorities of this Administration.
-------
Background on Title VI
Prepared by the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Rights Division
Coordination and Review Section
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a product of the growing demand during
the early sixties that a nation-wide offensive be launched by the Federal
Government against racial discrimination.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000d to 2000d-7,
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in all Federally
assisted programs. In calling for its enactment, President Kennedy identified
"simple justice" as the justification for Title VI.
Title VI itself is embodied in its first four parts. Section 601 sets forth the
basic national policy that controls the other provisions of Title VI:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.
This enunciates the basic principle that Federal funds should not be used to
subsidize discrimination. By its terms, discrimination on the basis of race, color, or
national origin is prohibited in any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.
If Section 601 is the heart of Title VI, Section 602 is the body. It provides
the administrative framework upon which the implementation of Title VI is built.
Section 602 directs every Federal department or agency granting financial
assistance "by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or
guaranty" to effectuate Section 601 by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of
general applicability consistent with the objectives of the funding statute.
Section 603 of Title VI provides that any action taken pursuant to Section
602 is subject to such judicial review as may otherwise be provided for by law for
similar agency actions taken by such department of agency on the grounds.
Section 604 of Title VI provides, in essence, that the prohibitions of Title VI
do not apply to the employment practices of recipients unless a primary objective
1
-------
of the Federal assistance to the recipient is to promote employment. As provided
by Section 602 above, each of the 28 agencies providing Federal financial
assistance has issued Title VI regulations. Thus it is the granting agency that is
responsible for enforcing Title VI for its own programs and activities. Each
agency's programs and activities covered by Title VI should be listed in Appendix A
to the agency's Title VI regulations.
One of the issues in carrying out environmental justice responsibilities will be
identifying State and local entities that are recipients of Federal financial assistance
and are thus subject to Title VI. (Note that the Civil Rights Restoration Act of
1967 broadened the definition of "program or activity" to include all the operations
of "a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a
State or local government..."). 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a. The easiest method for
identifying a recipient is to determine whether an entity directly receives a Federal
grant, loan, or contract other than a contract for insurance or guaranty. However,
to determine the reach of Title VI solely on the basis of a cash flow analysis is to
improperly restrict its intended scope. Title VI assistance can flow from aid that
enhances a recipient's ability to improve or expand the allocation of its resources in
addition to aid that increases those resources. Therefore "Federal financial
assistance" may be in the form of not only cash but also goods, services, or
equipment.
A second issue concerns the "effects" language in the regulatory list of
prohibited discrimination. Prohibiting conduct that has the effect of discriminating
appears in two places in many Title VI regulations:
A recipient, in determining the type of disposition, services, financial aid,
benefits, or facilities which will be provided...may not, directly or through
contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or method or administration
which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination.... 28 C.F.R.
Section 42.104(b)(2). (Department of Justice regulations) (emphasis added).
In determining the site or location of facilities, a recipient or applicant may
not make selections with the purpose or effect of excluding individuals from,
denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination.... 28 C.F.R.
Section 42. 104(b)(3). (Department of Justice regulations) (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has recognized that agencies may issue
Title VI regulations which reach the effects of actions on decisions by recipients.
This is often referred to as reaching actions that have a disparate impact.
Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Common. 436 U.S. 582, (1983). This is particularly
important in the environmental justice area because there will seldom be evidence
of intentional discrimination in decisions reached by a variety of State and local
governmental entities.
-------
A third issue likely to arise in the environmental justice area is the duration
of the coverage when assistance is provided to acquire or improve land or
structures on land. Several agencies' regulations make a distinction in the duration
of Title VI coverage between assistance provided to acquire or improve land or
structures on land and assistance to acquire personal property. Under the
regulations of agencies that make this distinction, a recipient of assistance in the
form of land or structures and any subsequent transference is subject to Title VI
for as long as the land or structure is used for a purpose for which the assistance
was intended for the provision of services or benefits similar to those originally
contemplated. In the case of personal property, Title VI applies only for as long as
the recipient retains either ownership or possession of the property. Under the
regulations of agencies grouping land, structures, and personal property together,
the obligations of Title VI last as long as the land, structures, or personal property
is used for a purpose for which the assistance was intended, services or benefits
are provided that are similar to those originally contemplated, or the recipient
retains ownership or possession of the property, whichever is longer. In these
situations, the property for which the assistance was advance has a relatively
permanent character. Each time Federally assisted real or personal property is
used, the recipient receives a continuing benefit.
At present, authority for coordination of Title VI resides in the Coordination
and Review Section of the Civil Rights Division. The Section has primary staff
responsibility for carrying out the duties set forth in Executive Order 12250,
Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws. Both the Section and the
Agencies extending financial assistance are guided by the Department's regulations
concerning coordination of enforcement of nondiscrimination in Federally assisted
programs, found at 42 C.F.R. Sections 42.401-.415.
Primary enforcement responsibility for Title VI remains with the 30 agencies
providing Federal financial assistance. If a Title VI complaint is filed directly with
the Department of Justice, the complaint will be referred to the appropriate funding
agency for investigation. Each agency's regulation provides for the enforcement
mechanisms, such as submission of assurances of compliance and compliance
reports. Periodic compliance reviews are specifically required in agency.
regulations. In addition, any individual may file a complaint, and agency
regulations require a prompt investigation. Whether determined through a
compliance review or a complaint investigation, if there has been a failure to
comply with the regulations, the recipient is informed and an informal resolution is
attempted. If this cannot be accomplished, the Federal assistance may be
suspended or terminated, following an express finding after opportunity for a
hearing, of a failure to comply. Alternatively, the case may be referred to the
Department of Justice for litigation. Once the Department has filed suit, both
injunctive relief and compensatory damages may be available. (In Franklin v.
Gwinnett Citv Public Schools. 503 U.S. 60, 112 S. Ct. 1028 (1992), the Supreme
-------
Court had that damages were available for an action brought to enforce Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended; remedies available under Title VI
are identical to those under Title IX.) Examples of appropriate injunctive relief
might be ordering a new site selection or a prohibition on placing a facility with
adverse environmental consequences in a minority community.
For further information, please contact Merrily Friedlander, Acting Chief,
Coordination and Review Section, Civil Rights Division (202-307-2222) pr Daniel
A. Searing, attorney, Coordination and Review Section (202-307-2215) (TDD
number 202-307-2678) (FAX 202-307-0595).
-------
Bepattment of
REMARKS BY
DEVAL L. PATRICK
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE THE
TITLE VI CONFERENCE
GREAT HALL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MAY 5, 1995
-------
GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. I AM VERY PLEASED TO ADDRESS YOU
THIS MORNING. IT'S ALWAYS ENCOURAGING FOR ME TO MEET WITH AND
SPEAK TO THOSE WHO SHARE MY OWN COMMITMENT TO CIVIL RIGHTS AND
WHO ARE WORKING ALONGSIDE THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION TO ENSURE
EQUALITY, OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR PLAY FOR ALL AMERICANS. t YOU HAVE
BEEN PART OF A CONTINUING STRUGGLE TO HELP SOME OF THE MOST
VULNERABLE IN AMERICA TO FIND A WAY UP AND A SENSE OF. HOPE.
I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THESE EFFORTS CAN BE. HAVING COME FROM
SO LITTLE OF MATERIAL VALUE, BUT SO MUCH OF SPIRITUAL AND FAMILY
VALUE, TO WHERE I SIT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOW, I CAN
TELL YOU WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT I KNOW HOW VERY MUCH IS
POSSIBLE IN AMERICA.
. I CAME TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS A PRAGMATIST, WITH
VERY HIGH IDEALS. I VIEW THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AS AMONG THE MOST
IMPORTANT LAWS ON THE BOOKS, AND I BELIEVE THEY EXIST TO HELP
SOLVE REAL PROBLEMS IN REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES. I HAVE LITIGATED AND
SUPERVISED CASES UNDER THOSE LAWS AND I HAVE SEEN — THROUGH MY
WORK AND THE WORK OF SO MANY TALENTED AND DEDICATED CIVIL RIGHTS
DIVISION ATTORNEYS — WHAT THE LAW CAN ACHIEVE, IN TERMS OF
BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS, OPENING UP OPPORTUNITIES AND REAFFIRMING
THE CORE AMERICAN VALUES OF EQUALITY, OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR PLAY.
I KNOW FROM MY OWN LIFE THAT THESE LAWS - AND THE TONE SET BY .
VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF THESE LAWS - CAN BE A SOURCE OF HOPE AND
OPPORTUNITY, AND CAN HELP US ALL COME TO KNOW WHAT I KNOW ABOUT
WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN AMERICA.
-------
I RECALL THAT AROUND THE TIME IT BEGAN TO LOOK AS IF THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT REALLY NOMINATE ME FOR THIS POST, MY 8-YEAR-OLD
DAUGHTER WROTE IN HER JOURNAL IN THE SECOND GRADE THAT "MY DADDY
MIGHT GET A JOB TO HELP PEOPLE OVERCOME THINGS." SHE CAPTURED IN
THAT SENTENCE THE ESSENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE.;
BUT IF WE ARE TO BREAK DOWN THE LONG-STANDING, HARDENED
BARRIERS OF EXCLUSION AND DISCRIMINATION, WE MUST USE ALL OF THE
TOOLS WE HAVE: INCLUDING ALL OF OUR CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. THE CIVIL
RIGHTS LAWS OPEN UP JOBS TO BLACK WORKERS; APARTMENTS TO HISPANIC
FAMILIES; AND WHOLE NEW VISTAS OF ACTIVE LIFE FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS HELP US TO VINDICATE THE RIGHT OF
ASIANS AND JEWS AND SO MANY OTHERS TO BE SAFE FROM ORGANIZED
BIGOTRY, THE RIGHT OF YOUNG BLACK MEN TO BE SAFE FROM EXCESSIVE
POLICE FORCE.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR PRISONERS TO
RETAIN THEIR HUMAN DIGNITY EVEN WHEN THEY SURRENDER THEIR
FREEDOM. AND THEY HAVE HELPED US TO CREATE THE MOST INTEGRATED
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH, AND THE MOST INTEGRATED
CLASSROOMS IN THE WORLD.
AND YET WITH ALL OF THAT — WITH ALL OF THAT — IT'S IRONIC
THAT FOR SO LONG WE HAVE IGNORED ONE OF THE MORE POWERFUL WEAPONS
IN OUR ARSENAL: TITLE VI. TITLE VI IS A "SLEEPING GIANT" WHICH
HAS JUST GOTTEN A WAKE-UP CALL. THIRTY-TWO YEARS AGO, WHEN
PRESIDENT KENNEDY INTRODUCED THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, HE DESCRIBED
TITLE VI AS "SIMPLE JUSTICE." "SIMPLE JUSTICE," PRESIDENT
-------
KENNEDY EXPLAINED, "REQUIRES THAT PUBLIC FUNDS, TO WHICH ALL
TAXPAYERS OF ALL RACES CONTRIBUTE, NOT BE SPENT IN ANY FASHION
WHICH ENCOURAGES, ENTRENCHES, SUBSIDIZES OR RESULTS IN RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION. DIRECT DISCRIMINATION...IS PROHIBITED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. BUT INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION, THROUGH THE. USE OF
FEDERAL FUNDS, IS JUST AS INVIDIOUS." [HOUSE RECORD, 1963]
WITH ONE SENTENCE, TITLE VI PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION ON THE
BASIS OF RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN ANY PROGRAM OR
ACTIVITY RECEIVING ANY FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. BUT THIS
SIMPLICITY MASKS ITS POWER. BECAUSE IF A FUNDING RECIPIENT FAILS
TO COMPLY WITH TITLE VI OR AN AGENCY'S IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS,
THE FUNDING AGENCY CAN FORCE COMPLIANCE BY REFUSING TO GRANT OR
CONTINUE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE UNLESS AND UNTIL IT FINDS NO EVIDENCE
OF DISCRIMINATION. MONEY TALKS, DOESN'T IT?
UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12250, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT FUNDING AGENCIES MEET THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE VI. BUT 12 YEARS OF OFFICIAL NEGLECT
AND SOMETIMES OPEN HOSTILITY HAS RENDERED THIS LAW IRRELEVANT.
WELL, THOSE DAYS ARE GONE. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE US.
AND WE WILL NOT MISS IT.
IN 1987, CONGRESS PASSED THE CIVIL RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT OF
1987. THE ACT BROADLY DEFINES THE PHRASE "PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY"
TO INCLUDE "ALL OPERATIONS OF A UNIT OF STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ANY PART OF WHICH RECEIVES FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE." THIS
MEANS THAT TITLE VI APPLIES TO A VAST NUMBER OF FEDERALLY FUNDED
ACTIVITIES — FROM HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
-------
TO PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. BUT THE SIMPLE JUSTICE OF TITLE VI DOES NOT END
THERE.
EVEN THOUGH TITLE VI REQUIRES PROOF OF DISCRIMINATORY
INTENT, YOUR AGENCIES MAY ADOPT REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING TITLE VI
THAT PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATORY INTENT AS WELL AS PRACTICES THAT
HAVE A DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT. LAST JULY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ENCOURAGED FEDERAL AGENCIES TO USE THE DISPARATE IMPACT STANDARD
AS AN APPROPRIATE STANDARD UNDER TITLE VI. MOST FEDERAL AGENCIES
HAVE ALREADY PROMULGATED SUCH REGULATIONS. SO IN A GREAT MANY
INSTANCES WE ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE "INTENT" STANDARD WHICH OFTEN
PRESENTS DIFFICULT PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF PROOF.
- IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF SUBTLE AND OFTEN SOPHISTICATED
RACISM, WE KNOW INTENT, THOUGH OFTEN THERE, CAN BE VERY HARD TO
FIND. AND WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL A HOST OF MECHANISMS TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE VI, FROM AUDITS OF AGENCIES TO ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATION WITH THOSE AGENCIES.
ON MARCH 1, 1995, WE ANNOUNCED A REORGANIZATION OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS DIVISION THAT ALLOWS OUR COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION
TO DEDICATE ALL OF ITS RESOURCES TO THE GOVERNMENT COORDINATION
AND ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE VI, TITLE IX AND OTHER SIMILAR PROGRAM-
SPECIFIC NONDISCRIMINATION STATUTES. ALL OF THEIR DISABILITY-
RELATED COORDINATION AND ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES (BOTH UNDER
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND SECTION 504 OF THE
REHABILITATION ACT) WERE REASSIGNED TO THE NEW DISABILITY RIGHTS
SECTION. AS A RESULT, THE COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION CAN
-------
NOW FOCUS ON THE TASK FOR WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED:
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12250.
AFTER THE REORGANIZATION, COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION
STAFF WERE ASSIGNED TO AGENCIES TO SERVE AS LIAISON WITH EACH
AGENCY. WE CONTACTED EACH AGENCY, EXPLAINED OUR PLANS-FOR
REINVIGORATING TITLE VI AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 1225O, AND ASKED HOW
WE COULD ASSIST THE AGENCY IN ITS EFFORTS TO ENFORCE TITLE VI,
TITLE IX, AND OTHER NONDISABILITY-RELATED PROGRAM STATUTES
PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION. MANY OF YOU ASKED FOR TRAINING AND
MANUALS. OTHERS POSED SPECIFIC LEGAL QUESTIONS. WE ARE STUDYING
THOSE QUESTIONS AND WE WILL ANSWER AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE. BUT
RIGHT NOW I WANT TO TELL YOU MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE STEPS WE
ARE"TAKING TO HELP YOU ENFORCE TITLE VI.
FIRST OF ALL, WE RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO PROVIDE AGENCIES WITH
GUIDANCE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE VI. WE ARE
DEVELOPING TWO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GUIDES. THE FIRST WILL
CONTAIN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND A REVIEW OF THE JUDICIAL
PRECEDENTS UNDER TITLE VI. THE SECOND WILL BE A MORE PRACTICAL
GUIDE FOR INVESTIGATING TITLE VI CASES AND APPLYING THE LAW TO
PARTICULAR SETS OF FACTS.
IN ADDITION, WE ARE DEVELOPING A "TITLE VI" BROCHURE FOR THE
PUBLIC THAT WILL EXPLAIN, IN SIMPLE TERMS, WHAT TITLE VI IS,
WHERE AND HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT, AND ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE A
LAY PERSON NEEDS TO KNOW. WE WILL DISTRIBUTE THE BROCHURE AT
CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS OF PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS.
-------
SECONDLY, WE HAVE DEVELOPED A BASIC TITLE VI TRAINING
PROGRAM, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED TO THE LAND-GRANT
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND TO THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION. THE
TRAINING PROGRAM WAS TAILORED TO THOSE AGENCIES' NEEDSBUSING
HYPOTHETICALS RELEVANT AND POTENTIALLY USEFUL TO THEM. AND JUST
LAST WEEK WE RECEIVED REQUESTS FROM GSA AND FROM THE NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOR TRAINING ON TITLE VI AND TITLE IX. IN ADDITION TO BASIC
TITLE VI AND TITLE IX TRAINING, WE WILL BE DEVELOPING A MORE
FOCUSED TECHNICAL AND LEGAL TRAINING PROGRAM BASED ON ADDITIONAL
AGENCY REQUESTS.
• THIRDLY, WE BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THESE EFFORTS ARE DIMINISHED
WITHOUT OPEN DIALOGUE AMONG THE AGENCIES. ONE METHOD TO ACHIEVE
THIS GOAL IS THROUGH THE NEWLY-REINSTITUTED CIVIL RIGHTS FORUM.
THIS QUARTERLY PUBLICATION CONTAINS — AMONG MANY OTHER THINGS —
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO YOUR ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE VI, TITLE IX,
AND SIMILAR CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS. COPIES OF OUR FIRST ISSUE ARE
AVAILABLE IN YOUR PACKET. AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT BOTH
TO THANK ALL THE AGENCIES WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ISSUE AND TO
ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO SUBMIT ARTICLES FOR INCLUSION IN FUTURE
ISSUES.
FINALLY, AT YOUR SUGGESTIONS, WE ARE REVISING OUR METHOD OF
COORDINATING ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS. INSTEAD OF RELYING
EXCLUSIVELY ON THE REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS — WHICH ARE
OFTEN INCOMPLETE — WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THREE WORKING GROUPS TO
-------
ADDRESS OUR COORDINATION RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER: AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TEAM, AN AGENCY SURVEY TEAM, AND
AN AGENCY LIAISON TEAM.
THE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM HAS BEGUN EXPLORING MORE EFFICIENT
WAYS TO COLLECT DATA FROM AGENCIES. OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO
STREAMLINE AND REDUCE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WHILE IMPROVING THE
QUALITY AND SUBSTANTIVE VALUE OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS
COLLECTED, BOTH BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND BY THE
SUBMITTING AGENCIES. AND LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT WE VALUE YOUR
SUGGESTIONS ON OUR APPROACHES TO DATA COLLECTION, SO PLEASE
CONTINUE TO SHARE YOUR IDEAS WITH US.
THE SURVEY TEAM HAS BEGUN IDENTIFYING PARTICULAR AGENCIES
FOR IN-DEPTH SURVEYS. NOW, THE INTENT IS NOT TO CONTROL YOUR
ACTIVITIES. RATHER, WE ONLY SEEK TO WORK TOGETHER TO SHARE
TECHNIQUES FOR EFFECTIVE CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT AND TO LEARN
FROM YOUR EXPERIENCES. WE THEN HOPE TO SHARE YOUR UNIQUE
EXPERIENCES WITH OTHER AGENCIES. ALTHOUGH WE WILL PROBABLY ONLY
SURVEY ONE OR TWO AGENCIES IN THE COMING YEAR, WE INTEND TO
MAINTAIN CLOSE AND CONTINUAL CONTACT WITH ALL OF YOU.
THE AGENCY LIAISON TEAM WILL SCHEDULE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS
WITH EACH AGENCY. WE WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU THINK WE CAN BEST
SERVE YOU. WE ARE PLANNING ROUTINE, PERIODIC MEETINGS WITH
CLUSTERS OF AGENCIES, AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH
PARTICULAR AGENCIES. AGAIN, WE WELCOME YOUR IDEAS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED WITH THESE MEETINGS.
8
-------
OUR EFFORTS HAVE NOT BEEN LIMITED TO IMPROVED COORDINATION;
WE HAVE ALSO IMPROVED ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE VI WITHIN OUR OWN
PROGRAMS. THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, THE LARGEST FUND-
GRANTING BUREAU WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HAS RECENTLY
INCREASED ITS PROFESSIONAL STAFF DEVOTED TO CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLIANCE IN ALL OF ITS FUNDED PROGRAMS.
LAST SUMMER, I DIRECTED OUR ATTORNEYS TO EXPLORE, WITH THE
OJP, THE POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTING THEM IN THEIR TITLE VI EFFORTS.
AS A RESULT, WE DEVELOPED A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHICH WE
EXPECT TO SIGN SHORTLY. THE MEMORANDUM DESIGNATES THE
COORDINATION AND REVIEW SECTION TO CONDUCT POST-AWARD COMPLIANCE
REVIEWS AND INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION IN SERVICES
ON THE BASIS OF RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, COLOR, SEX, AGE, AND
RELIGION IN PROGRAMS FUNDED BY OJP. AND IN THE COMING MONTHS,
WE ANTICIPATE INITIATING WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE FIRST TITLE VI
POST-AWARD COMPLIANCE REVIEW INVOLVING SERVICES IN A POLICE
DEPARTMENT IN NEARLY TWENTY YEARS.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE
BELIEVE WILL COMMIT US TO A VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE VI. WE
SOLICIT YOUR IDEAS IN THESE NEW INITIATIVES AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH YOU NOT ONLY TO AWAKEN TITLE VI, BUT TO GET IT UP
AND RUNNING!
WE CANNOT IGNORE THIS TOOL IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT HELPING
AMERICANS IN NEED. AND THAT, IN BROAD TERMS, IS WHAT OUR WORK
HERE IS FINALLY ALL ABOUT. I BELIEVE THAT THE REAL AND ULTIMATE
CHALLENGE BEFORE US TODAY IS TO RECLAIM THE AMERICAN CONSCIENCE.
-------
OUR TRUE MISSION IS TO RESTORE THE GREAT MORAL IMPERATIVE THAT
CIVIL RIGHTS IS FINALLY ALL ABOUT; TO RECREATE THE SHARED
NATIONAL CONSENSUS THAT DISCRIMINATION IS WRONG; AND TO RETURN
THE TERMS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEBATE AND ACTIVITY BACK TO CORE
CONCEPTS OF EQUALITY, OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR PLAY. -
IN DOING SO, WE MUST EXPLAIN TO THE NATION THAT CIVIL RIGHTS
IS NOT JUST OF CONCERN TO AFRICAN AMERICANS OR DISABLED AMERICANS
OR THOSE WHOSE RELIGION IS IN THE MINORITY. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT
WHO GETS AND WHO GIVES UP. AND IT IS NOT ABOUT PARTISAN
POLITICAL INTERESTS — TRY AS SOME DO TO MAKE IT SO. CIVIL
RIGHTS MATTERS TO EVERYONE, BECAUSE EACH CITIZEN IS DIMINISHED
WHEN ANY ONE — ON ACCOUNT OF A HAPPENSTANCE OF BIRTH OR CHANCE -
- EXPERIENCES ANYTHING LESS THAN THE FULL MEASURE OF HIS OR HER
DIGNITY AS A HUMAN BEING AND PROMISE AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
WE MUST HELP MORE AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALL HAVE A
STAKE IN THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY, OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR PLAY.
WHEN AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN STANDS UP FOR THE RIGHT TO EQUAL
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, HE STANDS UP FOR ALL OF US. WHEN A
HISPANIC STANDS UP FOR THE RIGHT TO A CHANCE TO ELECT THE
CANDIDATE OF HER CHOICE, SHE STANDS UP FOR ALL OF US. WHEN A JEW
STANDS UP AGAINST THOSE WHO VANDALIZE HIS PLACE OF WORSHIP, HE
STANDS UP FOR ALL OF US. AND WHEN A PERSON WITH A HEARING
IMPAIRMENT STANDS UP FOR ACCESS TO 911 EMERGENCY SERVICES, SHE
STANDS UP FOR ALL OF US. FOR CIVIL RIGHTS IS ABOUT AFFIRMING OUR
BASIC VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS AS A NATION. AND I BELIEVE THAT OUR
10
-------
WORK IS ABOUT NOTHING LESS THAN A FUNDAMENTAL AFFIRMATION OF THE
AMERICAN CREED.
THE AMERICAN CREED HAS DEEP ROOTS. SINCE AT LEAST THE TIME
OF LINCOLN WE HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE FATE OF EACH OF US IS
BOUND TO THAT OF EACH OF THE REST OF US, THAT WE ARE ONE PEOPLE
WITH ONE COMMON DESTINY. HAVING BUILT A NATION THIS
EXTRAORDINARY, THIS PROSPEROUS, STEEPED IN THE PRINCIPLES OF
EQUALITY, OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR PLAY, CAN WE NOW SAY THAT WE NEED
NO TOOLS AND HAVE NO WILL TO FINISH THE JOB? CAN WE TRULY ACCEPT
THE NOTION THAT THIS NATION CAN BE NO MORE GENEROUS, NO MORE JUST
THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT ABANDONING THE SPIRIT AND CHARACTER
THAT BUILT THIS COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
' IT £S A STRUGGLE. IT IS OFTEN HARD WORK. AND SOME OF YOU
MAY FEEL FRUSTRATED BY THE LONG, FORCED SLEEP OF CIVIL RIGHTS
STATUTES LIKE TITLES VI AND IX AND SECTION 504. BUT LOOK FORWARD
— NOT BACK. LOOK UP — NOT DOWN. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN. THE QUESTION IS WHAT WILL BE.
CIVIL RIGHTS, A FRIEND OF MINE SAYS, IS A RELAY RACE FOR
JUSTICE. EACH GENERATION MUST CONFRONT THE QUESTION OF
CONSCIENCE RACE PRESENTS IN THIS COUNTRY. "IN EVERY GENERATION,"
THE HAGGADAH SAYS, "LET EACH [PERSON] LOOK ON HIMSELF AS IF HE
[OR SHE] CAME FORTH OUT OF EGYPT." THE HOPES, THE STRUGGLE, THE
DECENCY OF OUR NATIONAL SOUL HAS NOW IN MANY WAYS BEEN ENTRUSTED
TO US. LET HISTORY RECORD THAT WE WERE UP TO THE TASK.
11
-------
For a copy of the National Environmental Policy Act
and CEQ's implementing regulations,
see the insert in the front pocket of the notebook.
-------
The Environmental Impact Assessment Process Under
The National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 sets forth the nation's
environmental goals and a broad national policy to achieve them. The Act serves as a blueprint
for considering a range of environmental effects of proposed federal actions, most notably
through Section 102(2)(C), which requires federal agencies to prepare "detailed statements" for
proposed federal actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." The
detailed statement, more commonly known as an environmental impact statement (EIS), must
include the environmental impacts of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects
which cannot be avoided, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between local
short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be
involved should the proposed action be implemented.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA require
agencies to adopt their own NEPA procedures, which must include lists of three categories of
actions: 1) those normally requiring the preparation of an EIS; 2) actions which normally do
not have a significant impact on the environment and for which no NEPA analysis is required;
3) those actions which fall somewhere in-between, thus requiring preparation of at least an
environmental assessment (EA), a concise public document which briefly provides sufficient
evidence for determining whether the proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, thus requiring the preparation of an EIS, or whether there is a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI), thus allowing the proposed action to proceed.
As soon as an agency determines it will prepare an EIS, it must publish a notice of intent
in the Federal Register, which describes the proposed action and possible alternatives, as well as
the proposed scoping process. Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of
the issues to be addressed in the EIS, and to identify the significant issues related to the proposed
action. Participants in the process should include affected Federal, state and local agencies,
affected Indian tribes, and the interested public. To determine the scope of the EIS, the agency
must consider connected actions, cumulative actions, and similar actions; reasonable alternatives
to the proposed action including the no action alternative, and mitigation measures; and direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts.
Upon the conclusion of the scoping process, the agency prepares a draft EIS (DEIS),
which must be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency, and for which a notice of
availability is published in the Federal Register. The DEIS must be circulated for comment
among government agencies, affected tribes, and the interested public for at least 45 days. The
final EIS (FEIS) must respond to the comments individually and collectively. The FEIS must
also be filed with the EPA, and a notice of availability published in the Federal Register. From
that point, the agency must wait at least 30 days before making its final decision on the proposed
action. The decision document, called a "Record of Decision" (ROD), is a concise statement
which contains the agency decision, factors considered in making its decision, alternatives
considered, and any mitigation measures.
-------
Preliminary Draft Guidance for Consideration of
Environmental Justice
in Clean Air Act §309 Reviews
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Purpose of the Guidance 2
Participating Early in the Planning Process: Scoping 4
Reviewing and Commenting on Proposed Actions 9
Identifying Environmentally Unsatisfactory Proposals 12
References 13
Appendix A: Executive Order 12898 and Presidential Memorandum
Appendix B: List of EPA Environmental Justice Coordinators
(Headquarters and Regional)
Appendix C: List of CIS Contacts (Headquarters and Regional)
-------
INTRODUCTION
Over the past two decades, there has been increasing concern
environmental impacts in minority and low-income
populations. Studies (e.g., United Church of Christ, 1987) have
concluded that some communities face greater environmental health
risks and that environmental protection is not extended to all
communities equally. Other studies conclude that environmental
effects can have profound effects in minority and low-income
communities, where people often have lower tolerances for
environmental impacts due to poor diets or reduced access to
medical care. These same communities may also lack the financial
and political power to resist adverse environmental burdens.
Many groups claim that the government must take these factors
into consideration during policy development, decision-making
processes, and research efforts.
To address these concerns, President Clinton signed
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations"
(hereafter, EO) on February 11, 1994 (see Appendix A) . This EO,
among other things, directs federal agencies to develop a final
agency strategy (by February 11, 1995) that addresses and
identifies, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
environmental effects of agency programs, policies, and
activities in minority populations„and low-income populations.
An accompanying presidential memorandum directs federal agencies
"-rj analyze "the environmental effects, including human health,
and social effects, of federal actions, including
on minority communities and low-income communities, when
such analysis is required by the National Environmental Policy
Act [NEPA] of 1969."
NEPA mandates that federal agencies fully consider
environmental factors when proposing activities, programs, and
policies which have the potential to significantly affect the
human environment. NEPA is used by federal agencies conducting
environmentally significant activities to explore, reveal, and
document the impacts of proposed actions, alternative courses of
action, and mitigation measures. NEPA is also a mechanism by
which federal, state, tribal, local entities, and private
citizens are informed of proposals, alternatives, and impacts.
It allows these entities to provide input to the decis'ion-makers.
Public input occurs during several stages of the process--during
the scoping periods (which may include public hearings on the
project) and during the environmental impact statement (EIS)
public comment periods.
-------
PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GUIDANCE FOR §309 REVIEWS
As the component of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) with delegated authority to review proposed major federal
actions subject to NEPA, legislation, and regulations of other
federal agencies pursuant to §309 of the Clean Air Act
(hereafter, §309 review), the Office of Federal Activities and
its Regional counterparts are directed by the presidential
memorandum to ensure that agencies fully analyze environmental
effects on minority communities and low-income communities.
Although social and economic impacts have always been a
consideration in §309 reviews, President Clinton's memorandum
highlights the need to better integrate the consideration of
human health, social and economic effects into the §309 review
process.
Through NEPA and the §309 review process, EPA is able to
influence other federal agencies' proposals by identifying
possible environmental justice concerns (e.g., multiple and
cumulative exposures in minority populations and low-income
populations) and by offering alternative solutions and mitigation
measures for unavoidable impacts.
The guidance is intended to help EPA environmental reviewers
achieve two goals in reviewing environmental effects of proposed
actions under §309 of the Clean Air Act:
1. fulfill one of the directives in the presidential
memorandum of ensuring that the involved agency has fully
analyzed environmental effects on minority communities and
low-income communities, including human health, social, and
economic effects; and
2. assist other federal agencies in achieving the goals of
NEPA by identifying project impacts, range of reasonable
alternatives, and mitigation measures that avoid or minimize
adverse environmental effects, including identifying and
addressing impacts to minority communities and low-income
communities.
Although the concept of environmental justice first appeared
in literature in the late 1970s, the movement is still relatively
new. The issues associated with environmental justice are
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act mandates that the Administrator
"review and comment in writing on the environmental impact of any
matter...contained in any (1) legislation...(2) newly authorized Federal
projects (subject to Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA]...and (3) proposed regulations
published by any department or agency of the Federal Government." (42 U.S. C.
section 7609a)
-------
complex, incredibly diverse and every region will encounter
^ique situations that may not be covered here. This guidance is
.meant to be the definitive guide on the subject.
;hermore, issues related to quantifying economic or social
impacts and disproportionately high and adverse effects are not
addressed in this document.
Section 1-102(b) of the EO establishes an interagency Federal Working
Group on Environmental Justice. Among other things, the Working Group is
responsible for guidance on criteria for identifying disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and
low-income populations.
3
-------
PARTICIPATING EARLY IN THE PLANNING PROCESS: SCOPING
Recommendations to other federal agencies regarding
environmental justice are most effective if made early in the
planning process—during the scoping stage. It is during the
NEPA scoping process that alternative analyses can be formulated
or redirected, and affected communities can be included. The
following recommendations for reviewers are to be used during the
scoping process.
1) Remind the federal agency of the directives in the EO. the
presidential memorandum and NEPA.
As outlined in the presidential memorandum, federal agencies
must "analyze the environmental effects, including human health,
economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including
effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when
such analysis is required by the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969".
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations on
the implementation of NEPA (40 CFR §1500 et sea.) define the
"human environment" as the "natural and physical environment and
the relationship of people with the environment" (40 CFR
§1508.14). Economic or social effects do not trigger the
preparation of an EIS. However, once an EIS is prepared, and
economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects
are interrelated, the lead agency must discuss all of these
effects on the human environment (40 CFR §1508.14). These
effects include, but are not necessarily limited to, aesthetic,
historical, cultural, economic, religious, and health impacts (40
CFR 1508.8), including direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.
2) Encourage the lead agency to involve the affected population.
Many community leaders want federal agencies to provide more
opportunities for community involvement. When the affected
community is involved in the planning process, projects are
implemented more efficiently and cost-effectively. Subsequently,
comment periods may continue more smoothly and agencies may
develop better working relationships with local populations.
Agencies also need to understand how the affected population
perceives its existing burden and risk. This also helps agencies
understand which concerns should be addressed and which impacts
must be mitigated. Thus, it is advantageous for agencies to
involve the affected population in every step of the planning
process.
Furthermore, both the EO and the presidential memorandum
-------
emphasize the need for public participation and access to
#~ormatipn. The presidential memorandum states that each
eral agency "shall provide opportunities for community input
the NEPA process, including identifying potential effects and
mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities and
improving the accessibility of meetings, crucial documents, and
notices." Reviewers should ensure that the involved federal
agency has taken effective measures to provide such
opportunities .
In addition, the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations require a
scoping process that includes "other interested persons"" (40 CFR
§1501.7) and a public involvement and comment period (40 CFR
§1503.1 and §1506.6). Reviewers should urge the lead agency to
involve affected communities (e.g., hold public meetings, meet
with community leaders individually) if the agency has not
already done so.
Reviewers should also emphasize the need to be sensitive to
language/communication barriers, unique cultural practices, and
the lack of access to information. An effort should be made to
provide information in plain language that can be understood by
non-specialists. Finally, agencies should also be aware of the
special status of some groups (e.g. , federally recognized
American Indian Tribes) , existence of populations that rely
. principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence, and additive
effects of pollution exposure.
Recommend that the lead agency consider demographic baseline
conditions and social impacts.
In order to conduct a social impact assessment, the lead
agency must first determine who is affected, what will happen to
affected populations, what will change under the proposed action
and alternatives, and how the proposed actions will affect social
systems and the stability of the systems.
Below is a partial list of factors which could be considered
by a federal agency analyzing effects on minority communities and
low- income communities. These factors may help reviewers
identify information gaps that could be addressed in the process
Section 5-5(b) (EO 12898) provides that agencies may, "whenever
practicable and appropriate, translate crucial public documents, notices, and
hearings relating to human health or the environment for limited English
speaking populations."
Several agencies (e.g., NMFS, USFS, BLM and FHWA) already have social
impact assessment (SIA) guidelines. Reviewers should ensure that the SIA
included in the EIS is consistent with the lead agency's SIA guidelines.
-------
of comparing alternatives in EISs:
»• impacts to minority populations and low-income
populations (also sensitive populations, such as very
old and young groups), including disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects;
*• possible conflicts with Indian sovereignty, such as
Indian water rights or impacts on Indian country
territory;
* impacts or possible violation of a community/s
customs or religious practices (e.g., geothermal
development in Hawaii, construction in Indian burial
grounds);
K impacts to cultural and/or historic properties and
areas (e.g., Indian painted rocks/cliffs);
K impacts to fish or wildlife on which a community
depends;
K impacts on the health and sustainability of the
ecosystem or watershed within which an affected
minority community or low-income community is located
(e.g., habitat fragmentation or impairment of
ecological processes) ; ••
>- degradation of the aesthetic values (e.g. , increase
in noise, odors, visibility or changes in landscape) in
minority populations and low-income populations;
>• the possible increase of criminal activity occurring
in minority communities and low-income communities;
->• community disruption—the possibility of physically
segmenting or dividing a community, relocation of
businesses and farms, or impacts to a popular community
facility (i.e., park, church, school, historic place)
in minority populations and low-income populations; and
*• impacts to the community economic structure, such as
impacts on the availability of housing, changes to
property values, impacts to business (both for owners
and employees) and/or to the tax base (affect tourism,
cause business to leave) in minority populations and
low-income populations.
Other projects have been, at times, linked to environmental
justice and reviewers may want to give special attention to these
types of projects. Reviewers may also be able to identify such
projects during the scoping or commenting periods. The
-------
environmental justice movement has previously focused on:
*• permitting actions involving disposal (solid, toxic,
radioactive, and hazardous waste disposal) ;
>• siting projects involving placement or expansion of a
facility (e.g., airports, highways, refineries, and
incinerators);
>• projects which have an impact on Indian water and/or
land rights; and
>• weaponry and/or chemical testing projects, and
warfare deployment activities.
However, some proposals may not generate significant
economic or social impacts due to the nature of the action (e.g.,
timber cutting on uninhabited government land), thus eliminating
the need for detailed demographic analyses.
4) Work with the lead agency in developing alternatives.
mitigation and monitoring plans.
One of NEPA's purposes is to promote efforts which prevent
or eliminate damage to the environment and stimulate the health
and welfare of man (42 U.S.C. 4321). Consistent with that
purpose, environmental reviewers should ensure that agencies
analyze, in EISs, alternatives and mitigation measures that
luce or eliminate impacts adversely affecting human health and
Lfare, including effects in minority communities and low-income
communities. Further, where mitigation measures are used to
reduce the effects of a project below the threshold of
significance, the discussion of mitigation in the environmental
assessment should address significant and adverse environmental
effects on those communities.
Reviewers should work with other agencies to develop
alternatives that have fewer impacts on human health or the
environment. If impacts cannot be avoided, then the reviewer
should recommend that adverse impacts be minimized. This may be
partially achieved through community involvement. While negative
attitudes formed about the project may not be eliminated
entirely, information about the proposed action and involvement
in the planning process may allow for a compromise to be reached
between the affected population and the lead agency.
When the adverse economic or social impacts are unavoidable,
mitigation measures should be developed and considered. Again,
the affected community may have specific and effective options
for mitigation (see 40 CFR §1508.20) and monitoring. Because
communities live adjacent or near project areas and are impacted
directly by the proposed action, they may be very helpful in
-------
monitoring a project once the plans are implemented. Reviewers,
however, must determine, during both the scoping and EIS review
periods, if mitigation measures "are technically feasible, of
long-term effectiveness, and have a high likelihood of being
implemented" (EPA, 1984). Also, reviewers should ensure that the
mitigation measures address "significant and adverse
environmental effects of proposed Federal actions on minority
communities and low-income communities", as provided for in the
presidential memorandum.
-------
REVIEWING AND COMMENTING ON PROPOSED ACTIONS
The presidential memorandum directs reviewers to ensure that
agencies analyze impacts on minority communities and low-
income communities. This is possible through the review of NEPA-
related documents. The following recommendations should be used
by all reviewers during the review and comment period.
1) Determine if a proposed federal action presents a potential
environmental "justice concern.
While NEPA requires federal agencies to include an analysis
of social or economic impacts in EISs, it is still sometimes
difficult for the reviewer to determine if a potential
environmental justice issue exists with the information provided.
Reviewers may become aware of potential environmental justice
concerns when impacts to minority populations and low-income
populations are suggested or clearly stated in the EIS. In other
cases, reviewers are notified of possible disparate impacts by
the affected community or a non-government organization.
One way for reviewers to gather more information regarding
environmental impacts on minority populations and low-income
populations is to make use of alternative information sources.
For example, each region has a designated environmental justice
coordinator who acts as the liaison between EPA and community
groups. Coordinators may be familiar with the affected
ies or have had similar experiences with other
nunities and can be used as associate reviewers. In addition,
regions have environmental justice workgroups that can share
information or act as associate reviewers (see Appendix B).
Other information regarding local issues and public opinion
can be learned from news sources (e.g., newspapers and community
newsletters) .
Additionally, the reviewer may be able to identify potential
environmental justice problems by considering a series of factors
during the review. These factors (see pp. 5-6) can be used to
identify possible information gaps to determine if the
environmental effects of a proposed federal action, in minority
communities and low-income communities, have been fully analyzed.
»
Scoping letters from citizens or community groups (including
environmental not-for-profit groups and churches) and minutes
from public meetings can give the reviewer a sense of community
involvement, perception, and acceptance of a proposed action.
All regions have Geographic Information System (CIS)
specialists that can provide reviewers with site-specific spatial
demographic data, at a cost (see Appendix C). Some regions
(e.g., Region II, III and VI) are using CIS to identify
-------
"environmental justice demographics". These CIS models overlay
income and racial Census information, resulting in environmental
justice "rankings". These types of models, when available, could
serve as quick references during §309 reviews to determine if the
proposed federal action could impact minority populations and
low-income populations. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI),
maintained by EPA, is useful for identifying cumulative emissions
impacts (e.g., water and air emissions). However, TRI data are
limited to only manufacturing facilities and give only a narrow
scope of emission impacts. (For example, emissions from power
generation, transportation, incinerators and waste facilities,
body shops, indoor air sources, and the workplace are not
included in the TRI data.) When available, this information
should be provided to the agencies, particularly during the
scoping stages.
Ultimately, this information will assist EPA reviewers to
independently determine if the involved agency has fully analyzed
environmental effects on minority communities and low-income
communities.
2) Address potential environmental justice concerns.
Once the potential for an environmental justice problem has
been identified, how does EPA address the problem in written
comments? It is recommended that > reviewers take a constructive
approach designed to develop practical solutions to environmental
justice issues. Comments attributing negative motives to
proposed agency actions, for example, are not conducive to a
productive relationship for the involved parties.
An effective approach may be to direct the lead agency to
helpful sources of socio-economic data. Reviewers can also offer
to help collect more socio-economic data, if feasible, and
comment on future social impact analyses. For example, a recent
comment letter sent by Region VI to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (1/28/94) noted the presence of disproportionately
high impacts in the African-American community where the NRC
proposed to site the facility. Region VI noted that EPA is
currently examining its own practices/programs and offered to
work with the NRC as it developed its alternatives.
Other reviewers have pointed out the potential for
environmental justice considerations. Region III called
attention to potential environmental justice considerations in
siting a metropolitan detention center in a letter to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (8/30/93). Region III noted that the two
alternative sites for the detention center would be placed
adjacent to the Afro-American Historical and Cultural Museum
while the other site would be in the vicinity of Chinatown.
10
-------
If the EIS alludes to adverse impacts to minority
immunities and low-income communities but does not provide
iugh information for an adequate assessment, it is appropriate
request that additional information be provided.
-------
IDENTIFYING ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSATISFACTORY PROPOSALS
As part of EPA's §309 responsibilities, EPA can refer to CEQ
"any such legislation, action, or regulation that the
Administrator determines is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of
public health or welfare or environmental quality." This
determination must fulfill EPA's "environmentally
unsatisfactory" criteria, which are also used in EPA's alpha-
numeric system for rating draft EISs.
Reviewers must receive concurrence from EPA headquarters
when proposing to rate draft EISs "EU" or "3" , including those.
based completely or partially on socio-economic impacts.'
Headquarters concurrence is also required for referrals to CEQ.
However, only the Administrator can refer proposals to CEQ and
that authority has never been redelegated. Proposals for adverse
ratings or referrals, as appropriate, will be considered on a
case-by-case basis.
The criteria for an "EU" rating emphasize unsatisfactory impacts "from
the standpoint of public health.or welfare or environmental quality." The
"EU" rating is based upon the criteria for "Environmentally Objectionable"
impacts (see EPA, 1984) plus one or more of the following conditions:
>• "the -potential violation of or inconsistency with a national
environmental standard is substantive and/or will occur on a long-term
basis; •
> there are no applicable standards'but the severity, duration, or
geographical scope of the impacts associated with the proposed action
warrant special attention; or
>• the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action
are of national importance because of the threat to national
environmental resources or to environmental policies." (EPA, 1984)
The "3" ("Inadequate") rating is issued when EPA does not believe that a
draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of NEPA and/or §309 review (EPA, 1984).
Also, the "draft EIS does not adequately assess the potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposal, or the reviewer has identified new,
reasonably available alternatives..." (EPA, 1984) The "3" rating can be the
basis for a CEQ referral on a draft EIS if EPA believes that the impacts
associated with the proposal are environmentally unsatisfactory.
12
-------
REFERENCES
an, Hobson. 1984. A guide to social analysis—U.S. Forest
vice training manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Office of Environmental Coordination.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Policy and
Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the
Environment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Federal
Activities.
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for
Social Impact Assessment. 1993. Guidelines and Principles for
Social Impact Assessment. Belhaven: International Association
for Impact Assessment.
United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice. 1987.
Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: Public
Data Access, Inc.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY - 3 1995
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENTAND
MEMORANDUM COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
SUBJECT: Issuance of Interim Reyfted Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy
FROM: Steven A. H
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Attached is EPA's Interim Revised Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP)
Policy. SEPs are environmentally beneficial projects which a violator agrees to undertake in
settlement of an enforcement action, but which the violator is not otherwise legally required -
to perform. This interim revised Policy provides the Agency with additional flexibility to
craft settlements which may secure significant environmental or public health protection.
The Agency encourages the use of SEPs. While penalties play an important role in
environmental protection by deterring violations and creating a level playing field, SEPs can
play an additional role in securing significant environmental or public health protection and
improvements. SEPs may be particularly appropriate to further the objectives in the statutes
EPA administers and to achieve other policy goals, including promoting pollution prevention
and environmental justice.
This revision provides numerous improvements to the current SEP Policy. The
revised Policy clearly defines a SEP. It establishes guidelines to ensure that SEPs are within
EPA's legal authority. It defines seven categories of projects which may qualify as SEPs. It
provides step-by-step procedures for calculating the cost of a SEP and the percentage of that
cost, based on an evaluation of five factors, which may be applied as a mitigating factor in
establishing an appropriate settlement penalty.
This Policy is effective May 8, 1995 and supersedes the February 12, 1991 "PoLicy:
on ihe Use of Supplemental Environmental Projects in EPA Settlements." The Policy is to
be used in all enforcement actions filed after the effective date and to all pending cases in
which the government has not reached agreement in principle with the alleged violator on the
specific terms of a SEP.
"ecyc led. Recyclable
-------
- 2 -
We are issuing this Policy in an interim version because we may wish to revise it
based on public comments and our experience in using it. We are issuing it as an interim
policy, rather than as a draft, because we believe it is superior to the 1991 Policy and thus
should go into effect as soon as possible. We expect to publish this interim version of the
Policy in the Federal Register within the next 30 days.
Thank you for your comments on two previous internal drafts of this Policy. We
appreciate the support and efforts of the Department of Justice, our Office of General
Counsel, and the SEP workgroup in revising this Policy.
We expect to conduct training sessions on the new Policy in each Region during the
next few months. In addition, we expect to issue guidance on the proper drafting of
settlement agreements containing SEPs shortly. If you have any questions on the Policy, you
may contact David A. Hindin. Acting Branch Chief, Multimedia Enforcement Division, in
the Office of Regulatory Enforcement at 202-564-6004. Questions also may be directed to
Peter Moore, at 202-564-6014. or Gerard Kraus at 202-564-6047 in the Multimedia
Enforcement Division.
Attachment
cc: (w/attachment)
Assistant Administrators
OECA Office Directors
ORE Division Directors
Regional Counsels
Regional Enforcement Coordinators,
Regional Program Division Directors
Department of Justice. AAG, ENRD
Department of Justice, EES Chief and Deputy Chiefs
Department of Justice, EDS Chief and Deputy Chief
SEP Workgroup Members
-------
INTERIM REVISED
EPA SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS POLICY
EFFECTIVE MAY 8, 1995
A. INTRODUCTION
I. Background
In settlements of environmental enforcement cases, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) will require the alleged violators to achieve and maintain compliance with
Federal environmental laws and regulations and to pay a civil penalty. To further EPA's
goals to protect and enhance public health and the environment, in certain instances
environmentally beneficial projects, or Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), may be
included in the settlement. This Policy sets forth the types of projects that are permissible as
SEPs, the penalty mitigation appropriate for a particular SEP, and the terms and conditions
under which they may become part of a settlement. The primary purpose of this Policy is to
encourage and obtain environmental and public health protection and improvements that may
not otherwise have occurred without the settlement incentives provided by this Policy.
In settling enforcement actions, EPA requires alleged violators to promptly cease the
violations and, to the extent feasible, remediate any harm caused by the violations. EPA also
seeks substantial monetary penalties in order to deter noncompliance. Without penalties,
companies would have an incentive to delay compliance until they are caught and ordered to
comply. Penalties promote environmental compliance and help protect public health by
deterring future violations by the same violator and deterring violations by other members of
the regulated community. Penalties help ensure a national level playing field by ensuring
that violators do not obtain an unfair economic advantage over their competitors who made
the necessary expenditures to comply on time.' Penalties also encourage companies to adopt
pollution prevention and recycling techniques, so that they minimize their pollutant
discharges and reduce their potential liabilities.
Statutes administered by EPA generally contain penalty assessment criteria that a
court or administrative law judge must consider in determining an appropriate penalty at trial
or a hearing. In the settlement context, EPA generally follows these criteria in exercising its
discretion to establish an appropriate settlement penalty. In establishing an appropriate
penalty, EPA considers such factors as the economic benefit associated with the violations,
the gravity or seriousness of the violations, and prior history of violations. Evidence of a
violator's commitment and ability to perform a SEP is also a relevant factor for EPA to
consider in establishing an appropriate settlement penalty. All else being equal, the final
settlement penalty will be lower for a violator who agrees to perform an acceptable SEP
compared 10 the violator who does not agree to perform a SEP.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 2
The Agency encourages the use of SEPs. While penalties play an important role in
environmental protection by deterring violations and creating a level playing field, SEPs can
play an additional role in securing significant environmental or public health protection and
improvements.' SEPs may not be appropriate in settlement of all cases, but they are an
important part of EPA's enforcement program. SEPs may be particularly appropriate to
further the objectives in the statutes EPA administers and to achieve other policy goals,
including promoting pollution prevention and environmental justice.
2. Pollution Prevention and Environmental Justice
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq., November 5,
1990) identifies an environmental management hierarchy in which pollution "should be
prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be
recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be
prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever
feasible; and disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last
resort ..." (42 U.S.C. §13103). In short, preventing pollution before it is created is
preferable to trying to manage, treat or dispose of it after it is created.
Selection and evaluation of proposed SEPs should be conducted in accordance with
this hierarchy of environmental management, i.e., SEPs involving pollution prevention
techniques are preferred over other types of reduction or control strategies, and this can be
reflected in the degree of consideration accorded to a defendant/respondent before calculation
of the final monetary penalty.
Further, there is an acknowledged concern, expressed in Executive Order 12898 on
environmental justice, that certain segments of the nation's population are disproportionately
burdened by pollutant exposure. Emphasizing SEPs in communities where environmental
justice issues are present helps ensure that persons who spend significant portions of their
time in areas, or depend on food and water sources located near, where the violations occur
would be protected. Because environmental justice is not a specific technique or process but
an overarching goal, it is not listed as a category of SEP; but EPA encourages SEPs in
communities where environmental justice may be an issue.
3. Using this Policy
In evaluating a proposed project to determine if it qualifies as a SEP and then
determining how much penalty mitigation is appropriate. Agency enforcement and
compliance personnel should use the following five-step process:
(1) Ensure that the project meets the basic definition of a SEP. (Section B)
(2) Ensure that all legal guidelines, including nexus, are satisfied. (Section C)
Depending on circumstances and cost, SEPs also may have a deterrent impact.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 3
.(3) Ensure that the project fits within one (or more) of the designated categories of SEPs.
(Section D)
(4) Calculate the net-present after-tax cost of the project and then determine the
appropriate amount of penalty mitigation. (Section E)
(5) Ensure that the project satisfies all of the implementation and other criteria.
(Sections F, G, H and I)
4. Applicability
This Policy revises and hereby supersedes the February 12, 1991 Policy on the Use of
Supplemental Environmental Projects in EPA Settlements. This Policy applies to settlements
of all civil judicial and administrative actions filed after the effective date of this Policy, and
to all pending cases in which the government has not reached agreement in principle with the
alleged violator on the specific terms of a SEP.
This Policy applies to all civil judicial and administrative enforcement actions taken
under the authority of the environmental statutes and regulations that EPA administers. It
also may be used by EPA and the Department of Justice in reviewing proposed SEPs in
settlement of citizen suits. This Policy also applies to federal agencies that are liable for the
payment of civil penalties. This Policy does not apply to settlements of claims for stipulated
penalties for violations of consent decrees or other settlement agreement requirements.2
This is a settlement Policy and thus is not intended for use by EPA, defendants,
respondents, courts or administrative law judges at a hearing or in a trial. Further, whether
the Agency decides to accept a proposed SEP as part of a settlement is purely within EPA's
discretion. Even though a project appears to satisfy all of the provisions of this Policy, EPA
may decide, for one or more reasons, that a SEP is not appropriate (e.g., the cost of
reviewing a SEP proposal is excessive, the oversight costs of the SEP may be too high, or
the defendant/respondent may not have the ability or reliability to complete the proposed
SEP).
This Policy establishes a framework for EPA to use in exercising its enforcement
discretion in determining appropriate settlements. In some cases, application of this Policy
may not be appropriate, in whole or part. In such cases, the litigation team may, with the
advance approval of Headquarters, use an alternative or modified approach.
B. DEFINITION AND KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF A SEP
Supplemental environmental projects are defined as environmentally beneficial
projects which a defendant/respondent agrees to undertake in settlement of an enforcement
: The Agency is evaluating whether SEPs should he used, and if so, how, in evaluating claims
for stipulated penalties.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 4
action, but which the defendant/respondent is not otherwise legally required to perform.
The three bolded key parts of this definition are elaborated below.
"Environmentally beneficial" means a SEP must improve, protect, or reduce risks to
public health, or the environment at large. While in some cases a SEP may provide the
alleged violator with certain benefits, there must be no doubt that the project primarily
benefits the public health or the environment.
"In settlement of an enforcement action" means: I) EPA has the opportunity to help
shape the scope of the project before it is implemented; and 2) the project is not commenced
until after the Agency has identified a violation (e.g., issued a notice of violation,
administrative order, or complaint).3
"Not otherwise legally required to perform means" the SEP is not required by any
federal, state or local law or regulation. Further, SEPs cannot include actions which the
defendant/respondent may be required to perform: as injunctive relief in the instant case; as
part of a settlement or order in another legal action; or by state or local requirements. SEPs
may include activities which the defendant/respondent will become legally obligated to
undertake two or more years in the future. Such "accelerated compliance" projects are not
allowable, however, if the regulation or statute provides a benefit (e.g., a higher emission
limit) to the defendant/respondent for early compliance.
Also, the performance of a SEP reduces neither the stringency nor timeliness
requirements of Federal environmental statutes and regulations. Of course, performance of a
SEP does not alter the defendant/respondent's obligation to remedy a violation expeditiously .
and return to compliance.
C. LEGAL GUIDELINES
EPA has broad discretion to settle cases, including the discretion to include SEPs as
an appropriate part of the settlement. The legal evaluation of whether a proposed SEP is
within EPA's authority and consistent with all statutory and Constitutional requirements may
be a complex task. Accordingly, this Policy uses five legal guidelines to ensure that our
^ Since the primary purpose of this Policy is to obtain environmental or public health benefits
that may not have occurred "but for" the settlement, projects which have been started before the
Agency has identified a violation are not eligible as SEPs. Projects which have been committed to or
started before the identification of a violation may mitigate the penalty in other ways. Depending on
the specifics, if a company had initiated environmentally beneficial projects before the enforcement
process commenced, the initial penalty calculation could he lower due to the absence of recalcitrance.
no history of other violations, good faith efforts, less severity of the violations, or a shorter duration
ol the violations.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 5
SEPs are within the Agency's and a federal court's authority, and do not run afoul of any
Constitutional or statutory requirements.4
1. All projects must have adequate nexus. Nexus is the relationship between the
violation and the proposed project. This relationship exists only if the project
remediates or reduces the probable overall environmental or public health impacts or
risks to which the violation at issue contributes, or if the project is designed to reduce
the likelihood that similar violations will occur in the future. SEPs are likely to .have
an adequate nexus if the primary impact of the project is at the site where the alleged
violation occurred or at a different site in the same ecosystem or within the immediate
geographic5 area. Such SEPs may have sufficient nexus even if the SEP addresses a
different pollutant in a different medium. In limited cases, nexus may exist even
though a project will involve activities outside of the United States.6
2. A project must advance at least one of the declared objectives of the
environmental statutes that are the basis of the enforcement action. Further, a project
cannot be inconsistent with any provision of the underlying statutes.
3. EPA or any other federal agency may not play any role in managing or controlling
funds that may be set aside or escrowed for performance of a SEP. Nor may EPA
retain authority to manage or administer the SEP. EPA may, of course, provide
oversight to ensure that a project is implemented pursuant to the provisions of the
settlement and have legal recourse if the SEP is not adequately performed.
4. The type and scope of each project are determined in the signed settlement
agreement. This means the "what, where and when" of a project are determined by
the settlement agreement. Settlements in which the defendant/respondent agrees to
spend a certain sum of money on a project(s) to be determined later (after EPA or the
Department of Justice signs the settlement agreement) are generally not allowed.
5. A project may not be something that EPA itself is required by its statutes to do.
And a project may not provide EPA with additional resources to perform an activity
for which Congress has specifically appropriated funds. In addition, a SEP should
not appear to be an expansion of an existing EPA program. For example, if EPA has
developed a brochure to help a segment of the regulated community comply with
environmental requirements, a SEP may not directly, or indirectly, provide additional
resources to revise, copy or distribute the brochure.
J These legal guidelines are based on federal law as it applies to EPA; States may have more or
less flexibility in the use of SEPs depending on their laws.
> The immediate geographic area will generally be the area within a 50 mile radius of the site on
which the violations occurred.
" All projects which would include activities outside the U.S. must be approved in advance by
Headquarters and/or the Department ot Justice. See section I.
-------
D. CATEGORIES OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
EPA has identified seven categories of projects which may qualify as SEPs. In order
for a proposed project to be accepted as a SEP, it must satisfy the requirements of at least
one category plus all the other requirements established in this Policy.
1. Public Health
A public health project provides diagnostic, preventative and/or remedial components
of human health care which is related to the actual or potential damage to human health
caused by the violation. This may include epidemiological data collection and analysis,
medical examinations of potentially affected persons, collection and analysis of blood/fluid/
tissue samples, medical treatment and rehabilitation therapy.
Public health SEPs are acceptable only where the primary benefit of the project is the
population that was harmed or put at risk by the violations.
2. Pollution Prevention
A pollution prevention project is one which reduces the generation of pollution
through "source reduction," i.e., any practice which reduces the amount of any hazardous
substance, pollutant or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise being released
into the environment, prior to recycling, treatment or disposal. (After the pollutant or waste
stream has been generated, pollution prevention is no longer possible and the waste must be
handled by appropriate recycling, treatment, containment, or disposal methods.)
Source reduction may include equipment or technology modifications, process or
procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials,
and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, inventory control, or other
operation and maintenance procedures. Pollution prevention also includes any project which
protects natural resources through conservation or increased efficiency in the use of energy,
water or other materials. "In-process recycling," wherein waste materials produced during a
manufacturing process are returned directly to production as raw materials on site, is
considered a pollution prevention project.
In all cases, for a project to meet the definition of pollution prevention, there must be
an overall decrease in the amount and/or toxicity of pollution released to the environment,
not merely a transfer of pollution among media. This decrease may be achieved directly or
through increased efficiency (conservation) in the use of energy, water or other materials.
This is consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the Administrator's
"Pollution Prevention Policy Statement: New Directions for Environmental Protection,"
dated June 15, 1993.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 7
3. Pollution Reduction
If the pollutant or waste stream already has been generated or released, a pollution
reduction approach — which employs recycling, treatment, containment or disposal
techniques — may be appropriate. A pollution reduction project is one which results in a
decrease in the amount and/or toxicity of any hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant
entering any waste stream or otherwise being released into the environment by an operating
business or facility by a means which does not qualify as "pollution prevention." This may
include the installation of more effective end-of-process control or treatment technology.
This also includes "out-of-process recycling," wherein industrial waste collected after the
manufacturing process and/or consumer waste materials are used as raw materials for
production off-site, reducing the need for treatment, disposal,' or consumption of energy or
natural resources.
4. Environmental Restoration and Protection
An environmental restoration and protection project is one which goes beyond
repairing the damage caused by the violation to enhance the condition of the ecosystem or
immediate geographic area adversely affected.7 These projects may be used to restore or
protect natural environments (such as ecosystems) and man-made environments, such as
facilities and buildings. Also included is any project which protects the ecosystem from
actual or potential damage resulting from the violation or improves the overall condition of
the ecosystem. Examples of such projects include: reductions in discharges of pollutants
which are not the subject of the violation to an affected air basin or watershed; restoration of
a wetland along the same avian flyway in which the facility is located; or purchase and
management of a watershed area by the defendant/respondent to protect a drinking water
supply where the violation, e.g., a reporting violation, did not directly damage the watershed
but potentially could lead to damage due to unreported discharges. This category also
includes projects which provide for the protection of endangered species (e.g., developing
conservation-programs or protecting habitat critical to the well-being of a species endangered
by the violation).
With regards to man-made environments, such projects may involve the remediation
of facilities and buildings, provided such activities are not otherwise legally required. This
includes the removal/mitigation of contaminated materials, such as soils, asbestos and leaded
paint, which are a continuing source of releases and/or threat to individuals.
5. Assessments and Audits
Assessments and audits, if they are not otherwise available as injunctive relief, are
potential SEPs under this category. There are four types of projects in this category:
a. pollution prevention assessments; b. site assessments; c. environmental management
system audits; and d. compliance audits.
7 If EPA lacks authoriiy to require repair, then repair itself may constitute a ShP.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 8
a. Pollution prevention assessments are systematic, internal reviews of specific
processes and operations designed to identify and provide information about opportunities to
reduce the use, production, and generation of toxic and hazardous materials and other
wastes. To be eligible for SEPs, such assessments must be conducted using a recognized
pollution prevention assessment or waste minimization procedure to reduce the likelihood of
future violations.
b. Site assessments are investigations of the condition of the environment at a site or
of the environment impacted by a site, and/or investigations of threats to human health or the
environment relating to a site. These include but are not limited to: investigations of levels
and/or sources of contamination in any environmental media at a site; investigations of
discharges or emissions of pollutants at a site, whether from active operations or through
passive transport mechanisms; ecological surveys relating to a site; natural resource damage
assessments; and risk assessments. To be eligible for SEPs, such assessments must be
conducted in accordance with recognized protocols, if available, applicable to the type of
assessment to be undertaken.
c. An environmental management system audit is an independent evaluation of a
party's environmental policies, practices and controls. Such evaluation may encompass the
need for: (1) a formal corporate environmental compliance policy, and procedures for
implementation of that policy; (2) educational and training programs for employees; (3)
equipment purchase, operation and maintenance programs; (4) environmental compliance
officer programs; (5) budgeting and planning systems for environmental compliance; (6)
monitoring, record keeping and reporting systems; (7) in-plant and community emergency
plans; (8) internal communications and control systems; and (9) hazard identification, risk
assessment.
d. An environmental compliance audit is an independent evaluation of a
defendant/respondent's compliance status with environmental requirements. Credit is only
given for the costs associated with conducting the audit. While the SEP should require all
violations discovered by the audit to be promptly corrected, no credit is given for remedying
the violation since persons are required to achieve and maintain compliance with
environmental requirements. In general, compliance audits are acceptable as SEPs only
when the defendant/respondent is a small business8 9.
These two types of assessments and environmental management system audits are
allowable as SEPs without an implementation commitment by the defendant/respondent.
* For purposes of this Policy, a small business is owned hy a person or another entity that
employs 100 or fewer individuals. Small businesses could he individuals, privately held corporations.
farmers, landowners, partnerships and others.
'' Since most large companies routinely conduct compliance audits, to mitigate penalties for such
audits would reward violators for performing an activity that most companies already do. In
contrast, these audits are not commonly done hy small businesses, perhaps because such audits may
be ion expensive.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 9
Implementation is not required because drafting implementation requirements before the
results of the study are known is difficult. Further, for pollution prevention assessments and
environmental management systems audits, many of the implementation recommendations
from these studies may constitute activities that are in the defendant/respondent's own
economic interest.
These assessments and audits are acceptable where the primary impact of the project
is at the same facility, at another facility owned by the violator, or at a different facility in
the same ecosystem or within the immediate geographic area (e.g., a publicly owned
wastewater treatment works and its users). These assessments and audits are only acceptable
as SEPs when the defendant/respondent agrees to provide EPA with a copy.
6. Environmental Compliance Promotion
An environmental compliance promotion project provides training or technical support
to other members of the regulated community to: 1) identify, achieve and maintain
compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements; 2) avoid committing a
violation with respect to such statutory and regulatory requirements; or 3) go beyond
compliance by reducing the generation, release or disposal of pollutants beyond legal
requirements. For these types of projects, the defendant/respondent may lack the experience,
knowledge or ability to implement the project itself, and, if so, the defendant/respondent
should be required to contract with an appropriate expert to develop and implement the
compliance promotion project. Acceptable projects may include, for example, producing or
sponsoring a seminar directly related to correcting widespread or prevalent violations within
the defendant/ respondent's economic sector.
Environmental compliance promotion SEPs are acceptable only where the primary
impact of the project is focused on the same regulatory program requirements which were
violated and where EPA has reason to believe that compliance in the sector would be
significantly-advanced by the proposed project. For example, if the alleged violations
involved Clean Water Act pretreatment violations, the compliance promotion SEP must be
directed at ensuring compliance with pretreatment requirements.
7. Emergency Planning and Preparedness
' ^
An emergency planning and preparedness project provides assistance -- such as
computers and software, communication systems, chemical emission detection and
inactivation equipment, HAZMAT equipment, or training — to a responsible state or local
emergency response or planning entity. This is to enable these organizations to fulfill their
obligations under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to
collect information to assess the dangers of hazardous chemicals present at facilities within
their jurisdiction, to develop emergency response plans, to train emergency response
personnel and to better respond to chemical spills.
EPCRA requires regulated sources to provide information on chemical production,
storage and use to Suite Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs). Local Emergency
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 10
Planning Committees (LEPCs) and Local Fire Departments (LFDs). This enables states and
local communities to plan for and respond effectively to chemical accidents and inform
potentially affected citizens of the risks posed by chemicals present in their communities,
thereby enabling them to protect the environment or ecosystems which could be damaged by
an accident. Failure to comply with EPCRA impairs the ability of states and local
communities to meet their obligations and places emergency response personnel, the public
and the environment at risk from a chemical release.
Emergency planning and preparedness SEPs are acceptable where the primary impact
of the project is within the same emergency planning district or state affected by the
violations. Further, this type of SEP is allowable only when the SEP involves non-cash
assistance and there are violations of EPCRA or reporting violations under CERCLA § 103
alleged in the complaint.
8. Projects Which Are Not Acceptable as SEPs
Except for projects which meet the specific requirements of one of the categories
enumerated in § D. above, the following are examples of the types of projects that are not
allowable as SEPs:
a. General educational or public environmental awareness projects, e.g.,
sponsoring public seminars, conducting tours of environmental controls at a facility,
promoting recycling in a community;
b. Contribution to environmental research at a college or university;
c. Conducting a project, which, though beneficial to a community, is unrelated to
environmental protection, e.g., making a contribution to charity, or donating
playground equipment;
d.~ Studies or assessments without a commitment to implement the results (except
as provided for in § D.5 above);
e. Projects which are being funded by low-interest federal loans, federal
contracts, or federal grants.
E. CALCULATION OF THE FINAL PENALTY
As a general rule, the costs to be incurred by a violator in performing a SEP may be
considered in determining an appropriate settlement amount. Calculating the final penalty in
a settlement which includes a SEP is a three-step process. First, the Agency's penalty
policies are used as applicable to calculate all of the other parts of the settlement penalty
(including economic benefit and gravity components). Second, calculate the net-present
after-tax cost of the SEP. Third, evaluate the benefits of the SEP, based on specific factors.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 11
to determine what percentage of the net-present after-tax cost will be considered in
determining an appropriate final settlement penalty.
1. Penalty
Penalties are an important part of any settlement. A substantial penalty is generally
necessary for legal and policy reasons. Without penalties there would be no deterrence as
regulated entities would have little incentive to comply. Penalties are necessary as a matter
of fairness to those companies that make the necessary expenditures to comply on time:
violators should not be allowed to obtain an economic advantage over their competitors who
complied. Except in extraordinary circumstances, if a settlement includes a SEP, the penalty
should recover, at a minimum,the economic benefit of noncompliance plus 10 percent of the
gravity component, or 25 percent of the gravity component only, whichever is greater.
In cases involving government agencies or entities, such as municipalities, or non-
profit organizations, where the circumstances warrant, EPA may determine, based on the
nature of the SEPs being proposed, that an appropriate settlement could contain a cash
penalty less than the economic benefit of non-compliance. The precise amount of the cash
penalty will be determined by the applicable penalty policy.
2. Calculation of the Cost of the SEP
To ensure that a proposed SEP is consistent with this Policy, the net present after-tax
cost of the SEP, hereinafter called the "SEP Cost," is calculated. In order to facilitate
evaluation of the SEP Cost of a proposed SEP, the Agency has developed a computer model
called PROJECT. To use PROJECT,,the Agency needs reliable estimates of the costs and
savings associated with a defendant/respondent's performance of a SEP. Often the costs will
not be estimates but known amounts based on a defendant/respondent's agreement to expend
a fixed or otherwise known dollar amount on a project.
There are three types of costs that may be associated with performance of a SEP
(which are entered into the PROJECT model): capital costs (e.g., equipment, buildings);
one-time nondepreciable costs (e.g., removing contaminated materials, purchasing land,
developing a compliance promotion seminar); and annual operation costs or savings (e.g.,
labor, chemicals, water, power, raw materials).10
In order to run the PROJECT model properly (i.e., to produce a reasonable estimate
of the net present after-tax cost of the project), the number of years that annual operation
costs or savings will be expended in performing the SEP must be specified. At a minimum,
the defendant/respondent must be required to implement the project for the same number of
!0 PROJECT does not evaluate the potential for market benefits which may accrue with the
performance of a SEP (e.g.. increased sales of a product, improved corporate public image, or
improved employee morale). Nor does it consider costs imposed on the government, such as the cost
10 the Agency for oversight of the SEP. or the burden of a lengthy negotiation with a defendant/
respondent who Joes not propose a SEP until late in the settlement process.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 12
years used in the PROJECT mode! calculation. If certain costs or savings appear
speculative, they should not be entered into the PROJECT model. The PROJECT model is
the primary method to determine the SEP cost for purposes of negotiating settlements."
EPA does not offer tax advice on whether a company may deduct SEP expenditures
from its income taxes. If a defendant/respondent states that it will not deduct the cost of a
SEP from its taxes and it is willing to commit to this in the settlement document, and provide
the Agency with certification upon completion of the SEP that it has not deducted the SEP
expenditures, the PROJECT model calculation should be adjusted to calculate the SEP Cost
without reductions for taxes. This is a simple adjustment to the PROJECT model: just enter
a zero for variable 7, the marginal tax rate. If a business is not willing to make this
commitment, the marginal tax rate in variable 7 should not be set to zero; rather the default
settings (or a more precise estimate of the business' marginal tax rates) should be used in
variable 7.
If the PROJECT model reveals that a project has a negative cost, this means that it
represents a positive cash flow to the defendant/respondent and as a profitable project thus,
generally, is not acceptable as a SEP. If a project generates a profit, a defendant/respondent
should, and probably will, based on its own economic interests, implement the project.
While EPA encourages companies to undertake environmentally beneficial projects that are
economically profitable, EPA does not believe violators should receive a bonus in the form
of penalty mitigation to undertake such projects as part of an enforcement action. EPA does
not offer subsidies to complying companies to undertake profitable environmentally beneficial
projects and it would thus be inequitable and perverse to provide such subsidies only to
violators. In addition, the primary goal of SEPs is to secure a favorable environmental or
public health outcome which would not have occurred but for the enforcement case
settlement. To allow SEP penalty mitigation for profitable projects would thwart this
goal. :
3. Penalty Mitigation
After the SEP Cost has been calculated, EPA should determine what percentage of
that cost may be applied as mitigation against the preliminary total calculated gravity
component before calculation of the final penalty. The SEP should be examined as to
whether and how effectively it achieves each of the following five factors listed below.
" See PROJECT User's Manual. January 1995. If the PROJECT model appears inappropriate to
a particular fact situation, EPA Headquarters should he consulted to identify an alternative approach.
For example, the December 1993 version of PROJECT does not readily calculate the cost of an
accelerated compliance SEP. The cost of such a SEP is the additional cost associated with doing the
project early (ahead of the regulatory requirement) and it needs to be calculated in a slightly different
manner.
:: The penalty mitigation guidelines in subsection E.3 provide that the amount of mitigation
should not exceed the net cost of the project. To provide penalty mitigation for profitable projects
would he providing a credit in excess of net costs.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 13
• Benefits to the Public or Environment at Large. While all SEPs benefit public health
or the environment, SEPs which perform well on this factor will result in significant
and quantifiable reduction in discharges of pollutants to the environment and the
reduction in risk to the general public. SEPs also will perform well on this factor to
the extent they result in significant and, to the extent possible, measurable progress in
protecting and restoring ecosystems (including wetlands and endangered species
habitats).
• Innovativeness. SEPs which perform well on this factor will further the development
and implementation of innovative processes, technologies, or methods which more
effectively: reduce the generation, release or disposal of pollutants; conserve natural
resources; restore and protect ecosystems; protect endangered species; or promote
compliance. This includes "technology forcing" techniques which may establish new
regulatory "benchmarks."
• Environmental Justice. SEPs which perform well on this factor will mitigate damage
or reduce risk to minority or low income populations which may have been
disproportionately exposed to pollution or are at ^environmental risk.
• Multimedia Impacts. SEPs which perform well on this factor will reduce emissions to
more than one medium.
• Pollution Prevention. SEPs which perform well on this factor will develop and
implement pollution prevention techniques and practices.
The better the performance of the SEP under each of these factors, the higher the
mitigation percentage may be set. As a general guideline, the final mitigation percentage
should not exceed 80 percent of the SEP Cost. For small businesses, government agencies
or entities, and non-profit organizations, this percentage may be set as high as 100 percent.
For any defendant/respondent, if one of the five factors is pollution prevention, the
percentage may be set as high as 100 percent. A lower mitigation percentage may be
appropriate if the government must allocate significant resources to monitoring and reviewing
the implementation of a project.
In administrative enforcement actions in which there is a statutory limit on
administrative penalties, the cash penalty obtained plus the amount of penalty mitigation
credit due to the SEPs shall not exceed the statutory administrative penalty limit.
F. PERFORMANCE BY A THIRD PARTY
SEPs are generally performed either by the defendant/respondent itself (using its own
employees) and/or by contractors or consultants.lj In the past in a few cases, a SEP has
!'' Ol course, non-profit organizations, such as universities and public interest groups, may
(unction as contractors or consultants.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 14
been performed by someone else, commonly called a third party. Because of legal concerns
and the difficulty of ensuring that a third party implements the project as required (since by
definition a third party has no legal or contractual obligation to implement the project as
specified in the settlement document), performance of a SEP by a third party is not allowed.
G. OVERSIGHT AND DRAFTING ENFORCEABLE SEPS
The settlement agreement should accurately and completely describe the SEP. (See
related legal guideline 4 in § C above.) It should describe the specific actions to be
performed by the defendant/respondent and provide for a reliable and objective means to
verify that the defendant/respondent has timely completed the project. This may require the
defendant/respondent to submit periodic reports to EPA. If an outside auditor is necessary to
conduct this oversight, the defendant/respondent should be made responsible for the cost of
any such activities. The defendant/respondent remains responsible for the quality and
timeliness of any actions performed or any reports prepared or submitted by the auditor. A
final report certified by an appropriate corporate official, acceptable to EPA and evidencing
completion of the SEP, should be required.
To the extent feasible, defendant/respondents should be required to quantify the
benefits associated with the project and provide EPA with a report setting forth how the -
benefits were measured or estimated. The defendant/respondent should agree that whenever
it publicizes a SEP or the results of the SEP. it will state in a prominent manner that the
project is being undertaken as part of the settlement of an enforcement action.
The drafting of a SEP will vary depending on whether the SEP is being performed as
part of an administrative or judicial enforcement action. SEPs with long implementation
schedules (e.g., 18 months or longer), SEPs which require EPA review and comment on
interim milestone activities, and other complex SEPs may not be appropriate in those
administrative enforcement actions where EPA lacks injunctive relief authority or is subject
to a penalty ceiling. Specific guidance on the proper drafting of SEPs will be provided in a
separate guidance document.
H. FAILURE OF A SEP AND STIPULATED PENALTIES
If a SEP is not completed satisfactorily, the defendant/respondent should be required,
pursuant to the terms of the settlement document, to pay stipulated penalties for its failure.
Stipulated penalty liability should be established for each of the scenarios set forth below as
appropriate to the individual case.
1. Except as provided in paragraph 2 immediately below, if the SEP is not
completed satisfactorily, a substantial stipulated penalty should be required.
Generally, a substantial stipulated penalty is between 50 and 100 percent of the
amount by which the settlement penalty was mitigatcJ on account of the SEP.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 15
2, If the SEP is not completed satisfactorily, but the defendant/respondent:
a) made good faith and timely efforts to complete the project; and b) certifies,
with supporting documentation, that at least 90 percent of the amount of
money which was required to be spent was expended on the SEP, no stipulated
penalty is necessary.
3. If the SEP is satisfactorily completed, but the defendant/respondent spent less
than 90 percent of the amount of money required to be spent for the project, a small
stipulated penalty should be required. Generally, a small stipulated penalty is
between 10 and 25 percent of the amount by which the settlement penalty was
mitigated on account of the SEP.
4. If the SEP is satisfactorily completed, and the defendant/respondent spent at
least 90 percent of the amount of money required to be spent for the project, no
stipulated penalty is necessary.
The determinations of whether the SEP has been satisfactorily completed (i.e., pursuant to
the terms of the agreement) and whether the defendant/respondent has made a good faith,
timely effort to implement the SEP is in the sole discretion of EPA.
i. EPA PROCEDURES
1. Approvals
The authority of a government official to approve a SEP is included in the official's
authority to settle an enforcement case and thus, subject to the exceptions set forth here, no
special approvals are required. The special approvals apply to both administrative and
judicial enforcement actions as follows:14
a. Regions in which a SEP is proposed for implementation shall be given the
opportunity to review and comment on the proposed SEP.
b. In all cases in which a SEP may not fully comply with the provisions of this
Policy, the SEP must be approved by the EPA Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
c. In all cases in which a SEP would involve activities outside the United States,
the SEP must be approved in advance by the Assistant Administrator and, for
judicial cases only, the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and
Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice.
In judicial cases, [he Department of Justice must approve the SliP.
-------
Revised SEP Policy * * * May 1995 * * * Page 16
d. In all eases in which a SEP includes an environmental compliance promotion
project, the SEP must be approved by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement ir.
OECA. With time, this approval requirement may be delegated to Regional
officials.
2. Documentation and Confidentiality
fn each case in which a SEP is included as part of a settlement, an explanation of the
SEP with supporting materials (including the PROJECT model printout, where applicable)
must be included as part of the case file. The explanation of the SEP should demonstrate
that the five criteria set forth in Section A.3 above are met by the project and include a
description of the expected benefits associated with the SEP. The explanation must include a
description by the enforcement attorney of how nexus and the other legal guidelines are
satisfied.
Documentation and explanations of a particular SEP may constitute confidential
settlement information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,
is outside the scope of discovery, and is protected by various privileges, including the
attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product privilege. While individual Agency
evaluations of proposed SEPs are confidential documents, this Policy is a public document
and may be released to anyone upon request.
This Policy is primarily for the use of U. S. EPA enforcement personnel in settling
cases. EPA reserves the right to change this Policy at any time, without prior notice,
or to act at variance to this Policy. This Policy does not create any rights, duties, or
obligations, implied or otherwise, in any third parties.
-------
Public Participation & Accountability Subcommittee
Recommendations to the Full NEJAC Committee
The subcommittee has drafted a letter to the Interagency
Workgroup Task Force on Outreach in response to the Task
Force's request for advice on its upcoming December 1 meeting
to gain community input on each Agency's environmental justice
strategic plan.' In addition, the subcommittee has drafted
•guiding principles and critical elements for all public
participation meetings. The subcommittee recommends that the
letter . and the accompanying draft model on public
participation meetings be adopted by the NEJAC and submitted
to the Interagency Workgroup.
The subcommittee wishes to create a model public participation
meeting as a demonstration project that will be used to
develop effective modes of public participation. The
subcommittee requests: (1) approval of the demonstration
project, and (2) an allocation for the demonstration project
in the .NEJAC budget-
The subcommittee would like to coordinate their model public
participation meeting with another subcommittee's project that
has a public participation component..Green book from John O'Leary
In order to determine how best to institutionalize the
participation of communities impacted by environmental justice
issues, the subcommittee would like to:
a) review the existing public participation process as it
relates to certain issues, such as: permitting, siting,
resource allocation, zoning, etc.
b) evaluate the decision making process by determining
how, when, and by whom these regulations are made and
identify where community public participation might be
incorporated into that process.
C) information collected.
-------
NEJAC
Subcocrenitt«e on Public Participation and Accountability
Draft Model for Public Participation Meetings
October 24, 1994
Guiding Principles
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation is needed in all aspects of
environmental decision making.
Communities and Agencies should be seen as equal partners
in dialogue on environmental justice issues. In order to
build successful partnerships, interactions must:
• Recognize community knowledge;
• Encourage active community participation;
Institutionalize public participation; and
Utilize cross-cultural formats t exchanges.
II. Maintain honesty & integrity in process - articulating
goals, expectations, and limitations.
Critical Elements
PREPARATION
I. Developing co-sponsoring/co-planning relationships with
community organizations is essential for successful
community meetings. Agencies should provide the
necessary resources that -co-sponsors need and share all
planning roles to insure a successful meeting. These
roles include:
• leadership;
Decision Making;
Establishing Clear Goals;
Outreach; and
• Agenda Development
II. Education of community to allow for equal participation
and influence decision making.
-------
III. Regionalize materials to insure cultural sensitivity and
relevance.
IV. Provide facilitator who is sensitive to trained in
environmental justice issues.
PARTICIPANTS
I. Based on the NEJAC model, the following communities should be
involved in environmental justice issues. They include:
• Academia
Community groups
Environmental organizations
• Governments (local, State, and Federal),
• Industry
• Non-government
Tribal governments
II. Identify key stakeholders including:
• Impacted Communities
• Educational Institutions
Policy & Decision Makers (for example, Agencies
accountable for environmental justice issues, such as:
health officials, regulatory & enforcement officials, and
social agencies)
LOGISTICS
I. WHERE
The meeting needs to be accessible to all washing to
attend (public transportation, child care , and
disability access should be considered).
The meeting must be held in an adequate facility (size
and conditions must be considered)
Technologies should be utilized . to allow for greater
communication (teleconferencing, adequate translation
equipment, etc.)
II. WHEN
The meeting time of day and year should accommodate the
impacted communities (evenings, weekend, and seasonal
concerns).
-------
III. HOW
An atmosphere of equal participation must be created
(avoid a "panel of experts" or "head table").
A two day meeting (at least) is suggested. The first day
should be reserved for community planning and education.
s,
Leadership and presentation should be shared between the
community and the government.
MECHANICS
Maintain clear goals by referring to agenda,
however do not be bound by it.
Provide professional facilitator who is
sensitive to and trained in environmental
justice issues.
Incorporate cross-cultural exchanges in the
presentation of information and meeting
agenda.
Coordinate follow-up by developing an actin
'plan and determining who is the contact person
who will expedite the work products from the
meeting.
Provide a timeline that describes how the
meeting fits into the overall agenda of the
issues at hand.
Provide resources to allow communities to
participate.
Distribute minutes and a list of action items
in order to facilitate follow-up.
-------
Revised 1/13/95
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CHECKLIST
1. Ensure'that Agency's public participation policies are consistent with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act
2. Obtain Senior Management Support to 'ensure that the Agency's policies and activities are
modified to ensure early, effective and meaningful public participation, especially with regard to
Environmental Justice stakeholders. Identify internal stakeholders and establish partnering
relationships.
3. Use following Guiding Principles in setting up all public meetings :
- Maintain honesty and integrity throughout the process.
- Recognize community \ indigenous .knowledge.
- Encourage active community participation.
- Utilize cross-rcultural formats and exchanges.
4. Identify external Environmental Justice stakeholders and provide opportunities to offer input
into decisions that may impact their health, property values and lifestyles. Consider at a minimum
individuals from the following organization as appropriate:
Environmental Organizations
Business and Trade Organizations
Civic/ Public Interest Groups
Grassroots \ Communhyrbased Organizations
Congress
Federal Agencies
Homeowner and Resident Organizations
International Organizations
Labor Unions-
Local and State Government
Media \Press
Indigenous People
Tribal Governments
Industry
White House
Religious Groups
Universities and Schools
5. Identify key individuals who can represent various stakeholder interests. Learn as much as
-------
Revised 1/13/95
possible about Stakeholders and their concerns through personal consultation, phone, or written
contacts. Ensure that information gathering techniques include modifications for minority and low
-income communities, for example, consider language\ cultural barriers, technical background,
literacy, access to respondent, privacy issues and preferred types of communications.
6. Solicit stakeholder involvement early in the policymaking process, beginning in the planning
and development stages and continuing through implementation and oversight.
7. Develop co-sponsoring/co-planning relationships with community organizations, providing
resources for their needs.
8. Establish a central point of contact within the Federal agency to assist in information
dissemination, resolve problems and to serve as a visible and accessible advocate of the
public's right to know about issues that affect health or environment,
9. Regionalize materials to insure cultural sensitivity and relevance. Make information readily
accessible (handicap access, Braille, etc.) and understandable. Unabridged documents should be
placed in repositories. Executive summaries/fact sheets should be prepared in layman's language.
Whenever practicable and appropriate, translate targeted documents for limited English-speaking
populations.
10. Make information available in a timely manner. Environmental Justice stakeholders should
be viewed as full partners and Agency customers. They should be provided with information
at the same time it is submitted for formal review to state, tribal and/or Federal regulatory
agencies.
11. .Ensure that personnel at all levels in the Agency clearly understand policies for transmitting
information to Environmental Justice stakeholders in a timely^ accessible and understandable
fashion.
12. Establish site-specific community advisory boards where.there is sufficient and sustained
interest. To determine whether there is sufficient and sustained interest, at a minimum,
review correspondence files, review media coverage, conduct interviews with local-
community members and advertise in local newspapers. Ensure that the community
representation includes all aspects and diversity of the population. Organize a member
selection panel. Solicit nominations from the community. Consider providing administrative
and technical support to the community advisory board.
13. Schedule meetings and/or public hearings to make them accessible and user-friendly for
Environmental Justice stakeholders. Consider time frames that dont conflict with work
schedules, rush hours, dinner hours and other community commitments that may decrease
attendance. Consider locations and facilities that are local, convenient and which represent
-------
Revised 1/13/95
neutral turf. Ensure that facility meets American with Disabilities Act Statements for equal
access. Provide assistance for hearing impaired individuals. Whenever practical and
appropriate provide translators for limited-English speaking communities. Advertise the
meeting and its proposed agenda in a timely manner in the print and electronic media,
Provide a phone number and/or address for communities to find out about pending meetings,
issues, enter concerns or to seek participation or alter meeting agenda.
Create.an atmosphere of equal participation (avoid a "panel of experts'1 or "head table"); A
two day meeting is suggested with the .first day reserved for community planning and education.
Organize meetings to provide an open exchange of ideas and enough time to consider issues
of community concern. Consider the use of a neutral facilitator who is sensitive and trained in
environmental justice issues. Ensure that minutes of the meeting are publicly available. Develop
a mechanism to provide communities with feedback after meetings occur on actions being
considered.
14. Consider other vehicles to increase participation of Environmental Justice stakeholders
including:
Posters and Exhibits
. Participation in Civic and Community Activities
public Database and Bulletin Boards
Surveys
Telephone Hotlines
Training and Education Programs, Workshops and Materials
15. Be sure that trainers have a good understanding of the subject matter both technical and
administrative. The trainers are the Ambassadors of this program. If they dont understand
- no one will. -
16. Diversity in the workplace: whenever practical be sure that those individuals that are the
decision makers reflect the intent of the Executive Order and come from diverse backgrounds,
especially those of a community the agency will-have extensive interaction with.
17. After holding ?i public forum in a community establish a procedure to follow up with concrete
actions to address the communities' concerns. This will help to establish credibility for your
agency as having an active role in the federal government.
18. Promote interagency coordination to ensure that the most far reaching aspects of
environmental justice are sufficiently addressed in a timely manner. Environmental problems do
not occur along departmental lines. Therefore, solutions require many agencies and other
stakeholders to work together efficiently and effectively.
-------
Revised 1/13/95
19. Educate stakeholders about all aspects of environmental justice (functions, roles, jurisdiction,
structure and enforcement)
20. Ensure that research projects identify environmental justice issues and needs in communities,
and how to meet those needs through the responsible agencies.
21. Establish interagency working groups (at all levels) to address and coordinate issues of
environmental justice..
22. Provide information to communities about the government's role asit pertains to short term
and long term economic and environmental needs and health effects.
23. Train staff to support inter and intra .agency coordination, and make them aware of the
resources needed for such coordination.
24. Provide agency staff who are trained in cultural, linguistic and community outreach
techniques.
25. Hold workshops, seminars and other meetings to develop partnerships between agencies,
workers and community groups. (Ensure mechanisms are in place to ensure that partnerships can
be implemented via cooperative agreements, etc.)
26. Provide effective outreach, education and communications. Findings should be shared with
community members with an emphasis on being sensitive and respectful to race, ethnicity, gender,
language, and culture.
27. Design and implement education efforts tailored to specific communities and problems.
Increase the involvement of ethnic caucuses, religious groups, the press, and legislative staff in
resolution of Environmental Justice issues.
28. Assure active participation of affected communities in the decisionmaking process for
outreach, education, training and communities programs — including representation on advisory
councils and review committees.
29. Encourage federal and state governments to "reinvent government" — overhaul the
bureaucratic in favor of community responsive.
30. Link environmental issues to local economic issues to increase level of interest.
31. Use local businesses for environmental cleanup or other related activities.
32. Utilize, as appropriate, historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority
-------
Revised 1/13/95
Institutes (MI), Hispanic Serving Colleges and Universities (HSCU) and Indian Centers to
network and form community links that they can provide.
33. Utilize, as appropriate, local expertise for technical and science reviews.
34. Previous to conducting the first agency meeting, form an agenda with the assistance of
community and agency representatives.
35. Provide "open microphone" format during meetings to allow community members to.ask
questions and identify issues from the community.
-------
Bibliography:
"Interim report of the Federal Facilities Environmental.Rcstoration Dialogue Committee,"
February 1993, Environmental Protection Agency and the Keystone Center
"Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook," January 1992, Environmental Protection
Agency, Document # EPA-540-R-92-009 and # PB92-963341
DRAFT "Partnering Guide for DoD Environmental Missions," July 1994, Institute for Water
Resources, U.S.A.C.E
"Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Short Guide for Government Risk
Communications," September 1991, Environmental Communications Research Program,
New.Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Cook College, Rutgers University
OSD/DUSD/ES/OR/Ann Davlin/703/695-3329/28 September 94
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Administration and
Resources Management
(3103)
EPA/200-F-95-002
April 1995
Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ)
EPA Environmental Justice
Monitor—Special Edition
INTRODUCTION
The First Interagency Public Meeting on
Environmental Justice was held January 20,
1995, at Clark Atlanta University. This public
meeting provided citizens an opportunity to raise
concerns about environmental conditions in their
communities and to comment on the federal
agencies' environmental justice strategies.
Officials from a majority of Federal agencies
participated in the dynamic discussions, which at
times became highly emotional, as participants
expressed the need to have more influence on the
actions of Federal agencies, as well as Tribal,
state, and local government decision-making
processes which impact the environment of their
communities.
More than 1,000 community residents,
environmental justice leaders, and other
stakeholders participated in this historic public
meeting. Because of the significance of this
meeting, the Federal agencies wanted local
communities from across the nation to have
an opportunity to participate. Therefore, the
evening session was broadcast by satellite to
various locations, including several Historically
Black Colleges and Universities. A toll-free
phone line was available during the evening
session so that people from across the nation
could call in their comments to a panel of
Federal agency representatives.
The participants provided hundreds of pages of
comments, questions, and recommendations. A
transcript of that information, along with
responses from Federal agency representatives,
has been produced.
HIGHLIGHTS:
More than 1,000
stakeholders attend The
First Interagency Public
Meeting on
Environmental Justice.
Public Meeting broadcast
by satellite to hundreds
of people nationwide.
Major concerns raised
about enforcement,
public participation, and
information sharing.
PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC MEETING
On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations. The
order requires Federal agencies to develop
-------
strategies that integrate environmental justice into
their activities, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, by identifying and
addressing Federal actions that may have
disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority
populations and low-income populations. The
order also requires that the Interagency Working
Group on Environmental Justice be established.
The Working Group guides Federal agencies in
developing their environmental justice strategies.
The Working Group is comprised of a number of
Federal agencies and White House offices, which
is chaired by EPA Administrator Carol Browner
and coordinated by Kathy Aterno, Deputy
Assistant Administrator.
The Executive Order also requires the working
group to hold public meetings. At these
meetings, members of the public have the
opportunity to ask questions and make comments
and recommendations about environmental
justice issues. The meeting on January 20, 1995,
at Clark Atlanta University, was one of those
public meetings.
PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES
Services (HHS), Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Department of Defense (DOJ),
Department of Interior (DOI), and Department
of Labor (DOL) are also members of the task
force. A special Atlanta Steering Committee
was also established, with Bob Knox, EPA, as
chair, to help shape the agenda and the format of
the meeting. The groups represented included
DOD, DOE, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), the Southern
Organizing Committee, Clark Atlanta
University, the Alaska Native Health Board, the
Asian Pacific Environmental Network, the
Indigenous Environmental Network, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and Xavier
University.
For several months, the Outreach Task Force
and the Atlanta Steering Committee held
numerous meetings and conference calls to plan
and organize activities for the meeting. The task
force and steering committee members also
worked together to recommend an agenda,
structure, and communication strategy for the
public meeting.
INVITEES
The public meeting was a significant cooperative
effort by several Federal agencies who worked
together to assure that environmental justice
concerns from across the nation would be heard.
The Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice, and in particular its
Outreach Task Force, played a major role in
organizing the meeting. Georgia Johnson,
Department of Energy (DOE), and Nilda Mesa,
Department of Defense (DOD), are the co-chairs
of the Outreach Task Force. EPA, Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human
The Federal agencies made a major effort to
publicize the meeting and extended invitations to
all stakeholders. For individuals who could not
travel to Atlanta, the Interagency Working Group
sponsored downlink sites throughout the country
and the evening session was broadcast via
satellite to these sites. In early January, EPA
published a notice in the Federal Register to
confirm the meeting and to provide detailed
information on how all interested persons could
participate.
-------
ACTIVITIES AT THE PUBLIC MEETING
Proceedings
Below is a summary of the activities that took
place during the meeting, along with the names
of various presenters and panel members.
Participants
governments; Federal agencies; and private
individuals. A list of attendees is available from
the EPA Office of Environmental Justice in
Washington, D.C. The local telephone number
is (202) 260-6357. The toll-free telephone
number is 1-800-962-6215.
Plenary Session: Presentations and Comment
Period
More than 1,000 people participated in the
interagency public meeting at Clark Atlanta
University. The participants represented the
entire spectrum of stakeholders, including
representatives of grassroots and community-
based organizations; academic institutions;
businesses; industries; Tribal, state, and local
The plenary session began with remarks from
Thomas Cole, the President of Clark Atlanta
University; Carol Browner, the EPA
Administrator; and Dr. Robert Bullard, the
Director of the Environmental Justice Resource
Center at Clark Atlanta University. Following
Welcome
Thomas W. Cole, Jr.
President, Clark Atlanta University
Opening Remarks
Carol M. Browner
EPA Administrator
Remarks from Environmental Justice Leader
Dr. Robert Bullard
Director, Environmental Justice Resource Center,
Clark Atlanta University
Plenary Session: Presentations and Comment Period
Thomas P. Grumbly
Assistant Secretary of Environmental
Management, DOE
Wardell C. Townsend
Assistant Secretary of Administration, USDA
Lois J. Schiffer
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources, DOJ
Ken Olden
Director, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, HHS
Jean Nelson
General Counsel, EPA
Dialogue Sessions
I. Implementation and Outreach
II. Research, Health, and Data
HI. Enforcement and Compliance
IV. Native Americans and Indigenous People
V. Interagency Model Projects
Presentation Stations
- Representatives of Federal agencies staffed
presentation stations throughout the day
Televised Evening Session
Moderator - Julian Bond
Taped Remarks - Carol M. Browner
EPA Administrator
Remarks - Richard Moore
Chair, National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council
Panel Presentations - Lois Schiffer, DOJ; Thomas P.
Grumbly, DOE; Jean Nelson,
EPA; Dr. Reuben Warren,
CDC; and Wardell C.
Townsend, USDA
- Public and Stakeholder
Comments
- Thomas P. Grumbly, DOE
Open Forum
Closing Remarks
-------
the opening remarks, a panel of Federal
representatives from DOJ, USD A, EPA, HHS
and DOE, including Ms. Browner, listened to the
comments and concerns presented during the
public comment period. The comment period
originally was scheduled for approximately two
and one-half hours. To allow sufficient time for
all commentors, the comment period was
extended to approximately five and one-half
hours.
Thomas Crumbly served as the moderator for
the public comment period. Mr. Crumbly was
asked to serve as moderator because of his
special interest in and extensive experience
working with public health issues and
environmental protection programs. As the
Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management, Mr. Crumbly directs all
environmental management activities at DOE's
nuclear weapons sites.
Dialogue Sessions
In the late afternoon, the Federal agencies
conducted five dialogue sessions to provide an
opportunity for the public and other stakeholders
to discuss issues with Federal representatives.
The discussions focused on the following areas as
identified in the Executive Order: (1)
implementation and outreach; (2) enforcement
and compliance; (3) research, health, and data;
(4) Native Americans and indigenous people; and
(5) interagency model projects. Participants
selected the dialogue session that interested them
the most. Each session was professionally
facilitated and hosted by an Assistant or Deputy
Secretary from one of the Federal agencies.
Presentation Stations
All participants also had an opportunity to meet
directly with representatives of the Federal
agencies to discuss their environmental justice
strategies or to address specific environmental
concerns, at the presentation stations set up in the
Exhibition Hall. Copies of agency draft
environmental justice strategies were available at
each station and materials were provided that
explained the agency mission and environmental
justice initiatives. The materials helped
participants better understand the agencies'
current and planned programs to promote
environmental justice. EPA, DOD, DOE, DOI,
HHS, DOT, USDA, and HUD had presentation
stations.
Televised Comment Period
During the meeting, an evening public comment
period was held. This evening session was
broadcast to various locations across the nation
and in Puerto Rico. The Black College Satellite
Network broadcast the session live from the
television studio at Clark Atlanta University to
satellite downlink locations, including
Historically Black Colleges and Universities,
Haskell Indian Junior College, other community
colleges, and local television studios. EPA
Administrator, Carol Browner, provided the
opening remarks (taped earlier in the day) which
discussed the purpose of the meeting and
included an overview of the day's activities. A
toll-free telephone line was available during the
broadcast to enable participants at the downlink
locations to provide comments and
recommendations directly to the Federal agency
representatives.
The EPA Regional offices played a major role in
organizing and publicizing the meetings at the
-------
downlink locations. Invitations were sent to local
leaders in the environmental justice arena and
other local stakeholders in the area. The
Regions also used radio announcements and
newspaper advertisements to encourage other
members of the general public to participate.
Over 400 people registered at the downlink
locations across the United States and in Puerto
Rico. (See page 8 for some of the downlink
locations.) This telecast was also available to the
public through satellite downlink capability
viewing. Members of the viewing audience
posed approximately 20 questions to the panel.
Many more questions were offered, but because
of time limitations, not all questions were aired.
Forms were available at the downlink locations
to allow members of the audience to submit
additional comments or recommendations to the
Federal agencies.
Who Provided Comments?
Approximately 100 participants provided
comments during and after the public meeting.
The comments were directed to specific agencies
and to all agencies in general. EPA, DOI, and
DOJ received the largest numbers of agency-
specific comments. More than half the
comments were of a general nature and were
applicable to most, if not all, agencies.
Representatives from the stakeholder groups who
participated in the meeting in Atlanta or watched
the televised session at a downlink location also
provided comments. The majority of
commentors represented grassroots and
community-based organizations and Tribal
governments.
Official Record
Court stenographers were present at all sessions
and recorded the full text of comments and
discussions throughout the day, including the
televised comment period. A stenographer was
also present in the Exhibition Hall to provide an
additional opportunity for participants to enter
comments into the official record. The
stenographers prepared a transcript to provide
the Federal agencies with a complete record of
the issues and concerns raised. The transcript
serves as the official record of all responses the
representatives of Federal agencies provided
during the meeting. A separate list of all
commentators was also prepared from the
information presented in the transcript.
MAJOR ISSUES RAISED
Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies
to identify agency programs, policies, planning
and public participation, enforcement, and
rulemaking processes that should be revised to:
• Promote enforcement of environmental and
health statutes,
Ensure greater public participation,
Improve research and data collection related
to health and the environment, and
Identify differential patterns of consumption
of natural resources.
The participants presented issues and concerns
related to all these subject areas. In many cases,
participants also described the steps and actions
they would like the Federal agencies to take to
implement initiatives. For example:
Participants expressed concern that
enforcement of key environmental and health
laws historically has not provided equal
-------
protection to all citizen, and therefore
suggested that Federal agencies increase the
effectiveness of enforcement and compliance
mechanisms to ensure universal protection of
all citizens from adverse effects on health
and the environment.
Participants recommended that enforcement
settlements go beyond monetary fines and
penalties to tangible improvements in the
communities. Alternatives include requiring
investments in pollution prevention and
conservation practices.
Participants stated that methods of
conducting public hearings should be
revised. They explained that public
participation, a cornerstone of environmental
justice, cannot be meaningful unless
stakeholders are consulted before an activity
or project is undertaken.
Participants asked Federal agencies to
improve public access to information on
human health and the environment,
community outreach, and the establishment
of partnerships. Participants voiced
frustration that Federal agencies are not
communicating information effectively, nor
conducting proper outreach to enhance
community-based environmental protection.
Several participants called for alternative
ways to involve the public in decision
making, other than through dissemination of
information. For example, one community
organization requested that funds be drawn
from agency programs to provide a system
of community-based working groups
consisting primarily of citizens affected by
pollution. The working groups would be
essential to identifying clean-up decisions
from the bottom up.
'^j Participants provided information to show
that many contaminated and hazardous
facilities are located in minority, rural, or
remote areas. Lack of readily accessible
information is a cause of strong concern
among people living in these communities.
They added that the information that is
available is often incomplete or incorrect;
too technical; or restricted as confidential,
with no explanation provided.
Participants raised concerns that existing
methodologies for research, data collection,
and analysis tend to ignore the special
concerns of minority and low-income
populations, such as different patterns of fish
or wildlife consumption, and cultural
differences in the use of natural resources.
Improvements in research, data collection,
and analysis related to the environment and
health were requested.
Participants also explained that the
synergistic effects of multiple and cumulative
exposures have not been considered in the
identification of environmental and health
risks borne by minorities and low-income
communities. Agencies were requested to
revise risk assessment methodologies and
identify opportunities for public participation
in the development of research strategies.
The participants called for better cooperation
and coordination among agencies in
conducting research and collecting data.
Participants raised several concerns about
Tribal sovereignty and its relation to
considerations of environmental justice. The
Tribal grassroots organizations recognize the
significance of the government-to-
government relationship that exists and asked
that this relationship be enhanced between
the Tribal governments and Federal
-------
government. Sustained sovereignty of Tribal
nations is of great importance to Tribal
grassroots organizations. However, Tribal
grassroots organizations are seeking a more
participatory role in the decision-making
processes of their Tribal governments,
particularly in the activities and programs
that impact environment and health.
Members of Tribal grassroots organizations
also expressed frustration with a failure of
Federal agencies to enforce compliance with
environmental laws and regulations at the
local level. These Tribal members believe
that Indian lands should be protected by the
nation's environmental laws and in the same
manner as the rest of the country.
Participants also stated that Federal agencies
have an obligation to provide technical
resources and training for minority and low-
income populations to equip them to better
understand issues and better contribute to the
decision-making processes. Several
commented that their communities cannot be
adequately represented or participate without
the assistance of a technical advisor.
Concerns were raised that minority and low-
income communities, in the greatest need of
grants, are at a disadvantage because they
are unfamiliar with the grant application
processes. Agencies need to provide better
information about the grant processes.
RESPONSE BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO
COMMENTS
The Federal agencies responded directly to many
of the issues and concerns raised at the meeting.
During the dialogue sessions, agency
representatives had a greater opportunity to
provide responses, but because of the large
number of comments and the limited time
available, agencies were not able to provide an
immediate response to every question or
comment. However, there was a commitment to
follow up on all comments. The Federal
agencies are currently redrafting their strategies,
utilizing the information and suggestions
provided by the participants at the public meeting
and by other stakeholders following the meeting.
FUTURE MEETINGS
Some Federal agencies are planning their own
public meetings to obtain comments from
stakeholders on the implementation of their
agency's environmental justice strategies.
Meetings conducted by individual agencies, as
well as interagency meetings, are anticipated.
Several EPA Regional offices are also
considering conducting local meetings to solicit
comment on the implementation of their Regional
environmental justice strategies. For more
information about the scheduling of EPA and
other interagency meetings, please contact the
EPA Office of Environmental Justice in
Washington, D.C. The local telephone number
is (202) 260-6357. The toll-free telephone
number is 1-800-962-6215.
-------
INTERAGENCY PUBLIC MEETING ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
REGISTERED DOWNLINK LOCATIONS
Cambridge Community Television
Cambridge, MA '
Manhattan Borough Community College
New York City, NY
Metropolitan University of San Juan
San Juan, PR
EPA Headquarters
Washington, DC
Clark Atlanta University
Atlanta, GA
Department of Health
Columbia, SC
Calumet College of St. Joseph
Whiting, IN
Chicago Access Corporation
Chicago, IL
Haskell Indian Junior College
Lawrence, KS
Kansas City Kansas Community College
Kansas City, KS
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Kansas City, MO
Channel 7 Studios
Denver, CO
Texas Southern University
Houston, TX
California State University at Hayward
San Francisco, CA
-------
TO STAY ON OUR MAILING UST...
In order to update our current mailing list, we are asking you to please check the appropriate line(s) below.
If we do not receive this form by April 26, we will assume you want to be removed from our mailing list.
YES, I would like to stay on the Office of Environmental Justice mailing list. Please note the
necessary changes as requested below.
I am a new subscriber.
NO, I no longer wish to receive information from the Office of Environmental Justice.
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
Name:
Title:
Organization:.
Address:
Phone: - - Fax:
Type of Organization: (Circle as Appropriate) Academia Community/Grassroots Business/Industry
Tribal Govt. State/Local Govt. Federal GovL Enviro. Group Other Non-Profit
Ethnk Focus (Optional): African American Asian American Caucasian
Hispanic Native American
Information Desired: Grants Reports/Updates Federal Advisory Committee Material
fold here to mail ••• —
Place
Stamp
Here
US EPA
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
(3103) - MAILING LIST
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
SERVICE
CONFLICT PREVENTION
AND RESOLUTION
PROGRAM
CUSTOMER SERVICE PLAN
-------
OUR MISSION
The Community Relations Service (CRS) is an agency of the U.S. Department of
Justice. As part of its Conflict Prevention and Resolution Program, CRS assists
communities to reduce tensions, and prevent and resolve conflicts based on race,
color, or national origin.
OUR AUTHORITY
The Federal law that gives us the authority to assist communities is TITLE X of the
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000g).
OUR CUSTOMERS
You are a potential customer if your community is experiencing tensions or
conflicts arising from actions, policies, and practices that are perceived to be
discriminatory on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
OUR SERVICES
CRS provides mediation, conciliation, technical assistance, and training directly to
communities around the country. Some examples of our services are listed below.
• We assist Mayors, City Council members, police chiefs, and community
representatives in developing and implementing approaches for reducing or
minimizing community tensions that accompany racial or ethnic conflicts.
• We facilitate communication between representatives of different
racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Blacks and Koreans), to help prevent tensions and
reduce the potential for violence.
• We work with local communities to reduce racial tensions that may result
when a hate incident occurs and to create an environment that prevents hate
activity.
• We help to reduce violence within schools, by providing conflict
management and resolution, and cultural diversity training for school
officials, school system training staff, counselors, and, in appropriate
instances, teachers and students.
• We provide cross-cultural training for law enforcement officials to help
minimize the potential for conflict in the interactions with the communities
they serve, particularly in instances where these communities include
diverse racial and ethnic groups.
-------
• We provide local authorities and community representatives with
publications and other materials to assist them in understanding and
implementing community policing.
• We assist Indian tribal leaders and State and local officials to resolve
conflicts over burial remains, fishing rights, and other jurisdictional issues.
• We work with communities to develop and implement contingency plans for
preventing racial or ethnic conflicts at major events.
There is no cost for our service.
OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
Our goal is to provide sensitive and effective conflict prevention and resolution
services. To this end, we have set Customer Service Standards that you can expect
us to meet when we work with you. Our standards are listed below.
STANDARD 1:
We will clearly explain the process that CRS uses to address racial and ethnic
conflicts, and our role in that process.
STANDARD 2:
We will provide opportunities for all parties involved to contribute to, and work
toward, a solution to the racial or ethnic conflict
STANDARD 3:
If you are a participant in a CRS training session or conference, we will provide
useful information and materials that will assist you in preventing or minimizing
racial and ethnic tensions. If you would like more information, we will work with
you to identify additional materials to meet your need, within three weeks of
learning of your need.
STANDARD 4:
We will be prepared to provide on-site services in major racial or ethnic crisis
situations, within 24 hours of either when your community notifies CRS or CRS
becomes aware of the crisis.
STANDARD 5:
-------
In non-crisis situations, we will contact you within three days of when your
community notifies CRS, or CRS becomes aware of the situation, to discuss your
request for CRS services.
HOW TO CONTACT US
We welcome your comments or requests for assistance at any time. You -Tnay
contact us at any of our Regional Offices, or at our Headquarters Office in
Washington, D.C. Addresses and telephone numbers are on the next panel.
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE
REGIONAL OFFICES AND STATES WITHIN EACH REGION
Region 1 - New England
RD*: Martin Walsh
EJC**: Josephine Carabello
(ME,VT,NH,MA,CT,RD
99 Summer Street
Room 1820
Boston, MA 02110
617/424-5715
Region II - Northeast
RD: Patricia Glenn
EJC: Moses Jones
(NY.NJ.Virgin ls.,Puerto Rico)
26 Federal Plaza
Room 3402
New York, NY 10278
212/264-0700
Region III - Mid-Atlantic
RD: Jonathan Chace
EJC: Ada Montare
(PA,WV,VA,MD,DE,DC)
2nd & Chestnut Streets
Room 208
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215/597-2344
Region IV - Southeast
RD: Ozell Sutton
EJC: Leon Burruss
(NC,SC,KY,TN,MS,AL,GA,FL)
75 Piedmont Ave., NE
Room 900
Atlanta, GA 30303
404/331-6883
Miami Field Office
51 S.W. First Avenue
Room 424
Miami, FL 33130
305/536-5206
*RD: Regional Director
**EJC: Environmental
Justice Coordinator
Region V - Midwest
RD: Jessie Taylor
EJC: Anita Cochran
(IL,OH,MI,IN,WI,MN)
55 W. Monroe Street
Room 420
Chicago, DL 60603
312/353-4391
Detroit Field Office
211 W. Fort Street
Suite 1404
Detroit, MI 48226
313/226-4010
Region VI - Southwest
RD: Gilbert J. Chavez
EJC: Augustus Taylor
Richard Sambrano
(TX,OK,AR,LA,NM)
1420 W. Mockingbird
Suite 250
Dallas, TX 75247
214/655-8175
Houston Field Office
515 Rusk Avenue
Room 12605
Houston, TX 77002
713/229-2861
Region VII - Central
RD: Atkins Warren
EJC: Joseph Rodriguez
(MO,KS,NE,IA)
323 W. 8th Street
Suite 301
Kansas City, MO 64105
816/374-6522
Region VIII - Rocky Mtn.
RD: Leo Cardenas
EJC: Wilbur Reed
(CO,WY,UT,MT,SD,ND)
1244 Speer Blvd.
Room 650
Denver, CO 80204-3584
303/844-2973
Region IX - Western
RD: Julian Klugman
EJC: Julian Klugman
(CA,HI,AZ,NV.Guam, Am. Samoa)
33 New Montgomery Street
Suite 1840
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/744-6565
Los Angeles Field Office
EJC: Stephen Thorn
888 S. Figueroa Street
Room 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213/894-2941
Region X - Northwest
RD: Robert Lamb
EJC: Diane P. Schneider
(WA,OR,ID,AK)
915 Second Avenue
Room 1898
Seattle, WA 98174
206/220-6700
Headquarters Office
AD: Jeffrey Weiss
EJC: George E. Henderson
5550 Friendship Blvd.
Suite 330
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
301/492-5929
301/492-5969
-------
STAGES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION*
I. Identifying the Problem
* Learn the Positions and Interests of the Parties
* Why are they in conflict?
> Conduct in confidence and without publicity
> Avoid appearance as a threat or federal heavy-weight
II. Analyzing the Problem
* To find common ground
• Analyze Needs: theirs and yours
• Know your resources
• Gain trust of the players
• Test your impartiality
• Any communication obstacles, e.g., cultural or
linguistic differences
III. Planning a Strategy for Resolution
> Involve all Players: get them to buy into being part of the
solution
* Protect the Plan: anticipate political ramifications or other
obstructions at implementation tune
* Establish mechanisms for long term solutions
> Do a reality check of proposed solutions
IV. Action: Implementing the Solution
+ Whose responsibility
> Monitor outcome of conflict resolution
* Evaluate satisfaction of resolution by parties
*The CRS Approach to Conflict Resolution
-------
A CONFLICT RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK*
ANALYSIS
PLANNING
PROBLEM
DISPUTE/CONFLICT
ACTION
-------
CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS*
The3Ls: LOOK- LISTEN- LEARN
• Assess a Situation Before Taking Action
• Anticipate and Plan for Conflict
• Work Hard on How Conflict Will Be Resolved
• Separate People From the Problem
• Appreciate How Perceptions Shape Conflict
• Uncover People's Real Interests
• Prepare to be Educated and to Re-assess
Plans Based on What You Learn
• Observe Role of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and
Age, on How People Perceive the World
• Do Some Introspection as to Outcome Desired
• Present a Unified and Competent Public Posture
• Consider Using a Third Party to Help You
*Submitted by CRS
-------
UO/A.L/O.J
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(5101)
550-F-95-003
April 1995
LANDVIEW
ORIGINS
T andViewH™
ij grows out of an
earlier joint venture
of EPA and the
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration to
develop software for
dealing with chemi-
cal accidents under
the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act The software in
LandView is an adaptation of MARPLOT ™
DOS, a mapping component of the CAMEO ™
system (Computer-Aided Management of
Emergency Operations). Through the mapping
in CAMEO, the Bureau of Census wanted to
be able to display the TIGER/Line files, show-
ing a detailed network of the country's physi-
cal features and related demographic informa-
tion. Census' collaboration with EPA and
LandView ™ II is an innovative "community right-to-know" software tool.
In the format of an electronic atlas, published on CD-ROM discs,
LandView can be used on standard personal computers. The information
that LandView displays in maps and tables combines EPA databases
with geographic features and statistics on demographics and economics
from the 1990 Census. While LandView lends itself to a myriad of appli-
cations, two principal uses will be to help local communities evaluate
environmental risks and identify areas of concern for environmental jus-
tice. LandView is the product of a collaboration among EPA, the Bureau
of the Census, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
displayed on detailed maps constructed from
Census data. Specifically, LandView includes
the following information from the Bureau of
the Census: TIGER/Line files that include
detailed networks of roads, rivers, railroads,
and landmarks as well as boundaries of states,
counties, congressional districts, cities and
towns, tribal lands, census tracts and block
groups, and metropolitan areas. Linked to this
information, LandView n includes 1990 demo-
graphic and economic census data, including
NOAA resulted in LandView I, now expanded population and household characteristics
through the addition of other EPA facility- drawn from two databases with statistics on
related databases into LandView II. . race, age, and income for census tracts and
block groups.
WHAT'S IN LANDVIEW?
I andView n offers information from the
1-'l990 Census and from five EPA databases,
I nformation in LandView from the
-1- Environmental Protection Agency includes
a subset of the facilities, sites, and monitoring
stations from five databases. Together with
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
|Printed on recycled paper
-------
\& UOJ/OUJ
ApnV 1995
the Census information noted above, the
following information can be displayed on
LandView H's maps:
* From the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS), air quality infor-
mation and point sources for pollutants
identified through the Clean Air Act
From the Biennial Reporting System
(BRS), information on treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities and major generar
tors of hazardous waste
From the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), the
National Priority Listed Sites under
Superf und, and other sites
From the Permit Compliance System,
facilities holding NPDES permits for dis-
charging wastewater under the Clean
Water Act
*• From the Toxic Release Inventory, facilities
repprting yearly estimates of emissions of
over 300 toxic chemicals to the air, water,
or land'or that are transported off site
TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE
I andView is designed to be a self-taught,
•^ 'easy-to-use system on ordinary IBM-
compatible PCs with a CD-ROM reader and
VGA color graphics. HELP screens are
available on the system as well as an elec-
tronic user's manual to help the user get
started; In addition, a printed summary
brochure is included with each CD.
LandView n covers the entire United States
and territories and Puerto Rico on a set of 10
CD-ROM discs. Each CD of the 10 contains
a specific geographic coverage, software
needed for display/and the EPA and Census
data for that geographic area. An eleventh
nationwide disc includes all information
except detailed TIGER/Line files. On this
disc, TIGER/Line files are included only for
the!2 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
To ORDER LANDVIEW AND OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION
For more information on LandView li and for information about the EPA databases
in LandView, call the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Information Hotline: 1-800-535-0202.
For more information about Census data, and to purchase LandView II, call the
Bureau of the Census Customer Services: 301-457-4100. •
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention.Office
-------
05/11/95 16:34 7S2Q2 260 4580 CIVIL RIGHTS 1^)002
OPPT Environmental Justice Spatial Analysis Tools
EPA has established grants to promote Environmental Justice
through Pollution Prevention. Part of this project involves production and
dissmination of spatial analysis tools for analyzing facility and population
characteristics.
Goals
• Improve access to data and analysis capabilities to empower
citizens to fully participate in environmental decision-making
• Build software and data which allow users to analyze facility and
community data and produce summaries, maps, 'and graphics
• Provide supporting documentation, workshops, telephone support,
and guidance manuals
Current Status: Now Developing Prototype
Milestones
User requirements analysis August 1994 to June, 1995
Prototype development July, 1995
Begin beta testing August, 1995
CD-ROM production November, 1995
Initial release to public January, 1996
Background
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are often used to analyze
spatial and statistical relationships between potential pollution
sources and communities, but have required signficant investments
!
• EPA and other agencies produce major sets of relevant geographic,
demographic, and environmental data in GIS format
• EJ organizations have requested access to EPA's GIS tools
For More Loren Hall, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408)
Information: (202) 260-3931; Email hall.loren@epamail.epa.gov
WIC Technology Showcase May 2-4. 1995
-------
File Edil Table" Field Window Help
!• ^HMP^fe^SsJ^^WSiPsiisf
-------
Office on Environmental Policy
& Domestic Policy Council
Whilo Houso Liason
Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice
Chair: Carol Browner, EPA Administrator
Level: Cabinet Secretaries of
DOJ, HHS, DOC, HUD, DOT, USDA, DOL,
• • DOI, DOE, DOD
Heads of
OMB, OSTP, CEA, CEQ, DPC, OEP, EPA, NASA, NRC
Subcommittee on Policy and Coordination
Task Force Chairpersons and Staff
Level: Undersecretary, Deputy
DOJ, HHS, DOC, HUD, DOT, USDA, DOL, DOI,
DOE, DOD, OMB, OSTP, CEA, CEQ, DPC, OEP, EPA, NASA, NRC
Task Force on
Research and
Hearth
Co-Chair: HHS
OOL
Task Force on
Outreach
Co-Chair: DOE
DOD
Task Force on
Data
Co-Chairs: DOC
HHS
Task Force on
Enforcement and
Compliance
Co-Chairs: DOJ
DOT
Task Force on
Implementation
Co-Chairs: CEQ
EPA
Task Force on
Native Americans
Co-Chairs: DOI
USDA
Task Force on
Definitions and
Standards
Co-Chairs: EPA
DOJ
Task Force on
Interagency
Projects
Co-Chairs: HUD
DOT
&2CV94
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
(A Federal Advisory Committee)
August 16,1994
Chain Richard Moore
Designated Federal Official: Clarice Gaylord
Dr. Robert Bullard
Environmental Justice Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
223 Brawley Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Ph: 404/880-6920
FAX: 404/880-6909
Mr. Charles McDermott
Waste Management Inc.
1155 Conn. Ave.NW Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Ph: 202/467-4480
FAX: 202/659-8752
Ms. Mable Butler
County Commissioner
P.O. Box 1393
Orlando, Florida 32802
Ph: 407/836-7350
FAX: 407/836-5879 ,
-------
Ms. Deeohn Ferris
Alliance for Washington Office for Environmental Justice
413 14th St. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Ph: 202/396-7456
FAX: None
Ms. Cindy Thomas
Alaska Native Health Board
Tanana Chiefs Council
1345 Rudakof Circle, Suite 206
Anchorage, AK 99508
Ph: 907/337-002S
FAX: 907/333-2001
Ms. Nathalie Walker
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
400 Magazine Street, Suite 401
New Orleans, LA 70130
Ph: 504/283-S570
FAX: 504/566-7242
Dr. Beverly Wright
Deep South Ctr for Env Justice
Xavier University
8131 Aberdeen Road
New Orleans, LA70126
Ph: 504/483-7340
FAX: 504/488-7977
Mr. Michael Pierle
Monsanto
800 North Landburgh St
SL Louis, MO 63167
Ph: 314/694-8882
FAX: 314/694-8957
Ms. Mililani Trask
Gibson Foundation
400 Hualani St^uite 194 Hilo
Honolulu, HI 96720
Ph: 808/961-2888
FAX: 808/935-8854
-------
Mr. John O'Leary, Esq.
Pierce, Atwood & Scribner
One Monument Square
Portland, ME 04468
Ph: 207/773-6411
FAX: 207/773-3419
Mr. John Hall, Chairman
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Ph: 512/463-7901
FAX: 512/475-2332
Ms. Laurie Morissette
EG & G, Inc.
8809 Sudley Road
Manassas, VA22110
Ph: 703/330-4321
FAX: 703/330-4050
Ms, Jean Sindab
National CouncU of Churches
476 Riverside Drive Room 572
New York, NY 10115-0050
Ph: 212/870-2385
FAX: 212/870-3112
Dr. Herman Ellis
Rohm and Haas Company (CMA) - Engineering Division Location
P.O. Box 584
Bristol, PA 19007
Ph: 215/785-7440
FAX: 215/785-7227
Dr. Bunyan Bryant
University of Michigan
School of Natural Resources
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Ph: 313/769-4493
FAX: 313/998-0071
-------
Mr. Charles Lee, Dir. of Res.
United Church of Christ Commission on Environmental Justice
475 Riverside Dr, Suite 1948
New York, NY 10015
Ph: 212/870-2077
FAX: 212/870-2162
Mr. Richard Lazarus
Washington Univ School of Law
One Brookings Drive
SL Louis, MO 63130
Ph: 314/935-6495
FAX: 314/935-6493
Mr. Richard Moore
Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice
21110th Street, S.W.
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Ph: 505/242-0416
FAX: 505/242-5609
Ms. Dolores Hen-era
Albuquerque San Jose Community Awareness Council, Inc.
P. O. Box 12297
Albuquerque, NM 87195-2297
Ph: 505/243-4837
FAX: 505/243-3085
Ms. Velma Veloria
House of Representatives
Washington State Legislature
403 John L. O'Brien Bldg 1511 South Ferdinand St.
Orympia,WA 98504-0622 Seattle, WA 98101
Ph: 206/720-3049
FAX: 206/720-3053
Mr. Baldemar Velasquez, Director
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
3352 Plainview Dr.
Toledo, OH 43615
Ph: 419/243-3456
FAX: 419/243-5655
-------
Dr. Clarice Gaylord, Director (Designated Federal Official)
Office of Environmental Justice (3103)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Ph: 202/260-6357
FAX: 202/260-0852
August 19,1994
-------
WASTE & FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
Jan Young, DFO
US EPA (5101)
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460 August 16, 1994
(ll:44am)
Mr. David Hahn-Baker
Inside Out, Inc.
440 Lincoln Parkway
Buffalo, NY 14216
Ms. Sue Briggum
WMX
1155 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
Ms. Irasema Coronado
University of Arizona
2650 North Green Place
Nogales, AZ 85621
Dr. Mildred McClain
Citizens for Environmental Justice
P.O. Box 1841
Savannah, GA 31402
Ms. Lillian Kawasaki
LA Dept. of the Env.
City Hall-Mail Stop 177
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, C A 90012
Mr. Tom Kennedy
ATSWHO
444 North Capitol Street, Suite 388
Washington, D.C. 20001
Mr. Jon Sesso, Planning Director
Silverbow Mt. Planning Committee
155 West Granite Street
Butte,MT 59701
Mr. Lenny Siegel
Pacific Studies Center
222-B View Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Mr. Jonathan Taylor
Cherokee Nation
P. O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ms. Patricia Williams
National Wildlife Federation
1400 16th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Mr. Kevin Ladaris
Student Environmental Action
Coalition
P.O. Box 1168
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-1168
Mr. Michael Guerrero
SWOF
211 10th Street S.W.
Albuquerque, MM 87102
Mr. Charles Lee, Research Director
United Church of Christ Commission on
Racial Justice
475 Riverside Dr., Suite 1948
New York, NY 10015
-------
WASTE & FACILITY SITING SUBCOMMITTEE
Jan Young, DFO
US EPA (5101)
401 M. Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460 August 16, 1994
(ll:44am)
Mr. Michael Pierle
Monsanto
800 North Lindburgh St.
St. Louis, MO 63167
Ms. Connie Tucker
Southern Organizing Committee
P.O. Box 10518
Atlanta, GA 30310
Ms. Fran Dubrowski, Chair
Alliance for Justice
1601 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20009
Mr. Donald Elisburg
Laborer's Intl. Union of North America
11713 Rosalinda Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
Ms. Nathalie Walker
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
400 Magazine Street, Suite 401
New Orleans, LA 70130
Ms. Velma Veloria
House of Representatives
Washington State Legislature
403 John O'Brien Bldg
Olympia, WA 98504-0622
-------
HEALTH and RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
Lawrence Martin, DFO
US EPA (8105)
Washington, DC 20460 Aug 15, 1994
(9:00 am)
Mr. Tom Goldtooth
Red Band of Chippewa Indians
P.O. Box 485
Bemjidi, MN 56601
Mr. Jose T. Bravo
Environmental Health Coalition
1717 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
Dr. Ben Goldman, Research Director
Jobs and the Environment
168 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02134
Mr. Raphael Metzgar
COSSHMO
1501 Sixteenth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dr. Janet Phoenix, Director
Public Health Programs
National Lead Information Center
1019 19th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5105
Mr. Bailus Walker
University of Oklahoma
College of Public Health
P.O. Box26901
Oklahoma City, OK 73190
Dr. Robert Bullard
Environmental Justice Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
223 Brawley Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30314
Dr. Bunyan Bryant
University of Michigan
School of Natural Resources
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Dr. Herman Ellis
Rohm and Haas Company (CMA)
P. O. Box 584
Bristol, PA 19007
Ms. Hazel Johnson
People for Community Recovery
13116 South Ellis Ave.
Chicago, IL 60627
Mr. Chuck McDermott
Waste Management, Inc.
1155 Conn. Ave., N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
ACCOUNTABILITY SUBCOMMITTEE
Robert Knox, DFO
U.S. EPA (3103)
Washington, DC 20460 Aug 17, 1994
Ms. Dana Alston
Public Welfare Foundation
2600 Virginia Avenue N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20037
Mr. Carl Anthony
Earth Island Institute & Urban Habitat
300 Broadway, Suite 128
San Francisco, CA 94133
Mr. Domingo Gonzales
Texas Center for Policy Studies
164 Pearl Street
Brownsville, TX 78521
Ms. Mable Butler
Orange County Commissioner
P. O. Box 1393
Orlando, FL 32802
Ms. Pamela Tau Lee
Labor Occupational Health Program
University of California at Berkeley
2515 Charming Way
Berkeley, CA 94720
Ms. Jean Sindab
National Council of Churches
467 Riverside Drive, Rm 572
New York, NY 10115-0050
Ms. Dolores Herrera
Albuquerque San Jose Community
Awareness Council, Inc.
P. O. Box 12297
Albuquerque, NM 87195-2297
Dr. Beverly Wright
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
Xavier University
8131 Aberdeen Road
New Orleans, LA 70126
Mr. John O'Leary, Esq.
Pierce, Atwood & Scribner
One Monument Square
Portland, ME 04468
Ms. Cindy Thomas
Alaska Native Health Board
Tanana Chiefs Council
1345 Rudakof Circle, Suite 206
Anchorage, AK 99508
Ms. Peggy Saika
Asian Pacific Environment Network
3126 California Street
Oakland, CA 94602
-------
ENFORCEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Sherry Milan - DFO
Mail Code (2261)
August 11, 1994 (9:48am)
Ms. Hope Babcock
Georgetown Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Mr. Pat Bryant
Executive Director
Gulf Coast Tenants Organization
1866 North Gayso Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Ms. Sylvia Herrera
People Organized in Defense of
Earth Resources (PODER)
55 North Interstate Hwy 35, Suite 205B
Austin, TX 78702
Mr. Arthur Ray
PEPCO Environmental Group
Licensing and Permits Department
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20068
Ms. Denise Ferguson-Southard
Maryland Department of the
Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Ms. Gail Small
Executive Director
Native Action
Box 316
Lame Deer, MT 59043
Mr. Richard Moore
Southwest Network for Environmental and
Economic Justice
211 10th Street, S.W.
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Ms. Deeohn Ferris
Alliance for Washington Office for EJ
413 14thSt.N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Mr. Richard Lazarus
Washington University School of Law
One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO 63130
Ms. Laurie Morissette
EG & G, Inc.
8809 Sudley Road
Manassas, VA 22110
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF SECOND MEETING
AUGUST 3-5, 1994
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) held its second
meeting on August 3-5, 1994, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The meeting focused on NEJAC's leadership, .procedures and rules of operation, work
products, and mission. The subcommittees (Public Participation and Accountability,
Enforcement, Waste and Facility Siting, and Health and Research) met for the first time.
The NEJAC also heard public comments.
EPA established NEJAC pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act to
provide independent expert advice and counsel to the Agency on policy matters related
to managing environmental justice. The Council is authorized to have 25 members,
including representatives of: academia; industry; community groups; nongovernmental
organizations; state, tribal, and local governments; and environmental organizations. A
list of the NEJAC members and its subcommittees in attendance at the Albuquerque
meeting is provided in Appendix A. These minutes summarize the Council's discussions
and resolutions by subject area, not chronological order.
1. OPENING REMARKS
The meeting began with an introduction of the council members. Mr. John Hall,
Chair of the NEJAC, convened the meeting and welcomed all attendees. Council
members immediately began to raise issues such as the process of selecting the Chair and
additional council members, and EPA revisions to the meeting's agenda. Several
members felt that EPA's actions on these process issues set an adversarial tone which
raised doubts about EPA's sincerity.
Dr. Gaylord introduced a facilitator, Denise Hawkins, who suggested that the
Council address several of these process issues and then set the meeting's agenda. The
council agreed to develop "principles of operation" that resolved several of the process
issues. Afterwards the council developed the meeting's agenda.
Full NEJAC Council Page 1
-------
2. PROCESS ISSUES
The Council discussed several process issues with Dr. Gaylord, and Kathy Aterno.
The three major categories of concern were: early notification, NEJAC autonomy, and
timely reimbursement. The process issues resulted in five principles of operation for the
NEJAC.
Early Notification
The Council was concerned that they: (1) had not received written materials for
the meeting in time to review them before arriving; (2) were not informed of the
Administrator's decision on new members early enough; and (3) should be given greater
advanced notice when meetings or conference calls are scheduled.
Dr. Gaylord apologized for the late distribution of written materials and assured
the Council that she will try to expedite the process. She explained that although her
office cannot determine when the Administrator's decisions will be made, she will build a
better process for notifying the Council as soon as she knows of any decision. Lastly, Dr.
Gaylord committed to do better at early scheduling.
NEJAC Autonomy
Council members were concerned that its recommendations were not being
implemented, thus suggesting a lack of respect for NEJAC as a whole. This sentiment
revolved around three issues: (1) the selection of the Chair; (2) the selection of
Subcommittees for NEJAC members; and (3) the significant changes made by EPA to
the agenda developed by the Protocol Working Group.
The Council debated the issue of the selection of the Chair and Subcommittee
members. The Council decided to hold a vote expressing their views on the Chair. Dr.
Gaylord resolved the issue of Subcommittee appointments by suggesting that any Council
member who was dissatisfied with their appointment should speak with her individually.
Several Council members stated that if the Protocol Group, or any other body of
NEJAC, were assigned a task such as developing an agenda, that significant changes
should not be made without consulting the group. The Council agreed that flexibility is
important and should be maintained, however changes should be communicated.
Timely Reimbursement
Bunyan Bryant, raised the issue of timely reimbursement for travel expenses and
facilitating travel expenses for those without credit cards. He suggested that the Agency
may be creating hardship for participants by not allowing up-front allotments for travel
and not processing reimbursements fast enough. Kathy Aterno explained that EPA as a
Full NEJAC Council Page 2
-------
whole does not provide up-front travel allotments and that the problem is an agency-wide
issue. Deeohn Ferris pointed out that the bottleneck is not within the Office of
Environmental Justice. Dr. Gaylord concurred and noted that the Agency generally takes
between 30 and 45 days to process a travel reimbursement. She also committed to
process the paperwork in the Office of Environmental Justice within one or two days of
receipt of a member's travel voucher and expenses.
Principles of Operation
The discussion of process issues resulted in the development of five principles of
operation intended to guide NEJAC/EPA activities. They are:
1) EPA should provide written materials to council members seven (7)
days prior to scheduled meetings.
2) When the Council is assigned a task and makes a decision, EPA
should not make substantial changes to the decision. Significant
changes suggest a lack of respect for NEJAC.
3) When the Council makes specific requests or proposals, EPA should
relay decisions to the Council immediately. (The details of that
decision can be discussed at a later date.) ,
4) Council members should be given sufficient advance notice when
meetings or conference calls are scheduled.
5) The travel reimbursement process should be expedited to limit
financial burdens to the Council.
3. VOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE CHAIR
Several Council members felt that the Chair of NEJAC should be elected by
Council me'mbers, not appointed by the Administrator. Another concern was that the
Chair should not be the head of a state agency that may be liable for environmental
discrimination. The Council, with Mr. Hall's support, decided to conduct a vote in order
to express their views.
In response to dissatisfaction expressed by some members of the Council
regarding the appointment of the Chair by the Administrator rather than the election of
a Chair by the Council, Mr. John Hall-resigned from his position as Chair of the Council.
Mr. Hall indicated that the manner of his appointment had become an obstacle to
council progress, and, as environmental justice was an important issue, he no longer
wished his role as Chair to impede the Council's progress. He stated that the Council
needed to move ahead and not squander the opportunity to affect policy on
environmental justice issues. ,
Full NEJAC Council Page 3
-------
The Council discussed the aspects of the vote. Several members expressed their
satisfaction with Mr. Hall's ability to chair the Council. One sentiment, shared by all, was
that the vote was necessary in order to
move the Council to address substantive
environmental justice issues.
We came here to take care of business.
What we're really talking about is
environmental democracy... from the
bottom up, not from the top down. We
want to make a new democracy that is
environmental as well as an economic
democracy.
Richard Moore
Charles Lee introduced the
following motion: "For the record,
NEJAC expresses its concern regarding
the improper message being sent in the
formation of the first NEJAC by: (1) the
fact that the Chair was appointed rather
than elected; and, (2) the fact that the
head of a governmental entity charged
with making official decisions on environmental justice was selected." The motion was
seconded and the Council voted. The motion passed with 9 for, 2 against, and 3
abstentions. The Council elected to wait until Friday to elect the new Chair. In the
meantime, Dr. Gaylord served as the Acting Chair as the Designated Federal Official of
NEJAC.
4.
ELECTION OF THE CHAIR
On Friday, Richard Moore was nominated to serve as Chair of NEJAC. He
accepted the nomination. No other Council members accepted nominations for the
Chair. The Council voted to accept Richard Moore as the nominee for the Chair of
NEJAC. Dr. Gaylord pointed out that the nomination must be approved by the
Administrator.
5.
BY-LAWS
A copy of the by-laws that reflected all the changes to the document submitted by
the Council members was distributed. The document was reviewed by EPA's Office of
General Council (OGC) and Committee Management Office (CMO) and several changes
that OGC recommended, such as not using the term "Executive Committee," were also
included.
The Council reviewed each section of the by-laws and accepted previously
proposed edits and provided new comments to the document. A final version of the by-
laws is included as an appendix.
Full NEJAC Council
Page 4
-------
6. RELATIONSHIP TO INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Members of the Interagency Working Group (IWG) presented the current
activities of several task forces and the areas/issues on which the task forces were
requesting comment from the Council.
• Georgia Johnson, Department of Energy (DOE), reported on the activities
of the Task Force on Outreach and Public Participation. She reported that
the task force: (1) translated Executive Order 12898 into Spanish; (2)
wishes to hold at least one public meeting by January 1995 in order to get
comments on the agencies strategic plans; and, (3) discussed how NEJAC t
might be able to provide guidance on public participation in Federal
programs. She noted that most agencies had very little experience with
public participation and the task force would need NEJAC's guidance to
meet its deadlines as outlined in Executive Order 12898. She provided the
Council with a draft public participation document developed by DOE and
a memorandum that described the specific issues on which the task force
was requesting advice. The Public Participation and Accountability
subcommittee was tasked with responding to the IWG Task Force on
Outreach and Public Participation.
• Karen Shelton, Department of Justice (DOJ), was the next speaker. She
provided an update on the activities of the IWG Task Force on
Enforcement and Compliance. The task force plans to: identify test cases
for litigation; develop training and educational programs for Federal
employees on how to enforce Executive Order 12898; and to identify
existing laws and regulations that can be used to enforce environmental
justice. The task force requested that the NEJAC provide them with
information on what statutes have been applied to past enforcement of
environmental justice and the effectiveness of those cases. The
Enforcement subcommittee was tasked with responding to the IWG Task
Force on Enforcement and Compliance.
• Dr. Gaylord gave an update on the activities of the IWG Task Force on
Implementation! She presented a draft document guiding agencies on the
self-evaluation of developing an environmental justice process within their
agencies. She asked NEJAC members to: (1) review the draft document
arid submit comments as soon as possible; (2) submit comments on the
process for reporting the success of agency strategies and programs; and
(3) assist in developing tools to monitor whether environmental justice
goals are being met.
Full NEJAC Council Page 5
-------
• Kathy Aterno reported that the IWG Task Force on Native Americans
would also request input from NEJAC. Also the IWG Task Force on
Definitions and Standards was requesting NEJAC's input on definitions for
a list of terms such as "environmental justice." Deeohn Ferris pointed out
that some terms may have been defined at the 1991 People of Color in
Environmental Leadership Conference.
Ad Hoc Group
Members of the Council asked questions about NEJAC's role in advising the
IWG. Velma Veloria asked if the work-products from each IWG would be reviewed by
the Council. Kathy Aterno indicated that the IWG would discuss that issue. In addition,
Kathy Aterno suggested that the Council could develop an ad hoc group that would work
with the IWG Subcommittee on Policy and Coordination in order to figure out how
NEJAC and the task forces could work together.
The Council agreed to form an ad hoc group to address the interface between the
Council and the IWG. The ad hoc group members are: Cindy Thomas, Herman Ellis,
Beverly Wright, and Bunyan Bryant. The following activities were proposed as the ad
hoc group's mission:
1) Clarify how the Policy and Coordination Subcommittee and the Council
should interface;
2) Develop a charge to subcommittees; and
3) Develop a schedule of dates to meet with IWG Subcommittee.
In addition, the Council proposed that the next meeting should be held in Washington,
D.C., in October/November and that the primary focus of the meeting should be the
implementation of Executive Order 12898.
7. SUBCOMMITTEES
Four subcommittees to NEJAC — Public Participation and Accountability,
Enforcement, Waste and Facility Siting, and Health and Research — met for the first
time on August 4-5, 1994.
The Council elected Chairs for-each Subcommittee. The following subcommittee
Chairs were elected:
1) Public Participation and Accountability -- Peggy Saika
2) Enforcement -- Deeohn Ferris
3) Waste and Facility Siting -- Charles Lee
Full NEJAC Council Page 6
-------
4) Health and Research - Robert Bullard
The Council directed the subcommittees to develop an agenda, respond to
Interagency Workgroup requests for comment and advice, and to include the following
issues in their discussions:
1) Implementation of Executive Order 12898
2) Recommendations from Health Research and Needs Symposium
3) 17 Principles of Environmental Justice
4) International Issues
5) Cultural Values and Tribal Concerns
6) Root Causes of Environmental Justice
- 7) Input on EPA's Strategic Plan
8) Farmworker Protection Rule
9) Peacetime Conversion of Resources
10) Community Economic Development
Summaries of the subcommittee discussions are reported in Section II of this document.
8. NEJAC MEMBERSHIP
Several changes have been made in NEJAC Membership. There were three
resignations and two new appointments.
• Jane Delgado, who represents the Non-Governmental organization
National Coalition of Hispanic and Human Services Organizations
(COSSMHO), resigned before the Albuquerque meeting.
• Sam Winder, a Tribal representative (National Tribal Environmental
Council), resigned at the Albuquerque meeting. He stated that he
felt his time is better spent devoted to other matters at EPA. He
thanked Dr. Gaylord, Ms. Aterno and Administrator Browner for
their efforts.
• John Hall, resigned as Chair of NEJAC, however he did not resign
as a member of the full council.
• Velma Veloria of the Washington State Legislature and Baldemar
Velasquez, Farm Laborers Organizing Committee, were appointed
the Council. Ms. Veloria was able to attend the Albuquerque
meeting.
Full NEJAC Council page 7
-------
« Bob Bullard made a motion that Gail Small, an Enforcement
Subcommittee member, be nominated for the Council. The vote will
be conducted by mail.
9. OTHER
The Council did not have a quorum on the afternoon of Friday, August 5. Several
motions or suggestions were made, however, the Council could not vote on them. Votes
on these motions will be held by mail.
• The Health and Research Subcommittee suggests that the Council
endorse the executive summary of the recommendations from the
Health Research and Needs to Ensure Environmental Justice, as a
model for forming environmental justice research policy. This
document should be forwarded to EPA, ORD, the IWG, the
President's Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), and all
federal agencies.
• Bob Bullard made a motion that the Council send a strong
statement to the Administrator emphasizing the importance of
workforce diversity, particularly in toprlevel positions, and its relation
to ensuring environmental justice.
10. ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL
• The Public Participation and Accountability subcommittee was tasked with
responding to the Interagency Working Group Task Force on Outreach and
Public Participation.
• The "Enforcement subcommittee was tasked with responding to the Interagency
Working Group Task Force on Enforcement and Compliance.
• The Council agreed to form an ad hoc group to address the interface between the
Council and the IWG. The ad hoc group members are: Cindy Thomas, Herman
Ellis, Beverly Wright, and Bunyan Bryant.
• EPA agreed to provide written-materials to council members seven (7) days prior
to scheduled meetings.
• When the Council is assigned a task and makes a decision, EPA should not make
substantial changes to the decision.
Full NEJAC Council Page 8
-------
EPA should relay decisions to the Council immediately, especially when the
Council makes specific requests or proposals,
Council members should be given sufficient advance notice when meetings or
conference calls are scheduled.
EPA agreed to try to limit the travel reimbursement process should be expedited
to limit financial burdens to the Council. Specifically, Dr. Gaylord committed to
process the paperwork in the Office of Environmental Justice within one to two
days of receipt of a member's travel voucher and expenses.
10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The following is a summary of the comments received during the public
participation comment period of the NEJAC meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Connie Martinez - San Jose Awareness Council
• She has lived in the middle of a Superfund site for 27 years, about
two blocks from General Electric. Although GE has taken
responsibility for contaminating the site, they are cleaning up at a
very slow rate. Her family wants GE to increase the rate of clean-
up.
• Her husband has lived there most of his life and he has been
exposed to contaminants. She has had eye problems since she has
lived there.
• Neighborhood property has been devalued.
« Read letter from the Bunker Hill Community requesting EPA to
abate the main source of contaminants that have accumulated on
the 21 acre site for over 100 years.
Michael Guerrero - South West Organizing Project from Albuquerque
• This group focuses on environmental pollution and its effect on
people of color in New Mexico. EPA has not protected these
communities.
Full NEJAC Council Page 9
-------
The largest dump in the State of New Mexico is on the border with
Mexico. There is an elementary school three hundred yards away
from the dump. The children could no longer go outside because of
the smell and smoke. This dump would not have been sited in a
white community.
Mountainview, New Mexico has a city sewage plant and 30 to 40 ,
industries using hazardous waste, however the local fire station has
no means of addressing a hazardous waste accident.
Chicano communities are poisoned the most. Inhabitants of New
Mexico are primarily people of color and, in that context, they feel
that they are most disproportionately affected by these problems.
These communities feel they are facing various issues due to
economic decisions from generations of colonization.
NAFTA, and the ability of industries to relocate in Mexico will be
used as a bargaining chip with New Mexican workers.
The Council should look at EPA's overall policy and help these
communities. .
Lori Goodman - Dane Care
Phil Harrison has been working on the problem of uranium
contamination on the Navajo Reservation. (Submitted statement
from Phil Harrison of the Uranium Radiation Victims Committee of
Red Valley Chapter)
The tribal council imposes government, but does not understand the
people. The council does not represent the people, so NEJAC was
encouraged to keep that in mind. She believes that there should be
a separate committee addressing native issues.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has authority over NEPA
enforcement, but they are not complying with NEPA regulations.
Recently, her organization has been trying the get their Council to
request an environmental impact statement.
Full NEJAC Council Page 10
-------
Alicia Keeswood - Dane Care
Read letter from the Black Mesa Big Mountain community
requesting that a timeline for implementing emergency response
investigations be addressed for their community. The letter
questions whether EPA really wants to implement the 1984 Indian
Policy and addresses specific pollution problems that EPA
documented but failed to act upon.
The letter also requests that EPA communicate directly with the
community by mail of all advisory council meetings well in advance so the
community has time to prepare statements.
The community requests the creation of a native office in Washington,
D.C., a safe house for environmental justice native grassroots organizations
to stay at, and drivers to transport participants to and from meetings.
Tom Goldtooth - Indigenous Environmental Network
_• EPA should address its current fish consumption guidelines. EPA's
fish consumption guidelines are outdated and incorrect.
, • EPA has consistently ignored religious and cultural differences.
FIFRA does not prevent local communities from issuing ordinances
about the use or application of pesticides. The basket weavers
association is asking why they can't similarly protect their culture.
• In Torrence, California there is a sewage plant that is not being
properly regulated because of a question of jurisdiction. EPA says
- the sludge is not hazardous and therefore the plant is not in their
jurisdiction. The BIA says the plant is an EPA issue. An
investigation needs to be held. He suggested that the Council's
subcommittee on Waste and Siting could investigate the situation.
Ben Goldman
Ben Goldman provides a report on the results of the update to the
1987 Toxic Waste and Race Report cosponsored by the Center for
Policy Alternatives, the NAACP, and the Commission for Racial
Justice. The findings show that there is significant deterioration in
the racial disparity that was observed in 1987.
Full NEJAC Council Page 11
-------
People of color are still 3 times as likely as white people to live in a
place of hazardous waste.
Douglas Meeklejohn - New Mexico Environmental Law Center
• Siting decisions are based on technical data which show the amount
of gas emissions, etc., above the prescribed quantity. In these
situations, it often happens that the party who can afford the best
consultant wins.
• In this scenario, cultural or quality of life issues are not considered.
The impact on the quality of life is not viewed as relevant in these
proceedings; Affluent communities that have political influence can
protect their quality of life and poor communities with less political
influence cannot protect their quality of life.
• Executive Order 12898 has one glaring problem. The act puts
communities in an advisory capacity but gives them no authority to
react. It does not allow a community person to decide how to
implement the order. You need to listen to the people being
impacted by these facilities. The people impacted should be making
decisions. This should be done at the Interagency Working Group
level and throughout the federal government.
Teresa Juarez - Sawmill Advisory Council
• Through the years, Teresa has struggled in her community and she
has seen no environmental justice. By the time enforcement actions
- go through the bureaucracy there is no justice in her community.
• There must be enforcement at the local level. We need to see
proactive economic change and compensation for injustices taking
place in her community.
• The companies have come in to communities and destroyed the air,
water, and soil, as well as their culture.
• What will this Council do to help communities? Several committees
will come in and do nothing. They become part of the bureaucracy.
Full NEJAC Council Page 12
-------
NEJAC's Response to Public Comments
The Council asked questions of the public commenters and answered questions
posed by the public. The Council resolved to develop a system to address public
commenter's concerns. Dr. Gaylord committed to forward public comment letters to
EPA staff who could address the issues raised.
11. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the NEJAC will be held outside of Washington, D.C., at the
Hyatt Regency at Dulles Airport on October 25-27, 1994.
Full NEJAC Council Page 13
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEETING SUMMARY
OCTOBER 25-27, 1994
I. Background ,
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) held its third
meeting on October 25-2, 1994, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Herndon, Virginia. EPA
convened the meeting to discuss environmental justice issues and concerns. NEJAC was
created by EPA under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide
independent expert advice and counsel to the Agency on policy matters related to
environmental justice.
NEJAC is comprised of a parent Council (Council) and four Subcommittees. The
Council is authorized to have up to 25 members who may also serve on one of the
Subcommittee. The Subcommittees are Public Participation and Accountability,
Enforcement, Waste and Facility Siting, and Health and Research. NEJAC's members
include representatives of academia; industry; community groups; nongovernmental
organizations; state, tribal, and local governments; and environmental organizations.
On October 25, the Council was convened for a brief plenary session to review the
agenda and to discuss the press coverage which resulted from the August 3-5 meeting in
Albuquerque. The new chair, Richard Moore, discussed the need to set a positive tone
of working together and building consensus. After the session, the subcommittees
convened for the remainder of the day, and again on the 26th to complete work on
specific work products related to their areas of responsibility. The full Council
reconvened on the afternoon of the 26th and the 27th. Public comments were received
on the 26th from 11 a.m. to noon and again from 6:30-7:30 p.m.
Following is a summary of the Council's discussions and resolutions, which are
organized by subject area. Also included is a summary of the public's oral comments.
[Note: See the individual "Subcommittee Notes" for a summary of each Subcommittee's
meeting.
II. Opening Remarks
The meeting began with a general welcome to all Council members by the Council
Chair, Mr. Richard Moore, who then acknowledged three new Council members: Gail
Small, Velma Veloria, and Baldemar Velasquez. Mr. Moore's opening remarks covered
the past and future aims of the Council, emphasized the Council's guiding principles, and
addressed recent developments. >
Full NEJAC Council Page 1
-------
The objective of NEJAC is to develop an agenda of environmental justice
recommendations for EPA's Administrator, Carol Browner, and EPA's staff. Mr. Moore
reiterated NEJAC's commitment to working with EPA regional offices to bring justice to
many of the communities represented on the Council. The Chair emphasized that this
environmental justice agenda will be developed with integrity, honesty, and a sharing of
ideas. Because NEJAC is tackling questions of democracy that have been difficult to
deal with for many years, the Council can expect to hear a number of different view
points. Further, many Council members are obligated to speak on behalf of the large
constituent groups they represent. Mr. Moore explained that although some Council
members may feel uncomfortable, the Council must accept these facts and unite to
create an environmental justice agenda to develop safer and better environments for all
communities. The Chair reminded thfe Council of the need to continue moving forward
and the need to emphasize NEJAC's accomplishments and successes to members of the
press and the general public.
The Chair shared with the Council the substance of a meeting last week with
Carol Browner in which she reaffirmed her commitment to environmental justice and her
commitment to support NEJAC. She has approved two recommendations made by the
Council during its second meeting held in Albuquerque, New Mexico on August 3-5,
1994: the recommendation that NEJAC be allowed to create two additional
Subcommittees, dependent upon availability of funds. The two subcommittees will focus
on Native Americans and on NAFTA. The second recommendation approved is to
appoint a labor representative to the Council and to each of the subcommittees. The
NEJAC will decide the priority for subcommittees given current budget constraints.
III. Cross-Cutting Issues
Subcommittee Chairs reported cross-curtting issues raised in Subcommittee
meetings to the full Council. The full Council then discussed these cross-cutting
issues.
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
• Charles Lee reported on the issues discussion of the Waste and Facility
Siting Subcommittee and suggested that this Council explore ways to effect
interaction among NEJAC Subcommittees since these issues are at the
heart of environmental justice. The Subcommittee Chair identified the
following three issues as among those on which the Council should focus.
An implementation framework that helps people understand cross-
cutting issues from a long-term and short-term perspective.
A strategic plan to establish'an infrastructure fostering partnerships
with community groups, labor, and other stakeholders. Fostering
partnerships requires a real paradigm shift.
Full NEJAC Council - Page 2
-------
A training program, particularly for EPA personnel, to highlight the
importance of environmental justice and the extent to which all
cross-cutting issues (such as peace-time conversion, cultural diversity,
and international issues) fit into the environmental justice
implementation framework.
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee
The Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee discussed how to
institutionalize public participation in EPA and other federal agencies' activities
and the necessity of examining process and structure. The Subcommittee
developed a model that it would like to see incorporated into a model public
participation program. The Subcommittee would like to link its project with other
Council initiatives.
Health and Research Subcommittee
• The Health and Research Subcommittee did not discuss new cross-cutting
issues in its meeting. Bob Bullard, the Subcomittee Chair, said that the
issues discussed at the Albuquerque meeting serve as a template for a full
Committee discussion on Health and Research's issues. Dr. Bullard
identified the following three categories:
Cross-cutting issues affecting ORD and OPPTS.
Evaluation, research, and standards needed to examine models
and data collection.
Issues larger than EPA involving the Interagency Workgroup (IWG).
Enforcement Subcommittee
• The Enforcement Subcommittee concluded that it would be useful to
evaluate what triggers should generate enforcement responses. The Chair,
Deeohn Ferris, expressed concern over whether there is sufficient risk
assessment data available to generate enforcement responses. The
Subcommittees should pay attention to the federal, state, and local
relationships and how these relationships affect enforcement.
• This Subcommittee also identified access to information and employment
diversity as cross-cutting issues.
• Cindy Thomas added that Tribal governments have a role in enforcement.
In some cases, Tribal governments need assistance; in others, these
governments need expanded authority.
Full NEJAC Council Page 3
-------
Bob Bullard talked about the usefulness of establishing priorities on
cross-cutting issues. EPA should create a regional initiative that
avoids isolating programs by Subcommittee issues. The Agency
must distribute money so that true partnership, not resource
allocation, can be the focus.
Charles McDermott agreed that establishing priorities is
fundamental, but emphasized that in establishing a framework for
the twenty-first century, the real issue is coordination among
government agencies. All federal agencies should act together in a
unified strategic plan.
Hazel Johnson commented on the difficulty in getting government
agency staff in Chicago to talk to each other.
Comments on NE.TAC Interaction with IWG
• Dr. Bullard said that there has been no exchange of information between
NEJAC and IWG, and wondered how to encourage communication
between the groups given the infrequency of NEJAC meetings. Without
interaction, the Council generally agreed that NEJAC and IWG may
duplicate efforts. IWG might deliberate without ever hearing from the
Council.
• Kathy Aterno explained that the IWG is just getting started. She said that
over the next two months, the Council and IWG will interact. NEJAC will
see products from other federal committees .and EPA can facilitate
communication. However, Ms. Aterno noted that there are more than two
hundred federal people serving on eight different task forces and that
Council interaction with all of them is unrealistic.
Ms. Aterno stated that in a recent cabinet meeting, the
Administrator had informed the heads of other federal departments
and agencies that NEJAC was available to assist in environmental
justice activities.
In response to a question raised by Cindy Thomas concerning the
NEJAC reviewing the IWG materials, Kathy Aterno emphasized
that NEJAC is an advisory council to EPA and has no jurisdiction to
either request or review materials from federal task forces.
Comments on Council Interaction and Participation
>
• The Council agreed that discussion and understanding between NEJAC
members has improved since the Albuquerque meeting. People are
Full NEJAC Council Page 4
-------
working together despite their differences. Ms. Ferris noted that this
improved relationship is a natural progression, not a miracle. Members are
getting to know each other. Jean Sindab added that this progress is part of
a larger evolution since the Council first met in Washington.
• Subcommittee members described a feeling of compression because of the
stringent deadlines under the Executive Order. Ms. Ferris said that the
press of time did not allow her Subcommittee much opportunity to work
through issues requiring face-to-face interaction.
Conference calls are insufficient, one member said.
Another remarked that something will be forgotten or insufficiently
discussed in haste.
• Jean Sindab encouraged the Council to remember that the environmental
justice movement has community-based momentum, and that irrespective of
Executive Order deadlines, the movement will continue.
• Richard Lazarus expressed fear that the Council's efforts may be paper
exercises only unless greater focus was given to implementation.
• Industry representatives oh the Council said that some other Council
members may suspect industry motives. Some Council members added
that often semantic differences make communication and understanding
difficult.
Other Council member statements showed where industry and
community interests found common ground.
Comments on Public Participation
• Jose Bravo stated that environmental professionals may not be real
stakeholders where environmental justice is concerned. An IWG Task
Force is proposing to convene an environmental justice summit with
agency science managers, There must be a way to ensure stakeholder
participation in this summit and other IWG work.
• Connie Tucker, a subcommittee member, suggested that each Council
Subcommittee send a letter to the Administrator stating its concern over
apparent lack of public participation in other agencies' environmental
justice activities. >
i
• Ms. Aterno said that when the issue of public participation came up at the
cabinet meeting, the department and agency heads agreed that each federal
Full NEJAC Council Page 5
-------
agency should implement its own public participation strategy. The
Administration did not want to dictate how federal agencies should involve
the public.
IV. Reports from the Subcommittees
• Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee (Peggy Saika, Chair). Ms.
Saika made the following recommendations, each of which the full NEJAC
adopted.
The full NEJAC should endorse sending a letter to the Chair of the IWG
Taskforce on Outreach to incorporate the content of a model public
. participation process drafted by the Subcommittee. Ms, Saika's
Subcommittee specifically highlighted the concept of shared responsibility in
leadership, planning, and implementation between the Agency and the
community.
~ The full NEJAC should approve a demonstration project for a public
participation meeting and funding for the project.
EPA should allow the Subcommittee to collect information, review, and
critique any existing Agency public participation activities.
• Enforcement Subcommittee (Deeohn Ferris^ Chair). Ms. Ferris asked for
clarification of certain parts of the meeting minutes from the Albuquerque
meeting. Then Ms. Ferris made the following recommendations.
— The full committee should endorse sending a letter to Steve Herman,
EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, raising concerns about lack of diversity in this Office and asking
for diversity statistics. Ms. Ferris also recommended that each
Subcommittee send a similar letter to the EPA manager with responsibility
for each subcommittee'sareas of responsibility. The full NEJAC adopted
the recommendation that the Enforcement Subcommittee send such a
letter.
~ The Subcommittee should send a draft letter to its counterpart on the
Interagency Task Force on Enforcement for including communities of color
in enforcement actions. The full NEJAC postponed the vote until the
letter was prepared.
Health and Research Subcommittee (Bob Bullard, Chair). Dr. Bullard reported
that the Subcommittee was in the process of drafting three documents that will
include specific recommendations and changes in the draft Environmental Justice
strategy for the Office of Research and Development (ORD). The Subcommittee
Full NEJAC Council Page 6
-------
will ask the full NEJAC to vote on these documents later. Topics will include
high priority areas of environmental contamination defined by demographics;
development of a research strategy; enforcement; risk communication; training;
outreach; pollution prevention, and community participation in policy evaluation.
The main theme will be to develop a strategy for "health and research" that will
be useful for the IWG. The Subcommittee Chair also made the following
comments.
Pollution prevention will be a priority area for environmental justice
research.
Risk assessment should include a matrix of vulnerability factors.
A research strategy should be developed for various agency workgroups to
use in health research.
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee (Charles Lee, Chair). Mr. Lee
recommended the Ten-Point Implementation Framework of the OSWER
Environmental Justice Task Force Draft Report and received approval from the
council of its basic points and to proceed with its further development. Some of
the major topics of the Ten-Point Recommendations are as follow.
The OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Final Report should be
made into a "living document."
A comprehensive interactive outreach, communications and community
participation strategy is the hub of environmental justice implementation.
A community driven, i.e., designed by community based environmental
justice groups, development of curricula and educational materials on
environmental justice for federal agency personnel is essential as a first
step.
Environmental justice strategies need to focus on building short-term and
long-term infrastructure for doing environmental justice.
An integrated Environmental Justice Model Demonstration Program
approach should be used as a template for pilot project design and
evaluation.
- The key areas for further recommendations will include the health needs of
impacted communities, economic redevelopment, and siting criteria.
Mr. Lee noted that there was a presumption with respect to environmental justice
that needs to focus on the need to ensure projects and programs which "start with
the community and end with the community." The points in the implementation
Full NEJAC Council
Page?
-------
framework are being offered as tools for implementation of all environmental
justice programs, in OSWER, throughout EPA and other federal agencies. They
are being offered as a way to evaluate program, project and grant initiatives, to
help determine whether or not projects and grants planned or initiated as
environmental justice projects are in fact such.
Mr. Lee noted that this Subcommittee had the benefit of the program.office which
developed a comprehensive environmental justice strategy.
Mr. Lee said that ecosystem management should be integrated into environmental
justice and that the ecosystem was composed of four environments: natural, built,
social, and spiritual.
Several Council members addressed the relationship between public agencies and
the communities.
Ms. Thomas stated that the federal, state, and tribal bodies should be
included in environmental protection processes, because each is a sovereign
governmental body. Further, she said that policies must be translated into
a community's common language.
Dr. Sindab emphasized the importance of leadership starting within the
community. Further, Dr. Sindab stated that the NIMBY (Not In My Back
Yard) approach to problem solving is no longer an acceptable policy,
because no backyard should be susceptible to environmental injustice
through siting of chemical and toxic waste dumps.
Ms. Tucker noted that state involvement with communities will allow
greater participation and implementation of the OSWER Environmental
Justice Task Force Draft Report as a living document.
Ms. Thomas stated that neither environmental contamination nor
populations stop at state borders. The EPA Regions must be targeted
along with states.
Ms. Tucker agreed and pointed out that the fact that EPA's regional offices
have disparate resources may reflect actual discrimination.
Written Submissions:
This section of the notes describes the different submissions by each of the
Subcommittees at the NEJAC October 26, morning session;
Full NEJAC Council Page 8
-------
The Enforcement Subcommittee submitted a letter to Steven A. Herman,
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
EPA.
The letter identified the need for EPA to diversify its workforce to
increase the number of persons of color employed by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, particularly in supervisory
positions.
The letter requested statistics regarding persons of color, their
supervisory responsibilities, and the procedures the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has adopted to increase
workforce diversity.
• The Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee submitted a
paragraph to be included in a letter to Steven A. Herman.
The paragraph recommended the incorporation of the model for
community participation in the decision-making process, with specific
emphasis on involving communities in co-sponsoring and co-planning
public events.
• The Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee submitted
recommendations to the full NEJAC, including guiding principles and
critical elements for meetings involving public participation. The
Subcommittee also submitted a draft model for such meetings, guidelines
for meeting preparation, participants, logistics, and mechanics.
• The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee submitted a draft of ten points
and recommended full implementation of the OSWER Environmental
.Justice Task Force Report.
A Subcommittee Ad Hoc Work Group recommended that OSWER
take its recommendations, institute process and protocols for proper
implementation, and develop concrete workplans. In the first three
months. OSWER might conduct a feasibility analysis with costing
and prospective implementation frameworks. In six months,
OSWER could develop a guide for initial implementation workplans.
V. Completion of Old Business
• The Council discussed the issues raised during the Albuquerque meeting that still
require Council action. These issues included the following.
Past recommendations that still requiredfull Council vote.
Full NEJAC Council Page 9
-------
Council review of the IWG Implementation Task Force's environmental
justice process development checklist.
Council review of the IWG Outreach Task Force's public participation
checklist.
Recommendations From the Albuquerque Meeting
Richard Moore informed the Council that only eight of the 23 Council
members voted by mail on the recommendations from the Albuquerque meeting,
which is why there needs to be another vote today.
Vote on Process for Communicating with the IWG
• Mr. Moore reviewed the four proposed options for developing a process
for working with and communicating with the IWG. Cindy Thomas
provided a brief review of the newest proposed option, Option IV. Ms.
Thomas explained that Option IV essentially was a combination of
proposed Options I and II. This new option would allow EPA and IWG to
share the responsibility for communicating and distributing information.
• Dr. Gaylord highlighted the differences in the four options and opened the
floor for discussion. Dr. Beverly Wright stated that it would be most
efficient for NEJAC and IWG to share documents. Drs. Herman Ellis and
Richard Lazarus both agreed that the Council itself must decide what it ,
wants to review. Charles Lee commented that none of the four proposed
options addressed the role of NEJAC's Protocol Committee.
• John O'Leary made a motion to adopt Option IV as the NEJAC's process
for communicating with IWG. Cindy Thomas suggested amending Option
IV to ensure quick information distribution. This amendment would
change the process so that information would be distributed to each
Council member as soon as it was received, and guidance on the
information would be distributed once it was available. The Council
adopted Ms. Thomas's amendment.
• Richard Moore accepted the amendment to Option IV and asked the
Council to vote on the four proposed options. The Council adopted the
motions to accept an amended Option IV as its process for NEJAC and
IWG interaction.
Vote on Recommendations from February 1994 Health/Research Symposium
!
• Dr. Bullard restated the issue of whether the Council should accept the
recommendations from the "Health Research and Needs to Ensure
Full NEJAC Council Page 10
-------
Environmental Justice" February 1994 Conference as a model for forming
environmental justice research policy.
Richard Lazarus stated that better enforcement of the statutes is
essential to ensuring environmental justice. Charles Lee questioned
whether the Council would approve the actual language of the
recommendations if it voted to accept the recommendations
conceptually. Dr. Bullard assured the Council that the
recommendations would be used only as a model and that the
Council would not be approving the exact language.
• Dr. Bullard made a motion to accept the recommendations from the
Conference on "Health Research and Needs to Ensure Environmental
Justice." Dr. Wright seconded the motion. The Council adopted the
motion that the NEJAC accept the recommendations as a model for
forming environmental justice research policy.
• Because the Council approved the recommendations, Dr. Bullard asked
NEJAC to decide whether it should send the information to one or all of
the following organizations.
EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The Environmental Justice IWG.
The President's Council on Sustainable Development.
All federal government agencies.
• Kathy Aterno suggested that the Council may want to amend the list to
: include all relevant offices and agencies.
• A motion was made to forward information as appropriate to all federal
government agencies, the President's Council on Sustainable Development,
and all other relevant agencies or offices. The motion was seconded. The
Council adopted the motion as amended. Information will be forwarded to
the above as appropriate.
Vote to Approve NEJAC's Letter to EPA's Administrator Concerning Improving EPA's
Workforce Diversity
• The last recommendation from the Albuquerque meeting was a vote to
determine whether NEJAC should accept the draft letter from Richard
Moore to the Administrator offering NEJAC's assistance in identifying
Full NEJAC Council Page 11
-------
candidates for several political appointments or major Office appointments
at EPA.
Cindy Thomas questioned the meaning of the last sentence in the letter.
The sentence read, "Thank you for your attention to this issue which is
crucial both to our people and to the mission of EPA." Dr. Bullard said
that this letter was originally drafted to refer to "our people" as "people of
color."' Baldemar Velasquez requested that "our people" be changed to
"pur peoples" to underscore NEJAC's diverse constituency. Several Council
members stated that they could not speak for their people unless they were
given direct authority. Cindy Thomas recommended that the sentence be
rewritten to eliminate the phrase "our people." Peggy Saika recommended
that the letter emphasize the entire environmental justice movement.
• A motion was made to approve the letter after amending the last sentence
to read, "Thank you for your attention to this issue which is crucial to the
environmental justice movement and to NEJAC and EPA." The motion
was seconded, and the Council adopted the motion.
Council Review of the IWG Implementation Task Force's Environmental Justice
Development Process Checklist
• Dr. Gaylord highlighted the major elements of the Implementation Task
Force's checklist. She asked Council members to review the letter and the
thirteen steps for clarity.
• Deephn Ferris questioned whether the Task Force intended to include
worker's issues when it made references to human health and the
environment. Dr. Gaylord responded that she believed worker's issues
were included.
• Cindy Thomas recommended revising the letter to address the role of
Tribal governments. Kathy Aterno responded that the checklist was
developed as a model and was not exclusive.
• Charles Lee recommended revising the checklist to emphasize the heed for
public participation at the beginning of the planning phase.
• Baldemar Velasquez commented that on October 25, the Subcommittees
discussed at great length the need for early public participation. He
questioned whether any of the Subcommittee recommendations had been
integrated into this checklist, and Dr. Gaylord responded that the
recommendations have not been integrated.
Full NEJAC Council Page 12
-------
• A motion was made and seconded to postpone a vote on the
Implementation Task Force's checklist until the checklist has been revised
to reflect NEJAC Subcommittee recommendations made on Public
Participation. Dr. Gaylord stated that she will integrate the Subcommittee
recommendations into the checklist.
Council Review of the IWG Outreach Task Force's Environmental Justice Public
Participation (Checklist
• Dr. Gaylord asked the Council to review the Environmental Justice Public
Participation Checklist developed by the IWG Outreach Task Force.
• Several Council members expressed concern about voting on the checklist
before it has been revised to incorporate NEJAC Subcommittee
recommendations.
• Nathalie Walker recommended revising checklist items number three and
four to include "Empower communities to" and "Ask stakeholders to" at the
beginning of the sentences respectively. Ms. Walker also recommended
that checklist item number four be revised to include "preferably through
personal consultation" at the end of the second sentence.
• A motion was made and seconded to defer a vote on the Outreach Task
Force's Public Participation Checklist until the checklist has been revised to
incorporate the October 25, 1994 NEJAC Subcommittee recommendations.
The Council adopted the motion to defer a final vote on this checklist. Dr.
Gaylord stated that she will integrate the Subcommittee recommendations
into the checklist.
VI. New Business - Oral Presentations
Richard Moore introduced the five speakers scheduled to make oral
presentations to the Council.
Common Sense Initiative
• Elliott Laws, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), presented an overview of EPA's Common
Sense Initiative. EPA launched this program last year to change the way
the Agency addresses human health and environmental protection through
an industry-by-industry approach to environmental policy. Mr. Laws stated
that this program incorporates the new way of thinking within the Agency
and in corporations across the country. He emphasized that the program
encourages flexibility and innovation in protecting human health and the
environment.
Full NEJAC Council Page 13
-------
• EPA identified six industry sectors (auto manufacturing, computers and
electronics, iron and steel, metal plating and finishing, oil refining, and
printing) to include in the first phase of this initiative. The Agency selected
these six industries because of demonstrated industry commitment to
improve environmental performance through the Common Sense Initiative.
Teams of industry executives; environmental and community
representatives; and federal, state, and local officials will convene to
identify ways to improve the environmental regulation of, and performance
in, the six targeted areas. These areas are regulation, pollution prevention,
reporting, compliance, permitting, and environmental technology.
• Mr. Laws stated that he will be meeting with NEJAC members on
November 3, 1994 to discuss cross-cutting environmental justice issues
before the Common Sense Initiative group holds its first formal meeting.
• Deeohn Ferris expressed concern about EPA's willingness to accept
NEJAC recommendations. On behalf of the Council, Ms. Ferris stated that
she has repeatedly tried to obtain information from EPA concerning the
Common Sense Initiative. She has found EPA's response unsatisfactory.
Mr. Laws responded that he personally will ensure that NEJAC receives all
the information it has requested.
• Richard Lazarus asked Mr. Laws to inform EPA that NEJAC has not had
the chance to address environmental justice issues raised in the pending
rulemaking on cement kiln dust. Mr. Laws responded that EPA has
extended the public comment period for comment concerning the human
health risks posed to subsistence farmers and fisherman. The new
comment closing date is November 10, 1994, and NEJAC may use this
extension to its benefit. Mr. Laws will tell his Office that NEJAC has not
commented on the environmental justice issues posed by the proposed rule.
Farm Worker Protection Rule & Environmental Justice Implications
• Theresa Murtaugh, Special Assistant to EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Dr. Lynn Goldman, and
Rhonda Norton of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, addressed the implementation and enforcement issues
associated with the farm worker protection rule (commonly called the
Worker Protection Standard) as it applies to nearly four million workers
employed on farms and in forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. The rule is
effective on January 1, 1995. Historically, farm workers have suffered from
pesticide exposure, poor sanitary conditions, and a lack of safety
equipment. Many of these workers are migrants who speak little or no
English. The speakers identified the following three key elements of the
rule.
Full NEJAC Council Page 14
-------
Worker safety training that an employer must provide and workers
must attend.
Employer-provided decontamination supplies and proper safety
clothing.
Employer-posted reentry signs or verbal notice informing farm
workers that pesticides have been applied, and verbal notice
informing workers when they can safely reenter the fields.
Currently, each pesticide manufacturer must revise its product labels to
include standards in the rule. Ms. Norton stated that this rule will allow
the Agency to take enforcement actions against both pesticide
manufacturers who violate labeling requirements and employers who violate
the worker protection standards.
On October 13, the Agency issued a press release stating that it filed
its first civil administrative case under the Worker Protection
Standard against two of the Nation's largest pesticide manufacturers
for misbranding or incorrectly labeling pesticides, and for posing a
risk to worker health. The Agency is seeking $2.125 million in
penalties against the DuPont and Phone-Poulenc Corporations.
Deeohn Ferris questioned whether EPA would use its own or OSHA
inspectors to enforce this rule. Ms. Norton responded that the Agency
plans to use EPA inspectors because OSHA has fewer inspectors than the
Agency. Although EPA hopes to share information with OSHA, the
agencies do not expect to share enforcement responsibilities.
Several Council members believe that EPA will be unsuccessful in
protecting farm workers unless a number of different agencies are involved.
Baldemar Velasquez believes that although training may educate farm
workers, these workers will remain exploited until they can participate in
rulemaking. Mr. Velasquez commends EPA on efforts to do something,
but finds training an ineffective means of protecting workers. During all his
years in the farm worker community, Mr. Velasquez has never seen an
EPA inspector. Further, Mr. Velasquez believes that EPA's proposed
reentry sign (a drawing of a worker's face and a hand raised to signify a
"stop" signal) will not keep workers out of the fields. Several members of
the Council believe that a "skull and cross-bones" sign would be more
effective. Ms. Murtaugh responded that the Agency seriously debated
whether to adopt the "skull and cross-bones" sign and after lengthy
discussions, decided to adopt the proposed sign.
Full NEJAC Council Page 15
-------
Several Council members expressed their concern that EPA is not
addressing the effect of exposure to multiple chemicals. Many farm
workers suffer exposure during pesticide application, because these workers
live near the fields. Ms. Norton responded that anti-drift requirements
must be included on the pesticide labels. Ms. Norton stated that as a next
step in protecting farm workers, EPA will promulgate final hazard
communications standards.
r*
To ensure that the farm workers are involved in future rulemakings, the
Council moved to recommend that EPA immediately initiate dialogue with
farm worker organizations. The motion was seconded and adopted.
President's Chemical Safety & Hazards Investigation Board
• Jerry Poje, a member of the President's Chemical Safety and Hazards
Investigation Board (the Board), briefly described its objectives. The Board
is authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as an
independent, full-time, five-person Board of experts who investigate serious
chemical accidents, evaluate chemical safety performance, and recommend
improvements that are in the National interest.
Currently, the U.S. Senate has confirmed only three of the five
Board nominees.
• Mr. Poje identified the following five main responsibilities of the Board.
Develop its own rules of operation.
Delineate federal responsibilities.
Investigate serious chemical transportation accidents.
- Review safety regulations for protection of human health and the
environment.
Conduct research on safety issues associated with exposure to
releases of hazardous chemicals.
• Deeohn Ferris asked whether the Board will be working with local groups.
Mr. Poje responded that the Board will develop contingency plans. Charles
Lee informed Mr. Poje of the existence of the Chemical Energy Prevention
Awareness Office and suggested the benefits of interaction between the
Board and that office.
Full NEJAC Council Page 16
-------
Office of Water's Rural Community Assistance Program
• Jim Home of EPA's Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water,
described a partnership between EPA and the Rural Community Assistance
Program (RCAP). This program was developed because many underserved
minority communities lack access to basic water and wastewater treatment
services.
• With grants from EPA, RCAP's objective is to demonstrate effective
approaches for providing water and wastewater services to these
underserved communities. RCAP plans 14 projects over the next 12
months.
• After a project is completed, RCAP must submit a report summarizing
what happened and analyzing the National policy implications of the
project.
• Mr. Home said that although this program is not the solution for all of the
problems in impoverished communities, it is a start and a way to develop
policy that can be implemented across larger areas.
• Cindy Thomas said that one of the biggest issues facing Native lands is
resource allocation. Noting the inequities of allocating more money to
states than to trusts, Ms. Thomas questioned whether RCAP has funded
projects to help Native Americans. Mr. Home responded that at least two
of the 14 projects target Native American communities.
• Charles Lee questioned whether EPA is funding projects to help rural
Asian communities or communities on the Mexican border. Mr. Home
responded that one of the 14 projects targets Asian farm workers in
Hawaii. However, because communities on the Mexican border are highly
visible and are receiving assistance from other parts of EPA (such as the
Office of International Activities), Mr. Home stated that RCAP will not
target these communities. The program objective is to reach communities
that otherwise may be missed.
Workforce Diversity at EPA
• Clarence Hardy of EPA's Office of Human Resources Management, EPA
addressed agencywide efforts to diversify its workforce. EPA's goals are to
ensure that its workforce represents the civilian labor pool. EPA's plan is
to focus on seven distinct, but interrelated strategies for leadership,
education, accountability, development, evaluation, recruitment, and
support systems.
Full NEJAC Council Page 17
-------
The leadership strategy is to create and maintain an "organizational
climate" that values diversity; and ensures involvement, effective
utilization, and development for all employees.
To educate its employees on the value of diversity, EPA has
developed the EPA Insight Newsletter, assessment workshops, and a
training video titled "A Winning Balance." The Agency also
established the EPA Institute.
To make offices within the Agency accountable, EPA has published
the Administrator's directives concerning diversity, developed
affirmative action policies and plans, and prepared cultural diversity
surveys and quarterly reports.
To encourage diversity through staff development, EPA has created
two programs: the Greater Leadership Opportunities Program and
the Goalsetters Reaching for Opportunity Program.
To evaluate its success, EPA has developed policy directives,
conducted special studies, prepared quarterly reports, and created
focus groups.
To encourage recruitment of people of color; EPA has created
recruitment and relocation bonuses, and intern and coop programs.
To better support its employees, EPA has created employee
assistance programs and flex time-place programs.
Mr. Hardy acknowledged that diversity and environmental justice are
interconnected and related to EPA's mission. EPA believes that the
Agency and NEJAC share a common interest in these issues, and that
there are some real opportunities for the two groups to work together.
The Agency acknowledges that it is behind other federal agencies in hiring
a diverse workforce, and does not have a representative number of people
of color in senior management positions. Like many other federal agencies,
EPA is trying to diversify at a time when it must reduce its total number of
management positions. However, by making diversity a priority, the
Agency believes that it will be successful. For example, in the preceding six
to eight months, EPA promoted many people of color.
Several Council members expressed concern over the small representation
of people of color in EPA senior management positions. Dr. Bullard said
that EPA should identify the number of people of color by job description.
Full NEJAC Council Page 18
-------
He believes that workforce segregation and workforce diversity are issues
of equal importance. Dr. Bullard added that EPA may not be increasing
diversity in senior management, but merely maintaining the status quo. Mr.
Hardy responded that EPA has data identifying the number of people of
color by job description, and reasserted that EPA is on the right track to
increase workforce diversity.
Deeohn Ferris questioned whether EPA has created any economic
incentives (e.g., pay increases) for hiring and promoting people of color.
Mr. Hardy responded that EPA has collected information on hiring and
promotions of people of color and has identified the gaps. Mr. Hardy
stated that EPA has in place a system that includes feedback to managers.
VII. Other Discussions
Ms. Ferris recommended that NEJAC issue a letter urging the
Administration to sponsor legislation to implement the Basel Convention.
Several Committee members wanted to read the Convention first, and Ms.
Ferris asked the Chair to table her recommendation until the next meeting.
The Committee asked EPA to distribute a copy of the Basel Convention to
each member before the next meeting.
NEJAC discussed a matter raised by counsel for Carver Terrace residents
during the public comment segment of October 26, 1994. The Carver
Terrace community in Texarkana has filed suit against EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers over the way federal officials handled the buy-out and
relocation for the community. Carver Terrace was built over a hazardous
waste site. NEJAC discussed the matter, raising the following six issues.
The propriety of NEJAC's commenting on a case in litigation.
— Why EPA contracted with the Army Corps of Engineers instead of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).
The way the Department of Justice is organized, the various
Divisions have a tendency to not discuss common environmental
justice issues, frequently resulting in too narrow a focus.
How NEJAC can integrate concerns pertaining to individual cases
into an overall environmental justice strategy.
How Carver Terrace is indicative of the general problems of
community relocation. ,
Full NEJAC Council page 19
-------
How. "crisis cases" can be highlighted in the EPA-DOJ system to get
a timely response.
VIII. New Business - Written Presentations
Richard Moore welcomed the presenters of the two written presentations
submitted to the Council during the public comment period. The petitions were
summarized by the presenters and discussed by the Council.
Imperial County Petition Using TSCA Section 21
• Jose Bravo, a representative of the Environmental Health Coalition,
presented the Imperial County Petition and discussed the injustices created
by the pollution of the New River.
The Imperial County, the Environmental Health Coalition, the
Comite Ciudadano Pro Restauracion del Canon del Padre y
Servicios Comunitarios, and the Southwest Network for
Environmental and Economic Justice have filed petitions under the
Toxic. Substances Control Act, section 21, for cleanup of
international pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border area, especially
around the New River. In addition, Mexico, the city of San Diego,
the State of California, and Congress, have expressed their concern
about multimedia international pollution control in the San Diego-
Tiajuana and Imperial County-Mexicali areas. The population
exposed to this pollution consists primarily of Mexican-Americans
and Native Americans.
• EPA and DOJ recently issued administrative subpoenas under TSCA,
section 21, to 95 multinational industries in the border area to determine
potential sources of pollution. Congress has appropriated money for
sewage treatment, and EPA and California are working on a water quality
program for the Tiajuana River and the New River.
• On September 21, 1994 the Environmental Health Coalition, the
South West Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, and the
Comite Ciudadano Pro Restauracion del Canon del Padre y Servicios
Comunitarios all withdrew their TSCA petitions in response to EPA's
actions to address this matter. EPA's proposed the following actions.
- Issuing the TSCA, section 21 subpoenas to U.S. companies owning
subsidiaries in Mexicali, Mexico.
i
Enforcing the subpoenas if companies do not supply the required
information.
Full NEJAC Council Page 20
-------
Creating a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) grant to allow for
community involvement in activities designed to study and remediate
the contamination of the New River.
Working with the Mexican government in a joint effort to bring
environmental justice to this area through future actions,
enforcement activities, or both.
• The Council believes that this petition identifies an important regulatory
tool (i.e., TSCA, section 21) available to the public that opens dialogue
with EPA.
Louisiana Energy Services Impact
• Mildred McCain, a petitioner against the siting of a Louisiana uranium
facility, expressed her concerns regarding the environmental injustices that
would occur if a proposed uranium production facility was built in a small
rural area of Louisiana.
The proposed facility should produce up to 40,000 tons of
radioactive waste per year. Petitioners claim that the environmental
impact statement (EIS) submitted for this facility inadequately
address the environmental justice issues. Two communities of color
will be adversely impacted by this facility. Because the residents of
these two communities are poorly educated, the facility owners
operators probably will not hire them; therefore, the community will
not receive the benefits arising from employment at the facility. The
petitioners question the actual need for the facility.
The petitioners have asked NEJAC to make recommendations to EPA's
Administrator, Carol Browner, concerning the unsatisfactory EIS. In
addition, the petitioners requested that NEJAC address the issue of need in
its Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee.
The Council voted to recommend to EPA's Administrator that she delay
making a decision on the submitted EIS until the Office of Environmental
Justice has thoroughly reviewed the EIS with respect to complying with
Executive Order 12898.
IX. Agenda for Meeting with EPA's Administrator, Carol Browner
;
• Richard Moore recommended that each Subcommittee Chair provide
Administrator Browner with a brief report highlighting major issues discussed
Full NEJAC Council Page 21
-------
within the Subcommittee, and actions each Subcommittee plans to take in the
near future. He stated the importance of showing the Administrator that the
Council and its Subcommittees have a concrete plan now and for the future.
Richard Moore reminded the guests that the environmental justice
movement is different from any other movement; therefore, this
Council would be different from any other Council.
!» '
• Richard Moore suggested that the Council raise with the Administrator NEJAC's
recommendation on behalf of a small rural community in Louisiana. The Council
previously voted to recommend that Ms. Browner delay review of the EIS for a
proposed uranium facility siting in this community until EPA's Office of
Environmental Justice has reviewed the EIS for compliance with Executive Order
12898.
• Additional agenda items suggested by Council members included the issue of the
workforce diversity, the interaction between NEJAC and the IWG, the
reorganization of EPA's Office of Environmental Justice, and EPA's plans to
create Environmental Justice Centers for Excellence.
X. Discussion with EPA's Administrator
• Richard Moore welcomed Carol Browner, and thanked her for taking time to
meet with the Council. Council members introduced themselves to Ms. Browner
and identified the organizations that they represent.
• Carol Browner welcomed the new members of the Council on the third
anniversary of the First People of Color National Summit. NEJAC members
represent diverse interests and Ms. Browner commended the Council for .
demonstrating its willingness to work with the government and other groups to
identify solutions for environmental justice. Ms. Browner gave special thanks for
the work done by Richard Moore as NEJAC's Chairperson. She believes that
Richard Moore has demonstrated his skill to identify points of agreement and to
solve points of disagreement.
• Ms. Browner believes that the good attendance at the October 24, 1994, Domestic
Policy Council meeting at the White House demonstrated the interest across all
federal agencies by the environmental justice movement. Agencies are assessing
their own internal programs and are more willing to develop environmental justice
projects that can be implemented across all agencies. Ms. Browner contends that
environmental justice is a difficult issue that a lot of people do not understand.
Therefore, the work being done within the agencies under Executive Order 12898
is significant. The Agency has reviewed some of the draft environmental justice
plans submitted by other agencies and has offered guidance on these plans.
Full NEJAC Council Page 22
-------
Ms. Browner has promised other agencies that NEJAC or its recommendations, or
both are available. Because the White House plans to reduce the number of
federal advisory committees nationwide, many agencies may need to use EPA's
NEJAC. Therefore, Ms. Browner believes that NEJAC will play a crucial role in
helping EPA develop national policy and implement changes across the country,
developing a framework responsive to the needs of all communities.
Ms. Browner emphasized the need to move quickly and decisively to identify
concrete measures to promote environmental justice. NEJAC's recommendations
need to be broad enough so that they can educate other federal agencies and
identify ways to measure federal Agency progress in achieving environmental
justice.
A major direction of the Agency is the need to involve stakeholders in resolving
environmental justice issues. Effective participation must become a reality. Ms.
Browner does not believe that EPA can be responsive to the needs of all people
without NEJAC's help.
Richard Moore asked the Council to comment on the relationship between
NEJAC and IWG.
Cindy Thomas asked the Administrator why the IWG did not meet with the
Council as planned. Ms. Browner responded that the IWG did not believe
it was ready to meet with NEJAC, because IWG is in the process of
completing its objectives. Many of the IWG members wanted time to talk
with their cabinet members after the October 24 Domestic Policy Meeting.
The Administrator acknowledged the Council's disappointment and said
that some of IWG's members present at this Council meeting may be
willing to speak informally with individuals during the breaks.
Jean Sindab asked the Administrator if IWG is having problems with the
issue of environmental justice. Ms. Sindab asked why NEJAC has not been
used to facilitate IWG's process of developing objectives. Administrator
Browner responded that agencies are faced with the challenge of identifying
statutes that can be used to achieve Agency goals. Ms. Browner believes
that the reports developed by NEJAC Subcommittees will facilitate the
development of objectives for other agencies. If NEJAC identifies a
specific problem within an agency, NEJAC should include the problem in
its reports to EPA. Because of the difficulties involved in convening the
entire Working Group, Ms. Browner suggested scheduling meetings
between a few Council members and a few IWG members to create
interaction between the two groups. :
';
Dr. Robert Bullard stated that it is very important for NEJAC to
participate in IWG's process of developing protocols and strategy. The
Full NEJAC Council Page 23
-------
Administrator agreed that the groups should work together and was
amenable to facilitating dialogue between the two groups.
Charles Lee emphasized the need to focus on some cross-cutting issues.
Due to time constraints, neither NEJAC nor IWG could identify every
feasible project that should be implemented. Administrator Browner
agreed with Mr. Lee, and stated that developing a set of shared principles
and goals helps to bring about shared projects. The Administrator believes
that the full Council should be addressing the over-arching issues so that
the Subcommittees can address the specific issues.
• Richard Moore introduced the Subcommittee Chairs and asked each of them
briefly to present their reports to the Administrator.
The first Subcommittee report was presented by Peggy Saika, Chair of the
Public Participation and Accountability Subcommittee. She stated that the
Subcommittee had an exceptional session with voices representing diverse
communities and workers. The Subcommittee's goal was to identify a
process for institutionalizing the public participation process. The
Subcommittee identified the need for shared responsibilities in leadership,
planning, and implementation between the Agency and local communities.
Ms. Saika stressed the importance of maintaining honesty and integrity in
the public participation process. The Subcommittee also identified the
need for community education, regionalized materials, and sensitive
facilitators trained in environmental justice issues.
The Administrator commended the Subcommittee for its achievements and
asked it to include actual examples of successful efforts in its report.
The second Subcommittee report was presented by Deeohn Ferris, Chair of
the Enforcement Subcommittee. Ms. Ferris informed the Administrator
that in its past two meetings, the Enforcement Subcommittee has been
evaluating the performance of EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) with respect to environmental justice. She
stated that the Subcommittee should complete it's first report by the end of
November. The Subcommittee is looking for specific cases where the
OECA was responsive to people of color. Ms. Ferris described the
Subcommittee plans to address other topics. These topics included
evaluating whether State funding for environmental agencies and targeting
for enforcement actions is appropriate, and whether EPA's OECA is
adequately supporting tribal governments and indigenous people in helping
themselves. Another topic that the Subcommittee plans to address is
developing a pilot program in which the federal government provides
training to communities to foster industry-community partnerships.
Full NEJAC Council Page 24
-------
The Administrator stated that the Enforcement Subcommittee has
developed an ambitious agenda. She encouraged the Subcommittee to
produce its first report by the end of November so that their input can be
implemented before the Agency finalizes its plans for the next fiscal year.
In addition, Ms. Browner emphasized the importance of evaluating the
States' targeting objectives. The Administrator acknowledged that EPA's
Office of Enforcement is in the midst of change. Only eight years ago,
authority consolidated in the Office of Enforcement was scattered across
the Agency.
The third Subcommittee report was presented by Charles Lee, Chair of the
Waste & Facility Siting Subcommittee. Mr. Lee explained the importance
of developing an environmental justice infrastructure that permanently
incorporates the community, provides for community training, and focuses
on environmental protection in the twenty-first century.
The Administrator agreed that groups must consider the future.
— The final Subcommittee report was presented by Dr. Robert Bullard, Chair
of the Health and Research Subcommittee. The Subcommittee's goals
include the following: to assist in developing a strategy to measure success;
to develop a working definition of "environmental justice research;" to
review major research priority areas, including multiple exposure pathways
and non-cancer end points; and to develop models to be used to initiate
community-led research. The Subcommittee's priorities in order of
importance are: to provide EPA's Office of Research and Development
with its workplan and strategy; to provide its workplan and strategy to the
entire Agency; and to develop a workplan and strategy encompassing all
federal agencies.
Richard Moore introduced John O'Leary who presented the Council's
recommendations concerning the siting of the Louisiana uranium production
facility.
John O'Leary expressed NEJAC's concern to the Administrator that the
EIS for the proposed uranium production facility falls considerably short of
the requirements of Executive Order 12898. NEJAC recommends that the
Administrator defer a ruling on this EIS until the Office of Environmental
Justice has thoroughly reviewed it. Mr. O'Leary commented that, as
NEJAC understands it, potentially affected communities were not given a
sufficient opportunity for participation in developing the EIS.
In response, Ms. Browner said that EPA Region VI sent a letter to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on October 25, 1994, taking issue with
NRC's finding of no environmental injustice in the proposed uranium
Full NEJAC Council page 25
-------
facility siting in Louisiana. The Administrator stated that the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) is developing guidance on integrating the
Executive Order requirements into the NEPA and EIS process.
Richard Moore opened the floor to Council members for discussion with
the Administrator.
Delores Herrera emphasized the need to promote people of color into
senior management positions at EPA. Ms. Herrera believes that
stakeholders need to see and to communicate with people of color at
decision-making levels at the EPA. She stated that EPA must open the
lines of true communication.
The Administrator responded that the Agency is currently reviewing
recommendations to improve the diversity of senior management. Before
making any final decisions, Ms. Browner will talk with EPA employees who
have been working on environmental justice issues for years. In addition,
Ms. Browner stated that she would welcome recommendations from
NEJAC as a whole or its members individually.
Baldemar Velasquez stated that the Agency should put the burden of
enforcement on local officials so that they will be forced to interact with
the affected communities and workers. Mr. Velasquez underscored the
importance of involving more than one agency to protect workers against
environmental injustices.
Ms. Browner recognized Mr. Velasquez's plight and agrees that the
involvement of more than one agency is more effective.
Dr. Beverly Wright asked the Administrator to put the proposal to develop
Environmental Justice Centers for Excellence back on the table. Dr.
Wright stated that EPA has ignored this proposal for over ten years and
that reviving the centers for excellence would demonstrate EPA's
commitment to the environmental justice movement.
In closing, the Administrator stated that environmental justice problems will not
be resolved until every agency focuses on the needs of its communities. She
believes that the President signed the Executive Order because he recognizes that
environmental justice should be addressed by the entire government. The
Administrator stated that she was impressed with NEJAC's progress. She hopes
that it continues to provide EPA with information and mechanisms allowing
communities to feel a part of the decision making process.
Full NEJAC Council Page 26
-------
The following is a list of IWG members present during NEJAC's final plenary
session.
Bob Faithful, Special Assistant on Environmental Justice, Department of
the Interior.
Marsha Harley, Office of Environmental Justice, Department of the
Interior.
Gungia Johnson, Department of Energy.
Marcia Lopez-Ofin, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dan Rooney, Department of Commerce.
Julie Roque, Office of Science and Technology's Policy Executive Office.
Velma Shannon, Department of Agriculture.
XI. Review of EPA's Strategic Plan Outline
• Richard Moore asked the Council members to review EPA's strategic plan for
tone and overall philosophy. Although specific edits were submitted, this write-up
summarizes the general comments from the Council members.
— Several Council members believe that the strategic plan should build a
foundation for sustainable communities. EPA's document should mention
the diverse nature of environmental justice issues. Topics to consider other
than facility siting include equitable resource allocation and pesticide
exposure.
— The Council believes that public participation should be integrated in the
structure of the strategic plan development.
- Council members agreed that EPA must consider cumulative risk and
synergistic risk during its risk assessments. Dr. Bullard suggested
incorporating the actual risks posed to communities and individuals exposed
to toxins, lead paint, and contaminated water. Dr. Bullard believes that
EPA must focus on total health including categories of disease, nuisance
reduction, and general quality of life.
The Council members suggested that EPA's strategic plan should include
pollution prevention, risk reduction, EPA compliance programs, monitoring,
enforcement, health research, health care monitoring, and other techniques
to mitigate problems.
Full NEJAC Council Page 27
-------
Several Council members believe that EPA should include long-term
pollution control as one of its strategic goals.
Council members raised the over-arching issue of using language in the
strategic plan that stresses Agency involvement with all stakeholders in the
community. Members suggested that EPA respect local knowledge, use the
community's language, and ensure community participation in pollution
prevention strategies.
Several Council members believe that State agencies should be involved
with environmental justice issues and with implementation of EPA's
strategic plan.
Cindy Thomas believes that EPA should consistently use the phrase
"human health and the environment" when appropriate.
Cindy Thomas commented that EPA will have a difficult time
implementing federal policy on Tribal lands.
Although EPA followed terminology used in the Executive Order, the
Council recommended the use of correct terminology such as "people of
color" instead of the word "minority." The Council also recommended that
EPA use "culture" rather than'"color" when describing communities.
Charles McDermott recommended that EPA use terminology that avoids
negative connotations. For example, the term "waste dump" should be
replaced with the term "waste facility." Further, facilities should be
classified as either active or closed.
• The Committee reconvened in the afternoon for a working lunch during which
NEJAC continued page-by-page edits of the EPA Strategic Plan. Kathy Aterno
said that EPA would look at NEJAC's comments, add regional comments, and
complete the Strategic Plan around the 9th or 10 of November, 1994. Because of
this time-line, Ms. Aterno asked for all comments from the Committee preferably
by November 1, and not later than November 5, 1994.
XII. Action Items
• The Council adopted the motion to recommend sending the letter drafted by the
Public Participation Subcommittee to the Interagency Task Force on Outreach.
• The Council adopted the motion to approve the model demonstration project for
public participation and project funding requested by the Public Participation
Subcommittee. The motion also called for a tie-in with any existing or planned
activities of other Subcommittees.
Full NEJAC Council Page 28
-------
The Council adopted the motion to act on the Public Participation Subcommittee's
recommendations to collect information and to critique existing EPA public
participation activities.
The Council adopted the motion to approve sending a letter drafted by the
Subcommittee on Enforcement to Assistant Administrator Steven Herman
regarding employment diversity issues in the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.
The Council adopted the motion to empower the Subcommittee for Waste and
Facility Siting to continue development of a ten-point framework for submission to
OSWER.
The Council adopted the motion to revise all documents previously developed by
the Council to include the impacts to, and needs of, tribal governments and
indigenous people whenever applicable.
The Council adopted the motion to accept an amended Option IV that defines
how NEJAC will communicate with the IWG.
The Council adopted the motion to approve the recommendations from the
Health and Research Conference as a model for forming environmental justice
research policy. In addition, the Council recommended that mformation from the
Subcommittee be forwarded to all federal government agencies, the President's
Council on Sustainable Development, and all other relevant agencies and offices
as appropriate.
The Council adopted the motion to approve an amended version of the drafted
letter from NEJAC to EPA's Administrator offering NEJAC's assistance in
identifying candidates for several appointments open at EPA.
The Council adopted the motion to postpone a vote on the IWG's
Implementation Task Force's Development Process Checklist until it reflects
NEJAC's Subcommittee recommendations made on October 25, 1994.
The Council adopted the motion to postpone a vote on the IWG Outreach Task
Force's Public Participation Checklist until it reflects NEJAC Subcommittee
recommendations made on October 25, 1994.
The Council adopted the motion to recommend that EPA immediately initiate
dialogue with farm worker organizations to discuss the protection of farm workers.
\
The Council adopted the motion to recommend to EPA's Administrator that she
delay making a decision on the EIS submitted for the proposed Louisiana uranium
Full NEJAC Council Page 29
-------
production facility until the Office of Environmental Justice has thoroughly
reviewed the EIS with respect to its compliance with Executive Order 12898.
• The Council tabled the sixth Carver Terrace issue until its next meeting, but
asked EPA staff to draft a letter from NEJAC to the Department of Justice or the
General Counsel of EPA. This letter should reference the Carver Terrace case,
and raise NEJAC's concern that the environmental justice dimension of the case
has been inadequately and inappropriately evaluated. The letter should note the
overall problem of community relocation. The Council will review the draft letter.
• The Council adopted the suggestion to send a letter to the IWG drafted by its
Subcommittee on Health and Research. The draft letter suggests that the Task
Force on Health meet with its NEJAC counterpart.
• The NEJAC workgroup on the relationship between NEJAC and the IWG will
meet to address the issue of NEJAC review of IWG documents. The working
group will develop options, and submit these options to the full Council for a vote
in mid-November.
• The Enforcement Subcommittee will continue developing its recommendations to
EPA's Office of Enforcement. The document will be sent to NEJAC members in
time for them to make comments before the final version is drafted around the
end of November, 1994.
• NEJAC requested that it be briefed on two subjects. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and interaction between EPA and the Council on
Environmentally Quality (CEQ). The other subject concerned issues affecting
Tribal and indigenous people. The Council asked that Terry Williams and other
Tribal or indigenous leaders provide the second briefing.
XIII. Public Comment Period
• Beverly Johnson
Ms. Johnson believes that the Council needs to: develop a definition of
"partnership" that will be circulated pubb'cly, review the concept of pollution
prevention, and include more Council members from the New England states.
• Pam Tau Lee
Ms. Lee expressed concern over the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA) strategic plan to implement an environmental
justice program for workers of color. She suggested that OSHA use the
recommendations from the Health and Research Subcommittee. Ms. Lee
also recommend that OSHA develop a register for workers at risk, aid in
Full NEJAC Council Page 30
-------
research, provide consultation and training services, enforce training for
workers of color, develop protocols for interagency agreement, and work
with NEJAC to integrate environmental justice into the workplace.
Ms. Lee submitted three names of candidates for NEJAC's labor
representatives to the Council.
Mildred McCain
Ms. McCain suggested that the Council address the regulatory role of EPA
as it relates to DOE and DOD facilities, and review NEPA and its impacts on the
EIS process. Ms. McCain believes that the public should be trained on pubic
participation and that young people should be included on the Council.
Jerome Smith
Mr. Smith would like to develop a partnership between NEJAC and the
National Organization of Blacks in Government. Mr. Smith believes that
both organizations would benefit from the partnership. He believes that
together they could develop national resolutions to further provide
communities with environmental justice leadership. He believes that full
realization of environmental justice could create an economic opportunity
for people of color.
Mr. Smith invited the Council to attend the third annual meeting of the
National Organization of Blacks in Government scheduled to be held
during the second week of August, 1995, in St. Louis, Missouri.
Damu Smith
Mr. Smith addressed the issues surrounding a proposed nuclear plant siting
in Louisiana. Mr. Smith felt that the Council has an opportunity to prevent
injustice before it starts.
— Mr. Smith is specifically concerned about the possibility of relocating
communities instead of cleaning up hazardous waste sites. He believes that
relocation is not a solution to the environmental justice questions involved.
Mr. Smith hopes that more work is conducted to address this misuse of
relocation.
The Council asked Mr. Smith to expand his report on relocation and
present it in writing to NEJAC's Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee.
Full NEJAC Council page 31
-------
Steven Livengood .
Mr. Livengood receiced funding from the Office of Environmental Justice
to test a community-specific workshop utilizing designated tools to enhance
public participation in the environmental justice decision-making process.
Mr. Livengood discussed the need for direct interaction of environmental
justice networks between NEJAC and the EnviroAction Project.
Council Response to Mr. Livengood's Comments
• Dr. Bullard asked Mr. Livengood to explain the minority makeup of the
EnviroAction group. Mr. Livengood responded that there were no minority
members in Washington, D.C.
• Dr. Bullard questioned the direction of EnviroAction funding. Mr.
Livengood provided a breakdown of where and to what projects the
funding was distributed (e.g., 80% of the funds were directed towards
Hispanic and African American firms).
• Charles Lee asked Mr. Livengood whether he knew there were grassroots
environmental justice networks, and if so to define the term. Mr.
Livengood did not answer but indicated that his organization, EnviroAction
worked with a Latino group who to the best of his knowledge worked with
some environmental justice groups. Upon questioning he named two
community based groups but was not able to indicate any knowledge of
what the working relationship was. Mr. Lee remarked that he did not
think Mr. Livengood had answered either of the questions.
David Lennett
— Dr. Gaylord read into the record a statement from Dennis J. Lennett. The
statement reported that cement kiln dust threatens human health and the
environment, and that the dust, therefore, should be regulated under
RCRA.
Bruce Terris
Mr. Terris summarized the "injustice" resulting from the EPA/Corps of
Engineer's purchase of Carver Terrace of Texarkana. Mr. Terris concluded
that residents were threatened with condemnation of the property if they
did not accept the governments offer price, and EPA knew the threats
were illegal; the case presented a classic situation of environmental
injustice, because the residents are African American, and because in
similar situations, white communities did not experience such threats.
Full NEJAC Council Page 32
-------
Mr. Terris wanted to notify NEJAC of the incident and to request
assistance in informing the Administration of the Carver Terrace citizen's
concern over the incident. Mr. Terris would like to have the case settled
reasonably.
Council Response to Mr. Terris's Comments
• The Chair noted that the case was under litigation, and that EPA cannot
comment on the incident. Mr. Terris said the EPA can comment, but will
not.
• Dr. Bullard asked if Mr. Terris had taken the case pro bono. Mr. Terris
said, yes, in the sense that there would be no fee unless the plaintiffs
prevailed.
David Harris
Dr. Gaylord read into the record a statement from Mr. Harris. (NEJAC
decided not to have the entire statement read into the record.)
\
The essence of the statement was that (1) hog farm wastes create a
concentrated organic matter which contaminates groundwater; (2) wastes
are stored in unlined, uncovered and unfenced cess pools; and (3) the
number of farms with large numbers of animals (in the thousands) has
increased.
Mr. Harris requested regulation to protect rural citizens from this sort of
environmental contamination.
Council Response to Mr. Harris's Comments
• Ms. Thomas noted that living near a facility with mass animal killing does
have environmental contamination impacts, and noted that Alaska has
similar sanitation concerns.
Jerry Poje
Mr. Poje suggested that NEJAC recommend that the Subcommittee on
Public Participation create a participation model for federal agencies with
varying authority.
Mr. Poje suggested that people involved with federal decision-making
should create a science summit. This idea was related to adopting certain
recommendations derived from an environmental justice symposium/summit
held earlier this year by an interagency Health and Research Conference.
Full NEJAC Council Page 33
-------
The recommendation was to involve residents of at-risk communities and
at-risk workers in agency decision-making. The individuals responsible for
this summit recommendation never intended to exclude the public from
creating the forum. The goal of the forum would be to educate federal
employees on how they can implement the environmental justice Executive
Order.
Council Respdnse to Mr. Pole's Comments
• Ms. Ferris agreed with Mr. Poje that stakeholder participation was critical.
However, she was concerned that the IWG Health and Research Task
Force conducted discussion without stakeholder participation. The Task
Force members may not have been sensitive to stakeholder participation.
Ms. Ferris asked if the speaker would take back to the IWG her concern
with the lack of interaction between NEJAC and the workgroup.
• Ms. Walker asked what IWG Task Forces will do without public
participation and NEJAC. Mr. Poje said that his recommendation was
primarily designed to get agency heads to embrace the summit. His Task
Force wanted senior management to support in a symposium dealing with
public participation.
• Mr. Valesquez would like to see the IWG comment and modify some of its
policies to address issues of concern in various communities represented by
NEJAC members.
Don Chen
Mr. Chen announced a Chicago conference on November 16-18, 1994,
sponsored in conjunction with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
The conference theme is transportation and environmental justice.
Mr. Chen was optimistic about the conference outcome, because Mr. Ferris
and Dr. Bullard had encouraged his organization to get more people
involved.
The conference workgroup will develop recommendations for
transportation agency compliance with the Executive Order.
Mr. Chen believed in the sincerity of the FTA because that agency already
has devoted resources to environmental justice.
Mr. Chen requested advice on structuring the conference and suggestions
for people to serve as moderators.
Full NEJAC Council Page 34
-------
Council Response to Mr. Chen's Comments
• One Council member asked what motivated Mr. Chen's organization to
sponsor the conference. Mr. Chen viewed the conference as the beginning
of a dialogue with FTA and the community. At the end of the conference,
the participants will be able to assess FTA's strategy in addressing
environmental justice issues as they pertain to transportation.
•>'
• Ms. Johnson asked how many community people are involved with the
conference in Chicago. Mr. Chen did not know, but wanted the
participation of as many community residents as possible. The NEJAC
suggested contacting Hazel Johnson to help.
• Ms. Ferris noted communities of color were already involved in urban
transportation issues. One of the issues in these communities is bus repair
stations and bus routes located in minority communities. Ms. Ferris also
commented that new buses serve white communities and not communities
of .color.
James Younger
- Mr. Younger commented that the meeting was an extraordinary event and
commended NEJAC for work already done.
Mr. Younger stated that environmental justice initiatives will be best served
by looking to the Regions to implement NEJAC objectives.
Mr. Younger noted that the Public Participation and Accountability
Subcommittee should serve as a model for other Subcommittees.
Mr. Younger also noted that all Subcommittees could benefit by using a
trained facilitator.
Mr. Younger commended the Council for addressing the issue of diversity
in the workforce, but wondered whether EPA will take this issue seriously.
He also noted that NEJAC should bring the Civil Rights Office into
exploring the issue of workforce diversity.
Council Response to Mr. Younger's Comments
• The Chair commented that NEJAC planned to send a letter to EPA
expressing the Council's concern over the lack of EPA workforce diversity.
Mr. Younger said that Agency environmental justice coordinators should
interact with NEJAC.
Full NEJAC Council Page 35
-------
• Ms. Ferris thanked the speaker for raising the issue of workforce diversity.
She asked if Mr. Younger had any advice about overcoming decades of
resistance to diversifying the EPA workforce. Mr. Younger said that a plan
would be needed to measure and monitor progress in diversifying the
workforce.
• The Chair noted that diversity in the workforce was a cross-cutting issue.
• Connie Tucker
Ms. Tucker complimented the Health and Research Subcommittee and
directed her comments to it. She said that a neurotoxin database should be
added to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) TRI system. Long-term
environmental and sociological effects should be researched. Ms. Tucker
also questioned whether there is a relationship between environmental
neurotoxin exposure and criminal conduct.
Ms. Tucker suggested exploration of immediate health care and monitoring
concerns of communities. Health care should be established in
communities already contaminated with toxic chemicals.
Ms. Tucker also mentioned that contractors should be sensitive to
environmental justice issues. The public should participate in developing
environmental justice guidelines for contractors.
Ms. Tucker was also concerned with the term "equal participation" in the
Subcommittee draft letter, and suggested removal of the word "equal."
Council Response to Ms. Tucker's Comments
• One Council member noted that in defining "community," all Americans
should be part of the affected community. But some communities may be
disproportionally impacted by environmental contaminants.
• Mr. Lee supported Ms. Tucker's concern about the word "equal." He
suggested changing the phrase to read "partnerships."
• Greenpeace
Because dioxins disproportionally affect communities of color, the speaker
requested data on the sources of dioxin. He announced that the comment
period for an EPA action on dioxins would close January 13, 1995. He
noted that public meetings concerning the dioxin issue were not being held
in the south east part of the U.S. He asked if NEJAC could open up the
comment process for the general community.
Full NEJAC Council Page 36
-------
The commentator said that there was a petition before EPA to stop dioxin
release from pulp and paper mills. This petition could be the litmus test
for EPA's sincerity in addressing environmental justice issues. The
commentator stated that a risk assessment approach to regulating dioxins
would be insufficient. The Agency should use a precautionary approach,
so that if exposure to a chemical poses a cancer risk or hormonal problems,
the chemical should be banned outright. The commentator noted that
"these materials" would be very dangerous with biocumulative effects. He
concluded that regulatory action is too late to help once human health
effects are observed.
Council Response to Greenpeace's Comments
• One Council member expressed the necessity of distinguishing between risk,
risk communication, and illness.
• Dr. Bullard wanted to reassure Greenpeace that there would be no
planned hearing for Region IV, and that the issue will be taken up with
Lynne Goldman. Dr. Bullard noted that six cities would be insufficient for
getting impacted communities to the table to talk about environmental
justice issues.
• The Chair noted that public comment was important.
XTV. Next Meeting
While the next NEJAC meeting wass set for January 17-19, 1995 in
Washington D.C. at the time of this meeting, the location was changed to Atlanta,
Georgia, in order to coincide with the First Interagency Public Meeting on
Environmental Justice. The NEJAC meeting location is the Sheraton Atlanta
Airport Hotel; the Interagency Public Meeting location is Clark Atlanta
University.
Full NEJAC Council Page 37
-------
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
May 20,1994
A Federal Advisory Committee
Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Summary of First Meeting
Friday, May 20, 1994
Washington, D.C
I. General Topics of Discussion
• FACA process and applicability to NEJAC
• Presidential executive order and memorandum
• Letter from the Alliance in Washington on Environmental
Justice to Carol Browner
• Protocol .
• Mission and sphere of influence
• Organizational structure of NEJAC and its subcommittees
« Operating budget for NEJAC and its subcommittees
• Charter and bylaws
• Public comments to the council
II. Major Issues of Concern and Debate
• Increasing the number of council members from 23 to 25
• Number, purpose, and membership of the subcommittees
• Election of council chairperson versus appointment by EPA
• Electing a co-chairperson
• Travel assistance for subcommittee members
• Need for and creation of a protocol committee
• Relationship to EPA and the interagency workgroup
• Possible development of other environmental justice FACAs within
other agencies
• Coordination with other FACAs -
• Funds from EPA's appropriations budgets for the subcommittees
• Actions allowed under the charter
• Comments on the bylaws
• Cultural awareness training
III. Actions Taken by the Council
The council voted to develop its own subcommittees, thus abolishing the
subcommittees organized by EPA. The council established a temporary working group to
develop the subcommittee structure and choose the members of these subcommittees.
The working group will present its decisions to the full committee for approval on June
6, 1994.
1
-------
The council created a temporary working group to handle protocol issues. This
working group will make recommendations to the main council on the relationship of
NEJAC to the interagency workgroup by June 6, 1994.
The council voted to increase the membership from 23 to 25. The temporary
workgroup on subcommittees will suggest individuals for the two positions to Ms.
Browner by June 6, 1994. The council voted to delay consideration of a co-chairperson
until additional members have been selected.
IV. EPA's Commitments Rising from the Meeting
• EPA will consolidate comments received on the bylaws and
forward them to council members.1
• EPA will provide a timeline of target dates for interagency
workgroup deliverables and agency strategic plans, actions,
at.J activities of which NEJAC should be aware.
• EPA will provide budget information for the council and its
subcommittees.
• Administrator Browner, as chairperson of the interagency
workgroup, will support NEJAC becoming the main advisor
to the interagency workgroup on environmental justice issues,
if NEJAC wants to take on such a role. It is unlikely that
other FACAs will be formed without the consent of the
Administrator.
• Administrator Browner will introduce the issues of cultural
awareness training, biodiversity, and subsistence consumption
of fish and wildlife into the interagency workgroup process.
• Administrator Browner will accept comments on the
interagency workgroup structure from the council once the
interagency workgroup approves it.
1 Comments should be submitted to the Environmental Justice office by June 30,1994.
2
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Minutes of First Meeting
Friday, May 20, 1994
Washington, D.C.
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) held its first
meeting on May 20, 1994, at the Omni Shoreham Hotel at 2500 Calvert St., Washington,
D.C. The meeting focused on NEJAC's development, responsibilities, procedures and
rules, and mission. The NEJAC also heard public comments.
EPA established NEJAC pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide
independent expert advice and counsel to the Agency on policy matters related to
managing environmental justice. The Council (at the time of the meeting) had 23
members, including representatives of: academia; industry; community groups;
nongovernmental organizations; state, tribal, and local governments; and environmental
organizations. A list of attendees is provided in Appendix A. These minutes summarize
the Council's discussions and resolutions by subject area, not chronologically. A meeting
summary is available from EPA's Office of Environmental Justice upon request.
1. OPENING REMARKS
The meeting began with an introduction of the council members, statements about
the history of the environmental justice movement, and an overview of the meeting
agenda. Dr. Clarice Gaylord, Director of EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and the
Designated Federal Official of NEJAC, convened the meeting, welcomed all attendees,
and introduced the chairperson, John Hall. Mr. Hall is also the chairperson of the Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission. He greeted the audience, welcomed the
Council and suggested that council members introduce themselves. All members,
individually, spoke about (1) the organization or community that they represent and (2)
their objectives. Mr. Hall reviewed the background of the environmental justice
movement and noted the contributions of the members of the Council and the
communities that they represent. He urged the Council to focus on the products1 that
NEJAC may need to develop in order to have maximum input and impact.
2. HOW NEJAC OPERATES AS A FACA COMMITTEE
Dr. Gaylord explained the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process. She
showed a 14-minute video tape developed by the General Services Administration that
described the history of FACA, responsibilities of FACA committee members, and the
regulations and procedures governing FACA committee operations. After the video, she
-------
gave a presentation on (1) the objectives of EPA in forming NEJAC as a FACA
committee, as outlined in the charter, (2) several federal requirements that apply to
NEJAC, and (3) the roles of the committee officials. Appendix B provides a copy of the
charter. The responsibilities of the chairperson, designated federal official, council
members, and subcommittee members were discussed. She stated that in an open
process the government needed each council member's expert opinions in order to do its
business.
^
Bylaws
Dr. Gaylord discussed the proposed bylaws of NEJAC developed by her staff.
Council members should review the bylaws and submit comments to her office by June
30. All comments will be reviewed by the council members and any changes to the
bylaws discussed and approved by the Council at the next meeting.
3.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 AND PRES;T>ENTIAL MEMORANDUM
Background
Executive Order (E. O.) 12898 was signed by President Clinton in February 1994.
E. O. 12898 directs each federal agency to make achieving environmental justice a part
of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects of their respective programs,
polices, and activities on minority and low-income populations in the U.S. The
Presidential Memorandum encourages the application of existing civil rights and
environmental statutes to promote environmental justice.
Jean Nelson, General Counsel
Ms. Jean Nelson, EPA's General
Counsel spoke about the mandates of the
executive order and presidential
memorandum. Ms. Nelson reviewed the
major components of the executive order:
planning, action, specific activities,
accountability of federal agencies to the
interagency workgroup, research and data,
collection of data, subsistence
consumption, and enforcement of the order. She pointed out that the presidential
memorandum is a strong statement to federal agencies and departments that federal
actions under NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and other statutes should be evaluated for
adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income communities.
The executive order contains "elements
of success," such as the system of
accountability and specific deadlines
that make this executive order effective.
-------
EPA staff addressed questions on E. O. 12898 and the presidential memorandum.
• Ms. Laurie Morisette asked if NEJAC's scope of work
included access to other federal agencies? For example, will
NEJAC receive briefings on developments in other federal
agencies or have access to data from outside EPA. Dr.
Gaylord answered that NEJAC is able to request any types of
information necessary to carry out its charge. Mr. Hall
responded that NEJAC could not operate as an island, and it
should decide what its actions were going to be and what
parameters to work within in order to address environmental
justice issues.
• Ms. Cindy Thomas of the Alaska Office of Environmental
Health asked about the relationship between NEJAC and
Congress. Ms. Kathy Atterno of EPA responded that
NEJAC's recommendations may be incluu d in EPA's report
to Congress. NEJAC has no formal role in relationship to
Congress.
• Dr. Jane Delgado of COSSMHO asked Ms. Nelson to expand
on the meaning of the word enforcement as it is used in
section 1-103 "Development of Agency Strategies" of the
executive order. Ms. Nelson stated that the word
enforcement is meant to describe the existing enforcement
components within each federal agency. The order requires
each agency, in its strategy, to address enforcement
components that may need revising.
After the question and answer period, Mr. Hall recessed the meeting for 15
. minutes.
4. INTRODUCTION OF THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Hall introduced Carol Browner, the Administrator of the EPA. Mr. Hall gave
an overview of Administrator Browner's experience and accomplishments. He also stated
that Administrator Browner joined the meeting to speak about her vision for NEJAC and
answer any questions.
Administrator Browner thanked the council members for agreeing to address
environmental concerns as part of this FACA committee and develop solutions and
recommendations for EPA and the Administration. The Administrator believes that if
-------
It is important that we seek to find
areas of common agreement and to
move forward in a way that is
responsive to the people of this country.
Carol Browner, EPA Administrator
the Council is to work as a group, they
must develop an atmosphere where
different perspectives are shared and
differences are honored. In addition, the
Council must seek to resolve differences
and find areas of common agreement in a
way that is responsive to the people of
this country. ,
EPA recognizes that the legal
requirements governing NEJAC may seem
cumbersome. Although EPA must follow the law, Ms. Browner asserted that EPA is
committed to creating the flexibility needed for NEJAC to function effectively..
Mr. Charles Lee of the United Church of Christ Commission thanked the
Administrator for her remarks, her commitment to environmental justice, and EPA's
constructive efforts on the issue. Mr. Lee suggested that the Council discuss the issues
raised in the letter from the Alliance for the Washington Office on Environmental
Justice. .
5. LETTER FROM THE ALLIANCE FOR THE WASHINGTON OFFICE
ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
Twelve members of the Council drafted and signed a letter to Administrator
Browner dated May 11, 1994. Appendix C is a copy of the letter, The letter had been
distributed to EPA staff, the Council, and the public. The group chose Dr. Robert
Bullard of the University of California at Los Angeles to introduce the letter and detail
their concerns. The issues raised were related to the process, protocol, scope of work,
and membership selection of the Council. - . •
Administrator Browner suggested using the categories of process, protocol, scope
of work, and membership as a means to organize the discussion. She suggested making a
list of the discussion topics mentioned in the letter and to add any other topics that
members wanted to discuss. Council members agreed and suggested additional topics.
Several comments were made regarding the letter and topics to be discussed. Mr.
Chuck McDermott of Waste Management noted that he, or any other industry
representatives, had not been asked to review or sign the letter. Mr. Herman Ellis of
Rohm & Haas Company stated that the letter was adversarial and suggested discussing
the substantive issues first and the process issues last. Dr. Bullard disagreed, saying that
the process issues should be addressed first because past mishandling on process issues
had created an adversarial atmosphere. After several council members expressed their
opinions, the Council voted to have Administrator Browner conduct a discussion of the
-------
relationship between NEJAC and the interagency workgroup first, and then address
other discussion topics, A list of the issues discussed appears below1:
Discussion Topics
Process
• Educating subcommittee members about their role; and
getting feedback from them
• Cultural sensitivity training within the federal government
Protocol
Formation of a protocol subcommittee to handle meeting
times, agendas, etc.,
Delivering meeting materials early
Comments on the bylaws
Travel assistance for subcommittee members
Funds from EPA's appropriations budgets for the
subcommittees
Scope of Work
• Number, purpose, and membership of the subcommittees
• Actions allowed under the charter
• Relationship of NEJAC to EPA and the interagency
workgroup
• Possible development of other environmental justice FACAs
within other agencies
• Coordination with other FACAs
Membership
• Including all stakeholders in NEJAC
• Increasing the number of council members from 23 to 25
• Election of council chairperson versus appointment by EPA
• Electing a co-chairperson
Summaries of the discussions on the above topics appear in the following sections.
1 The topics are not listed in the order discussed. They are organized into several categories for
clarity. . .
-------
6. NEJAC's RELATIONSHIP TO THE INTERAGENCY WORKGROUP
AND SCOPE OF WORK
The discussion of NEJAC's relationship to the interagency workgroup was far
reaching. Administrator Browner answered all questions from the floor.
Other FACA Committees Within Other Agencies
^
Administrator Browner expressed her wish that NEJAC be the only EPA advisory
committee having environmental justice as its' main focus. Additionally, she hopes that
NEJAC advises other Agencies through the interagency workgroup. Her support for a
crosscutting advisory role for NEJAC is based on her belief that other agencies have less
experience (1) analyzing environmental justice problems and (2) developing programs
and solutions to eliminate them. She said that, as chairperson of the interagency
workgroup, she will support NEJAC becoming one of the main advisors to the
workgroup, if the Council wants to take on such a role. Many council members agreed
with her and suggested topics to be incorporated into the interagency workgroup pu cess.
Administrator Browner agreed to introduce the issues of cultural awareness training,
biodiversity, and subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife into the interagency
workgroup process.
The Council voted to develop a protocol working group to make
recommendations to the Council on its relationship to the interagency workgroup by June
6, 1994.
NEJAC's Scope of Work
Administrator Browner asserted
that the scope of work is to be
determined by NEJAC. Administrator
Browner recognizes that the problems to
be addressed are fundamental and are
going to require fundamental change.
Therefore, it is imperative for NEJAC to
show success by setting both short- and
long-term goals.
My role is not to set the agenda, but
instead to receive advice. I hope that
the Council will take a strong stance
and will make bold recommendations
to EPA and other agencies.
Carol Browner,
Administrator
Dr. Gaylord answered questions on the charter. She explained that although the
charter can not be changed, it is flexible enough to include any activities in the Council's
scope of work.
-------
7. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF NEJAC AND ITS SUBCOMMITTEES
The development of NEJAC's organizational structure was vigorously debated.
The main focus was the lack of full stakeholder participation. Council members were
concerned that key stakeholders had not been asked to join and that NEJAC had no
input in developing the- subcommittees or electing the chair. Discussion of these issues
raised auxiliary concerns such as travel assistance for members of the subcommittees
(introduced by Dr. Bunyan Bryant of the University of Michigan) and the limitations of
the operating budget (introduced by Dr. Jane Delgado). The Council sought to address
all of the concerns.
NEJAC Subcommittees
The Council voted to develop its own subcommittees, thus abolishing the
subcommittees organized by EPA. A temporary working group to develop the
subcommittee structure and choose the members of these subcommittees was established.
This working group will present its decisions to the Council for approval on June 6, 1994.
Budgetary Concerns
Many council members expressed that budgetary concerns tend to guide the level
of participation. The issue of subsidies for subcommittee members was discussed. It was
clarified that at this time, a subcommittee member's travel to subcommittee meetings is
paid for. However, travel to meetings of the Council is not covered for subcommittee
members. EPA will provide budget information to NEJAC.
Membership
The Council addressed membership concerns. The Council voted to increase the
membership from 23 to 25 in order to include additional stakeholders. The temporary
workgroup on subcommittees will suggest individuals for the two positions to Ms.
Browner by June 6, 1994.
Dr. Bullard said that the ability of NEJAC to operate effectively may be impaired
if NEJAC has a chairperson who is also head of a state agency that is liable for
environmental discrimination. Administrator Browner said that it is important to
recognize that each member of the Council has a particular background and that no
professional affiliation precludes being a committed and effective member of the Council.
She has confidence in Mr. Hall's ability to chair NEJAC. Mr. Ellis declared that he
believes that Mr. Hall will be an impartial chair. Dr. Bullard suggested that a grassroots
activist shduld have been chosen as chair. Administrator Browner suggested creating a
co-chair or a vice-chair position. The Council agreed to elect a co-chairperson or vice-
-------
chairperson, but also delayed consideration of this position,until additional members have
been selected.
8. PROTOCOL
Dr. Bullard noted that several protocol issues had been mishandled. For example,
several of the members did not receive a personal letter asking them to participate. He
also said that the meeting had been scheduled without consideration of the members'
schedules. He suggested addressing these concerns by forming a protocol committee.
Administrator Browner apologized for any mishandling of protocol items and agreed that
forming a protocol committee is a good idea. The Council created a temporary working
group to handle protocol issues. This working group will organize times, distribute
materials, and set agendas for future meetings and conference calls. Future protocol
responsibilities can be handled by an Executive Committee as described in NEJAC's
proposed bylaws.
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS
James Friloux - Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
• Louisiana is in the forefront of the environmental justice
movement. The state legislature has an environmental justice
program. LDEQ also sponsors public hearings.
• Louisiana has a citizen advisory council on environmental
justice that participates in the state planning process, and
sponsors meetings with affected communities and industry
representatives.
Ray Hernandez - New York City Department of Environmental Protection
« New York City has model environmental justice programs
focusing on community participation. The programs address
the problems of the Greenpoint/Williamsburg community in
Brooklyn and the West Harlem community in Manhattan.
• The programs educate residents about environmental issues,
promote economic development that emphasizes pollution
prevention, and initiate public/private partnerships to solve
environmental problems.
8
-------
John Kyte - National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
• NAM wants to work with all communities concerned with
environmental justice.
• NAM supports continued, sound scientific research into
factors affecting human health and the environment.
NAM supports non-discriminatory enforcement of
environmental laws and regulations in the administration of
environmental programs.
NAM supports open and informed dialogue with citizens
about environmental decisions by industry that affect local
communities.
Nina Laboy - Bronx Clean Air Coalition
• The Bronx community is disproportionaly affected by
environmental hazards.
• There will be a summit focusing on solutions to the
community's environmental concerns.
• Two year-long task forces will be created; one will develop
legislation and the other will establish an environmental non-
profit organization in the Bronx.
• Please support the Bronx Clean Air Coalition.
Arthur Ray - Potomac Electric Power, representing himself
• The federal, state, and local governments have failed to act in
the interests of their people.
• Government kowtowing to industry has created this problem.
• How are.the environmental justice "edicts" from NEJAC
going to be implemented at the state level?
-------
• The Council should address who within EPA is the ultimate
arbiter of when an environmental justice concern is involved.
• The Council should address international and border issues.
• Implementation within EPA is going to be key to the
Council's success.
Larry Springer - Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)
• CMA wants to ensure that the concerns of all parties are
captured.
• CMA's Responsible Care Community Awareness and
Emergency Response code is one of the vehicles for
addressing environmental justice concerns of an affected
community
Louise Benally - Big Mountain Community
• Strip mining and contamination of the land and animals is
threatening the local economy and way of life.
• There must be a real dialogue with grassroots groups
controlled by affected communities.
• The interagency workgroup should create an office with staff
and meeting space to liaison with grassroots groups.
• EPA must provide funds to its staff to build relationships and
dialogue with grassroots groups.
« Native people and native lands are dying as a result of
environmental injustice and the importance of this issue
should be stressed.
Appendix D provides a copy of the pre-registered comments.
OTHER
The mission of the temporary working group on protocol was expanded to include
making recommendations to the Council on its'relationship with the interagency working
10
-------
group. The working group's membership was expanded from seven to ten. Appendix E
provides a list the names of protocol and subcommittee working groups members.
Meeting Adjourned.
11
-------
EiWTRONMFNrTAT..niSTTrF:
T.I.STTNH
11SF.PA - HF.ADOIIAKTF.KS CONTACTS-
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Dr. Clarice E. Gaylord
401 M Street, SW
Room2710-MS 3103
Washington, DC 20460
800/962-6215,202/260-6357
OFFICE OF AIR
Will Wilson; 202/260-5574
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES &
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Sharitrel Brown; 202/260-6906
OFFICE OF REGIONAL OPERATIONS &
STATE/LOCAL RELATIONS
Janice Berry-Chen; 202/260-3870
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION,
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Doretta Reaves; 202/260-3534
OFFICE OF WATER
Ginny Kibler; 202/260-3722
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
Lawrence Martin; 202/260-7667
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNCIL
Mary O'Lone: 202/260-5313
OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND
EVALUATION
Darlene Cockfield; 202/260-4907
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
Sherry Milan; 202/260-9807
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Rodney Cash; 202/260-4582
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
GregMertz; 202/260-5714
TKKPA - RFC,mN CONTACTS-
USEPA, REGION 1
James Younger; 617/565-3427
John F. Kennedy Federal. Bldg.
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
USEPA, REGION 2
Connie Simon; 212/264-2301
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
USEPA, REGION 3 ,
Dominique Luckenhoff;
841 Chestnut Building -
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215/597-6529
USEPA, REGION 4
Vivian MaloneJones; 404/347-4294
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
USEPA, REGION 5
Gina Rosario; 312/353r4716
Waste Management Division (HM7J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, UL 60604-3507
USEPA, REGION 6
Lynda Carroll; 214/655-6500
First Interstate Bank, at Front PI.
1445 Ross Ave.. 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
USEPA, REGION 7
Rupert Thomas; 913/551-7282
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
USEPA, REGION 8
Mel McCottry: 303/293-1645
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
USEPA, REGION 9
Lori Lewis; 415/744-1561
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
USEPA, REGION 10
Joyce Crosson-Kelly
Planning and Evaluation Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206/553-4029
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cases;
1. Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Corp., 482 F.Supp. 673 (S.D. Tex.
1979), aff'd mem.. 782 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1986).
2. East Bibb Twiggs Neighborhood Association v. Macon-Bibb County Planning
and Zoning Commission, 113 F.Supp. 880, (M.D. Ga.), aff'd, 896 F.2d 1264
(llth Cir. 1989).
3. R.I.S.E.. Inc. v. Kay. 768 F.Supp. 1144 (E.D. Va. 1991).
5. Coalition of Concerned Citizens Against 1-670 v. Damian. 608 F.Supp. 110
(S.D. Oh. 1984).
Articles;
1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Racial Discrimination in
Federally Funded Programs, Alan Jenkins, Civil Rights Litigation and
Attorney Fees Annual Handbook (10:173, 1995)
2. Environmental Injustice. Christopher Boerner (Washington University
Center for the Study of American Business, St. Louis), "The Public
Interest," Winter 1995.
3. Distribution of Industrial Air Emissions by Income and Race in the
United States; An Approach Using the Toxic Release Inventory, Susan
Perlin, EPA/OHS, Environmental Science and Technology (29:69 1995)
4. CIS-Based Environmental Equity Analysis; A Case Study of TRI Facilities
in the Pittsburgh Area, Theodore Glickman (Center for Risk Management,
Resources for the Future), February 1994.
5. Measuring Environmental Equity with Geographical Information Systems.
Theodore Glickman, Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future
(Summer 1994)
6. Environmental Equity; The Demographics of Dumping, Douglas Anderton
(Social and Demographic Research Institute, University of Massachusetts-
Amherst), "Demography" (31:229, 1994)
8. Environmental Burdens and Democratic Justice. Gerald Torres, Fordham
Urban Law Journal (21:431, 1994)
9. Issues of Classification in Environmental Eguity; How We Manage is How
We Measure. Rae Zimmerman, Fordham urban Law Journal (21:633, 1994)
10. Environmental Justice; A Research Guide. Kevin Lyskowski, Our Earth
Matters, quarterly newsletter published by the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc. (Spring 1994)
11. The Road Less Travelled; Pursuing Environmental Justice Through Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, James Colopy, Stanford Environmental
Law Journal (13:125, 1994)
14. Pursuing "Environmental Justice": The Distributional Effects of
Environmental Protection, Richard Lazarus, Northwestern University Law
Review (87:787, 1993)
EJBIBLIO.l - S/l/95
-------
15. Environmental Justice Cases, Thomas Henderson, Lawyer's Committee for
Civil Rights (unpublished 1993)
16. What's Fairness Got to Do with it? Environmental Justice and the Siting
of Locally Undesirable Land Uses, Vicki Been, Cornell Law Review
(78:1001, 1993)
17. Environmental Racism; Reviewing the Evidence. Paul Mohai (University of
Michigan School of Natural Resources), "Race and the Incidence of
Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse," Westview Press (1992)
18. Environmental Equity; Reducing Risk for All Communities, EPA/OPPE, June
1992.
19. Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection; The Need for
Environmental Poverty Law, Luke W. Cole, Environmental Law Quarterly
(19:619, 1992).
20. Remedies for Environmental Racism; A View from the Field, Luke W. Cole,
Michigan Law Review (90:1991, 1992).
23. Title VI and The Constitution; A Regulatory Model for Defining
"Discrimination". Charles F. Abernathy, Georgetown Law Review (70:1,
1981).
Statutes and Regulations:
1. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4.
2. Discrimination Prohibition on the Basis of Race, Color. National Origin
or Sex. U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 7.
3. Guidelines for the Enforcement of Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964.
U.S. DOJ, 28 C.F.R. 50.3.
EJBIBLIO.l - 5/1/95
-------
EJ BIBLIOGRAPHY (1993-1994)
Atkinson, Amada
Environmental Inequity:
Concern for Government,
Legal Issues 81 (1994)
An Emerging
5 MD J Cartemp
Boyle, Edward P.
It's Not Easy Bein' Green: The
Psychology of Racism, Environmental
Discrimination, and the Agreement for
Modernizing Equal Protection Analysis,
46 Vanderbilit L. Rev. 937 (1993)
Brown, Alice L.
Environmental Justice: The New Civil
Rights Frontier, 474 Practising L.
Inst. 813 (1993)
Bullard, Roba D.
Race and Environmental Justice in the
United States, 18 Yale J. Intl. L. 319
(1993)
Calahan, Scott D.
NIMBY*.- Not in Mexico's Back Yard? A
Case for Recognition of a Human Right
to a Healthy Environment in the
American States, 23 Ga. J. Intl & Comp
L. 409 (1993)
Chase, Anthony R.
Assessing and Addressing Problems
Posed by Environmental Racism, 45
Ritgers L. Rev. 335 (1993)
Cole, Luke W.
Environmental Justice in the
Classroom: Real Life Lessons for Law
Students, 96 W. Va L. Rev. 1051 (1994)
Cole, Luke W. and
Jarmer, M. Casey
A New Approach to Expanding Resources
for Environmental Justice : The
Professor in Residence, 96 W. Va. L.
Rev. 1165 (1994)
Coleman, Anne
It's the Thought that Counts: The
Intent Requirement in Environmental
Racism Claims, 25 St. Mary's L.J. 447
(1993)
Coleman, Leslie Ann
It's the Thought that Counts: The
Intent Requirement in Environmental
Racism Claims, 25 St. Mary's L.J. 447
(1993)
Collin, Robert
Environmental Equity and the Need for
Governmental Intervention -- Two
Proposals, 35 Env't 43 (1993)
- 1 -
-------
Collin, Robert W.
Review of the Legal Literature on
Environmental Racism, Environmental
Equity, and Environmental Justice, 9
J. Environmental Law & Litigation 121
(1994)
Crawford, Colin
Strategies for Environmental Justice:
Rethinking CERCLA Medical Monitoring
Lawsuits, 74 BU L. Rev. 267 (1994)
Dubin, Jon C.
From Junkyards to Gentrification:
Explicating a Right to Protective
Zoning in Low-Income Communities of
Color, 77 Minn. L. Rev. 739 (1993)
Duncan, Pamela
Environmental Racism. Recognition,
Litigation, and Alleviation, 6 Tulane
Environmental L. Rev. 317 (1993)
Frey, Robert M.
Environmental Injustice: The Failure
of American Civil Rights and
Environmental Law to Provide Equal
Protection from Pollution, 3 Dick J.
Environmental L. & Pol'y 53 (1993)
Click, Richard D.
Environmental Justice in the United
States: Implications of the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 19 Harv. L. Rev. 69
(1995)
Greenberg, Michael
Proving Inequity in Siting Locally
Unwanted Land Uses 4 Risk 235 (1993)
Hird, John A.
Environmental Policy and Equity. The
case of Superfund, 12 J. Poly Analysis
and Management 323 (1993)
Hurmann, Leslye A.
Injunctions for NEPA Violations:
Balancing the Equities, 59 U. Chi L.
Rev. 1263 (1992)
Kane, Michael J.
Promoting Political Rights to Protect
the Environment, 18 Yale J. Intl. L.
389 (1993)
Kuehn, Robert R.
Remedying the Unequal Enforcement of
Environmental Laws, 9 St. Johns
Journal of Legal Community 625 (1994)
- 2 -
-------
Lazarus, Richard
Mat a, Rodolfo
Mitchell, Carolyn M.
Nickel, James W.
Perkins , Jane
Reich, Peter L.
Schwarz, Michelle
Leighton
Vasquez, Xavier Carlos
Wiggins, Armstrong
Willard, " Walter
The Meaning and Promotion of
Environmental Justice, 5 MD J.
Contemp. Legal Issues 1 (1994)
Inequitable Siting of Undesirable
Facilities and the Myth of Equal
Protection, 13 BC Third World L.J. 233
(1993)
Environmental Racism: Race as a
Primary Factor in the Selection of
Hazardous Waste Sites, 12 Nat'l Black
L.J. 176 (1993)
The Human Right to a Safe Environment :
Philosophical Perspectives on its
Scope and Justification, 18 Yale J.
Intl. L. 281 (1993)
Recognizing and Attacking
Environmental Racism, Clearing House
Rev. 389 (1992)
Greening the Ghetto: A theory of
Environmental Race Discrimination, 41
Kan. L. Rev. 272 (1993)
International Legal Protection for
Victims of Environmental Abuse, 18
Yale J. Intl L. 355 (1993)
The North American Free Trade
Agreement and Environmental Racism, 34
Harv. Int'l L.J. 357 (1993)
Indian Rights and the Environment, 18
Yale J. Intl. L. 345 (1993)
Environmental Racism: The Merging of
Civil Rights and Environmental
Activism, 19 SU L. Rev. 77 (1992)
Symposium, Environmental Justice, 5
Maryland J. Contemp. Legal Issues
(1994) (9 articles)
Symposium, Urban Environmental
Justice, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 425
(1994) (18 articles)
Symposium, Race, Class and
Environmental Regulation 63 U. Col. L.
Rev. 839 (1992)
- 3 -
-------
Environmental Justice Bibliography
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1988. The Nature and
Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States: A Report to
Congress. Centers for Disease Control, CDC Atlanta, GA.
Agyeman, Julian. 1988. "Ethnic Minorities - An Environmental Issue?" Ecos
9(3) : 2.
Allen, Leslie. 1987. "Who Should Control Hazardous Waste on Native American
Lands? Looking Beyond Washington Department of Ecology v. EPA."
Ecology Lav Quarterly 14(1) : 69-116.
Alonso, w. 1964. Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land
Rent. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Alston, Dana. 1991. "Transforming a Movement." Race, Poverty and the
Environment 2 (Fall 1991/Winter 1992): 1.
--. 1992. "Transforming a Movement: People of Color Unite at Summit Against
Environmental Racism." Sojourners 21 (January): 30-31.
Alston,'Dana, ed. 1990. We Speak for Ourselves: Social Justice, Race and
Environment. Washington: Panes Institute.
Alternative Policy Institute of the Center for Third World Organizing. 1986.
Toxics and Minority Communities: Issue PAC #2. Oakland: Center for
Third World Organizing.
Ambler, Marjane. 1991. "On the Reservation: No Haste, No Waste." Planning
57 (November): 26-29.
--. 1989. "The Lands the Feds Forgot." Sierra 74 (May/June): 44-48.
Anderson, J.E. 1986. "U.S. Population Distribution and the Location of
Hazardous Waste Sites." Paper presented at the Population Association
of America Annual Meeting, April.
Angel, Bradley. 1991. Toxic Threat to Indian Lands: A Greenpeace Report.
San Francisco: Greenpeace.
Anthony. 1990. "Why African Americans Should be Environmentalists." Race,
Poverty and the Environment 1: 5.
Arrandale, Tom. 1992. "Environmentalism and Racism." Governing' 5
(February): 63.
Asch, Peter and Joseph L. Seneca. 1978. "Some Evidence on the Distribution
of Air Quality." Land Economics 54(3): 278-297.
Austin, Regina and Michael Schill. 1991. "Black, Brown, Poor and Poisoned:
Minority Grassroots Environmentalist!! and the Quest for Eco-Justice."
Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 1: 68-82.
Bailey, C., et. al. 1990. Public Opinions and Attitudes Regarding Hazardous
Waste in Alabama: Results from Three 1988 Surveys. Rural Sociology
Series No.14, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology,
Auburn University.
-------
Bari, J. and J. Kohl. 1991. "Environmental Justice: Highlander after Myles."
Social Policy 21(3): 71-77.
Barnett, P.G. 1989. Survey of Research on the Impacts of Pesticides on
Agricultural Workers and the Rural Environment. Working Group on Farm
Labor and Rural Poverty, Working Paper #2. Davia: California Institute
of Rural Studies.
Basquet, C.R., et. al. 1991. "Socioeconomic Factors and Cancer Incidence
Among Black and Whites." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 83:
551-557.
Baugh, Joyce A. 1991. "African-Americana and the Environment: A Review
Essay." Policy Studies Journal 19(2): 182-191.
Baumol, W.J. and W.E. Gates. 1979. Economics, Environmental Policy, and
the Quality of Life. Prentice-Hall.
Beasley, Conger. 1990. "Of Pollution and Poverty." Buzzworni: The
.Environmental Journal 2 (May/June) : 40-47.
--. 1990. "Of Pollution and Poverty." Part 2. Buzzworm.- The Environmental
Journal 2 (July/August): 38-46.
Beasley, Conger and J.C. Leacock. 1990. "Of Pollution and Poverty." Part 3.
Buzzwonn: The Environmental Journal 2 (September/August): 39-45.
Belliveau, Michael, Michael Kent and Grant Rosenblum. 1989. .Richmond ac
Zisk: Community Demographics and Toxic Hazards from Industrial
Polluters. San Francisco: Citirsns for a Better Environment.
Berry, Brian L., et. al. 1977. The Social Burdens of .Environmental
Po-'lution: A Comparative Wetrcrc/l.itan Data. Source. Cambridge: Ballinger
Publishing Co.
Bowyer and Cole. 1992. "Pesticides and the Poor in California." .Race,
Poverty and the Environment 2.
Brian, J.D., B.D. Beck, A.I. Warren and R.A. Shaikh, eds. 1988. Variations
in Susceptibility to Inhaled Pollutants. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP.
Brigham, E.F. 1965. "The Determinants of Residential Land Use." Land
Economics 41(4): 325-334.
Brion. 1988. "An Essay on LULU, NIMBY and the Problem of Distributive
Justice." B.C.J. Environmental Affairs 15: 437.
Browne. 1992. "The Summit that Changed the Color of Environmentalism."
Panoscope 28: 21-22.
Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai. 1990. Proceedings of the Michigan Conference
on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards. U. of Michigan,
School of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, MI.
--. 1992. "Race, Poverty and the Environment: The Disadvantaged Face Greater
Risks." SPA Journal 18 (March/April): 6-8.
Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai, eds. 1992. Race and the Incidence of
Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Boulder: Westview Press.
-------
Bullard, Robert D. 1990. "Ecological Inequities and the New South: Black
Communities Under Siege." Journal of Ethnic Studies 17(4): 101-115.
--. 1992. "In Our Backyards: Minority Communities Get Most of the Dumps."
EPA Journal 18 (March/April): 11-12.
--. 1992. "Politics of Race and Pollution." Multinational Monitor (June):
22-25.
--. 1983. "Solid Waste Sites and the BlacJc Houston Community." Social
Inquiry 53: 273-288.
--. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Bullard, Robert D. and Joe R. Reagin. "Racism and the City" in tTrban Life
in Transition. Gotldiener and Pickvance, eds. Newbury Park: Sage,
55-75.
Bullard, Robert D. and Beverly H. Wright. 1987. "Blacks and the
Environment." Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 14(1/2): 165-184.
--. 1987. "Environmentalism and the Politics of Equity: Emergent Trends in
the Black Community." Mid-America Eeviev of Sociology 12 (Winter):
21-37.
--. 1986. "The Politics of Pollution: Implications for the Black Community."
Phylon 41(1): 71-78.
--. 1990. "The Quest for Environmental Equity: Mobilizing the African-
American Community for Social Change." Society and .Natural .Resources
3 (October/December): 301-311.
--. 1989. "Toxic Waste and the African American Community" Urban League
JZeviev 13 (Summer/Winter) : 67-75.
Burbank. 1991. "Activists of Color are Confronting Environmental Racism."
.National Catholic Reporter (October 11): 7.
Burch, William R. 1976. "The Peregrine Falcon and the Urban Poor: Some
Sociological Interrelations." in Human Ecology, An Environmental
Approach. Richerson and McEvcy, eds. Boulder: Westview Press, 308-316.
Buttel, Frederick H. and William L. Flinn. 1978. "Social Class and Mass
Environmental Beliefs: A Reconsideration." Environment and Behavior
1: 433-450.
Capek, S.M. 1992. "Environmental Justice, Regulation and the Local
Community." International Journal of Health Services 22: 729-746.
Chavez, V. 1991. "A Native American Perspective: Our Land and Culture, Your
Sensitivity and Respect." OTHER VOICES -- Environment, Community
Development and .Race 1 (Summer) .
Chavis, B. 1988. "United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice
Response to the Proposed EPA Worker Protection Standards for
Agricultural Pesticides." EPA Docket No. OPP-300164A.
Cheakalos. 1992. "The Battle for 'Cancer Alley1 Dumps." Atlanta
Constitution (February 23): B4.
-------
Chisolm, J. 1984. "The Concinuing Hazard of Lead Exposure and its Effects in
Children." NeuroToxicology 5:3.
Chu. 1992. "Dangers in the Worlcplace. " Race, Poverty and the Environment
3 (Spring): 10.
Clean Sites. 1990. Hazardous Waste Sites and the .Rural Poor: A Preliminary
Aasessment. March.
Cole, Luke w. 1992. "Remedies for Environmental Racism: A View from the
Field." Michigan Lav Review 90.
Colette, W. 1985. "Somewhere Else OSA: Fighting Back Agair.at Chemical
Dumpers." Southern Neighborhoods 9 (September): 1-3.
Collin, Dave. 1991. "Confronting Environmental Racism." .Industrial Worker
88 (October): 10.
Collin, R.W. 1992. "Environmental Equity. Law and Planning Approach to
Environmental Racism." Virginia .Environmental Lav Journal 11: 495-546.
Colquette, Kelly M. and Elizabeth A. Henry Robertson. 1992. "Environmental
Racism: The Causes, Consequences, and Commendations." Tulane
Environmental Lav Journal 5: 153-207.
Commission for Racial Justice. United Church of Christ. 1987. Toxic Waste
and Race in the United States: A .National Report on the Racial and
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities vith Hazardous Wastes
Sites. New York: Public Data Access, Inc.
Coplaji, K. 1991. "Protecting Minority Cormui'i.i.ties with Environmental Civil
Rights Claims." Nets York Lav Journal (August 20) .
Coye, M.J. 1985. "The Health Effects of Agricultural Pioduction: 1. The
Health of Agricultural Workers." Journal of Public Health Policy 6:
349-370.
Cushman, John H. 1992. "EPA's New Focus on Threat to the Poor." Wev York
Times (January 21).
Davies, J. Clarence and Barbara S. 1975. The Politics of Pollution, 2nd
Edition. Indianapolis: Pegasus.
Davos, C. 1986. "Group Environmental Preference Aggregation - The Principle
of Environmental Justice." Journal of Environmental Management 22(1):
55-65.
Day, Barbara. 1990. "Environmental Racism Puts Toxics in Communities of
Color." Guardian 42 (April 25): 5.
--. 1991. "Do You Have To Be White To Be Green?" Earth Jsland Journal
6 (Spring) : 41-42 .
Denton, N.A. and D.S. Massey. 1988. "Residential Segregation of Blacks,
Hiapanics, and Asians by Socioeconomic Status and Generation." Social
Science Quarterly 69(4): 797-817.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) . 1990. Health People 2000,
National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Public
Health Service, D.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
-------
--. 1991. Strategic Plan for the Elimination of Childhood Lead Poisoning.
Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Derr, P., R. Goble, R.S. Kasperson and R.W. Kates. 1983. "Responding to the
Double Standard of Worker/Public Protection." Environment 25(6).
Doll, R. and R. Peto. 1981. "The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of
Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today." Journal of the
National Cancer Institute. 66: 1193-1308.
Easton, Billy. 1993. "WHE Act for Justice." Environmental .Action (Winter):
33-35.
Eckholm, E. and J. Scherr. 1978. "Double Standards and the Pesticide Trade."
Afev Scientist 77: 221-243.
Edelstein, Michael R. 1990. "Global Dumping Ground." Multinational Monitor
11 (October): 26-29.
Edelstein, Michael R. 1987. Contaminated Communities: The Social and
Psychological Impacts of .Residential Toxic Exposure. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Environmental Careers Organization. 1992. Beyond the Green: Redefining and
Diversifying the Environmental Movement.
EPA. 1987 (g) . Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental
Problems. Office of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Washington D.C.
RPA. 1990(b). Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection. Science Advisory Board, SAB-EC-90-021,
September, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1990 (e). EPA's Pesticide Programs. Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1991 (a) . Methodology for Estimating Population Exposure from the
Consumption of Chemically Contaminated Fish, (external review draft
final). Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation and Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1991 (c) . Air Pollution and the Public: A Risk Communication Guide
for State and Local Agencies. Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA. 1991(d). .Air Pollution and Health Risk. Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA. 1992. Environmental Equity: Reducing Risk For All Communities, Vol.l&2.
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1992. Tribes at Risk: Wisconsin Tribes Comparative Risk Project.
Office of Communication, Education and Public Affairs, October.
Ervin, Mike. 1992. "The Toxic Doughnut." The Progressive 56(1): 15. -
Fagge. 1991. "The Hazardous Waste Controversy and the Struggle for Change."
in Environmental Racism: Issues and Dilemmas. Bryant and Mohai, eds.
-------
Feagin, Joe R. and Clairece B. 1978. Discrimination American Style:
Institutional Racism and Sexism, 2nd Edition. Malabar: Krieger
Publishing Co.
Finkel, Adam M. and Dominic Golding. 1993. "Alternative Paradigms:
Comparative Risk is not the Only Model." EPA Journal (January/
February /Mar ch)-. 50-52.
Fischer, Michael L. 1993. "Building Bridges: Common Causes Unite the
Environmental Justice Movement." The National Voter (June/July): 13-14.
Plorini, Karen, et.al. 1990. Legacy or" Lead; America.'B Continual Epidemic of
Childhood Lead Poisoning. Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.
Flynn-Siler, Julia. 1991. "'Environmental Racism': It Could be a Messy
Fight." Business Week (May 20): 116.
Freeman, A. Myrick. 1972. "The Distribution of Environmental Cuality." in
Environmental Quality Analysis. Kneese and Bower, eds. Baltimore: John
Hopkins UP.
Freudenb«rg, N. 1984. "Citizen Action for Environmental Health: Report on a
Survey of Community Organizations." American Journal of Public Health
74 (5) : 444-448.
Furino and Munoz. 1991. "Health Status Among Hispanlcs." Journal of the
American Medical Association 265 (January 9): 255.
Carcia, Arnoldo. 1990. "Environmental Inequities." Crossroads (June 16):
18-19.
Gelobter, Michel, isaa. "The Distribution of Outdoor Air Pollution by Income
and Race: :970-1986." Ivasters Thesis, Energy and Resource Group.
Berkeley: University of California.
--. 1990. "Toward a Model of 'Environmental Discrimination'." in The
Proceedings of the Michigan Conference on Race. Bryant and Mohai, eds.
U.^pf Michigan School of Natural Resources, 87-107.
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1983. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills
and T'heir Correlation vich .Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding
Communities. Washington, D.C.
Gianessi, Leonard, Henry M. Peskin and Edward Wolff. 1979. "The
Distributional Effects of Uniform Air Pollution Policy in the U.S."
Quarterly Journal of Economics (May): 281-301.
Gianessi, Leonard and "Henry M. Peskin. 1980. "The Distribution of Federal
Water Pollution Control Policy in the U.S." Land Economics 1.
Gibbons, A. 1991. "Does War on Cancer Equal War on Poverty?" Science 253:
260.
Gilbert, Debbie. 1991. "Environmental Racism: Why Hazardous Waste Has Become
a Civil Rights Issue." Memphis Flyer 141 (October 31/November 6): 9-11.
Godsil, Rachel D. 1991. "Remedying Environmental Racism." Michigan r--.w
Reviev 90 (4) : 394-427.
Goldberg, Dan. 1992. "The Quest for Environmental Quality." MSW Management
(March/April): 27-33.
-------
Goldman, Benjamin A. 1991. The Truth About Where Vou Live: An Atlas for
Action on Toxins and Mortality. New York: Times Books.
Goldstein, et.al. 1986. "Indoor Air Pollution: Exposure of Low-Income Inner
City Residents." Environmental International 12: 211-219.
Goldsmith, M.F. 1989. "Aa Farmworkers Help Keep America Healthy, Illness May
Be Their Harvest." Journal of the American Medical Association 261:
3207-3213 .
Goodwin, Ellie. 1992. "Nexus of a New Environmental ism." Christianity and
Crisis 52 (March 2): 54.
Gosil. 1991. "Remedying Environmental Racism." Michigan Law Review 90: 394.
Gould, J.M. 1986. Quality of Life in American Neighborhoods: Levels of
Affluence, Toxic Waste, and Cancer Mortality in Residential Zip Code
Areas. Boulder: Westview Press.
Greenberg, Michael R., et.al. 1984. "Social and Economic Effects of
Hazardous Waste Management Sites." Hazardous Waste 1: 387-396.
Greer, Marsha L. and Anna K. Harding. 1993. "The Health Impact of Hazardous
Waste Sites on Minority Comn-.unities: Implications for Public Health and
Environmental Health Professionals." Journal of Environmental Health
55(7) : 6-9.
Griffith, J. and R. Duncan. 1983. National Monitoring Study: Citrus. Volume
III. An Assessment of FieldworJcer Occupational Exposure to Pesticides
in the Florida Citrus Industry. U. of Miami School of Medicine, FL.
Grossman, Karl. 1992. "From Toxic Racism to Environmental Justice."
S Magazine 3(8): 28-35.
--. 1991. "Environmental Racism." Crisis Magazine 98(4): 14.
Hair, Jay D. 1991. "The Right to a Clean, Safe Environment." National
Wildlife (August/September): 26.
Handy, Femida. 1977. "Income and Air Quality in Hamilton, Ontario."
Alternatives 6(3): 18-24.
Hare, N. 1970. "Black Ecology." The BlacJc Scholar 6: 2-8.
Harmon. 1992. "Environmental Plight of Reservations Spurs Indians." Atlanta
Constitution (May 20): A3.
Harrington, Sharon Carr. 1992. Challenging Race Discrimination in
.Environmental Law and Policy Making. Tulane Law School and the National
Conference of Black Lawyers. December 3, New Orleans.
Harris, Cynthia H. and Robert C. Williamd. 1992. "Research Directions: The
Public Health Service Looks at Hazards to Minorities." EPA Journal 18
(March/April): 40-41.
Harrison, D. and D.L. Rubinfeld. 1978. "The Distributional Benefits from
Improvements in Urban Air Quality." Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 5: 313-332.
Head, Gurrero and Gurrero. 1991. "Fighting Environmental Racism."
Solutions (Spring): 38.
-------
Hester, R. 1987. "Participatory Design and Environmental Justice - Pas-de-
Deux or Time to Change Partners." Journal of Architectural and Planning
Design 4(4): 289-300.
Hilts, Phillip. 1991. "White House Shuns Key Role on Lead Exposure." New
York Times (August 24) .
Hinds, C., et.al. 1992. "From the Front Lines of the Movement for
Environmental Justice." Social Policy 22(4): 12-22.
Johnson, Dirk. 1991. "Indians' Water Quest Creates a New Foe:
Environmentalists." J/ev YorJc Times (December 28).
Johnson, Jar.es H. and Melvin L. Oliver. 1989. "Blacks and the Toxic Crisis."
Western Journal of Blac.k; Studies 13(2): 72-78.
Johnson, Kiraten. 1982. "Publics, Workers, and Parathion: Equity Hazard
Management." Environment 24(9): 28-38.
Johnson, W.R. 1973. "Should the Poor Buy No Growth?" Daedalus 102(4):
165-190.
Jordan and Snow. 1991. "Diversification, Minorities and the Mainstream
Environmental Movement." in Voices from the Environmental Movement:
Perspectives for a .New Era..
Kain, J.F. 1962. "Journey-to-work as a Determinant of Residential Location."
Regional Science .Association Proceedings 9: 137-160.
Kaminstein, D.S. 1988. "Toxic Talk." Social Policy 19(2): 5-10.
Kasperson, Rog«:r ^. 1986. "Six Propositions on Public Participation and
Their Relevance for Risk Communication." Risk Analysis 6(3) : 275-281.
Kasperson, Roger E. ed. 13£3. S
-------
Kruvant, William J. 1975. "People, Energy, and Pollution." in The American
Energy Consumer. Newman and Day, eds. Cambridge: Ballinger, 125-167.
LaBalme, J. 1989. A Road to Walk. A Struggle for Environmental Justice.
Durham: Regulator Press.
Lavelle, Marianne. 1993. "EPA Enforcement to be Probed." The National Lav
Journal (April 5).
Lazarus, R. 1993. "Pursuing Environmental Justice: The Distributional
Effects of Environmental Protection." Worth vest era U. Lav Review 87(3).
Lee, Charles. 1990. "The Integration of Justice." Sojoumers (February/
March): 22-25.
--. 1992. "Toxic Waste and Race in the United States." in .Race and The
Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Bryant and
Mohai, eds. Boulder: Weatview Press.
Lee, P. 1992. "Environmental Justice for Asians and Pacific Islanders."
Race, Poverty and the Environment 3. (Spring) .
Lewis, Jack. 1986. "An Indian Policy at EPA.* EPA Journal 12 (January/
February): 23-26.
--. 1992. "The U.S. Colonias: A Target for Aid." EPA Journal 18 (March/
April): 61-62.
Lindgren. 1992. "Smog Affects Poor, Young Non-White the Most." Los Angeles
Times (May 21): 8.
Livingston, M.L. 1989. "Transbcundary Environmental Degradation: Market
Failure, Power, and Instrumental Justice." Journal of Economic Issues
23(1): 79-91.
Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotoch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political
Economy of Place. Berkeley: U. of California Press.
Lopez. 1985. "A Declaration of War by Any Other Means." Harvard Lav Reviev
98: 1667.
Love, Sam. 1972. "Ecology and Social Justice: Is There a Conflict?"
Environmental Action 4 (August 5): 3-6.
Lucier and Hook. 1989. "Advances in Lead Research, Environmental Health
Perspectives." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 5-11.
Mahaffey, Kathryn R., et.al. 1982. "National Estimates of Blood Lead Levels:
Unites States, 1976-1980." Wev England Journal of Medicine 307(10):
573-579.
Mak, H., P. Johnston, H. Abbey and R.C. Talamo. 1982. "Prevalence of Asthma
and Health Service Utilization of Asthmatic Children in an Inner City."
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 70: 5.
Mann, Eric. 1991. L.A.'s Lethal Air: tfev Strategies for Policy, Organization
and Action. Los Angeles: Labor/Community Strategy Center.
Martin, P., R. Mines and A. Diaz. 1985. "A Profile of-California
Farmworkers." California -Agriculture 6: 16-18.
-------
Martin, et.al. 1985. "Field Duty, U.S. Farmworkers and Pesticide Safety."
World Resources Institute Center for Policy Research, #3.
Martinez, B. 1991. "When People of Color are an Endangered Species."
Z Magazine 4 (April): 61-64.
McCallum, M. 1985. .Recreational and Subsistence Catch and Consumption of
Seafood from Three Ctoban Industrial Bays of Puget Sound: Port Gardner,
Elliot Say and Sinclair Inlet. Washington State Division of Health.
McCaull, Julian. 1976. "Discriminatory Air Pollution: If the Poor Don't
Breathe." Environment 19 (March): 26-32.
Meyer, Art. 1991. Earth Keepers: Environmental Perspectives on Hunger,
Poverty, and Injustice. Scottsdale: Herald Press.
Meyer, Eugene L. 1992. "Environmental Racism: Why is it Always Dumped in our
Backyard?" .Audubcn (January/February): 30-32.
Mohai, Paul. 1990. "Black Environmentalists" Social Science Quarterly
71 (4) : 744-765.
--. 1985. "Public Concern and Elite Involvement in Environmental-
Conservation Issues." Social Science Quarterly 66: 820-838.
Moreel, David. 1980. "Siting and the Politics of Equity." Hazardous Waste
1: 55-59.
Morrison, Denton E. and Riley E. Dunlap. 1986. "Environmentalism and
Elitism: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis." Environmental
Management 10(5): 581-589.
Moees, :*. 1989. "Pesticide-Reiur.ecl Health Problems and Farmworkers." AAOHN
Journal 37: 115-130.
Nadakavukaren, A. 1991. "People Living With Pollution." Greenpeace
(October/November/December) :- 8-13.
National Cancer institute (NCI). 1984. SEER Program: Cancer Incidence and
Mortality in the Unites States: 1973-1981. Horn, J., et.al., eds.
National Institute of Health/U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
--. 1989. Cancer Statistics .Review: 1973 -1986. National Institute of
Health/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH Publication
No. 89-2789.
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) . 1990. Health of BlacJc and
White Americans, 1985-87, Series 10: Data from the National Health
Interview Survey, Wo. 171. U.S. Department of Health and Human
. 'Services. (January) .
National Council of Christ. 1987/88. "The Lumbee River, Lumbee Indians and
GSX, Inc." The Egg: National Journal of Eco-Justice (Winter): 10-11.
National Law Journal. 1992. "Unequal Protection: The Racial Divide in
Environmental Law." 15(3) .
--. 1993. "KPA Mulls Civil Rights Law at Hill Hearing." (March 15).
Navarro, V. 1989/90. "Race or Class v. Race and Class: Mortality
Differentials in the U.S." The Lancec 336: 1238-1240.
10
-------
Nazaroff, W. and K. Teichman. 1990. "Indoor Radon." Environmental Science
and Technology 24: 774-782.
Needleman, H.L. 1990. "The Future Challenge of Lead Toxicity." in Advances
in Lead Research, Environmental Health Perspectives. Lucier and Hook,
eds. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 85-89.
Neiman, Max and Ronald O. Loveridge. 1981. "Environmentalism and Local
Growth Control: A Probe into the Class Bias Thesis." Environment and
Behavior 13: 759-772.
Nelson, A.C., et.al. 1992. "Price Effects of Landfills on Residential Land
Values." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(9): 128-137.
Nieves, L.A. and D.R. Wernette. 1992. "Breathing Polluted Air: Minorities
are Disproportionately Exposed." EPA Journal 18 (March/April): 16-17.
--. 1991. "Minorities and Air Pollution: A Preliminary Geo-Demographic
Analysis." Socioeconoxnic Research. Conference II, (June 27-28).
Nikitas, Margo. 1991. "The Silent Bomb: Racism, War, and Toxic Waste.*
People's Weekly World 5 (March 9) : 13.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) . 1982(a). Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Oxides: Assessment
of Scientific and Technical Information, QAQPS Staff Paper, August.
--. 1982 (b) . Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur
Oxides: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff
Paper, November.
--. 1982 (c) . Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information,
QAQPS Staff Paper, January.
--. 1984. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon
Monoxide: Reassessment of Scientific and Technical Information, July.
--. 1988. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone:
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, Draft Staff Paper.
Okie, S. 1991. "Study Links Cancer, Poverty." The Washington Poet
(April 17).
Orr, L.L. 1975. Income, Employment, and Urban Residential Location.
New York: Academic Press.
Otway, H. and B. Wynne. 1989. "Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox."
Risk Analysis 9(2): 141-145.
Payne and Ugarte. 1989. "Office of Minority Health Resource Center: Impact
on Health Related Disparity Among Minority Populations." Health
.Education 20(5): 608.
Perfecto, Ivette. 1991. "Hazardous Waste and Pesticides: An International
Tragedy." in Environmental Racism: Issues and Dilemmas. Bryant and
Mohai, eds.
--. 1990. "Pesticide Exposure of Farm Workers and the International
Connection." in The Proceedings of the Michigan Conference on Race.
Bryant and Mohai, eds., 187-218.
11
-------
Perfecto, I. and B. Velasquez. 1992. "Farm Workers: Among the Least
Protected. " EPA Journal 18 (March/April): 13-14.
Perkins, J. 1992. "Recognizing and Attacking Environmental Racism."
Clearinghouse Review 26: 389-397.
Picard, Daniel C. 1992. "'Fish Consumption' and National Water Quality
Criteria." prepared for "Water Quality Standards for the 21st
Century." (September 1-3), Las Vegas.
Pickle, L.W., et.al. 1990. .Idas of the U.S., Cancer Mortality Among
Nonwhites: 1950-1980, Table 2.
Polednak, A. P. 1989. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Disease. New York:
Oxford DP .
Pollack, S. and J. Grozuczak. 1984. Reagan, Toxics, and Minorities.
Washington: Urban Environment Conference, Inc.
Portney, Kent B. 1991. Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The
Nimby Syndrome. New York: Auburn House.
Puffer, H. 1981. Consumption Rates of Potentially Hazardous Marine Fish
Caught in the Metropolitan LOB Angeles Area, EPA Grant #R807 120010.
Rees, J. 1991. "Equity and Environmental Policy." Geography 76: 292-303.
Rees, Matthew. 1992. "Black and Green: The Birth of 'Eco-Racism' ." The New
Republic 206 (March 2): 15-16.
Robinson, W.P. 1990. "Dranium Production and its Effects on Havajo
Communities Along the Rio Puerco in Western Nev Mexico." in The
eedings of the Michigan Conference on Ra.cs. Bryant and Mohai, ecio .
Roman. 1992. "'Environmental Racism' Rankles." The Washington Times
(June 25) : Al .
Ruffins, Paul. 1991. "Environmental Commitment as if People Didn't Matter."
in Environmental Racism: Issues and Dilemmas. Bryant and Mohai, eds.
--. 1990. "Mixing a Few More Colors into the Green." In Context 25: 33.
Russell, Dick. 1989. "Environmental Racism: Minority Communities and Their
Battle Against Toxics." Amicus Journal 11 (Spring) -. 22-32.
Sandman, P.M. 1985. "Getting to Maybe: Some Communication Aspects of Siting
Hazardous Waste Facilities." Seton Hall Legislative Journal 9: 437-465.
Satchell, Michael. 1992. "A Whiff of Discrimination?" U.S. News and World
Report 112 (May 4): 34-35.
--. 1992. "Poisoning the Border." C7.S. News and World Report (May 6): 37.
Savage, B.P. 1976. National Study to Determine Levels of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Insecticides in Human Milk. U.S. EPA, Contract No.
68-01-3190, Fort Collins: Colorado State U.
Schleif stein. 1992. 'Minister Focuses on Ecology." New Orleans Times
Picayune (March 27) -. B8 .
Schneider, Keith. 1992. "A Valley of Death for the Navajo Uranium Miners."
.Vev York Times (May 3 ) .
12
-------
1991. "Minorities Join to Fight Polluting of Neighborhoods." New York
Times (October 25).
Schueler, Donald G. 1992. " Southern Exposure." Sierra. (November/December):
42-49.
Schwartz, J., et.al. 1990. "Predictors of Asthma and Persistent Wheeze in a
National Sample of Children in the United States." American Reviev of
Respiratory Disease, 142.
Seley, J.B. and J. Wolpert. 1983. "Equity and Location." in Equity Issues
in Radioactive Waste Management. Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain
Publishers, Inc.
Sexton, Ken. 1992. "Cause for Immediate Concern: Minorities and the Poor
Clearly 'are More Exposed." EPA Journal 18 (March/April): 38-39.
Sheridan, Patrick. 1992. "Minorities, Low-Income Groups Most at Risk."
Waste Technical News (August 10).
Sierra Roundtable on Race, Justice, and the Environment. 1993. "A Place at
the Table." Sierra (May/June): 51-58, 90-91.
Silver, K. 1984. "Minorities and Toxics." Exposure (January/February):
36-37.
Sly. 1990. "EPA and Indian Reservations." Environmental Law Reporter
20 (October): 10429-10437.
Smith, James N., ed. 1974. Environmental Quality and Social Justice in Urban
.America. Washington: Conservation Foundation.
Snow, Katrin. 1991. ."Tribes' Activism Poses Hazard to Waste Industry's
Health." fictional Catholic Reporter 28 (December 6j : 13-14.
Stafford, H.A. 1985. "Environmental Protection and Industrial Location."
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 75(2): 227-240.
Steinhart, Peter. 1991. "What Can We Do About Environmental Racism?"
Audubon 93 (May): 18-21.
Suro, Roberto. 1993. "Pollution-Weary Minorities Try Civil Rights Tack."
New York Times (January 11).
Taliman, Valeri. 1992. "The Toxic Waste of Indian Lives." Covert Action
40: 16-19.
--. 1989. "Toxic Waste Dumping in the Third World." Race and Class 30(3) :
47-56.
Tarshis, Lauren. . 1992. "Dumping on Minorities." Scholastic Update
(April 17): 16.
Taylor, Dorceta, K. 1989. "Blacks and the Environment: Towards an
Explanation of the Concern and Action Gap Between Blacks and Whites,"
Environment and Behavior 21: 175-205.
1992. "The Environmental Justice Movement: No Shortage of Minor-.ty
Volunteers." EPA Journal 18 (March/April): 23-25.
Totneho, Robert. 1990. "Dumping Grounds: Indian Tribes Contend With Some of
Worst of American's Pollution." Wall Street Journal (November 29).
13
-------
Torres. "Class, Race and Environmental Regulation, Introduction:
Understanding Environmental Racism." U. of Colorado Law Review
63 (4) -. 839 .
Trask, M. 1992. "Native Hawaiian Historical and Cultural Perspectives on
Environmental Justice." Race, Poverty and the Environment: 3(2) .
Truax, Hawley. 1991. "Environmental Justice For All." Environmental Action
(November/December): 5-6.
Tsao, NaiJcang. 1992. "Ameliorating Environmental Racism: A Citizen's Guide
to Combating Discriminatory Siting of Toxic Waste Dumps." New York U.
Lav Review 67: 366-418.
Tyson, Rae. 1991. "Target of Toxins? Poor Communities Charge 'Environmental
Racism1 ." USA Today (October 24) .
Urban Environmental Conference, Inc. 1985. TaJcing Back Our Health, An
Institute on Surviving the Toxics Threat to Minority Communities,
Washington, D.C.
Vaughan, Elaine and Brenda Kordenstam. 1991. "The Perception of
Environmental Risks Among Ethnically Diverse Groups." Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology 22(1): 29-60.
Vidulich, Dorothy. 1991. "People of Color Summit Condemns 'Environmental
Racism1." National Catholic Reporter (November 8): 5.
Villaxosa, Linda. 1991. "Showdown at Sunrise." Essence (July): 55-59.
waldman, Steven. 1991. "Lead ?jid Your Kids." Newsweek (July 15): 42-48.
Warrior. u.?91. "Dancing With Wades." Christianity and Crisis 51
(July 15) : 21*5-213".
Washington Toxics Coalition. 1990. "Toxic Waste and Race." Alcernacives
9(2) : 5.
Wasserstrom, R.F. and R. Wiles, 1985. Field Duty: U.S. Farm Workers and
Pesticide Safety. Washington: World Resources Institute.
Waxman, Henry A. 1991. "Lead Poisoning a Threat to the Health cf Our Kids."
USA Today (July 30): 9A.
Weinberg, B. 1991. "Toxic Racism Dumps on Low-Income Communities." Guardian
43 (August 14): 7-9.
Weisskopf, Michael. 1992. "EPA's Two Voices on Pollution Risks to
Minorities." The Washing-con Pose (March 9): A15.
--. 1992. "Minorities' Pollution Risk is Debated." The Washington Post
(January 16) .
--. 1991. "Strategy on Lead Turns Out Not to be Blitzkrieg." The Washington
Post (October 25) : A25.
Wells, Malcolm. 1989. " A Jigsaw Puzzle: Racism, Enviromnentalism and the
Social Conscience of an Architect." Whole Earth Review 62 (Spring):
22-25.
Wenz, Peter S. 1988. Environmental Justice. Albany: SUNY Press.
14
-------
West, Patrick C. 1992. "Health Concerns for Fish-Eating Tribes?" EPA
Journal 18 (March/April): 15-16.
West, Patrick C., et.al. 1989. "Minority Anglers and Toxic Fish Consumption:
Evidence of the State-Wide Survey of Michigan." in The Proceedings of
the Michigan Conference on Race. Bryant and Mohai, eda., 108-122.
wilk, V.A. 1988. "The EPA Proposed Worker Protection Regulations - A
Critique." Migrant Health Clinical Supplement of the National Migrant
Referral Project, Inc.
Willard, W. "Environmental Racism: The Merging of Civil Rights and
Environmental Activism." Southern a. Lav Review 31 (Fall 1992/
Spring 1993).
Wissow, L.S., et.al. "Poverty, Race, and Hospitalization for Childhood
Asthma." American Journal of Public Health 78 (July) : 7.
Wright, A. 1986. "Rethinking the Circle of Poison: The Politics of Pesticide
Poisoning Among Mexican Farm Workers." .Latin American Perspectives
13: 26-59.
Wright, R.G. 1991. "Hazardous Waste Disposal and the Problems of Stigmatic
and Racial Injury." Arizona State Lav Journal 23: 777-800.
15
-------
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
LIST OF INTERNAL PUBLICATIONS
BOOKS
Air Pollution Control Equipment,
by: Louis Theodore, and Anthony J. Buonicore
prentice-Hall, Inc,,.Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1982.
An Environmental Agenda for the future
by:. John Adams, Louse C. Dunlap, Jay D. Hair, Frederick D.
Krupp, Jay Lorenz, J. Michael McCloskey, Russell W.
Peterson, Pat Pritchad, William A. Turnage and Karl
Wendelowski.- " • . . .
(c). Island Press 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington,
D.C: 20009, 1985.
Anuario Hispano, The 1993 Yearbook
by: Angela Zavala
T.Y.I.M. Publishing Company 1993.
Baltimore Integrated: Environmental Management Project Phase
1-5 Report
by: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency, May 1987.
Book of lists for Regulated Hazardous Substances, Editorial
Staff Government Institute, Inc. (c). ( Government
Institutes, Inc. 4 Research Place Suite 200 Rockville
Maryland 20850, 1992).
-------
Code of Federal Regulations, Published by the Office of the
Federal Register National Archives and Records
Administration
Revised as of July 1990
Cooling our Communities
by: Hashem Aklari, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Susan
Davis,. Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Sofia Dorsano, The Bruce Company, Joe Huang,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Steven Winnett
U.S. EPA (c). 1992 ' .
Dumping in Dixie
Robert D. Bullard.
West View Press Inc. 1990).
Environmental Issues and Analysis Workbook
by: William P. Cunningham, Barbara Woolworth Saigo and
Gary Phillips
William C. Brown Publishers 1990.
Environmental Science
by:"Karen Arms (c). 1990
Environmental Science; Fourth Edition by:
Johnathan Turk and Amos Turk (c).
Saunders College Publishing 1988.
Environmental Studies; Fifth Edition
by. Jonathan Turk
Saunders College Publishing 1989.
Environmental Workforce Needs; Determining Education and
Training Requirements
by: Dennis A Tirpack
-------
(c) . Information Dynamics 1981.
Evaluation of the Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Program ;
by; Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response December 1988.
EPA JOURNAL Volume 18, Number 1 Clean Air is My Dream
by: John Heritage
EPA Journal March \ April 1992
Federal Regulation of Hazardous Waste; A RCRA Guide
by: John Quarles
Environmental Law Institute Publication 1982
-------
Home Study Experiments to Accompany Environmental Science
by: Turk and Turk
Saunders College Publishing"(c). 1989
Implementing Natural Resources Management Policy In Africa:
by: Management Systems International
(c) University of Maryland April 1992.
Invisible Houston; The Black Experience in Boom and Bust
by: Robert D. Bullard .
(c) Texas A&M University Press 1987.
In Search of the New South; The Black Urban Experience in
the 1970«s and 1980's
by: Robert D. Bullard
The University of Alabama Press 1989.
Landfill Gas
by: Department Of The Environment
(c). HMSO Waste Management Paper No. 27 1989.
Living in the Environment
by G. Tyler Miller Jr.
(c). (Seventh Edition) Wadsworth Publishing Company 1992
Local Solutions to Toxic Pollution
by: Kristin Schaffer
(c). Public Interest Publication 1993
Meeting Environmental Workforce Needs
Environmental Protection Agency
(c). Spring 1981
National Minority Health Conference
by: Barry L. Johnson, Robert C. Williams, Cynthia M. Harris
(c). Princeton Scientific Publishing Co. 1992
-------
Patriots Journal
by: Thurman Jones
(c). Patriots Publications 1993.
People of Color Environmental Groups
1994 - 95 Directory
by: Robert D. Builard
Environmental Justice .Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
Atlanta, GA 30314
Publications Hot Line: (810) 766-1766
Presentation of Qualifications:
Public Opions & Attitudes Regarding Hazardous Waste in
Alabama.
by: Department of Agriculture Economic & Rural Sociology
(c). 1992
Protecting Endangered Communites
Urban Environmental Justice
Third Annual Stein Center Symposium on --
Contemporary Urban Challenes
by: Clarice E. Gaylord & Geraldine W. Twitty
Reprinted from Fordham Urban Law Journal
Volum XXI. Number 3. 1994
RCRA Orientation Manual 1990 Edition
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(c). 1989 . .
Risk Ascend Guidance for Superfund Vol. 1
by: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. EPA December 1989
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol. II
by: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. EPA March 1989
-------
Science & Technology Review
Environmental Equity by: Lawrence P. King
VOL 66, No.2 pg. 39, 1993
Superfund Handbook
by: Sidley S. Austin
(c). 1989
Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Environmental
Issues
by: Theodore D. Goldfish '
(c). Dushkin Publishing Group 1983 -
The Truth About Where You Live.
by: Benjamin Goldman
(c) New York Times Books 1991
The New Clean Air Act, What Means it Means to You.
Office of Air and Radiation
(c). 1991
Toxic Release Inventory
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(c). U.S Environmental Protection Agency; May 1991
Toxic Release Inventory
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(c). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; May 1993
Toxicology and Industrial Health
US Environmental Protection Agency
(c). Princeton Scientific Publishing Co. September-October
1993
Training and Development Handbook; A guide to Human Resource
Development
by: Robert Craig
-------
(c).(Second Edition) McGraw-Hill Book Company 1976
Urban Environmental Management
by: Brian Berry, Frank E. Morton
(c). Prentice-Hall Inc. 1979.
The Waste System
by Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Environmental Protection Agency, November 1988.
Waxman's Lead and Environmental Equity Briefing
by: Environmental Protection Agency
February 25, 1992
Articles & Journals
"BEYOND WHITE ENVIRONMENTALIST*: Minorities & The
Environment."
by: Hawley Traux
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1990, PAGE 19-30
"BRIEFING HOTLINE PROCEDURE."
by: Office of Environmental Justice
January 1, 1993
"CONGRESSIONAL HEARING REPORT: HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE."
by: Congressional And Legislative Affairs
March 3, 1993
"CREATION OF A DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION"
-------
by: United States General Accounting Office
May 6,1993
"Directory Of EPA Support To Minority Academic Institutions
FY 1990-1991
by: Office Of The Administrator
November 1991
"EPA The Catalyst: Environmental Equity."
by: Information Resource Management
December 1992. x
-------
"INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: Environmental Equity"
by: Administration And Resource Management
September 1992
LATINOS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA
by: Paul M. Ong and Evelyn Blumberg
January 22,1990
"MISLEADING ASSUMPTIONS and ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM: The Case
of Asians and Pacific Islanders."
by: Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights
March 3, 1993
NATURAL RESOURCE JOURNAL "PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and NATURAL
RESOURCE DECISION-MAKING: The Case of the Rare II
Decisions."
by: Paul Mohai
Winter 1987 Volume 27
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV: Conference on
Environmental Equity."
by: Clark Atlanta University
September 14-15, 1992
PEOPLE OF COLOR ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS: Directory 1992
by: Robert D. Builard
January 1992
RACE, POVERTY & the ENVIRONMENT " Environmental Justice for
Asians and Pacific Islanders."
by: Carl Anthony and.Luke Cole
Spring 1992
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEWEnvironmental Equity
by: Journal of the national technical association
-------
Winter 1993 Volume 66, No. 2
SMALL AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED SUBCONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES
DIRECTORY
by: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
September 1992
"Social Science Quarterly: Public Concern, Elite Involvement
in Environmental Issues."
by: Paul Mohai, ' .
December 1985 Volume 66, Number 4
THE BATTLE for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE in LOUISIANA...
Government, Industry, and the People.
by: Louisiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights.
September 1993
"THE EGG: Environmental Justice for Local Communities"
by: Eco Justice Quarterly
Spring 1993 Volume 13, Number 2
THE ENVIRONMENT "Whose Movement"
by: Jesus Sanchez
Los Angeles Times, May 1991
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL "SYNDROMES OF RISK AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: The Conflict of Individual and
Societal Values."
by: Miller B. Spangler
Vol 2, No.3/4 1993
THE SOCIAL BURDENS OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION: The
Comparative Metropolitan Data Source.
by: Brian J. Berry
1977 Ballinger Publishing co.
-------
THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED: Pursuing Environmental Justice
Through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
by: James H. Colopy
Stanford Environmental Law Journal Vol.13 1994
"TWO STEPS BACKWARD, ONE STEP FORWARD: Cubas Nationwide
Experiment with Organic Agriculture."
by: Peter Rosset & Medea Benjamin
Global Exchange 1993
"VOICES FROM THE ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENT: Diversification,
Minorities, and the Mainstream Environmental Movement."
by: Charles•Jordan and Donald Snow
December 1990
"WASHINGTON POST: Mentoring Has its Limits"
by: Courtland Milloy
January 10, 1993
"WHAT WORKS: Air Pollution Solutions."
by: The Environmental Exchange
May 1992 Volume 1
"WHAT WORKS: Local Solutions to Toxic Pollution."
by: The Environmental Exchange
May 1993 Volume 2
"Women, Minorities and People with Disabilities
by: Administration and Resource Management
September 1993
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
-------
LIST OF INTERNAL PUBLICATIONS
BOOKS
Air Pollution Control Equipment,
by: Louis Theodore, and Anthony J. Buonicore .
prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1982.
An Environmental Agenda for the future
by: John Adams, Louse C. Dunlap, Jay D. Hair, Frederick D.
Krupp, Jay Lorenz, J. Michael McCloskey, Russell W.
Peterson, Pat Pritchad, William A. Turnage and Karl
Wendelowski.
(c). Island Press 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington,
B.C. 20009, 1985.
Anuario Hispano, The 1993 Yearbook
by: Angela Zavala
T.Y.I.M. Publishing Company 1993.
Baltimore Integrated: Environmental Management Project Phase
1-5 Report
by: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency, May 1987.
Book of lists for Regulated Hazardous Substances, Editorial
Staff Government Institute, Inc. (c). ( Government
Institutes, Inc. 4 Research Place Suite 200 Rockville
Maryland 20850, 1992) .
Code of Federal Regulations, Published by the Office of the
Federal Register National Archives and Records
Administration
Revised as of July 1990
Cooling our Communities
by: Hashetn Aklari, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Susan
Davis, Lawrence Berkeley
-------
Laboratory, Sofia Dorsano, The Bruce Company, Joe Huang,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Steven Winnett
U.S. EPA (c). 1992
Dumping in Dixie
Robert D. Bullard.
-------
by: John Heritage
EPA Journal March \ April 1992
Federal Regulation of Hazardous Waste; A RCRA Guide
by: John Quarles
Environmental Law Institute Publication 1982
Guidelines for Modern Resource Management
by: David Greenland
(c) Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company 1983.
Hazardous Waste Report Vol.1 NO.l
by: David J. Lennett
(c). McGraw-Hill Book Company 1987.
Hazardous Waste Monitor.Vol. I No. 3
by: David J. Lennett
(c) . McGraw-Hill Book Company 1987.
Health Status of the Disadvantaged
by: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
(c); U.S Government Printing Office 1990.
How to Make Meetings Work
by: Michael Doyle, David Straus
(c). 1976
Home Study Experiments to Accompany Environmental Science
by: Turk and Turk
Saunders College Publishing (c). 1989
Implementing Natural Resources Management Policy In Africa:
by: Management Systems International
(c) University of Maryland April 1992.
-------
Invisible Houston; The Black Experience in Boom and Bust
by: Robert D. Bullard
(c) Texas A&M University Press 1987.
In Search of the New South; The Black Urban Experience in
the 1970'a and 1980's
by: Robert D. Bullard
The University of Alabama Press 1989.
Landfill Gas
by: Department Of The Environment
(c). HMSO Waste Management Paper No. 27 1989.
Living in the Environment
by G. Tyler Miller Jr. .
(c) . (Seventh Edition-) Wadsworth Publishing Company 1992
Local Solutions to Toxic Pollution
by: Kristin Schaffer
(c). Public Interest Publication 1993
Meeting Environmental Workforce Needs
Environmental Protection Agency
(c). Spring 1981
National Minority Health Conference
by: Barry L. Johnson, Robert C. Williams, Cynthia M. Harris
(c). Princeton Scientific Publishing Co..1992
Patriots Journal
by: Thurman Jones
(c). Patriots Publications 1993.
Presentation of Qualifications:
Public Opions & Attitudes Regarding Hazardous Waste in
-------
Alabama.
by: Department of Agriculture Economic & Rural Sociology
(c). 1992
RCRA Orientation Manual 1990 Edition
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(c). 1989
Risk Ascend Guidance for Superfund Vol. 1
by: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. EPA December 1989
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol. II
by: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. EPA March 1989
Science & Technology Review
Environmental Equity by: Lawrence P. King
VOL 66, No.2 pg. 39, 1993
Superfund Handbook
by: Sidley S. Austin
(c). 1989
Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Environmental
Issues
by: Theodore D. Goldfish
(c). Dushkin Publishing Group 1983
The Truth About Where You Live.
by: Benjamin Goldman
-------
(c) New York Times Books 1991
The New Clean.Air Act, What Means it Means to You.
Office of Air and Radiation -
(c). 1991
Toxic Release Inventory
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(c). U.S Environmental Protection Agency; May 1991
Toxic Release Inventory
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(c) . U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency; May 1993
Toxicology and Industrial Health
US Environmental Protection Agency
(c). Princeton Scientific Publishing Co. September-October
1993
Training and Development Handbook; A guide to Human Resource
Development
by: Robert Craig
(c).(Second Edition) McGraw-Hill Book Company 1976/
Urban Environmental Management
by: Brian Berry, Frank E. Morton
(c). Prentice-Hall Inc. 1979.
The Waste System
by Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Environmental Protection Agency, November 1988;
Waxman's Lead and Environmental Equity Briefing
by: Environmental Protection Agency
February 25, 1992
-------
Articles & Journals
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY UPDATE MEMO
by: Office of Environmental Justice
October 27, 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
by: NIEHS
April 22, 1993 Vol. 101 No.l
ENVIRONMENTALISM AND THE POLITICS OF EQUITY: Emergent
Trends in The Black Community
by: Robert Bullard & Beverly Wright
Mid-American Review, of Sociology, 1987, Vol.XII, No. 2:21-
38.
"IMPROVING DIALOGUE WITH COMMUNITIES: How Communities See
Risk."
by:EPA Division of Science and Research
August 1989
"INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: Environmental Equity"
by: Administration And Resource Management
September 1992
LATINOS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA
by: Paul M. Ong and Evelyn Blumberg
January 22,1990
"MISLEADING ASSUMPTIONS and ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM: The Case
of Asians and Pacific Islanders."
by: Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights
March 3, 1993
-------
NATURAL RESOURCE JOURNAL "PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and NATURAL
RESOURCE DECISION-MAKING: The Case of the Rare II
Decisions."
by: Paul Mohai
Winter 1987 Volume 27
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV: Conference on
Environmental Equity."
by: Clark Atlanta University
September 14-15, 1992
PEOPLE OF COLOR ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS: Directory 1992
by: Robert D. Bullard "
January 1992
RACE, POVERTY & the ENVIRONMENT " Environmental Justice for
Asians and Pacific Islanders."
by: Carl Anthony and Luke Cole
Spring 1992
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW:Environmental Equity
by: Journal of the national technical association
Winter 1993 Volume 66, No. 2
SMALL AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED SUBCONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES
DIRECTORY
by: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
September 1992
"Social Science Quarterly: Public Concern, Elite Involvement
in Environmental Issues."
by: Paul Mohai,
December 1985 Volume 66, Number 4
-------
THE BATTLE for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE in LOUISIANA...
Government, Industry, and the People.
by: Louisiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on
Civil Right's.
September 1993
"THE EGG: Environmental Justice for Local Communities"
by: Eco Justice Quarterly
Spring 1993 Volume 13, Number 2
THE ENVIRONMENT "Whose Movement"
by: Jesus Sanchez
Los Angeles Times, May 1991
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL "SYNDROMES OF RISK AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: The Conflict of Individual and
Societal Values."
by: Miller B. Spangler
Vol 2, No.3/4 1993
THE SOCIAL BURDENS OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION: The
Comparative Metropolitan Data Source.
by: Brian J. Berry
1977 Ballinger Publishing .co.
THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED: Pursuing Environmental Justice
Through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
by: James H. Colopy
Stanford Environmental Law Journal Vol.13 1994
"TWO STEPS BACKWARD, ONE STEP FORWARD: Cubas Nationwide
Experiment with Organic Agriculture."
-------
by: Peter Rosset & Medea Benjamin
Global Exchange 1993
"VOICES FROM THE ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENT: Diversification,
Minorities, and the Mainstream Environmental Movement."
by: Charles Jordan and Donald Snow
December 1990
"WASHINGTON POST: Mentoring Has its Limits"
by: Court land Mi Hoy
January 10, 1993 .
"WHAT WORKS: Air Pollution Solutions."
by: The Environmental Exchange
May 1992 Volume 1
"WHAT WORKS: Local Solutions to Toxic Pollution."
by: The Environmental Exchange
May 1993 Volume 2
"Women, Minorities and People with Disabilities
by: Administration and Resource Management
September 19/93
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
PANEL EVALUATION FORM
As a participant, you are a valuable source of information concerning the planning and
presentation of this conference. Please give your opinions and suggestions below.
Did the Conference meet your expectations? yes no
If not, why not?
What do you think were the strong points of the Conference?
What do you think were the weak points?
Please rate the panels on a scale of 0 (ppor) to 10 (great!)
Civil Rights Panel (AM, Day 1)
NEPA Panel (PM, Day 1)
Focus Groups? (PM, Day 1)
Prevention and Remedies (AM, Day 2) -
Public Participation (PM, Day 2)
Community Relations Service (PM, Day 2)
Tools Presentations (PM, Day 2)
Are there topics you would have liked to see or hear about?
Were there questions you did not have answered?
Would you support another environmental justice conference in the Fall?
Please note your suggestions or comments.
Please use reverse as needed.
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER EVALUATION FORM
NAME OF SPEAKER
PANEL AND PANEL TOPIC
Did the speaker meet your expectations? yes no
If not, why not?
What do you think were the strong points of the speaker?
What do you think were the weak points of the speaker?
Would you recommend that this speaker be used again?
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER EVALUATION FORM
NAME OF SPEAKER
PANEL AND PANEL TOPIC
Did the speaker meet your expectations? yes no
If not, why not?
What do you think were the strong points of the speaker?
What do you think were the weak points of the speaker?
Would you recommend that this speaker be used again?
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER EVALUATION FORM
NAME OF SPEAKER
PANEL AND PANEL TOPIC
Did the speaker meet your expectations? yes no
If not, why not?
What do you think were the strong points of the speaker?
What do you think were the weak points of the speaker?
Would you recommend that this speaker be used again?
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER EVALUATION FORM
NAME OF SPEAKER
PANEL AND PANEL TOPIC
Did the speaker meet your expectations? yes no
If not, why not?
What do you think were the strong points of the speaker?
What do you think were the weak points of the speaker?
Would you recommend that this speaker be used again?
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER EVALUATION FORM
NAME OF SPEAKER
PANEL AND PANEL TOPIC
Did the speaker meet your expectations? yes no
If not, why not?
What do you think were the strong points of the speaker?
What do you think were the weak points of the speaker?
Would you recommend that this speaker be used again?
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER EVALUATION FORM
NAME OF SPEAKER
PANEL AND PANEL TOPIC
Did the speaker meet your expectations? yes no
If not, why not?
What do you think were the strong points of the speaker?
What do you think were the weak points of the speaker?
Would you recommend that this speaker be used again?
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONFERENCE
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER EVALUATION FORM
NAME OF SPEAKER
PANEL AND PANEL TOPIC
Did the speaker meet your expectations? yes no
If not, why not?
What do you think were the strong points of the speaker?
What do you think were the weak points of the speaker?
Would you recommend that this speaker be used again?
------- |