New Directions Workshops: Community Assessment Series
Workshop 1:
Community Assessment Questions
Summary Report
Prepared, for I
Office of Science Policy
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
April 27, 1999
-------
This report was prepared for the Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, by S. Cohen & Associates, Inc., 1355 Beverly Road, Suite 250, McLean,
VA 22101, and Environmental Management Support, Inc., 8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite 500, Silver Spring,
MD 20910, under contract number 68-D5-0132, work assignment 111-8. For further information, please
contact Gerardo Pascual at 202-564-2259.
Page ii
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Table of Contents
Preface Page iv
1. Introduction Page 1
1.1 New Directions Overview Page 1
1.2 Community Assessment Overview Page 1
1.3 Reinventing Environmental Protection Page 4
2. Case Studies Page 6
2.1 The Transboundary Air Monitoring Study for the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Rural)
Page 6
2.2 Urban Cases (Chicago, Greenpoint, and Baltimore) Page 9
2.3 Environmental Justice: Chester, Pennsylvania Environmental Risk Study Page 15
2.4 Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Convent, Louisiana Page 18
2.5 Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Impact Analysis (NEPA) Page 21
2.6 The Marty Indian School (Tribal) Page 23
3. Question Groups Page 25
3.1 Questions 1 & 2—What were the central issues of this case? Page 25
3.2 Questions 3 & 4—To what extent was the community involved? Page 25
3.3 Questions 5 & 6—What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used? . Page 26
3.4 Questions 7 & 8—From the Agency's perspective, what lessons were learned? . Page 27
3.5 Questions 9 & 10—From the State and community perspective, what worked and what
didn't? Page 27
4. Analysis of Information And Action Items Page 30
4.1 Restatement of the Workshop and the Series Page 30
4.2 Action Items and Next Steps Page 30
4.3 "Questions" Identified in Workshop Page 34
4.4 Workshop Evaluation Page 34
Appendix A. List of Participants A-l
Appendix B. Agenda B-l
Appendix C. Case Study Materials C-l
Appendix D. Breakout Group Flip Charts and Posters D-l
Appendix E. Community Assessment "Questions" E-l
Page iii
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summaiy Report 4/27/99
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Community Assessment Series Page 3
Exhibit 2: Data and Tools Used in Community Assessment Page 29
Exhibit 3: Action Items for the Next Workshop Page 36
Exhibit 4: Satellite Meetings Page 37
STATUS OF THIS REPORT
The objective of this workshop (or workshop series) was to bring together EPA scientists from the
regions, programs, and ORD labs and centers to discuss issues of common interest. The focus of
the meeting (or each meeting) was preliminary discussion among scientists and managers from
different parts of the Agency, each with their individual and office-specific information and
viewpoints.
As a result, it is important to understand that this report summarizes individua’ and program-
specific perspectives. References to pre -existing Agency information and policies should be
credited as such, but none of the individual workshop statements or summaries in this report
should be credited or cited as Agency information or policies. Rather, this report is developed
exclusively for internal EPA use and distribution as a record of the meeting for participants in each
meeting, and for EPA’s use in planning future meetings and discussion. EPA staff will use
information from this report, as appropriate, to design and conduct workshops or other activities
for broader discussion both within EPA and with external participation, again as appropriate .
Page iv
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Preface
EPA’ s Office of Research and Development is currently pursuing new approaches to using
science to address several topics of importance to the Agency. These topics represent new
directions for EPA in that they transcend the traditional media- or pollutant-based boundaries and
encompass a variety of disciplines and specialities. ORD wishes to link EPA staff interested in
these topics with the appropriate science staff in ORD to identify areas for collaboration. To
accomplish this goal, ORD’s Office of Science Policy is hosting a series of New Directions
workshops between March 1999 and Spring 2000. The workshops will provide a forum to
present information and discuss current and future issues on new topics of interest. There are four
topic series being presented under the auspices of New Directions: community assessment,
reinvention, risk management, and regional science. Each topic series will consist of three or four
workshops designed to bring interested staff together to develop a set of action items that will be
completed over the course of the series.
The initial workshop for the first topic, Community Assessment, was held at the Radisson
Barcelo Hotel in Washington, DC, on March 3-4, 1999. This workshop, entitled “Community
Assessment Questions,” was intended to identify Agency and stakeholder issues in using
scientific tools to answer questions in various community settings, and to plan and organize
follow-up work in preparation for the next meeting in the series, currently scheduled for June 9-
10, 1999. Approximately 50 senior EPA staff, representing EPA program offices, ORD, and
several Regions, participated; Appendix A provides a complete list of participants. Charlotte
Cottrill (ORD), Carole Braverman (Region 5), Reggie Harris (Region 3), Mike Callahan (ORD
NCEA), Jerry Gidner (Bureau of Indian Affairs), and Denise Rigney (Region 3) presented
background material on the case studies prior to breakout group discussions. The workshop was
facilitated to enhance the dialogue from all participants.
The two-day workshop was designed to maximize participant input and collaboration;
Appendix B provides a copy of the final agenda. It centered around ten questions intended to
foster new ideas about involving affected communities in the assessment process of EPA actions.
On the first day, Dorothy Patton, Director of the Office of Science Policy, provided an overview
of the New Directions initiative. Claudia Walters (ORD) discussed the Community Assessment
series in particular and Jay Benforado (Office of Reinvention) provided a keynote presentation.
Following presentations on six different cases, participants divided into discussion groups to
examine one particular case in depth, using questions prepared in advance by workshop
organizers to guide the discussion. Each discussion group then presented its conclusions by
creating a poster; participants were given an opportunity to review and comment on each group’s
work.
On the second day, responses to each of the ten questions for each case study were paired and
participants divided into groups to discuss the overarching issues that were evident across the
cases for each particular question. Again, discussion groups created posters that summarized
their findings and presented their work. The primary goal was to identify the questions being
asked in community settings that science can be used to help answer those questions. The entire
group identified a number of action items in preparation for the June workshop, such as “satellite
meetings”, agenda for second workshop. Participants signed up for the items of interest.
Page v
-------
Community Assessment 9uestions Summary Report 4127/99
To develop the agendas for each of the workshops, ORD has formed a cross-agency planning
group’, which will continue to support the work of meeting participants throughout the series.
The planning group is comprised of staff and management from ORD and Program and Regional
offices. The tasks of the planning group are to design the workshop structure, find interesting and
relevant case studies, and identif ’ presenters, panel members, and other workshop participants.
This report summarizes the information that was presented and exchanged during the
workshop. Key themes that emerged from the discussions are highlighted throughout the report.
The organization of the report follows the agenda of the workshop. The report concludes with
appendices containing a roster of attendees, the fmal workshop agenda, and the case materials
distributed to participants.
I Staff Lead: Program Office Leads: Regional Leads:
Claudia Walters (OSP) Victor McMahan (OA), Henry Carole Braverman (R5),
Topper (OPPTS), Tom Tillman Debra Forman (R3),
ORD Leads: (OPPTS), Steve Hassur (OPPTS), Rabi Kieber (R2),
Michael Callahan (NCEA), Nick Bouwes (OPPTS), Loren Hall Catherine Fox (R4)
Bill Wood (NCEA), (OCR), Lee Hofrnann (OSWER
Dale Pahl (NERL) OERR), Leah Yasenchak (OAR),
.Jeneva Craig (OAR), Ed Chu (OCHP)
Page vi
-------
Community Assessment Questio zs Summary Report 4/27/99
1. Introduction
1.1 New Directions Overview (Dorothy Patton, ORD OSP)
The New Directions initiative was introduced in a presentation by Dorothy Patton, Director
of the Office of Science Policy (OSP) within EPA’ s Office of Research and Development
(ORD). New Directions workshops are intended to bring EPA scientists, analysts, and managers
together to discuss how new approaches to environmental protection are being addressed across
the agency. Workshop sponsors believe that these discussions will produce cross-agency linkages
that will strengthen science at EPA by fostering collaboration and coordination on scientific
issues that cross traditional program and media boundaries. -
Environmental protection is moving in new directions. As science has_significantly advanced
our understanding of single-source environmental hazards to humans and the environment,
attention is now turning to the complexities and uncertainties associated with the health and
ecosystem impacts of exposure to multiple pollutants through multiple pathways. Likewise,
public discourse on how to protect the environment has evolved to reflect the complex
relationships between environmental and socioeconomic issues. Stakeholders have evolved from
observers and recipients of government-directed environmental protection into active participants
identifying problems, setting priorities, and devising solutions. Across EPA, program and
Regional offices are addressing these changes by approaching in new, innovative ways their
mission to protect human health and safeguard the environment.
The New Directions workshops are designed to promote the identification and sharing of
science tools and strategies among EPA staff and management from across the program and
Regional offices. As stated above, however, the most important result of the workshops will be
the linkages established between EPA program offices, Regional offices, and ORD laboratories
and centers as a result of these discussions.
Using input from the national laboratories and research centers, as well as from Program and
Regional offices, OSP has identified community assessment, regional science, reinvention, and
risk management as workshop series subject areas. While these four areas may not cover all the
new scientific directions that EPA is taking, they encompass a wide range of cross-program and
cross-media science issues that may serve as potential workshop topics. Each series will be
comprised of three to four topic-specific workshops. Each workshop within a series will follow
an agenda designed to focus on how analysts across the agency approach the various topics, and
how linkages can be formed between EPA Programs, Regions, laboratories, and centers to
collaborate and coordinate on issues relating to the topic area.
1.2 Community Assessment Overview (Claudia Walters, ORB OSP)
The Community Assessment series brings together scientists, community practitioners, and
risk assessors from across EPA to discuss community assessment issues in complex, multi-
source settings, such as urban environments. These workshops take a step-by-step approach to
improving EPA’s ability to support community assessments.
Page 1
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summaiy Report 4/27/99
There are four principal reasons why a discussion of community assessment is timely for
1999. New issues and questions, such as cumulative risk in community settings and
disproportionate impact in environmental justice evaluations, are challenging EPA to develop
novel approaches to answering these questions. More than ever, EPA is working in partnership
with communities to identify problems, set priorities, and devise solutions to complex
environmental problems. Communities’ understanding of the concepts of risk assessment, data
that are used to calculate a risk, or the limitations associated with risk estimates may vary. As
more information and data are made available through the Internet and public databases, the
potential for confusion, anxiety, and misuse of the data and risk assessment results is likely to
increase. Finally, EPA has developed tools and experience that can be shared among EPA
practitioners, State and local partners, and communities. Feedback from communities will help
EPA improve its data, tools, and practices.
For community assessment to be successful, there must be consensus on what this means.
There are two components: the community aspect and the scientific assessment. The overarching
goal of this series is to encourage a fusion of these two aspects. Community requires a broad
definition; it encompasses a variety of types of communities, all of which should be included in a
community assessment. The science aspect is the actual assessment, which aims to identify
potentially adverse effects to humans or ecosystems. In Community Assessment Workshops,
we’re tiying to determine how scientific assessments are conducted in the local environments.
Thus, community-based environmental protection represents a new approach to
environmental problem solving. It focuses on a geographic area. Stakeholders within that
geographic area are identified; EPA then aims to work collaboratively with the stakeholders to
identify and solve their community’s environmental problems. Environmental issues are
addressed in systems approach rather than independently. In addition, this approach has many
advantages in that it integrates environmental, economic, and social objectives and addresses
environmental issues collectively, allowing for a wide range of solutions.
Towards this end, the community assessment series of workshops attempts to produce some
products that will be helpful for the Agency and communities and to develop a better
understanding of science in this new paradigm. Specifically, the workshop aims to:
• Categorize existing tools;
• Identify gaps in the tool inventory;
• Understand how this approach is different;
• Understand how this approach affects the tools developed in the future;
• Develop a better understanding of how communities and science are related.
There are three phases to this process: (I) preparation or “setting the stage”; (11) community
setting; and (III) implementation. The first phase will characterize the state of our knowledge,
including, community issues, the science that is available, and the what science is lacking or
needs improvement. Phase I, taking place in the spring and summer of 1999 proposes to: (1)
identify community assessment questions, needs, and issues; (2) identify tools and gaps; and (3)
assess the gaps through a technical analysis and determine how to address these gaps. Phase II,
scheduled for Fall 1999, will focus on capacity building or developing communication and
infrastructure. Phase III will assemble a tools package and a strategy to disseminate the package,
Page 2
-------
Process
Phase I Phase II Phase III
uSet the Stage” “Community Setting” implementation”
c - i
lden fy Assess Gaps: Capacity Building: Tools Package!
Community Identify Technical Analysis & Communication & Dissemination
Assessment Tools & Gaps Determine How to Infrastructure , Strategy &
Questions: Address Future Research
Needs & Issues
March 3 & 4 June 9 & 10 July 29 & 30 Late Early Winter
September 99
FY99 FY00
—4
‘-0
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
as well as identify future research. Exhibit I depicts the process.
Workshop I is aimed at addressing the relevant questions for community-based assessments.
Examples of these questions on the community level include:
• Is there disproportionate risk?
• Can we (the community) consume these fish?
• Will this highway adversely affect the environment?
• Is this mine polluting our (the community’s) groundwater?
• Why are there childbirth defects here?
• Is there toxic air depositing on our lake?
• What areas should we protect from development?
Workshop II will identify and evaluate existing tools, models, and data sources that can
answer the community “questions” identified in the first workshop, including:
• Cumulative Health Risk (tool);
• Comparative Relative Risk (tool);
• Landscape Ecology (GIS) Approach (tool);
• Models-3 (Air, multi-scale) (tool);
• Community Guidance Manual (model);
• Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) (database);
• State databases (database);
• Community Profiling Tool (tool).
In addition, the workshop will discuss the “decision-making” process that is used in the
community to determine what tools and data can be used to address their “questions”.
Participants will identify the steps in the process and their order and determine what each step
accomplishes.
Workshop III is envisioned as an opportunity to match existing tools and data, identified in
the second workshop, with questions identified in the first workshop. It is hoped that this
analysis will identify gaps in tools and data, and stimulate research aimed at filling those gaps.
Future workshops will focus on understanding how this information can be used in the
community setting. Discussion will focus on the capacity of the cornmunht\ to use the tools.
including the equipment and the people to use them. Additionally, the participants will discuss
how assessment information is used and understood and what criteria communities use to
measure success.
1.3 Reinventing Environmental Protection (Jay Benforado, OR)
EPA views reinvention as a way to achieve cleaner, cheaper, smarter results for environ-
mental programs. This initiative grew out of an overall effort aimed at making the Federal
government work better and cost less, as well as general criticism that EPA reduces environmen-
tal problems to technical problems that can be solved through regulation. Rethinking problems
Page 4
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4127/99
and traditional solutions challenges the Agency to find better ways of doing business without
imposing unnecessary costs and regulatory burdens on society. The result is the development of
more holistic, multi-media approaches that better address today’s ever-changing environmental
challenges.
Despite much progress in protecting the Nation’s environmental health, problems such as
polluted runoff and environmental justice highlight limitations within the current system. These
limitations and several other factors reinforce the need for new thinking at EPA. A wider array
of policy tools and technological developments allows environmental problems to be addressed
in ways not possible before. Increasing knowledge about environmental issues and the growing
sophistication of stakeholders means that additional resources and expertise are available for
problem solving. The basic idea of environmental protection has evolved beyond pollution
control to broader issues such as pollution prevention, sustainability, and environmental justice.
These new factors challenge EPA not only to maintain the strong environmental protection
results achieved thus far but also to develop the ability to address rapidly changing needs,
capabilities, and priorities within society.
s response is the continual evolution of an organizational culture that: (1) promotes
creativity in problem solving; (2) fosters learning from experience and research to adapt
programs and policies to changing environmental needs; (3) encourages testing and adopting
flexible, innovative, and effective new policy tools; (4) works with all levels of government;
(5) expands public concerns and involvement in environmental protection; and (6) supports
business efforts to protect the environment. The means of reinventing EPA’s environmental
mandate is two-pronged: (1) innovate and streamline EPA’s core programs; and (2) test and
apply more integrative and holistic approaches to environmental protection.
The first prong applies to regulations, permitting, monitoring and reporting, and compliance
assistance. Existing regulations should be consolidated and simplified; new regulations should
be written simply and clearly, and use market-based incentives to encourage pollution prevention
and increase operational flexibility. The permitting approval process should be streamlined and
made consistent across programs; multi-media and facility-wide permits should be developed.
Unnecessary monitoring and reporting requirements should be eliminated to allow more
flexibility in monitoring methods; requirements should be reduced to reward excellence in
environmental performance. Compliance assistance centers should be set up to help selected
centers improve environmental performance; incentives should be provided for regulated
facilities to identify and correct environmental problems internally.
The second prong involves sector- and industry-based approaches, community-based
environmental protection, redefinition of Federal/State roles, and the improvement of
environmental information. New approaches that integrate environmental requirements for
sectors, industries, or facilities should be tested; voluntary environmental stewardship and
continuous environmental performance improvement should be promoted. Development of tools
to support local environmental strategies should be continued. State participation in the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System should be expanded; Federal and State agencies
should jointly test innovative regulatory strategies. Common data standards and electronic
reporting capabilities should be established; programs and tools to expand public access to
environmental data should be developed.
Page 5
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
2. Case Studies
The six case studies presented illustrated how community assessment can successfully be
applied to a wide range of non-traditional, environmental issues that EPA has begun to explore.
Each case involved careful consideration of the community’s specific needs and tailored the
science to address the community’s concerns.
After overviews of all the cases in a plenary session, participants divided into five groups to
discuss a particular case of interest. The group met with the speaker for the particular case and
further discussed the case to respond to the following ten questions:
1. What were the central issues in the case?
2. How did you determine what the questions were?
3. To what extent was the community involved?
4. How did the community focus affect assessment methods and the outcome?
5. What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used?
6. Were there other approaches that could or should have been used?
7. From the Agency’s perspective, what lessons were learned?
8. Were the stakeholders’ issues addressed and answered?
9. From the State and community perspective, what worked and what didn’t?
10. What issues were unique in this case? Which will recur in other cases?
Each of the case study presentations are summarized and followed by the answers to the
break-out group questions as identified by the discussion group. Transcriptions of the flip charts
and posters created by each breakout group are provided in Appendix D.
2.1 The Transboundary Air Monitoring Study for the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Rural)
(Charlotte Cottrill — ORD)
The Scenario
The Lower Rio Grande Valley Monitoring Study (LRGVMS) aimed to identify and evaluate
environmental pollutants in the air, drinking water, food, soil, and house dust in the Valley. It
was a joint project involving EPA, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC), and other Federal agencies. The project also included international participation by
representatives from Mexico. The project was initiated because of the community’s concern
about the potential health impacts of local environmental pollutants and the lack of local
environmental information. Specifically, the community was concerned about the possible
relationship between local environmental pollutants and a cluster of births with neural
defomuties. In addressing this problem, researchers confronted multiple speculations and
hypotheses, limited data for confirmation, and limited resources for exploration. The solution
involved developing a consensus approach involving the community that better identified and
characterized the problems, established a set of priorities, and guided options and actions. The
study integrated community involvement in project design, project participation, communication
of results, and community recommendations for future study. A decision-tree research plan was
Page 6
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
developed to establish consensus on appropriate activities, and to guide initial and subsequent
directions. This decision tree established priorities: (1) defined initial activities, timetables,
potential outcomes, and limitations; (2) identified important decision points and options; and
(3) facilitated integration and coordination of activities across groups. The study itself was
divided into two phases.
Phase I : A small-scale pilot study in Brownsville, Texas that:
• Explored the actual environmental pollutants to which Valley residents may be exposed;
• Explored the contribution from different sources and media (air, drinking water, food, soil,
and house dust);
• Focused on several different classes of chemicals;
• Involved the collection of ambient air samples at a central site and the collection of
indoor/outdoor air, household dust, soil, food, water, and biologic samples at residential sites;
• Was intended to provide information that would strengthen the scientific basis of the design
for a larger study of potential exposure.
Phase II : A transboundary air monitoring study, which:
• Focused on transboundaiy air pollution in Cameron County;
• Monitored emissions from traffic and industrial activities and, to a lesser extent, agricultural
spraying at three sites over time;
• Proposed to provide the State of Texas with background data against which future changes in
Valley air pollutants can be compared;
• Proposed to develop a cost-effective monitoring and modeling strategy for use by the State
and others in designing future monitoring efforts.
In the nine households evaluated in the pilot study, levels of pollutants were found to be
similar to those often seen in other parts of the United States. The community was reassured that
the results from these nine households did not show significant exposure to most of the
contaminants measured. Elevated levels of PCBs found in fish caught in the irrigation ditches
near the Donna Reservoir have initiated study efforts by the State of Texas. Although pesticide
levels measured were generally low, pesticide residues found in several blood and urine samples
taken from the households indicate that there is a need to further document community exposure
to pesticides. Investigations to determine the source of lead in the diet and the origins of the
higher than average urinary arsenic levels found in participants are also needed.
The study also encouraged the development of several new paradigms. A partnership
paradigm sparked cooperation between several Federal and State agencies, the community, and
international representatives. An environmental health/public health paradigm linked exposure
and disease. The community science paradigm linked monitoring and surveillance with research
and risk prevention/reduction. The study also led to the development of mechanisms for
community involvement, new approaches for communicating with the community, and new
options for providing information that would help identify and reduce exposures.
Page 7
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summaiy Report 4/27/99
The Resultc
1. What were the central issues in this case?
The occun ence of a cluster of neural birth defects initially captured the community’s
attention, leading to concern within the community about exposure to pollutants and possible
related health effects. This community concern sparked a cooperative study, involving EPA,
other Federal and State agencies, and international representatives, as well as the community.
2. How did you determine what the questions were?
The overall approach adopted was one of environmental risk/exposure, coupled with an
appreciation for the environmental health issues. The study began with the community. Scientists
talked with local residents to get a better idea of how to proceed.
3. To what extent was the community involved?
The community was involved in identi! ring the problem, designing the Phase I study,
reviewing the results of the Phase I study, and helping to design the Phase II study. This was
accomplished through community meetings and studying a limited number of local households.
4. How did the community focus affect assessment methods and the outcome?
The community focus helped design the house-to-house study, focused the goals of the study,
and brought State and other Federal agencies into the assessment.
5. What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used?
The study included measurements of several classes of chemicals (including pesticides and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Ambient air samples were collected at a central site. A
variety of indoor/outdoor samples were taken at several residential sites. Also, household dust,
soil, food, water, and biologic samples (such as blood) were collected at several residential sites.
The transboundary air monitoring study reviewed state background data and monitored traffic,
industrial emissions, and, to a limited extent, agricultural activities.
6. Were there other approaches that could have or should have been used?
A social assessment could have been used to better define community representation and
ensure that all groups in the community were adequately represented. The study could also have
looked more at acute/direct exposures. The study could have started with the health endpoints
and worked backward, instead of being exposure-driven.
7. From the Agency ‘s perspective, what lessons were learned?
The Agency learned that sometimes the views of the community differ from their own.
Community involvement is veiy important; stakeholders should be involved in most of the
Page 8
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
process. The expense of this type of study, involving so much community participation, was
greatly underestimated; more investment is needed than was planned.
8. Were the stakeholders’ issues addressed and answered?
The study was partly successful for the stakeholders. While the community’s concerns were
addressed, they were not conclusively answered. In addition, the concerns of all stakeholders,
including industry, must be considered and addressed.
9. From the State and community perspective, what worked and what did not work?
The formation of partnerships, identification of community representatives, and some of the
interventions produced were successful. Creation of an information repository and some attempts
at public participation did not work. -.
10. What issues were unique in this case? Which issues will recur in other cases?
The international aspect of this case was unique, as was the initial concern over a specific
birth defect. The high level of interaction between many different agencies, levels of government,
and international representatives was also considered unique. Three issues were identified as
likely to occur in other cases: (1) there was no clear cause and effect relationship that could be
demonstrated; (2) clusters of this type are common; and (3) this “hot button” issue drew attention
and resources from high levels of authority.
This group concluded that community-based assessment requires close interaction between
the Agency and the community. It is important for the Agency to take the concerns of the
residents seriously. Good community-based assessment requires a great deal of initial planning.
This should include adequate management support and staff to achieve the goals of the
assessment. The Agency must ensure cooperation with other levels of government and, if
necessary, other Federal agencies. Finally, it must be remembered that a community-based
assessment from the Agency’s perspective can be very different from the stakeholders’
expectations.
2.2 Urban Cases (Chicago, Greenpoint, and Baltimore)
Evaluating Cumulative Risks in the Chicago Metropolitan Area (Carole Braverman,
Region 5)
The Scenario
The Chicago Cumulative Risk Initiative (CCRI) is a multi-office effort to assess and reduce
the risks posed to the residents of the Chicago metropolitan area by cumulative exposure and
hazard. The effort was initiated in response to concerns of Chicago-area community advocacy
groups. The study focuses on refining and demonstrating methodologies for assessing children’s
environmental health risks due to the accumulation of multiple stressors from multiple sources
that impact a specific area. The study objectives included:
Page 9
-------
Communi y Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
• Conducting a cumulative risk analysis that specifically addresses the concerns of both the
Agency and stakeholders, including identification of health-compromised subpopulations of
children and of locales with elevated hazard levels;
• Illustrating the implementation of the Administrator’s Cumulative Risk Guidance;
• Taking the initial steps in developing the basis for transferring a cumulative risk methodology
to other units in the Agency.
The Chicago project began with a community-sponsored Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Section 21 Petition which raised several issues that EPA decided to pursue in May of
1996. In particular, the investigation focuses on cumulative environmental loading, cumulative
risk, and permitting concerns. The Chicago Cumulative Risk Initiative (CCRI) serves as the
vehicle for investigation. The main priorities of the initiative are environmental health risks to
children and EPA-regulated and permitted sources.
Four phases of investigation are planned:
• Phase IGeneration of a Cumulative Environmental Loading Profile
• Phase II A facilitated workshop to involve stakeholders
• Phase III Development and implementation of a cumulative risk methodology
• Phase IV Pollution prevention activities
Phase III and IV activities are currently underway. CCRI anticipates providing a number of
useful products as a result of this initiative. These include: (1) an evaluation and presentation of
available relevant health data; (2) an exposure and risk characterization for EPA-regulated and
permitted air sources in two study locations; (3) an exposure and risk characterization for point,
area, and mobile sources, and background for Cook and Lake Counties; (4) an evaluation and
summary of other important risk pathways; and (5) an integration of risk evaluation and
estimates, to the extent that this is feasible.
The study used several existing tools for analysis: (1) OPPT Toxicity Weights; (2) the Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI); (3) the Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development System
(RAPIDS); (4) monitored ambient concentrations (drawn from AIRS and other unpublished
sources); (5) the National Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP); and (6) other facility density
indicators and health effect indicators (such as data for hospital or incidence rates).
Greenpoint- Williamsburg Community Risk Assessment (Fred Talcott, Office of Policy)
The Scenario
The Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP) was designed to develop tools and data to assess the
extent of human exposures to a broad range of toxic chemicals through various exposure routes
and to address various toxic endpoints at the national level. The project had several goals:
• Establish nationwide estimates of toxics exposure and risk, including all media, toxics and
toxic endpoints;
• Examine the contribution of types of sources, such as mobile, area, and point sources;
Page 10
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
• Test this approach on a small scale;
• Contribute to environmental justice analysis for the selected trial site;
• Assess what can actually be accomplished.
The Greenpoint-Williamsburg area was selected to test the feasibility of this approach on a
smaller scale. This two-neighborhood area in New York City has high through-traffic, and has
traditionally been the site of diverse industrial and waste treatment facilities. Consequently, there
had long been an interest in addressing environmental problems in this area. These
neighborhoods also had the advantages of: (1) offering a great deal of local interest and prior
efforts; (2) providing the opportunity to include lead exposure and subsistence fishing in the
study; and (3) exhibiting a great deal of ethnic and economic diversity in a small area. While the
project included considerable community involvement, its focus was on applying cumulative
exposure tools on a local scale.
A number of preliminazy conclusions were made about the health effects of exposure to
toxics. However, the team found that it was not possible to reliably determine differences in
toxics exposure within the neighborhoods because of the lack of precision in the modeling tool.
Therefore, the secondary goal of detennining disproportionate impacts was not attainable. In
addition, the study included only those toxics for which significant data for the media were
available. A mixture of toxic endpoints had to be used. Radiation, indoor air, and occupational
exposure issues had to be either deferred or excluded altogether.
The Southern Baltimore & Northern Anne Arundel County Community Environmental
Partnership (Henry Topper, OPPTS)
The Scenario
EPA, community organizations, and local and State governments began working on ways in
which to improve the local environment and economy in southern Baltimore and northern Anne
Arundel County, Maryland. The five neighborhoods in the Partnership have a combined
population of thirty thousand. These neighborhoods have a broad range of environmental and
economic concerns, including concerns that arise from the concentration of industrial, waste
treatment, and brownfields sites that surround the area. But the area also has great environmental
assets and economic potential. The neighborhoods border the Chesapeake Bay and are the site for
a new eco-industrial park, a major redevelopment effort that has the potential to attract new jobs.
The Partnership set out to take a comprehensive look at the local economy and environment, and
build consensus around a plan for action.
The Community Environmental Partnership started as a pilot for the new community-based
approach to environmental protection and economic development. This new approach
incorporated the local community’s knowledge and made it possible to begin addressing
cumulative effects from multiple sources. It allowed for the consideration of a detailed level of
information often missed when policy is made at the national or State level. Building consensus
at the local level also made it possible to unite the community around voluntary pollution
prevention approaches that can go beyond current statutory requirements.
Page 11
-------
Communi y Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
The partnership began with four goals:
• Build the long-term capacity of the community, including residents and businesses, to take
responsibility for their environment and economy;
• Develop a comprehensive picture of the local environment and economy, and an action
agenda based on the needs and wants of the community;
• Build consensus in the partnership for the implementation of an action plan that makes a
difference in the local environment and economy;
• Encourage and support sustainable economic development in the community.
Five committees (Air Quality, Surface Water and Natural Resources, Human Health,
Trash/Illegal Dumping/Abandoned Housing, and Economic Development) were formed with
residential, business, and government members and began work in September 1996. Highlights
of committee accomplishments include:
• The first comprehensive screening of the cumulative concentration of air toxics from all the
industrial and city facilities in and around the neighborhoods;
• A survey of all parks and a plan for a major restoration of the Masonville Cove area,
reestablishing the community’s link to the Chesapeake Bay;
• A first-for-Maryland survey of cancer incidence at the neighborhood level.
The Results
Since the Chicago case study was the focus of the plenary session presentation, discussion in the
breakout group centered around this case. When points were made about Baltimore or
Greenpoint, they were specifically identified below.
1. What were the central issues of the case?
Permitting multiple industrial sources within a small geographic area, and the resultant health
effects on children, adults, traffic, and general safety, were central issues of these cases. In
Chicago, the community lacked trust in government and relevant data, and felt that the
community’s views and concerns were not incorporated into decisions regarding future
development and permitting in their community. Concerns regarding localized health effects,
such as bioaccumulation of toxins associated with subsistence fishing in the Greenpoint case, led
to a discussion by ORD staff about the validity of quantifying cumulative risk. Concern for
further development of cumulative risk analysis methodology was a central issue for ORD staff.
2. How did you determine what the questions were?
For all three cases, questions to be addressed in the assessment were determined based on
petitions from citizens; large public meetings; concerns and specific questions raised by well-
organized, politically savvy stakeholder groups; and EPA’s own perspective regarding the case
studies.
Page 12
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
3. To what extent was the community involved?
The Chicago community was veiy vocal in expressing their concerns regarding permitting
issues. The communities assisted in focusing the agenda of the assessment. Stakeholders in
Chicago posed questions, researched issues, and asked EPA to assist them in exploring their
inquiries. Because of the large area studied in the Chicago risk assessment, EPA believed that
views from the 11 stakeholder groups represented a sample population with cross-community
issues and interests. In the Baltimore study, stakeholders included representatives of industry and
environmental advocacy groups, adversarial groups, and the city health department. The
Baltimore communities’ degree of involvement with the assessment varied. The Greenpoint
study received input from the academic community at Hunter College, but had less community
involvement than in the Chicago or Baltimore studies.
4. How did the community focus affect assessment methods and the outcome?
Stakeholders in all the communities greatly affected the focus of the assessments by
demanding consensus prior to commencement of the assessment. In response, issues that EPA
believed were not critical to the assessment were eventually incorporated to meet the demands of
the stakeholders. Alternatively, EPA identified issues that were not addressed by the stakeholder
groups and incorporated them into the focus of the assessment. Because the communities’
concerns resulted in an expanded assessment focus, issues that may not have been assessed for
risk, such as lead hazards associated with substance fishing, were addressed. The Baltimore
community collected additional data and samples to assist in the community assessment. No new
samples were collected for either the Chicago or the Greenpoint assessments.
5. What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used?
Approaches to the assessment included the application of national models to local conditions,
sample collection for the Baltimore assessment, alternative-screening approaches, use of
partnerships leading to new sources of information, and the use of regular process reports. A
variety of models and databases were used for data collection and evaluation. Information was
collected at the local level and from national database searches. The group discussed the
importance of incorporating local and State data, relying less on easily accessible national data
for the assessment. In Chicago, no models were deemed necessary for the assessment, and results
were derived directly from a number of databases and other information sources, including TRI
records, RAPIDS, local hospital database information, and State and city permit data. Baltimore
and Greenpoint incorporated the use of State emissions data, ISC and STP databases for
modeling, National Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP) data, and numerous other data collection
sources.
6. Were there other approaches that could or should have been used?
A more complete evaluation of community views and concerns, as well as an examination of
community assets, could have been performed to increase accuracy in understanding community
profiles in all the cases. Other approaches included evaluating the communities’ level of interest
towards the issues to derive a place-based method for determining community views. Public
meetings may prove to be an effective tool in communities with a strong interest in the issues of
Page 13
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4127/99
concern. Door-to-door interviews, telephone surveys, and other tools for the collection of
community opinions, may be needed to derive a more complete community profile. Monitoring
data may be beneficial in evaluating total exposure data versus industrial emissions data. This
monitoring would result in a more complete community risk characterization. The IDEA
database should be used to identify potential enforcement cases surrounding the issues.
7. From the Agency ‘s perspective, what lessons were learned?
The group believed it was important to discuss the limits of assessments with community
stakeholders. Developing patience and respect between EPA and the community is important;
therefore, EPA should be flexible in its assessment approach. EPA should strive to continually
discuss issues and learn from the community, while involving other agencies in the assessment.
The group realized the value of a true place-based, multi-disciplinary approach to community-
based risk assessment.
The Agency learned that generalized models provide no information about differences in
communities, although these models are an efficient tool for project scoping. The group
emphasized the importance of utilizing localized information sources, such as the medical
community, and recognized that the CEP model failed to answer questions on a small community
scale. The group also felt that the examination of toxics was not complete. Issues, such as indoor
air quality, were not assessed in case studies, resulting in an assessment that does not encompass
all variables of a community’s health problems, lessening the validity of the assessment’s
outcome.
8. Were the stakeholders’ issues addressed and answered?
Stakeholder opinions on whether the issues were addressed and answered varied depending
on their point of view. The group was confident that the communities’ issues were addressed and
that at least some of the communities’ issues were resolved. This question brought the realization
that unplanned outcomes from the assessment can provide new information that may be valuable
to the community. Such information may create spin-off projects dealing with other stakeholder
issues. EPA may be addressing issues that are beyond a community’s interest, but that EPA feels
are necessary to make an accurate assessment of a community.
9. From the State and community perspectives, what worked and what didn ‘i?
The group was concerned that if stakeholders are surprised by the results of the assessment,
they may not accept its validity. The group believed that stakeholder involvement at an earlier
stage in the assessment might have been more effective. Members of the group directly involved
with the assessments believed that the communities are pleased to make progress, and that has
lessened community frustrations.
10. What issues were unique in this case? Which will recur in other cases?
Each assessment conducted will present a unique set of challenges. Although the
methodology of cumulative risk assessment is “alive, it is not well.” The group re-emphasized
the need for further development of cumulative risk assessment methodology, incorporating local
Page 14
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summaiy Report 4/27/99
information sources unique to each case study. Issues the group felt will recur in other cases
included complex political dynamics, health issues, community dynamics, and changing
community priorities and focuses.
2.3 Environmental Justice: Chester, Pennsylvania Environmental Risk Study (Reginald
Harris, Region 3)
The Scenario
Chester, Pennsylvania, has the highest concentration of industrial facilities in the State,
including two oil refineries, an infectious medical waste facility, and other waste-processing
facilities. Residents complained of frequent illnesses and became concerned about the possible
relationship between exposure to toxic substances and the health of the residents. Because
Chester has the State’s highest infant mortality rate, the lowest birth rate, the highest death rate
due to malignant tumors, and the highest percentage of African Americans of any municipality in
the State, issues of environmental justice and community protection were raised.
The Chester Risk Assessment Project was a cooperative effort between EPA Region 3 and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to study environmental risks, health, and regulatory issues in
the Chester area. The original intent of the study was to provide a complete cumulative risk
assessment. However, the actual report became more of an aggregated risk study due to the
largely unknown nature of the interrelated exposures. The study did not attempt to collect new
data, but rather focused on the analysis of available data.
Limitations on analysis included the use of data from a variety of agencies that were not
intended to support a quantitative risk assessment; databases were of varying quality, and point
source air risks were based on projected data rather than data collected in the field. Nevertheless,
the study was able to draw the following conclusions:
• Blood lead levels for Chester children are unacceptably high;
• Both cancer and non-cancer risks from pollution sources at locations in the city exceed levels
which EPA believes are acceptable. Air emissions from facilities in and around Chester
provide a large component of the cancer and non-cancer risk to the citizens;
• The health risk from eating contaminated fish from Chester streams and rivers is
unacceptably high;
• Drinking water in Chester is typical of supplies in other cities throughout the country.
In response, EPA Region 3 recommended that:
• The lead paint education and abatement program in Chester should be aggressively enhanced;
• Sources of air emissions which impact the areas of the city with unacceptably high risk
should be targeted for compliance inspections and any necessary enforcement action;
• A voluntary emission reduction program should be instituted to obtain additional emissions
reductions from facilities which provide the most emissions in the areas of highest risk;
• Enhanced public education programs regarding the reasons behind the existing State-
mandated fishing ban should be implemented.
Page 15
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
The Results
1. What were the central issues in the case?
The group identified a number of different issues and combined them into categories. These
categories included: (1) disproportionate exposure to pollutants, due to an excessive number of
facilities and waste sites; (2) disproportionate health effects; and (3) community characteristics,
such as a weak political voice and low economic status.
2. How did you determine what the questions were?
The questions were posed by the community to EPA. Church leaders and other members of
the community had formed Chester Residents Concerned for Quality to address issues of concern
in the past. This citizen group provided the catalyst for EPA to study the situation in Chester,
which had long been of interest to the Agency, but was not a priority. In addition to the
environmental and health aspects of the problem, the citizens also brought questions of an
economic and political nature to the table.
3. To what extent was the community involved? -
In addition to the community initiation of the study, it remained involved throughout the
process, working with EPA and the State and local governments. This involvement did not
always have positive results; the citizen group often pointed out mistakes made by the State and
the State representatives in turn made personal attacks on the leaders of the citizen group in an
attempt to discredit them. The EPA study, however, gave credence to the community’s concerns,
and as a result, the Chester County Executive, a former EPA Regional Administrator, decided to
address the problem. In addition, the community received money from the Centers for Disease
Control for a dedicated public health worker. In general, the issue was community-initiated, with
continued persistence and a high level of community activism.
4. How did the community focus affect assessment methods and the outcome?
EPA developed an initial framework and performed its own data analysis, which was
compared to that of the State health department’s community health assessment. In accordance
with the community’s concerns, the assessment focused on health outcomes rather than the
environmental pollutants and causes. Immediate interventions included the introduction of health
education and training programs, the influx of more health care providers into the community,
and longer-term health-based measurements. Programs were developed to address the highest
cancer rates and risks. Since the State of Pennsylvania has a filly authorized permitting program,
EPA has less power in this area and had to work to encourage the State to take a second look at
the permits it issued. EPA also asked the State to provide a dedicated monitor to report releases
in Chester.
5. What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used?
EPA performed a Superfund-type additive risk assessment for Chester rather than a
cumulative risk assessment due to limitations in the existing data. The State performed an
Page 16
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
epidemiologic health outcomes assessment. Geographic Information System tools were used.
Sources of data included TRI reports, Dunn and Bradstreet databases, ambient data from the
AIRS system, CERCLIS, State cancer and reportable disease registries, monitoring data for blood
lead levels, interviews with citizens, mobile source data, and State monitoring databases.
6. Were there other approaches that could or should have been used?
If time and resources permitted, it would have been useful to perform more comprehensive
research and information gathering, including a long-term toxicological/epidemiological study.
Source control might also have played a larger part in the solution, although the problem was not
unpermitted releases or noncompliance, as much as the fact that too many facilities, although in
compliance with their permits, were located in one area. With regard to stakeholders, it should
have been anticipated and accepted that the citizens would be angry. In addition, industry should
have been brought into the process from the beginning and encouraged to do more to address the
problems than simply improve public relations.
7. From the Agency’s perspective, what lessons were learned?
In a case such as this, where a wide variety of aspects beyond the environmental must be
considered, it is important for EPA to realize that the Agency cannot deliver all that the
community requests. Instead, there must be long-term involvement by other Federal, State, and
local agencies, as well as business and industry. EPA must be careful about what it promises to
deliver. In Chester, EPA might have been able to defme the problem, but was unable to resolve it
completely because the State of Pennsylvania has permitting authority. Therefore, instead of
using a regulatory approach, EPA can only try to influence the State. In addition, since the
community’s concerns were more in the realm of public health than strictly the environment,
involvement of a broad spectrum of agencies is imperative. In summary, lessons learned
included: (1) the need to involve all stakeholders and listen to their concerns; (2) the need to
ensure a transparent and credible process; (3) the need to acknowledge EPA’s limitations and the
roles of other parties; (4) the need to build effective partnerships; and (5) the importance of
prioritization to aid in resource development.
8. Were the stakeholders issues addressed and answered?
Some stakeholder issues were addressed, but not all were answered. EPA is continuing to try
to influence the State, which has requested the creation of specific guidelines by EPA. However,
this work must be done at the level of the Administrator rather than those directly involved with
the project.
9. From the State and community perspective, what worked and what didn ‘t?
Successes included community involvement in the identification of issues and strategy and
therefore the definition of the assessment. The City of Chester hired a health officer with money
from CDC and began new public health initiatives. However, credibility on both sides between
the community and the State is still lacking, and a conflict remains between what the citizens and
their local politicians value for Chester (i.e., public health vs. industry).
Page 17
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4127/99
10. What issues were unique in this case? Which will recur in other cases?
Unique issues included the specific data gaps, health problems, and political realities in
Chester. Issues that will recur include the problem of trust between citizens and government, as
well as the challenge of preparing comprehensive multiple exposure assessments in light of gaps
in available data.
2.4 Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Convent, Louisiana (Mike Callahan, ORD
NCEA)
The Scenario
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act states that Federal money may not be used in a way that
selectively and/or adversely impacts racial and ethnic minority groups. Accordingly, in 1997, a
group of citizens in Convent, Louisiana filed an administrative complaint with EPA that charged
the State of Louisiana with running its EPA-funded permitting program in a way that illegally
discriminated against African Americans. Specifically, a polyvinyl chloride plant was proposed
near Convent by Shintech,, Inc. EPA has investigated two major questions:
• Was there a disparity of adverse impact between racial groups?
• Was there actual harm being suffered?
EPA has not yet ruled on this case, as Shintech has put building plans on hold indefinitely.
However, the question of whether the presence of permitted industrial facilities in a certain
location poses a disparate, adverse impact upon certain groups within the surrounding population
is important for other cases. Therefore, a method of measuring or estimating the difference in
impact between the group in question and other groups is needed. The ultimate goal of this
method should be to highlight the differences between the group in question and the rest of the
population at large.
First, it is necessary to identify the types of possible adverse impacts due to an industrial
facility. There are several categories of impacts. The first is emissions to the surrounding
environment. This can include the emission of chemicals that at certain levels are harmful to
human health or the environment. These may take the form of releases to the air, water, landfills,
or injection wells. Once the chemicals are in the environment, the possibility for exposure exists.
The second type of adverse impact is the potential for accidents. Some industrial accidents may
result in the release of chemicals into the environment. The third type of potential adverse
impact, referred to as a “quality of life” impact, is less tangible. This impact includes noise, dust,
and increased traffic. While unpleasant, these types of impacts generally do not affect health.
It is also necessary to identify how impacts are distributed within the surrounding
community. These impacts tend to be distributed in certain geographical patterns relative to the
facilities. Air emissions from stacks are affected by local weather conditions. Transportation
impacts will lie along traffic routes. Water discharges affect downstream communities. Accidents
at a facility will impact those areas closest to the facility first.
Page 18
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summaiy Report 4/27/99
The key to analyzing how adverse impacts fall differently upon different groups within a
population is to:
• Establish an intensity measure for each geographical pattern;
• Establish how the intensity measure is distributed geographically;
• Analyze the intensity of patterns relative to where the various groups are located.
The Results
1. What were the central issues in this case?
The group agreed that the central issues varied for different groups. From the community
perspective, central questions involved whether the plant would be built and whether the
community could stop the building of the plant. From a legal perspective, the central issue was
whether the State had violated Title VI. From a technical perspective, the central issues were
determining what to measure and how. Adverse impacts, disparity, and risk of accidents were
listed as possible items to measure.
2. How did you determine what the questions were?
The questions were determined by understanding the nature of the complaint through
interviews with citizens, through EPA management discussions, and by evaluating the legal
framework.
3. To what extent was the community involved?
It was the community that filed the complaint that initiated investigation. Members of the
community were interviewed. The community had the opportunity to comment on plans and draft
results. EPA also tried to engage partners from outside the immediate group of stakeholders.
4. How did the community focus affect assessment methods and the outcome?
The community focus helped to define some elements of the investigation. The geography
gave the study some specificity and scope. The community focus also gave the investigation a
cumulative assessment focus. Finally, the community’s concerns led to the inclusion of disparity
relative to the State as a whole.
5. What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used?
Tools used included RSEI, Geographic Information System, statistics, Toxic Release
Inventory reports, TED! (from Louisiana), census data, pre-RMP reports, permit information, and
the company’s release estimates.
6. Were there other approaches that could have or should have been used?
The study could have taken a health-outcomes approach. The study could also have looked at
air monitoring data, alternate models, planned non-point sources, and plant-specific accident
consequences scenarios.
Page 19
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
7. From the Agency ‘ S perspective, what lessons were learned?
Overall, the group agreed that it is not an easy process and patience is needed. Often there is
not enough data (especially in the case of accidental releases). Tools do not exist to answer all of
the questions; this is an issue to address. There is a need for policy guidance in the area of Title
VI cases. Also, there is a need for faster methods/processes of resolving problems and issues.
8. Were the stakeholders’ issues addressed and answered?
Some aspects of the case were answered or addressed. From the community’s perspective,
the plant has not been built yet. Some aspects, however, were not resolved; i.e., the issue of
accidental releases.
9. From the State and community perspective, what worked and what d d not work?
Filing a complaint did, for the present, stop the construction of the plant. Future plant issues
will involve the community to a greater extent.
10. What issues were unique in this case? Which issues will recur in other cases?
There were several unique aspects of this case, including the fact that there was no precedent
to consider and the large role that local politics played. However, several aspects will recur. The
group believes that cumulative assessment gaps need to be addressed. Also, Title VI cases could
become more frequent.
This group concluded that community-based assessment requires close interaction between
the Agency and the community. It is important for the Agency to take the concerns of the
residents seriously. Good community-based assessment requires a great deal of planning up front.
This should include adequate management support and enough staff allocated to achieve the
goals of the assessment. It is also important to ensure cooperation with other levels of
government and, if necessary, other Federal agencies. Finally, it is important to remember that a
community-based assessment from the Agency’s perspective can often be very different than the
stakeholders’ expectations.
The group concluded that the data and methods cannot answer all of the questions, but this
does not mean that science cannot be helpful. There are still major gaps and uncertainties in the
existing data tools and methods available. The group felt that it is important to recognize that the
policy context of environmental justice issues is still in flux. This group also concluded that there
is a need for more investment in tools for communicating with stakeholders. Finally, it is
necessary to have a definition of disparate impacts.
Page 20
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
2.5 Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Impact Analysis (NEPA) (Denise Rigney,
Region 3)
The Scenario
This on-going project addresses current and future transportation needs in a corridor of the
Central Susquehanna Valley in Pennsylvania. The process includes coordination with a number
of State and Federal environmental regulatory agencies and the public. Suggested improvements
address congestion and safety problems on a number of existing routes. The public involvement
process includes meeting with citizen advisory committees, focus groups, individuals, and
communities or neighborhoods. In addition, natural, cultural, and socio-economic resources have
been identified in the study area prior to the identification of potential highway alignments. The
National Environmental Policy Act requires the identification of the environmentally-preferable
alternative. This takes into account impacts made to all types of resources, including the natural
and man-made environment.
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) tools improve the visualization of alternatives and
their effects on the public and other resources. The environmental justice aspect of this project
involves analysis of digital census data and tax assessment data to assess whether residents
falling into minority racial categories can be identified. One such analysis identified a
concentration of persons below the poverty level that may be impacted by one proposed highway
alignment alternative. The use of GIS technology has allowed several alternatives to be
considered based on a number of criteria, such as off-street parking for businesses. Likewise, an
assessment of available tax data combined with GIS technology has allowed for the consideration
of the effect of potential right-of-way acquisition on local tax bases. Local meetings have
provided information for the delineation of communities, allowing assessment of the number of
residences to be affected and the identification of potential displacements of people and groups.
The availability of new technologies, such as digital orthophotography, census data, and
property ownership/tax data has greatly increased the ability to do conununity impact analyses in
NEPA documentation. GIS data and tax assessment data have allowed residents to view the
location of their homes in relation to proposed alternatives, heightening the community’s
involvement in the project. This has helped the public visualize the potential impacts of the
project and start a dialogue on the issues. These new technological tools and a greater focus on
the outreach process have brought all of the communities into the transportation decision-making
process.
The Results
1. What were the central issues in this case?
The need to evaluate, suggest modifications to, and chose one of two road-plan alternatives,
initiated this process. Making the choice involves not only solving existing transportation issues,
such as capacity and congestion, but also community issues, such as the impacts on different
communities of the proposed alternatives and the mitigation of these impacts on both the broad
community and its sub-groups.
Page 21
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
2. How did you determine what the questions were?
The overall approach was guided in part by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s
(PemiDOT) existing practice of extensive community involvement. Three main approaches were
taken: (1) innovative and aggressive community involvement; (2) investigation of a wide variety
of existing data sources, including traffic, socio-economic, and human health and environment
data; and (3) the development of effective methods of viewing the data, including digital-
orthographic maps of the region.
3. To what extent was the community involved?
The existing PennDOT approach aided in the implementation of an aggressive strategy of
town meetings (involving both the broad community and individual sub-groups), door-to-door
outreach, neighborhood meetings, Community Advisory Committee meetings, and meetings with
public officials. The group felt that it was important to state that valuable information from the
community helped bring forward new issues, such as identification of a former landfill site.
4. How did the community focus affect assessment methods and the outcome?
The community involvement process affected many aspects of the program. Community
feedback identified critical issues, focused data presentation to increase effectiveness, and
spurred additional data collection. Additionally, this focus resulted in modified proposed
alternatives, increased recognition of historical preservation issues, and provided a confirmation
of the prevalence of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) sentiment.
5. What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used?
The use of high-tech tools made a big impact on the program. These included the use of
digital-ortho mapping, Geographic Information System, Global Positioning System data, and site
photography. Multiple sources of data were mined for relevant information. These included
State, EPA, tax assessment, and census databases. The region was considered in terms of State
historical sites, ecosystems, and endangered species. Much of this could be visually rendered
using the digital-ortho mapping. For example, historical sites or preserved green spaces could be
located on a map, allowing them to be considered in context with the surrounding area and the
proposed roadways.
6. Were there other approaches that could/should have been used?
The group was adamant in stating that the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 5t Century
(TEA-21) is the “future,” and that EPA needs to be involved. It was also noted that NEPA should
be thought of more often as an effective resource for regulatory support. Finally, while perhaps
not practical in this instance, non-road solutions to transportation congestion and capacity
problems should be aggressively pursued.
7. From the Agency ‘s perspective, what lessons were learned?
The group’s general consensus was that public involvement is indeed critical. They
Page 22
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
recognized that this approach involves high initial investment, but were convinced that the payoff
comes in reduced conflict during a project’s latter stages, when delays and changes can be
extremely expensive. To be effective, this approach requires time, effort, and an aggressive
outreach strategy by EPA. It is important to identify challenges or obstacles to community
involvement and communication. The group recognized that PennDOT’s existing and continuing
commitment to this approach played a big role in its successful application in this case.
8. Were the stakeholders issues addressed and answered?
The group concluded that the issues identified in this approach are indeed being addressed.
However, addressing issues does not equate to developing conclusions that satisfy all involved
parties. Some compromises are inevitable. The process, in this case, is still on-going.
9. From the State and community perspective, what worked and what didn ‘t?
In general, the group felt that the process described in this case seemed to be effective. Of
special note, they stressed the usefulness of “visualization,” achieved in this case primarily
through the use of the digital-ortho maps. Holding informal meetings hosted by individuals
within the community in their homes was noted as an effective strategy for accessing segments of
the community not commonly represented at larger town meetings.
10. Which issues were unique in this case? Which will recur in other cases?
The group concluded that most issues will recur; these include differing values among the
various members of the community, differing priorities, multiple publics, and application or use
of the NEPA regulatory framework.
The discussion group distilled its conclusions into four main points:
• PennDOT believes in outreach;
• Innovative community involvement should be sought;
• Outreach tools should be used creatively:
• TEA-21 is the “future;” EPA needs to get involved.
Thought should be given to the sources of traffic and whether attractive alternatives to road-
based transportation can be identified. Finally, EPA needs to be more aggressive in forming
interagency partnerships.
2.6 The Marty Indian School (Tribal) (Jerry Gidner, Bureau of Indian Affairs)
The Scenario
The Marty School was transferred from the Catholic Church to the Yankton Sioux Tribe
around 1975. The school and related facilities are operated by the Tribal school board. A 1998
EPA report showed contamination of the maintenance building containing heat boilers used to
provide steam heat for the school. The boilers have burned waste oil for the last 40 years.
Page 23
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Contamination was also found in the surrounding area, including the floodplain of a creek
draining into the Missouri River. Contamination found in the soil and ash from the boilers
included lead, heavy metals, VOCs, benzene, toluene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Underground storage tanks were found to be leaking; barrels of waste were found in the
basement; ash from the boilers is stored in a smokestack and analysis revealed high lead levels.
More than 240 children, ranging in age from newborns to high school seniors, occupy the school,
which is downwind from the boilers. A community stakeholders group was formed to create a
plan to resolve the environmental issues at the school.
The Indian Health Service (IllS) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) conducted studies of blood lead levels of employees and students. ATSDR also
scanned painted building surfaces with an x-ray fluorometer to detect lead. The maintenance
building and ash piles were cordoned off to limit student access in 1998. As a result of the study,
the school board voted to stop burning waste oil. Hazardous waste was removed from the
building, and the smokestack and underground storage tanks were also removed. Groundwater
and soil assessments are underway to determine the extent of contamination.
The Results
This case was not analyzed in a discussion group.
Page 24
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
3. Question Groups
On the second day, participants were divided into five discussion groups. Each group was
assigned two of the questions and was given the responses developed by the discussion groups on
the previous day. The groups then attempted to answer the questions as broadly as possible. The
objective was to identify the important issues and elements of community assessment. In turn,
these themes can be incorporated into a community assessment strategy.
3.1 Questions 1 & 2—What were the central issues of this case? How did you determine
what the issues were?
The central issues in the cases could be divided into two categories: science/health/technical
problems and complicating issues. The first category includes issues that are empirical in nature,
such as health risks or regulatory violations. These are the initial, central problems that cause
EPA to become concerned about a case in the first place. On the other hand, complicating issues
involve perceptions or social questions. Examples of these include lack of trust, fairness,
community involvement and empowerment, and conflicts between stakeholders.
A number of factors are involved in determining what the above problems and issues are. The
discussion group divided these factors into outreach, science, legal, management support, and
political will. “Outreach” refers to EPA solicitation of stakeholder input, and would also include
“inreach” from the community to EPA, as in the Chester case study. “Science” refers to problems
that come to the attention of EPA through data collection, such as through monitoring reports. It
also must include a capabilities assessment of what science can do to solve the problem, based on
analytical feasibility, data availability, and the current state of the science. The “legal” means of
identifying problems include the enforcement of permits. “Management support” refers to the
internal willingness of EPA management to commit the resources necessary to fully address a
case. Finally, “political will” refers to the external political climate that drives the desire of upper
management at EPA to address particular issues.
3.2 Questions 3 & 4—To what extent was the community involved? How did the
community focus affect assessment methods and the outcome?
In answering these questions more broadly, the group found it better to redefine the questions
and instead asked “To what extent should the community be involved?” and “To what extent
does the community want to be involved?” The group concluded that EPA believes that
community involvement is essential. Members adopted the phrase “early, often, always” as its
mantra for community involvement. Through a discussion of specific examples from the
members’ own experiences, the group identified many reasons for fostering community
involvement. For example, the community gains a sense of ownership in any project that is
undertaken. When the community is involved from the very outset, the results are often better
because the community helps to frame the questions. The community can also provide a wealth
of unique and valuable information that often goes untapped. Getting the community involved
can also serve as a reality check to the Agency’s goals. Additionally, the community can, in some
Page 25
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
cases, provide additional resources in terms of manpower, information, or money. A project
involving the community is also more likely to be sustainable over the long term. Finally, the
group believed that, in the long term, it is far less costly to involve the community from the start
than to begin addressing community concerns once the plan is ready for implementation. The
extent to which the community is involved covers a range of participation depending on the
project and the community.
The group also considered ways in which EPA should design tools to address community
concerns and to ensure the appropriate level of community involvement. The group chose to
answer this question by developing a list of questions that should be carried over to the next
meeting. The group also framed some specific answers. They found that the community focus
affects project methods and outcomes in many ways. Community involvement helps to better
frame and focus questions. The community’s involvement also provides information that is not
available elsewhere. Examples of the types of information include community values, activities,
and patterns. Involving the community also helps determine the need for the involvement of
other agencies. Community values can also be useful in setting screening criteria and outcomes,
such as what risks or alternatives may be considered acceptable. The benefits of increasing
community involvement include:
• Making the assessment more accurate and effective;
• F nhancing the design of the framework;
• Improving the determination of the extent and location of sampling and assessment;
• Designing tools that can be used by others without EPA assistance (technical outreach
services for communities).
The group identified several questions for consideration in the next workshop:
• How can EPA achieve community involvement?
• How can EPA work with the community to determine the right questions to ask?
• How can EPA design tools to encourage community involvement?
• How can EPA become more focused on community involvement?
During discussion of these questions in the plenary session, participants pointed out the
necessity of making community involvement an important part of EPA ’s goals for projects.
While it is already supposed to be part of the everyday practices of EPA staff, creative and more
aggressive approaches to community involvement are not encouraged. It is necessary to make a
commitment to community involvement beyond a perfunctory notice in the Federal Register.
Participants suggested that community involvement criteria be used in regular employee
performance evaluations, and that community involvement be stressed to a greater degree in
orientation and training programs. This will help to change EPA’s approach from passive to
active. It was noted that EPA Region 9 has a public involvement training program that provides
information on community involvement tools and methods.
3.3 Questions 5 & 6—What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used? Were
there other approaches that could or should have been used?
Page 26
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
The discussion group chose to combine the two questions and recognized three major issues:
• Integrating national-level and community-level tools and data;
• Identifying data and methods gap (e.g. small sources, health outcomes, and ambient
conditions);
• Enabling better communication and coordination among data and tool developers and users.
Examples of stressors, exposure and conditions, receptors, effects, and general conditions
associated with specific data and tools used were summarized in a table format, reproduced in
Exhibit 2. Asterisks (*) placed next to an item indicate a data source or tool the group felt could
or should have been used in the assessments.
3.4 Questions 7 & S—From the Agency’s perspective, what lessons were learned? Were the
stakeholders’ issues addressed and answered?
The group considered the questions together and identified additional questions that would
have to be considered in order to develop criteria for evaluating success. For example: Is science
an adequate response to stakeholder concerns? What is the measurement of success with regard
to adequacy of response to stakeholder concerns? Is it a consensus among all stakeholders or
simply an understanding of the concerns across the breadth of stakeholder groups? Can a
program be considered a success based on EPA’s perception of a community’s point of view
rather than the community’s opinion itself? How should EPA define issues which are value-
laden and therefore defined differently by different groups?
The group suggested that EPA needs to identify the needs of the stakeholders, and then
determine the tools and methods to address these needs. They stressed the importance of
establishing long-term relationships and trust between EPA and the stakebolders, as well as
among the stakeholder groups themselves. The group believed that EPA should solicit feedback
from the community and have them identify their own definitions of success, recognizing that
EPA and each stakeholder group might differ in these definitions. The group recognized that
aggressive outreach by EPA to the community is necessary to avoid passive community input.
EPA must recognize that the higher initial costs associated with community outreach are still
lower than those associated with negative results from a lack of community involvement.
3.5 Questions 9 & 10—From the State and community perspective, what worked and what
didn’t? What issues were unique in this case? Which will recur in other cases?
The group considered the possibility that EPA might have to adjust its criteria for judging the
success of a program to include consideration of the benefits to the community andlor other
government agencies. Across the cases, creative approaches to involving the community worked
best. The group recognized that successes might not be immediately evident but rather develop
over time. Positive and effective approaches included:
• Openness and transparency;
• Partnering with relevant agencies;
Page 27
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
• Defining community and its representatives broadly and accurately;
• Flexibility;
• Reporting progress regularly to prevent the issuance of “surprise” conclusions.
The group identified a need to move beyond traditional, passive approaches to community
involvement, such as public meetings held in large rooms and advertised simply by placing a
notice in local papers. Such approaches are susceptible to under-representation of important
aspects of the community in question. It is also important to recognize that a lack of trust
between citizens and any governmental body or agency can color that community’s interaction
with other agencies or bodies. Also, failing to prepare the community for the outcome of a
program by means of regular progress reports can cause even positive solutions to be poorly
received. Finally, the group recognized that occasionally the facts and science are not sufficient
to reach a clear result and resolution to community issues. Because of this, it is important to
understand community issues and positions, and to address these to the extent possible, in
addition to the issues identified by EPA.
It was noted that there will always be case-specific information, on the community level as
well as on the scientific level, making it necessaiy to adapt available tools. However, large-scale
reinvention is not always required to deal with these issues. Categories of unique issues were
identified as follows:
• International/cross-border issues;
• High profile cases;
• Case-specific information.
Recurring issues included:
• Political realities;
• Trust (us vs. them);
• Cumulative risk assessment: multiple exposures and multiple sources;
• Data gaps, tool gaps, science gaps;
• Health concerns;
• Different values/perceptions/concerns from different parts of community;
• Concerns about disproportionate share of pollution sources.
Page 28
-------
Communi(y Assessment Questions Summazy Report 4/27/99
Exhibit 2: Data and Tools Used in Community Assessment
Issue
Data
Tools
Stressors
.
National Data:
IDEA, Enviro-Facts Data
• Toxic Release Inventory
• PcS
• AIRS Facility
• RCRIS
• CERCLIS
Other
• NTI (on-going)
• P..MP
State, Local, and Regional Data:
• RAPIDS
• TEDI
• Emergency Planning and Community Rig) t-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) Reports*
• Socio-Economic Data
• Dunn & Bradstreet
• Census
• TaxData
• Default emission factors and
stack parameters
Exposure/Conditions
National Data:
• AIRS Monitors
• STORET
• Drinking Water Contaminant C
• Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP) Air Results
• Remote Sensing-Based Data
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) Ecosystem Data
• NHANES
State, Local, and Regional Data:
• Ambient Monitoring
• Blood Lead Levels
• EMPACT
• ISCM (and other AIR
models)
• RSEI
• BASINS
• IEUBK
• ASPEN (CEP)
. MMEM
Receptors
• CENSUS
• Socio-economic and Demographic Data (e.g.,
community 2020 updated population estimates)
• NOAA and FWS Ecosystem Data
• State Endangered Species Data
• Historical Sites Information
• SDWIS
• Exposure Factors Data
• PECT (proximity analysis)
• RSEI (proximity analysis and
levels of exposure)
• IE UBK
Effects
• NCHS Cancer Mortality (County level data)
• IRIS
• Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (e.g., Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), toxics profiles, STARS)
• HEAST
• RSEI Toxics Data
• CEP
• State/Local/Regional Health Records
General
• Geographic Information System
• Global Positioning Satellite
• Statistical Multi-level Analysis
• Krigging Tools (e.g., Geo-ease)
Statistical Multi-level
Analysis
• CIMAS-Type Applications
. TIGER (Census)
Page 29
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
4. Analysis of Information And Action Items
4.1 Restatement of the Workshop and the Series Objectives
At the beginning of the second day, Claudia Walters reviewed the goals of the workshop and
series. The workshops are intended to build upon one another. This first workshop will examine
the “questions” or issues that are being asked in the community setting. For example, questions
being asked include: “Will this highway adversely affect the environment? Is the environment
causing the child birth defects? Can we consume these fish? Participants will share their
perspectives on how this new paradigm in the community is different than a traditional approach.
In the next workshop, participants will then examine what tools, such as models and data, we
currently have that can answer those “questions”. In addition, the group will determine how the
questions and tools can be related in a decision-making process. The third workshop will focus
on identifying the gaps and limitations of our tools and how we can make improvements. The
purpose of this approach in the workshops is to identify only tools that are applicable to
community assessments rather than all types of tools. Future workshops will focus on making
the tools available.
Several participants felt that the process of defining community assessment would be more
meaningful if stakeholder groups were represented in these workshops. They noted that the
Agency is often criticized for bringing a product to the stakeholders without involving the
stakeholders in its development. It was suggested that the same criticism could be made of these
meetings. Participants warned against conducting the process based solely on EPA’s perception
of stakeholder reception. Some people in the audience noted that this workshop seemed to focus
more on community participation than on identifying scientific tools. Claudia Walters stated that
tools would be the focus of the second workshop. Dorothy Patton discussed these issues with the
participants.
Dorothy Patton restated the goals of the organizers: (1) forging a relationship between
scientists throughout the agencies; (2) obtaining stakeholder input through attendance at satellite
meetings to be held after this workshop, with results reported back at the next workshop; (3)
concentrating the scope of the workshops in the face of financial limitations; and (4) staging open
meetings next year. The first step in the process is to ensure that everyone has good access to the
available science; to do this, EPA scientists must communicate within the Agency. The intent of
this meeting is not to solve the specific problems of stakeholders, but rather to encourage an
exchange of scientific ideas that will lead to helping communities solve problems. Claudia
Walters reiterated that the satellite meetings are intended to provide a mechanism to feed
stakeholder input back to the Agency for the next meeting.
4.2 Action Items and Next Steps
After the discussion group sessions summarized in Section 3, the workshop concluded with a
facilitated discussion session that provided all participants with the opportunity to contribute
recommendations and other comments concerning steps needed to prepare for the next
workshops. The final plenary session allowed participants to identify issues/questions to be
Page 30
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
addressed in follow-up workshops. Increasing participation in the community assessment
initiative was also addressed. The group divided pressing issues and questions into three
categories: (1) issues and questions involving the meeting process; (2) products needed to further
the cause of community assessment; and (3) methods of implementing community assessment.
Increasing participation was discussed in tenns of who else should be included in the process and
how they should be involved. A general discussion session also generated useful ideas for the
continuation of the series.
Jdent fying Community Assessment Issues and Questions
• Procedural Issues
Several ideas were repeatedly suggested as ways to improve the community assessments
workshop series. Many participants noted the need to solicit stakeholder response to the ideas
generated during this workshop to ensure that it meets their needs; Many participants
considered the communities to be prime stakeholders that should be involved in the process.
In fact, it was suggested that input is needed from communities to defme what questions are
most pressing to communities. The group was divided as to whether this input should come
from direct involvement of community stakeholders in this series, or whether it is sufficient
to ensure high participation of stakeholders in the satellite meetings. Another theme that
emerged from the discussion was the need to clearly identify the purpose and objectives of
the series itself, and of each individual workshop before the next is held. These objectives
should be clearly conveyed to participants beforehand. Participants requested a report with
detailed results of the workshop, and a draft approach for defining success and evaluating
science in community projects. Also prior to the next workshop, many felt that a greater
effort should be made to involve more EPA staff in this process, as well as increasing
partnering with other agencies. In fact, the need to obtain greater Agency participation in the
workshops was seen as a significant issue.
Other ideas included: (1) instituting community involvement into the EPA culture
(perhaps through performance appraisals); (2) brainstorming how available tools can be used
to provide cumulative risk information; (3) emphasizing the importance of interpreting and
characterizing results; (4) articulating and assessing the benefits of community involvement;
(5) increasing management willingness and flexibility to include communit\ assessment; and
(6) improving communication tools.
Products
Products that should be generated as a result of this meeting fell into two subcategories:
tools and processes. Most pressing is the need for a comprehensive list of tools. Once that has
been prepared, participants felt that tools should be made easily available and matched with
potential uses for scientific analysis and/or community concerns. This includes identifying
tools and data already available within EPA, as well as through other agencies or
organizations. In conjunction with the comprehensive list of tools, the identification of gaps
in the list is vital. Many felt that tools available for community assessment should be
collected from multiple levels and sources and then catalogued, identifying the strengths and
weaknesses of each. Once a complete list of tools exists, an analysis should be performed to
Page 31
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summaiy Report 4/27/99
identify where there are gaps. This analysis should be presented at the next workshop.
Other useful suggestions included: (1) developing a clear list of questions to send out as
part of the invitation package, and asking whether the invitee has a tool that can help answer
these questions; (2) developing guidance for community outreach; (3) preparing a guidance
package for tools and data and (4) developing a working defmition of “community
assessment.”
How to Achieve Community Assessment
Participants felt that EPA needs to set priorities for the community assessment projects,
allocate resources to these projects, and develop guidelines for selecting or rejecting
community assessment projects. It was noted by several that EPA needs to bear in mind that
it is ultimately much less expensive to involve the community from the very beginning.
Another key idea focused on the need to identify diverse community values and concerns,
and help communities clarify their own concerns and frame their questions. More
importantly, many participants argued that EPA needs to develop ways to gain community
trust
Additional technical concerns included: (1) how to access databases (e.g. IDEA,
EMPACT); (2) how to use data (National Cumulative Exposure Project); (3) whether similar
workshops are adequate for EPA community assessment needs; (4) development of a list of
important partnerships; (5) development of guidance on involving all parties concerned with
a community assessment; and (6) identification of existing visualization and communication
tools.
Increasing Participation in the Workshops
Who should be involved?
In general, the group wanted to see more scientists involved in community assessment
issues. Many different EPA offices and programs were mentioned as candidates for greater
involvement. Programs related to the Office of Water were the most commonly cited.
However, it was clear that meeting participants believed all offices of EPA should be
involved in community assessment issues. Likewise, greater inclusion of the Regional offices
was viewed by the group as a necessary part of this process. One suggestion was to include a
representative from each EPA laboratory and research center. A smaller number of
participants argued that State and local agencies should be involved. Some argued that it was
sufficient to involve EPA staff who work directly with State and local governments and other
stakeholder groups; others wanted to see direct involvement of stakeholders. Greater ORD
and National Cumulative Exposure Project involvement were mentioned specifically by
several participants. Another suggestion was to include transportation agencies.
• How to increase participation
Increasing access to the community assessment initiative and results from this meeting
were the two key means discussed for increasing participation. Participants requested that the
Page 32
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
results of this workshop, with an invitation to the next, be posted through the Internet. It was
also suggested that the invitation list be expanded to include community involvement and
stakeholder group list members. To increase input from stakeholders, it was suggested that
meetings be held in each Region, inviting stakeholders from that Region and examining an
important regional case. Other broad participation concerns included providing travel money
for regional participants and getting regional management support.
Members of the group once again pointed out that before the process continues,
organizers need to: (1) develop a definition of community assessment; (2) clearly define the
objectives and purpose of the workgroup; and (3) address concerns about the lack of
community involvement involved in this process.
General Discussion
The unif ing consensus of the group was that community involvement is key to the success
of EPA’s goal of environmental protection. Gaining community trust and risk communication are
essential to EPA programs. As part of each risk assessment project, staff should perform an
analysis to identify ways in which risk assessment does and does not address community
concerns. In terms of measuring risk, many thought more emphasis needed to be placed on
science.
Several ideas emerged with regard to the general climate within EPA toward community
involvement: (1) there needs to be a willingness within EPA management to focus on community
assessment and to provide the necessary resources; (2) the political climate within EPA needs to
focus more on doing the day-to-day work of what needs to be done, rather than continually
adjusting to hot issues of the moment; (3) tools for communicating with the community are badly
needed—one suggestion was to use regular progress reports for the community; and (4) there is a
need for greater communication within EPA, between EPA and State and local governments, and
especially between all levels of government and the community. Within EPA, in particular, better
communication between the users and developers of tools is needed if the tools are to be used
properly. It was also suggested that there be a greater effort to integrate national, State, and
community level tools, so that the proper tool can be matched to a specific need. Partnering was
seen as crucial.
In terms of data, the group wanted to see improved access to available data. However, the
group also felt that community assessment should not be driven by existing data; the community
should help, when feasible, with generating data. To this end, tools should be designed to
encourage community involvement in generating data that is usable by EPA. Many participants
viewed limited community involvement in data collection as an effective means to increase
community support for a project.
Most importantly, the group made a point of noting that EPA should agree internally on
defining and increasing community involvement. Community involvement has not always been a
part of EPA thinking, although this attitude is changing. Agency resources for community
involvement already exist, but they should be identified, promoted, and improved upon. EPA
should also look outside of the Agency for other community involvement resources. Finally, the
group noted that there is a need for a measure of success in addressing stakeholder and
Page 33
-------
Communi y Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
community concerns.
Participants developed a table of action items to be completed prior to the next workshop and
signed up for particular tasks, as shown in Exhibit 3. In addition, a list of satellite meetings,
where participants would interact with stakeholders and obtain their input on the process, was
developed and is presented as Exhibit 4.
4.3 “Questions” Identified in Workshop
The main goal of the first workshop was to develop a list of assessment-type “questions” that
are asked in the community setting. The case studies were used as a starting point and
participants volunteered their experiences. The information was extracted from the discussions
during the break-out groups on the case studies and on the second day. The result was a list of
various types of”questions”. The Community Assessment Planning Group made a first attempt
to organize the “questions” into categories. The summary is in Appendix E.
These “questions” will be used to target the tools that can be used to answer these
“questions”, either in part or in whole. The second workshop will be organized according to the
“questions” and the discussion will be focused on what tools are available and how effective they
are in addressing the “question”.
4.4 Workshop Evaluation
At the end of Day One, participants were asked to use stickers to mark their opinion of the
value of each of four activities on a scale from one to ten, with ten being the most valuable. The
activities evaluated included the “Mapping Your Communities” exercise, the case study
presentations, the breakout groups discussing the case studies, and the gallery walk. Impressions
of the “Mapping Your Communities” exercise varied, with one group of stickers centered around
three, or less valuable, and another around eight, or more valuable. The case studies and breakout
groups received consistent marks between eight and ten, or very valuable. The gallery walk was
not performed as scheduled due to time constraints, but some participants used that space to give
their impressions of the poster session following the case study breakout groups. Stickers varied
between four and six on the scale.
Comments from the evaluation forms, as well as those provided verbally to workshop organizers,
are summarized below:
• Facilitation was excellent (several comments).
• The puzzle/team building exercise was not especially helpful.
• The goals of the workshop could have been clearer (several comments). Some participants
were expecting a more detailed discussion of specific tools, data sets, and analytical models
and were less interested in the “softer” discussions of community involvement and similar
concepts.
Page 34
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
• Several commenters felt that direct community and stakeholder input in the workshop,
beyond the concept of satellite meetings, was necessary.
• The format of the workshop, which provided for active involvement, was useful in giving all
an opportunity for input. The use of cards to record ideas and then attaching them to boards,
where they could be moved as necessary, was seen as a good way to focus work (several
comments).
• The list often questions that had to be worked through for each case study was too long
(several comments).
• The inventory of questions that communities might ask was not complete and requires
follow-up. Several participants offered to assist with this task.
• Day One breakout groups were self-selected; as a result, those who generally work on a
particular category of community (urban, rural, environmental justice, etc.) tended to attend
the case corresponding to that community type. It was suggested that in the future, planners
work toward involving people in community types with which they are not familiar. This
could be done by assigning randomly to breakout groups.
• Several attendees commented on the lack of ORD participation.
Page 35
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Exhibit 3: Action Items for the Next Workshop
Action
Who
When
Develop the agenda for the
next meeting
Steve Hassur
Nick Bouwes
Greg Macek
Heidi Paulsen
Lee Hofmann
Undecided
Develop list of tools
Steve Hassur
Nick Bouwes
Heidi Paulsen
John Schaum
Van Shrieves
Undecided
Develop Decision Tree (a
framework for decision-
making)
Hal Zemck
Lawrence Martin
Ethel Brandt
Charlotte Cottrill
Heidi Paulsen
On-going (list serve)
Page 36
-------
Community Assessment Questiong Summaiy Report 4/27/99
Exhibit 4: Satellite Meetings
Meeting
Contact When
Where
FOSTFA
Loren Hall
Hank Topper
March 28-30, 1999
Alexandria, VA
NEJAC
Health and Research
Subcommittee
Lawrence Martin
April 1999
Washington, DC
.
Annual EPA Superfund
and Regional Risk
Assessors meeting
(internal)
David Cooper
Lee Hofmann
May 3-7, 1999
Seattle, WA
National Community
Involvement
Conference (CBEP
pre-meeting and open
discussions)
Diane Hammer
Heidi Paulsen
Tentatively May 23-
25, 1999
Kansas City, KS
American Association
of State Highway and
Transportation
Officials
Denise Rigney
March 22-26, 1999
Savannah, GA
ICMA
Lawrence Martin
April 1999
Washington, DC
Annual Transportation
Research Board
Meeting
Denise Rigney
January 2000
Washington, DC
NAACP
Van Shrieves
To be named
Angela Nugent
Late March or Early
April 1999
Washington, DC
Page 37
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report
4127/99
Appendix A. List of Participants
Washington, D.C.
March 3-4, 1999
Rodges Ankrah
EPA OW (4104)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9840
fax (202) 260-2704
ankrah.rodges epa.gov
Jay Benforado (speaker)
EPA OR (1803)
401 MStreet,SW
Washington. DC 20460
(202) 260-4255
fax (202) 401-0713
benforado.jay epa.gov
Darlene Boerlage
EPA ORDIOSP (8104R)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6639
fax (202) 565-2916
boerlage.darlene epa.gov
Dr. Nicolaas Bouwes
EPA OPPTS (7406)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1622
fax (202) 260-0981
bouwes.nick epa.gov
Ethel Brandt
EPA OPPTS (7403)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2953
fax (202) 260-1216
brandt.ethel epa.gov
Carole Braverman (speaker)
EPA Region 5, Office of Strategic
Environmental Analysis (B-i 9J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-2910
fax (312) 353-5374
braverman.caro1e epa.gov
Walter Brodtman
EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance CBEP (2225A)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4181
fax (202) 564-0085
brodtman.wa1ter epa.gov
Gina Bushong
EPA OECA (2224A)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2242
fax (202) 564-0009
bushong.gina epa.gov
Mike Callahan (speaker)
EPA ORD, National Center for
Environmental Assessment (7404)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-3259
fax (202) 565-0079
callahan.michael epa.gov
Dorothy Canter
EPA OSWER (5101)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2230
fax (202) 260-3527
canter.dorothy epa.gov
A-i
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report
4/27/99
Dr. Eileen Choffnes
EPA OPPTS (7101)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6876
fax (202) 260-1847
chofthes.eileen epa.gov
Charlotte Cottrill (speaker)
EI A ORD (2660R)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6771
fax (202) 565-2917
cottri1l.charlotte epa.gov
Arnold Den
EPA Region 9, Air Division (AIR-6)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1018
fax (415) 744-1449
den.arnold epa.gov
Kevin Donovan
EPA Permits and State Programs Division
RCRA Corrective Action Program Branch
(5303W)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-8761
fax (703) 308-8638
donovan .kevin-e epa.gov
David Doyle
EPA Region 7, Air, RCRA, and Toxics
Division (ARTD)
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(312) 886-2589
fax (913) 551-7065
doy1e.david epa.gov
Ellen Ducey
EPA OAR OAQPS (MD 13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-5408
fax (919) 541-0942
ducey.e11en epa.gov
Gerald Filbin
EPA Office of Reinvention (1803)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-8099
fax (202) 260-1812
filbin.gerald@epa.gov
Karen Flagstad
EPA Office of Reinvention (1803)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9093
fax (202) 260-1812
flagstad.karen epa.gov
Joe Ford
EPA OPPTS/RAD (8406)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3956
fax (202) 260-8016
ford.joe epa.gov
Dr. Debra Forman
EPA Region 3, Waste and Chemical
Management Division (3WCOO)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
(215) 814-2073
fax (215) 814-3114
forman.debra@epa. go ’
Jerry Gidner (speaker)
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1849 C Street, NW (4516 MIB)
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 208-5696
fax (202) 208-1605
jgidner ios.doi.gov
A-2
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Franklyn Hall Reggie Harris (speaker)
EPA OPPTS (8406) EPA Region 3
401 M Street, SW 1650 Arch Street
Washington, DC 20460 Philadelphia, PA 19106
(202) 260-9596 (215) 814-5000
fax (202) 260-8016 fax (215) 814-5103
hall.fran1dyn epa.gov harris.reggie epa.gov
Loren Hall Dr. Steven Hassur
EPA Office of Civil Rights (1201) EPA OPPTS (7406)
401 M Street, SW 401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3931 (202) 260-1735
fax (202) 260-4580 fax (202) 260-0981
hall.1oren epa.gov hassur.steven@epa.gov
Marty Halper Carol Hetfield
EPA Office of Environmental Justice EPA OPPTS DSE (7406)
(220lA) 401 M Street, SW
401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460
Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-1745
(202) 564-2601 fax (202) 260-0981
fax (202) 501-0740 hetfield.carol epa.gov
halper.marty epa.gov
Lee Hofmann
Diana Hammer EPA OSWER OERR (5202G)
EPA Region 8, Public Involvement (80C) 401 M Street, SW
999 18th Street, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20460
Denver, CO 80202 (703) 603-8874
(303)312-6601 fax (703) 603-9133
fax (303) 312-6961 hofiuiann.lee epa.gov
hammer.diana@epa.gov
Todd Holderman
Karen Hammerstrom EPA OPPTS (7404)
EPA ORD National Center for 401 M Street, SW
Environmental Assessment (8601D) Washington, DC 20460
401 M Street, SW (202) 260-6917
Washington, DC 20460 fax (202) 260-0001
(202) 564-3258 holderman.todd epa.gov
fax (202) 565-0059
hammerstrom.karen epa.gov Teny Keating
EPAIOARJOPAR (6103)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-0825
fax (202) 260-9766
keating.terry epa.gov
A-3
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report
4/27/99
David Kiander
EPA OR!) OSP (8103R)
4 01M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6496
fax (202) 565-2926
k1ander.david epa.gov
Steve Knott
EPA ORD/RAF (8601D)
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-3359
fax (202) 565-0062
knott.steven epa.gov
Michael Kronthal
EPA Office of Water, Ground Water and
Drinking Water (4606)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2277
fax (202) 260-0732
kronthaLmichael epa.gov
David Lynch
EPA OPPTS (7406)
401 MStreet,SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-3911
fax (202) 260-0981
lynch.david epa.gov
Greg Macek
EPA OPPTS (7406)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9597
fax (202)260-0816
macek.greg epa.gov
Mario Mangino
EPA Region 5, Waste Management Branch
(DRP-8)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-2589
fax (312) 353-4788
mangino.mario epa.gov
Lawrence Martin
EPA ORD OSP (8103R)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6497
fax (202) 565-2926
martin.lawrence epa.gov
Laura McKelvey
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
OAQPS/ESD/PPSG (MD 13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-5497
fax (919) 541-0942
mckelvey.1aura epa.gov
Victor McMahan
EPA Office of the Administrator
OCIR Sustainability (1306)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7852
fax (202) 260-3684
mcmahan.victor@epa.gov
Jayne Michaud
EPA OSWER
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-8629
fax (703) 603-9104
michaud.jayne epa.gov
A-4
-------
community Assessment Questions Summaiy Report
4/27/99
Deirdre Murphy
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (MC-13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-0729
fax (919) 541-0237
murphy.deirdre@epa.gov
Angela Nugent
EPA Science Advisory Board (1400)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5871
fax (202) 260-9232
nugent.angela@epa.gov
Terry O’Bryan
EPA OPPTS, Risk Assessment Division
(7403)
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3483
fax (202) 260-1216
obryan.teny@epa.gov
Pasky Pascual
EPA ORD (81 04R)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2259
fax (202) 565-2917
pascual.pasky@epa.gov
Dorothy Patton (speaker)
EPA ORD (8l04R)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6705
fax (202) 565-2911
patton.dorothy epa.gov
Heidi Paulsen
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 305-5251
fax (703) 308-3259
paulsen.heidi epa.gov
Sue Perlin
EPA ORD, National Center for
Environmental Assessment (7404)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-3248
fax (202) 565-0079
perlin.susan@epa.gov
Dr. Solomon Pollard
EPA Region 4, Office of Policy
Management
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Planning and Analysis Branch
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-8293
fax (404) 562-8269
po11ard.solomon epa.gov
Marlene Regelski
EPA American Indian Environment Office
(4104)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7284
fax (202) 260-7509
regelski.mar1ene epa.gov
Denise Rigney (speaker)
EPA Region 3, Environmental Services
Division (3ES30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 814-2726
fax (215) 814-2783
rigney.denise@epa.gov
Daljit Sawhney
EPA OPPTS (7403)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-0289
fax (202) 260-1216
sawhney.daljit@epa.gov
A-S
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4127/99
John Schaum Hank Topper
EPA ORD, National Center for EPA OPPTS (7408)
Environmental Assessment (8623D) 401 M Street, SW
401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460
Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-6750
(202) 564-3237 fax (202) 260-2219
fax (202) 565-0076 topper.henry epa.gov
schaum.john®epa.gov
Claudia Walters (speaker)
Diane Sheridan EPA ORD (8104R)
EPA OPPTS (7805) 401 M Street, SW -
401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460
Washington, DC 20460 (202) 564-6762 -
(202) 260-3435 fax (202) 565-2917
fax (202) 401-2347 wa1ters.claudia epLgov
sheridan.diane epa.gov
Suzanne Wells
Van Shrieves EPA OSWER OERR
EPA OPPTS (7805) Community Involvement and Outreach
401 M Street, SW Center (5204G)
Washington, DC 20460 401 M Street, SW
(202) 260-1018 Washington, DC 20460
fax (202)260-2219 (703) 603-8863
shrieves.van epa.gov fax (703) 603-9100
we1ls.suzanne epa.gov
Fred Talcott
EPA OP (2129) Dwain Winters
401 M Street, SW EPA OPPTS (7404)
Washington, DC 20460 401 M Street, SW
(202) 260-2769 Washington, DC 20460
fax (202) 260-8662 (202) 260-8558
talcottfred@epa.gov fax (202)260-0018
winters.dwain epa.gov
Daisy Tang
EPA Region 2, OPMPPEB Bill Wood
290 Parkway, 26th Floor EPA ORD (860 ID)
New York, NY 10007 401 M Street, SW
(212) 637-3592 Washington, DC 20460
fax (212) 637-4943 (202) 564-3361
tang.sukyeed epa.gov fax (202) 565-0062
wood.bi11 epa.gov
A-6
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Appendix B. Agenda
B-I
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Community Assessment Series
Session 1: Community Assessment Questions Workshop
ORD, Office of Science Policy
March 3-4, 1999
Radisson Barcelo Hotel, Washington, D.C.
Dayl
8:30 Arrival - Signing in, refreshments
9:00 Welcome and New Directions Workshops - Dorothy Patton
9:15 Community Assessment Series - Claudia Walters
9:25 Your Communities - Richard Brown
9:45 Keynote: Community Assessment - Jay Benforado
10:20 Plenary: Case Study Experiences
The Transboundaiy Air Monitoring Study for the Lower Rio Grande Valley/Mexican Border
(Rural) - Charlotte Cottrill
• Urban Cases (Chicago, Greenpoint, and Baltimore) - Carole Braverman
• Environmental Justice: Chester, Pennsylvania Environmental Risk Study - Reggie Harris
• Title V I of the 1964 Civil Rights Act : Convent, Louisiana and Shintech - Mike Callahan
• The Marty Indian School (Tribal) - Jerry Gidner, Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Impact Analysis (NEPA) - Denise Rigney
12:00 Lunch
1:15 Moderation (Tips and Ground Rules) - Richard Brown
1:40 Breakout Groups by Community Setting
3:10 Break
3:30 Plenary Gallery Walk and Discussion
• 2 minute introduction to each poster
• Gallery walk
• Plenary clarification/discussion
4:25 Tomorrow’s Activities
4:30 Adjourn for Day
B-2
-------
community Assessment Questions Summaiy Report 4/27/99
Day 2
8:30 Check-in on Previous Day’s Activities and Process for Day 2 - Richard Brown
9:00 Break Out Sessions by Issue Pairings
10:30 Break
10:50 Plenary Gallery Walk and Discussion
• 2 minute introduction to each poster
• Gallery walk
• Plenary clarification/discussion
12:00 Lunch
1:15 Analyze Data and Develop Options - Richard Brown
2:00 Select Options to Explore and Break Out
3:00 Break
3:20 Plenary Gallery Walk and Discussion
• 2 minute introduction to each poster
• Gallery walk
• Plenary clarification/discussion
4:00 Wrap-up Activities/Prepare for Next Meeting
4:30 Adjourn
B-3
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Appendix C. Case Study Materials
C-i: The Transboundaiy Air Monitoring Study for the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Rural)
(Hardcopy only)
C-2: Urban Cases (Chicago, Greenpoint, and Baltimore)
(electronic and hard copy)
C-3: Environmental Justice: Chester, Pennsylvania Environmental Risk Study
(electronic and hard copy)
C -4: Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Convent, Louisiana
(electronic and hard copy)
C-5: Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Impact Analysis (NEPA)
(Hardcopy only)
C-6: The Marty Indian School (Tribal)
(Hardcopy only)
C-i
-------
Questions andAnswers about
The Transboundary Air Monitoring Study
for The Lower Rio Grande Valley
What is the Lower Rio Grande The long-term goal of the LRG VMS is to identify and evaluateenvironmental
Valley Monitoring Study pollutants in the air, drinking water, food, soil, and house dust in the Valley.
(LRG VMS)?
LRG VMS has two parts:
Phase I was a small-scale pilot project conducted in the spring and summer
of 1993. The pilot project explored: I) the actual environmental pollutants to
which Valley residents may be exposed; and 2) the contribution from
different sources and media (air, drinking water, food, soil and house dust).
Information from the pilot project was used to identify several followup
activities for the second phase of the LRG VMS.
Phase 2 activities include this Transboundary Air Monitoring Study. This
study will focus on transboundary air pollution in the areas of Cameron and
Hidalgo Counties. The study vill monitor emissions from traffic and
industrial activities, and to some extent, agricultural spraying. The air will be
monitored for one year at three different Sites.
Why is this research being This research began because of the community’s concerns about the potential
done? health impact of local environmental pollutants, and the lack of local
environmental information.
Who is involved in this This study is being conducted by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
research? Commission (TNRCC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Community input was incorporated into the design of the
Transboundary Air Monitoring Study, and the final proposal was reviewed
by a scientific committee and a committee of Valley residents.
How will this monitoring The monitoring will be conducted at three fixed sites:
research be done?
- Site I is located southeast of downtown Brownsville inside the city limits.
- Site 2 will be located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of site l in west
Brownsville.
- Site 3 will be located approximately 20 miles west of Brownsville in rural
Cameron county in an agricultural setting.
Samples will be collected over a 24-hour period each day for one year at each
of the sites. Samples will be analyzed for many differentchemicals including
metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and pesticides. Each site will also obtain data on short-
term variat:ons in emissions. In addition information will be collected on
temperature. wind speed and direction, relative humidity and precipitation at
each site.
-------
SUMMARY OF
TRANSBOUNDARY AIR MONITORING PROJECT
BACKGROUND: PHASE I PILOT STUDY
The Lower Rio Grande Monitoring Study (LRGVMS) is designed to identify and evaluate
the manner and extent to which Valley residents are exposed to environmental pollutants. Phase I
of the LRG VMS was a small scale pilot project conducted in the Brownsville, Texas area by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in collaboration with other Federal and State agencies. One goal
of the pilot project was to begin to appreciate the extent to which different sources and
environmental media might contribute to environmental exposures experienced by Valley residents.
Several different classes of chemicals were measured including metals, volatile organic compounds
(e.g., solvents), pesticides, acidic aerosols, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Ambient
air samples were collected at a central site and a variety of indoor/outdoor air samples and household
dust, soil, food, water, and biologic samples were collected at residential sites.
Sampling for Phase I was conducted during the Spring and Summer of 1993 in Cameron and
Hidalgo counties; the results from the pilot project were presented to the community in the Summer
and Fall of 1994. This information was used to identify several follow up activities for Phase IL The
transboundary monitoring project is one of those activities.
PHASE II: TRANSBOUNDARY AIR MONITORING STUDY
This study will examine annual transboundary air pollution in Cameron county. The research
objective is to obtain appropriate air quality and meteorological data to assess the extent of current
transboundary transport of pollutants. Additional, longer term goals are to;
• Provide the State of Texas with background data against which future changes in Valley air
pollutants can be compared; and
• Develop a cost-effective monitoring and modeling strategy for use by the State, and others,
in designing future monitoring efforts.
The study will monitor traffic and industrial emissions and, to some extent, agricultural
activities. Monitoring will be conducted for one year at three fixed sites that were selected to assess
the impact of nearby sources (see below). Although the Sites are located to capture the direct impact
of nearby sources, the actual transboundary impact will be captured by the entire three-site network.
Site 1: located at the National Guard Armory in the eastern part of Brownsville near
sources of automotive and industrial emissions.
-------
j wer Rip Grande Valley EnvironmentaJ Monitoring Study ;
Report to the Community on the Pilot Project
WhAT IS Til lS REPORT ABOUT?
This report explains a pilot investigation of the potential for human contact with
environmental pollutants in the Lower Rio (3rande Valley.
WHY WAS ThIS RESEARCH DONE?
This research began because of the community’s concerns about the potential health
impact of local environmentai contaminants.
WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN TFIJS RESEARCH?
This research was conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
working with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Public Health Service
(especially the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug
Administration, and Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry), and the State of
Texas (Governor’s Office, Texas Department of Health, Texas Department of
Agriculture, and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission).
The scope and design of the research were developed through an ongoing collaboration
between community Leaders and representatives of several state and federal agencies.
HOW WAS THE RESEARCH DONE?
The first part of this study was a small-scale pilot project conducted during 1993.
During the pilot project, samples of indoor and outdoor air, household water, food,
housedust, soil, blood, and urine were collected at each of the nine homes located in the
Valley.
The primary purpose of the pilot project was to provide information that would
strengthen the scientific basis of the design for a larger study of potential exposure in
Cameron and Hidalgo counties.
WHAT DIII) THE RESEARCH FIND?
In general, we found that the levels of pollutants from the nine households studied were
similar to those often seen in other parts of the country. The people in the project were
reassured that their results did not show significant exposure to most of the contaminants
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
DRAFT
Summary of Purpose, Scope, and Technical Approach:
Evaluating Cumulative Risks in the Chicago Metropolitan Area
1. INTRODUCTION
The following is a summary of the overall purpose, general scope, and technical approach for the
study, “Evaluating Cumulative Risks in the Chicago Metropolitan Area” (the CCRI Phase III risk
assessment). The approach is a synthesis of the direction and information that was provided during
meetings with stakeholders (petitioners, EPA Region V senior managers, and other state, and local
government representatives) in December 1997 and April 1998. As such, this summary does not
reflect any one viewpoint, but attempts to balance various needs and concerns with products that are
technically feasible. It also attempts to incorporate major concepts suggested by the Petitioners in
their strawman proposal and matrix, while following EPA’s Cumulative Risk Assessment Guidance
on Phase I Planning and Scoping.
The three major study components will be an overview of health indicators, a cumulative risk
evaluation for multiple point sources, and a description of other risk pathways. These will be
integrated to produce a comprehensive risk assessment that allows comparison of contributions
among sources and of risk levels among subareas of the study region. In October 1997, Argonne
National Laboratoiy produced a Concept Paper in which various conceptual approaches for
cumulative risk assessment were evaluated. The approach outlined in this summary is essentially
the source/receptor hybrid model described in the Concept Paper. Within this approach, the majority
of effort will be placed on evaluating the contributions to exposure and risk within study areas from
multiple point sources of emissions to ambient air (Section 3.2 below).
Cumulative risk means different things to different people. A general definition is the total
health risk associated with multiple stressors from multiple sources. EPA risk assessments have
typically addressed the incremental risks (above background) of all chemicals emitted in significant
quantities from a single facility. Although a total measure of cumulative carcinogenic or toxic risk
for all possible exposures is not currently possible, this study will provide a learning process for
evaluating some additional aspects of cumulative risk in the permitting process. This summary
presents general direction; the specifics may change to reflect technical feasibility. Where data
inadequacies prevent full development of the proposed scope, the scope will be limited.
C-2
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
2. GOALS
The overall purpose of this study is to refme and demonstrate methodologies for assessing
chi1dren s environmental health risks (both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic) due to the
accumulation of multiple stressors from multiple sources that impact a specific area. A basis will
be developed for comparing risks in study areas to reference areas or baseline levels. Specific
objectives are to:
a. conduct a cumulative risk analysis that specifically addresses concerns of the Agency and
Stakeholders, including identification of health-compromised subpopulations of children and
of locales with elevated hRzmd levels;
b. illustrate implementation of the Administrator’s Cumulative Risk Guidance;
c. take the initial steps in developing the basis for transferring a cumulative risk methodology
to other units in the Agency.
3. SCOPE
This section describes the general scope of the assessment and provides an overview of the
technical approach that will be used. Research on health indicators (Section 3.1) will address the
goal of identifying sensitive subpopulations of children. The data produced from the cumulative risk
evaluation for multiple air sources (Sections 3.2) will quantify the risks from air contaminants in
specific areas, and the description of other risk pathways (Section 3.3) will help to identify other
sources of risk. All the above information will be utilized in the risk integration portion of the study
(Section 3.4) to gain insight into reducing risks to children. The following list is a summary of
elements that apply to the entire cumulative risk study:
- Risk dimensions : Multiple health endpoints (health effects), multiple stressors, and multiple
sources will be assessed.
- Stressors : The scope will be restricted to environmental contaminants, with a focus on releases
due to human activity. The assessment will include the chemicals that are most important,
given the locales and sources selected as the focus of study. The selection of chemicals will
be constrained by data availability
- Sources : The emphasis will be on EPA-regulated/permitted sources, with other important
source categories added as needed to develop a more complete risk management perspective.
- Geographic Area : The study region will cover Cook and Lake Counties. Within that area, two
to four locales will be selected for more detailed study.
- Population : The focus will be on children, from conception through age 17, with assessment
of lifetime exposures where appropriate. Particular attention will be given to risk evaluation
for health-compromised children (e.g., asthmatic, lead poisoned, etc.) where possible.
The following subsections provide additional information on the technical elements that
apply specifically to each task, including assumptions, constraints, implications, and data limitations.
C-3
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
3.1 Health Indicators (Task 1)
The availability of data related to children’s environmental health status will be investigated
for lead poisoning, asthma incidence, and cancer incidence and mortality. If these data permit
identification of locales with elevated rates, this infonnation will be one of the factors considered
in selecting study areas. Specific health conditions which lead to increased sensitivity (or
susceptibility) to environmental pollutants among children may also be included if data ar available.
For instance, data on prevalence of sickle cell anemia in children within various locales may be of
interest. Where data related to a particular issue are absent or lack geographic relevance, further
exploration of that issue will be precluded.
3.2 Cumulative Risk Evaluation for Multiple Emission Point Sources (Task 2)
This effort will focus on evaluating the contributions to exposure and risk within the study
areas from multiple point sources of emissions to ambient air. To provide a basis for comparing the
study areas to the rest of the Cook and Lake County area, screening-level estimates of ambient air
risks from major source categories and background will be developed for all Census tracts. To
develop comprehensive ambient air risk estimates for the study areas, appropriate portions of the
detailed modeling and the screening level modeling results will be combined. The task will have
three components:
Task 2a : Exposure from area, mobile, and background sources for the two county area will
be assessed at a screening level. This evaluation will be used to target two or more smaller study
areas. The two county screening effort analysis will examine data from ambient monitors, from the
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and the Regional Air Pollution Information Database (RAPIDS),
from the air toxics portion of the EPA National Cumulative Exposure Project, and information on
facility density.
Task 2b : Exposure and risk from multiple EPA-regulated point sources within two or more
(up to four) discrete study locales will be evaluated. Possible factors for use in identifying an
additional study area or areas include: (a) high levels of toxic emissions, based on information from
the Environmental Loadings Profile or emissions databases; (b) high prevalence of one or more
health indicators; or (c) Agency/Stakeholder consensus recommendations.
The most significant point sources affecting the study area will be selected for detailed study.
Emissions from these point sources will be modeled to identify locations with maximum risk from
multiple contaminants of concern. Cancer risks will be modeled for both child and life-time
receptors at these maximum risk locations. (Life-time receptors would be modeled in addition to
child receptors because cancer risks are greater when longer-term exposures (i.e., 30 years) are
assumed.).
Both direct (inhalation) and significant indirect pathways of exposure will be included in the
C-4
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
risk assessment. Examples of indirect pathways which may be evaluated, if data indicate they are
significant pathways to children, include contact with soil, water, and sediments to which
contami1 ants have been released through air deposition, and ingestion of contaminated produce or
fish which may have accumulated contaminants released from the point sources.
Task 2c : Estimates produced by the ambient air modeling efforts described above will be
validated by comparison to ambient monitoring data and results of detailed studies, where available.
An uncertainty analysis will also be conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings.
3.3 Description of Other Risk Pathways (Task 3)
All parties involved in the scoping and planning process have agreed that focusing the
cumulative risk assessment on EPA-regulated and EPA-pennitted sources is most appropriate. As
a result, th most detailed portion of the cumulative risk evaluation will be the community-based
assessment of multiple EPA-regulated (and permitted) air sources, plus other outdoor air sources
(described in Section 3.2). Since emissions from these sources may contribute only a portion of the
potential risks to a community, development of risk estimates for other sources and pathways will
be addressed in this task.
This evaluation will include both exposures from sources that are regulated by EPA and
some that are outside the direct control of the Agency. Exposure pathways from regulated or
permitted sources could include drinking water ingestion and soil ingestion at or near contaminated
sites. Examples of exposures that result from lifestyle and behavioral circumstances of children
include: ingestion of lead in paint and soil; ingestion of pesticides in the diet; mercury and PCB
ingestion from fish consumption (especially subsistence fishing); and inhalation of environmental
tobacco smoke, radon, and other indoor air pollutants. Whenever possible, local (community-
specific) exposure data will be used in the assessment. In other cases, regional or even national
estimates will be used. While a comprehensive, community-based assessment of M exposures is
beyond the scope of this study, the attempt will be made to include pathways affecting the particular
vulnerabilities of children. Due to data and resource limitations, portions of the assessment of
additional sources and personal exposures will be more descriptive than quantitative.
3.4 Risk Integration (Task 4)
The final step of the cumulative risk assessment is to develop a framework for integrating
environmental risk estimates for the Chicago metropolitan area, with an emphasis on children’s
environmental health. Though the study will address issues of health status, contaminant exposures,
and risks, it cannot establish causal linkages between particular sources and health effects in
individuals. In addition, the tasks outlined above will yield different kinds of outputs, such as
quantitative versus qualitative results and different hazard measures (e.g., cancer risks, blood lead
levels, asthma hospital admissions, etc.). However, developing methods for integrating cumulative
risk estimates from ambient air and from other pathways is important to provide a basis for
C-5
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27199
comparing the contribution from various sources and for contrasting the risk levels among various
types of Cook and Lake County localities. Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques are
likely to be one of the risk integration tools.
4. PROPOSED PRODUCTS
- Task 1 : Summary, evaluation, and GIS mapping of available health status data.
- Task 2a : Screening level assessment for each Census tract in Lake and Cook Counties of risks
due to emissions from EPA-regulated and permitted air sources, plus ambient air background
contaminant levels.
- . Task 2b : Comprehensive risk characterization for emissions from EPA-regulated and
permitted air sources in at least two (and at most four) locales in Lake and Cook Counties.
- Task 3 : Summary and evaluation of relevant published data or analyses related to components
of cumulative environmental risk, other than that associated with ambient air. Topics may
include diet, second-hand smoke, drinicing water, proximity to landfills, etc.
- Task 4 : An integration of cumulative risk estimates from ambient air and from other pathways
to provide a basis for comparing the contribution from various sources and for contrasting
the risk levels among various types of Cook and Lake County localities.
[ 03-01-99]
C-6
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Greenpoint-Wilhiamsburg Community Risk Assessment
Frederick W. Talcott Office of Policy 2 March 1999
The Office of Policy (formerly OPPE) Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP) aimed to develop tools and
data to assess the extent of human exposures to a broad range of toxic chemicals through various exposure
routes, addressing various toxic endpoints, and to do this on a nation-wide level. One locale was selected
to test out the feasibility of this approach at a smaller scale. Because of data limitations, the project has
focused on drinking water, food, and outdoor air, to a limited subset of toxics within each exposure route,
and primarily (though not exclusively) to cancer risks.
The Greenpoint-Williamsburg area is a pair of neighborhoods within the N.Y. City borough of Brook lyn
(i.e. Kings county, New York). It is densely populated (160,000 residents in about 5 square miles), has high
local and through traffic, and has historically been the site of diverse industrial and waste treatment facilities
(i.e. almost half of Brooklyn’s TRI facilities and only about 6% of the borough’s land area). Prior to OP’s
involvement, there had been extensive interest in addressing environmental problems in this area, with an
Environmental Watchperson’s office the focus of local efforts, and heavy participation by State, City and
EPA regional offices, as well as academics and other participants.
Although the OP project has included sizable interaction with and input from the local participants, it
has focused on applying the cumulative exposure tools to the local specifics. Because of local concern with
exposure to lead and with a sizable amount of subsistence fishing, the general CEP study effort was
expanded to address these two elements.
Two contractor teams (one for the outdoor air modeling and another for the other CEP elements) have
been at work since 1996. A draft final report integrating the various elements will be produced in the spring
of 1999.
Tentative conclusions include the following:
• Drinking water and “normal” dietary food intake: Exposure and toxics risks are about the same as
for other urban residents in the northeast United States.
• Lead exposure: Greenpoint-Williamsburg children have blood lead le els that place them in the
upper one third of New York City neighborhoods, and at or belov le ets for urban neighborhoods
nationwide.
• Subsistence fishing: About 200 individuals regularly take sizable quantities of fish from the East
River, and this accounts for a large fraction of the protein intake for them and close to 1,000
additional family members. This probably results in cancer risks at least 00 times higher than
general dietary risks.
• Outdoor air: Greenpoint-Williamsburg has toxics exposure (as represented by cancer-weighted
average outdoor annual exposures) approximately 25% higher than for New York City as a whole,
and between 2 and 3 times higher than the national average. The lifetime cancer risks are on the
order of 4 E-4. Three HAPs (1 ,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and benzene) account for about 3/4 of the
estimated risks, with other VOCs and a few metals contributing most of the remainder. Mobile
C-7
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27199
sources contribute 50% of the cancer-weighted exposure, with area sources and background sources
contributing another 44%; i.e. point sources are estimated to contribute a very minor fraction of the
toxic concentrations, despite the high density of industrial facilities. Cancer registry data from City
health authorities show about 450 new cancer cases diagnosed (cancers of all types and from
whatever causes) among the 160,000 residents; the outdoor air toxics exposure might contribute less
than one case per year.
The project team found that it was not possible to reliably determine differences in toxics exposure
within the Greenpoint-Williamsburg neighborhoods, because of the lack of precision of the modeling tool.
Thus, a secondary goal of the overall CEP model (i.e. determination of disproportionate impacts) was not
attainable. We did, however, find evidence that such local differences probably do exist, though estimation
of them falls beyond the scope of current modeling capabilities. For instance, we have identified instances
where some residents live in buildings also occupied by dry cleaning establishments, and we obtained data
from studies (conducted elsewhere in New York City) documenting levels of PERC within such buildings
at least 1,000 times higher than the modeled general outdoor air concentrations of this solvent. We have
obtained data sources that would allow the identification of about 300 to 400 point sources within the study
area (compared to the 12 TRI sites modeled to date), which might permit the identification of local hot-spots.
Merging such source data with data on residential telephones could allow analysis of the extent of human
exposure to such elevated levels. This work remains beyond the scope of the current OP effort.
C-8
-------
Ouestions Summary ReDort
4/27/99
The Southern Baltimore & Northern Anne Arundel County
Community Environmental Partnership
. Jo 9 et/z.r to irnproue our Comnuenhlied
(OPPT Website: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/cbep/intro.htm)
On May 3, 1996, the residents, businesses, and organizations of five Baltimore
neighborhoods joined with local, state, and federal governments in the Community
Environmental Partnership to begin a new effort to find ways to improve the local
environment and economy. The five neighborhoods in the Partnership, with a combined
population of thirty thousand, are located in southern Baltimore and northern Anne Arundel
County . These neighborhoods have a broad range of environmental and economic concerns,
including concerns that arise from the concentration of industrial, waste treatment, and
brownfields sites that surround the area. The area has great environmental assets and economic
potential as well. The neighborhoods border the Chesapeake Bay and are the site for a new Eco-
industrial park , a major redevelopment effort that has the potential to attract new jobs. In this
context, the Partnership set out to take a comprehensive look at the local economy and
environment and build consensus around a plan for action. EPA provided a small capacity
building grant to help the Partnership get started.
The Community Environmental Partnership started as a pilot for the new community-
based approach to environmental protection and economic development. This new approach is
an effort to address environmental issues from the perspective of the neighborhood. It allows
for the consideration of a detailed level of information often missed when policy is made at
the national or state level. It incorporates the local community’s knowledge and makes it
possible to begin addressing cumulative effects from multiple sources. The community-based
approach changes the roles of the community and government: It empowers the community to
take the lead in the decisions affecting their environment and it puts government in the role of an
advisor, providing the information and technical assistance not available in the community.
Building consensus at the local level also makes it possible to unite the community around
voluntary pollution prevention approaches that can go beyond current statutory requirements.
At the start of this effort, the partners agreed on a plan for work with the following four
goals:
Build the long-term capacity of the community, including residents and businesses, to
take responsibility for their environment and economy
Develop a comprehensive picture of the local environment and economy and an
C-9
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
action agenda based on the needs and wants of the community
Build consensus in the partnership for the implementation of an action plan that makes
a difference in the local environment and economy
Encourage and support sustainable economic development in the community
Following the initial partnership building, the Community Environmental Partnership
held its first large public meeting on July 31, 1996 in a local church. At this opening
meeting, community residents and businesses voted to set the priorities for the partnership .
Based on this vote, the partnership organized working committees to address the top concerns
of the community. Five committees — Air Quality, Surface Water and Natural resources,
Human Health, Trash/illegal Dumping/Abandoned Housing, and Economic Development--
were formed and began work in September, 1996. These committees, with resident, business,
and government representatives on each committee, worked together for nine months to get a
better understanding of the local environment and economy and develop recommendations.
During the course of their work, committees organized background education, collected
information, and investigated possible solutions. Results of the committee work were
presented to the community at a second large public meeting on April 30, 1997.
The partnership committees proved to be an effective means for getting things done. By
harnessing the voluntary energy in the community and pooling resources from all the government
partners, the committees managed to find the information to answer questions that the
community has had for many years. Highlights of committee accomplishments include:
> the first comprehensive screening of the cumulative concentration of air toxics from all
the industrial and city facilities in and around the neighborhoods
> a survey of all parks and a plan for a major restoration of the Masonville Cove area,
reestablishing the community’s link to the Chesapeake Bay
> a first-for-Maryland survey of cancer incidence at the neighborhood level
In addition to the committee work, the Partnership opened a storefront office to provide
meeting space and a center for Partnership activities. A regular newsletter was published to
keep everyone up to date on Partnership activities.
Based on the results and recommendations from the committee work, the Partnership is
now focused on taking action to implement the recommendations of its committees. In October,
1997, the Partnership brought the community together for a major clean up of a community park
and the start of the Masonville Cove restoration project. Planning for a major Earth Day event is
now underway. Based on the air screening analysis, the Air Committee is now working with
local facilities on pollution prevention. In addition, the Health Committee has begun a series of
asthma workshops in area schools.
C-b
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
With less than two years of work, the Community Environmental Partnership already has
some solid accomplishments. The capacity of the community to address its concerns has
improved dramatically through the educational and organizational work. The Partnership has
opened a storefront office that serves as a focus for community meetings and activities. A strong
network in the community has been built and good working relationships established with
participating governments. The restoration project for the Masonville Cove area has
strengthened the community link to the Chesapeake Bay, and an effective means to address
household health and environmental concerns has been established. All this is a good beginning
for the Partnership, but real improvement will require a sustained effort for many years. The
Partnership is committed to continuing and building this work.
C -Il
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK STUDY
Background :
The City of Chester, PA is known for having the highest concentration of industrial
facilities in the state including two oil refineries, a large infectious medical waste facility, among
a number of waste processing plants in the proximity, not to mention that at least 85% of raw
sewage and associated sludge is treated there. Residents have not only been concerned with the
health effects of living and working amid toxic substances, but residents have actually
complained of frequent illness. The fact that Chester has the state’s highest infant mortality rate
coupled with the lowest birth rate in the state, the highest death rate due to malignant tumors, the
highest percentage of African-Americans of any municipality in the state, and that Chester is
considered the poorest community in Delaware County raised concern for 1 the health and well-
being of the community. Appropriated issues of environmental justice and community protection
have been raised.
The Chester Risk Assessment Project was part of an initiative by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III and agencies of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania to study environmental risks, health, and regulatory issues in the Chester,
Pennsylvania area. Although the intent of the study was to provide a complete “cumulative risk
study”, utilizing exposure data for all environmental media and exposure pathways, the actual
report is more of an Aggregated Risk study due to the largely unknown nature of
the interrelated exposures.
The City of Chester is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Philadelphia along
the Delaware River. Surrounding communities also examined in development of this report
include Eddystone, Trainer, Marcus Hook, and Linwood.
Chemical data were gathered from existing sources, but the scope of this project did not
include collection of new data specifically designed for a Chester risk assessment. Instead the
workgroup performed an examination of available data which yielded the following
observations:
• The data had been collected for different programs and different agencies. These data
were not originally designed to support a quantitative risk assessment of the Chester area.
• The databases were of varying quality, and certain chemicals and media had not been
tested. However, even with the limited data, many data sets were available to be used to generate
estimated risks.
• Modeling of air data from point sources was performed prior to the air risk assessment.
C-12
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summazy Report 4/27/99
Therefore, point source air risks are based on projected data rather than data actually collected in
the field. The lead (Pb) data, area sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) site infonnation, and Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) data did not involve the types of environmental data conducive to quantitative risk
assessment.
The findings of the report are:
• Blood lead in Chester children is unacceptably high (over 60% of children’s blood
samples are above the Center for Disease Control(CDC) recommended maximum levelof
l0 g/dl).
• Both cancer and non-cancer risks from the pollution sources atiocations in the city of
Chester exceed levels which EPA believes are acceptable. Air emissions from facilities in and
around Chester provide a large component of the cancer and non-cancer risk to the citizens of
Chester.
• The health risk from eating contaminated fish from streams in Chester and the
Delaware River is unacceptably high.
• Drinking water in Chester is typical of supplies in other cities through out the country.
Slight long term (20 year) risks may be expected due to the residuals of water treatment
processes.
In response to these findings, the USEPA Region III recommends that:
• the lead paint education and abatement program in the City of Chester should be
aggressively enhanced,
• sources of air emissions which impact the areas of the city with unacceptably high risk
should be targeted for compliance inspections and any necessary enforcement action,
• a voluntary emission reduction program should be instituted to obtain additional
emissions reductions from facilities which provide the most emissions in the areas of highest
risk,
• enhanced public education programs regarding the reasons behind the existing state
mandated fishing ban should be implemented.
In addition, while fugitive dust emissions have not shown to be a significant component
of risk in the City, a program to minimize fugitive emissions from dirt piles and streets should be
instituted to alleviate this nuisance.
While noise and odor levels were not shown to be a significant component of traditionally
identified environmental risk in the City, a noise and odor monitoring program should be
instituted in areas most likely to suffer from these nuisances. If significant levels are found, a
noise and/or odor reduction program should be implemented in those areas.
C-13
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
The Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) conducted an epidemiological
assessment on Chester and found that Age Adjusted Cancer Incidence rates for males in Chester,
for several types of cancer, were significantly above statewide rates as well as those for selective
cities and counties around the state.
CONTACT: Reginald Harris (215) 814-2988
C-14
-------
Communi yAssessmentQuestions Summary Report 4/27/99
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
“Shintech”
Michael B. Callahan
Director, National Center for Environmental Analysis-Washington Office
Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA
March 3, 1999
The Case in a Nutshell: Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that Federal money may not be used in a
way that selectively adversely impacts racial and ethnic minority groups. A group of citizens in Convent, LA,
through the Tulane Law Clinic, filed an administrative complaint with EPA in 1997 alleging that the State of
Louisiana (which gets EPA funds for doing industrial permitting in Louisiana) was running their permitting program
in such a manner as to be illegally discriminatory against African Americans. The case in point was a proposed new
polyvinyl chloride plant to be built just outside Convent by Shintech, Inc. Due to the wording of the law, EPA was
looking at two major questions: (1) was there disparity of adverse impact between racial groups?, and (2) was there
actual harm being suffered? There are both science and policy aspects of each question. The Agency was not
forced to rule on this case as yet due to Shintech’s putting their building plans on hold; the case continues.
The application of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to environmental problems is a relatively recent
development. Under Title VI in general, the question centers on whether racial or ethnic groups are subject to a
disparity of adverse impact.
In considering how industrial facilities are permitted, and whether their presence in certain geographical
locations poses a disparate adverse impact upon certain groups within the surrounding population, a method of
measuring or estimating the difference in the impact between the group in question and other groups (and the
population as a whole) would be helpful. The ultimate goal of such a measure would be to highlight differences
between the group in question and the rest of the population at large. For the purposes of this paper, the group in
question, is the African American (AA) population, as compared to non-African Americans (NAAs) or the total
population (POP).
One way to compare the impacts of industrial facilities on nearby AAs and NAAs might be t measure or
estimate in the absolute impacts for each group, then compare them (e.g., by doing risk assessments for each group).
Although it may be instructive to do so, it would undoubtedly be costly and time-consuming, arid there may be
methodological deficiencies that would require research before the project could even begin. Forthnately, this is not
necessary, since we can make use of the fact that many of the things that might be measured would be the same for
both groups, and are therefore not relevant to a comparison of the differences between the groups.
When considering the impacts that industrial facilities may have upon the surrounding communities, there
are both negative and positive impacts. While acknowledging that positive impacts can and often do occur, the
analysis of these positive impacts will be defined to be outside the scope of this paper, and will not be mentioned
further. This paper will discuss a method for estimating how to estimate the differences by racial group how
adverse impacts are distributed in the surrounding community.
Types of Adverse Impact
There are a number of things about industrial facilities which can potentially impact the surrounding
C-15
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
community adversely. Not all of these occur with every facility, but they fall into several categories. First, there are
emissions of various kinds to the surrounding environment, including emissions of chemicals that at certain
concentrations are harmful to human health or the environment. These may be released t the air, discharged to water
(including sewer systems), or sent to landfills or injection wells. Emissions, whether continuous or sporadic, put
chemicals into the environment where the exposure exists.
A second type of potential adverse impact to the surrounding community is the potential for accidents.
This includes industrial accidents that in some cases release chemicals or cause explosion or fires, as well as traffic
(truck, train, barge) accidents that may result in spills. Note that there is a fundamental difference between the
impacts of emissions and accidents. While emissions may vary in frequency, they actually occur at every location
that is not a zero-emissions facility. Accidents, on the other hand, may not occur at any given facility or location, so
the analysis of impact takes on a more probabilistic nature. Nonetheless, when accidents do occur, they can
occasionally have catastrophic consequences far in excess of the impacts of emissions.
A third type of potential adverse impact is generally referred to as “quality of life” impacts within the
community. These include, noise, dust, unwanted bright lights at night, increased traffic in general, etc. These can
in some cases be quite acutely aggravating to the surrounding community, but in all but extreme cases these are
usually not a threat to health.
How Impacts are Distributed within the Surrounding Community
In looking at how these adverse impacts are distributed within the community, they tend to be dIstributed in
certain geographical patterns relative to the facilities themselves. Air emissions are carried from the stacks (or
points of fugitive emissions) by the wind, and on average, their geographical pattern will reflect the local weather
conditions. Water discharges will usually have their impact downstream from discharge points. Transportation-
related impacts (whether accidents or increased traffic in the area) will be distributed preferentially along traffic
corridors. Accidents at a facility, if large enough to affect areas outside the fence line, will affect those nearest the
facility first. Noise, dust, and lights will probably also affect those nearest the facility first.
In looking at how these patterns distribute themselves in the surrounding community, the four cases above
are (I) via local wind patters; (2) downstream from discharge points; (3) along transportation corridors; and (4)
decreasingly with increasing distance from the facility.
The key to an analysis of how adverse impact falls differentially upon different groups within the
population - that is, the Title vi question - is in:
A. Establishing an “intensity” measure for each geographical patter,
B. Establishing how the intensity measure distributes itself geographically, and
C. Analyzing the intensity of the patterns relative to where the people are who belong to the various
groups.
The intensity measure should be proportional to the impact, that is, an intensity of 10 should represent
twice the impact of an intensity of 5. By looking at where the people are within the impact patter, one could then
compare one group with another, or one location with another, by comparing the impact intensity measure.
Further discussion during breakout sessions.
C-16
-------
C-5: Central Susquehanna Valley
Transportation Impact Analysis (NEPA)
-------
C-6: The Marty Indian School (Tribal)
-------
Susq ueh ann) ey
trltnsPerta(iong project
COMMUNITY IMPACT ANALYSES
Introduction
The goal of this EIS project is to address the current and future transportation needs of the Central
Susquehanna Valley (Pennsylvania) in a corridor roughly five miles and twelve miles long, stretching from the end
of the Selinsgrove Bypass north to PA Route 147. Improvements will address congestion and safety problems on
existing Routes 1 1115, I I, 15, and 147. Lack of funding led to shelving part of a project to build a Selinsgrove-
Shainokin Dam bypass in the early 1970’s. Since that time there have been significant changes in the study area and
in many federal and state regulations affecting the development of large and complex projects which may have
substantial impacts on residents, the local economy, the environment, and cultural and recreational resources. In
addition, modem technologies have greatly increased our ability to idenril ’ and analyze potential community impacts
in increasingly greater detail.
Environmental Justice
Detailed digital information (STF3A) data is available down to the census block group level through the
U.S. Census Bureau. By evaluating this data for the CSVT study area’s eight block groups, concentrations of
residents falling into minority racial categories or low income groups can be identified through comparisons to
municipal, county, and state percentages. In the CSVT project, a concentration of persons below the poverty level
has been identified in a census block group that may be substantially impacted by a proposed highway alignment.
Analysis of potential environmental justice impacts is ongoing.
Displacements
Digital orthophotography of the CSVT study area provided for the accurate identification of all structures
in the study area. G1S software and a laptop computer were used to classify the thousands of structures in the study
area by type (i.e. residential, commercial. industrial). G 1S was then used to overlay highway alternatives and
quantify potential displacements by category. Comments added to the classification system in the field provided
for quick identification of businesses by name. By buffering the alternatives in GIS, potentially significant impacts
to off-street parking of businesses could also be identified. The quantitative analysis can rapidly be updated as
alternatives continue to be shifted. This process is ongoing.
-------
Marty Indian School
BACKGROUND: The Marty School was transferred from the Catholic Church to the
Yankton Sioux Tribe around 1975. The school and facilities program is
operated by the Tribal school board under a public law 100-279 grant. The
school has, for 40 years, burned waste oil to heat boilers, which provide
steam for heating purposes. A January 30, 1998, EPA report shows
contamination of the maintenance building in which the boilers are located,
and of surrounding areas, including the flood plain of a creek that drains to
the Missouri River, 7 miles away. A community stakeholders group was’
formed to create a plan to resolve the environmental issues at the school.
Contaminants in the soil surrounding the building, and in ash from the
boilers, include lead, heavy metals, volatile orgariic..chemicals (VOCs),
benzene, toluene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). An underground
storage tank next to the maintenance building was leaking, and there were
barrels of waste, some hazardous, in the building basement. Three samples
of the ash from the boilers tests for lead show 59,000; 3,080; and 5,580
mg/kg lead, respectively. The school stores this ash in a deteriorating
smoke stack. Some ash has been dumped off a shallow embankment that
leads to the creek. EPA has determined that the smokestack bricks may be
themselves hazardous waste, because of their exposure to the ash.
The rest of the school is adjacent to and east of the maintenance building,
and wood and metal shop classes actually take place in the maintenance
building. The school has about 240 students, K - 12, around 60 of which
are boarding students. The campus also hosts a tribal Head Start program,
taking children from newborns to 4 years old.
The indian Health Service had tested the blood lead levels of 2 school
employees who service the school boilers and handle the ash, and the initial
results came back very high. In addition, since the remainder of the school
campus is downwind from the boilers, the waste oil has been burned for 40
years, and the student’s access to the areas surrounding the maintenance
building and the ‘ash piles on the embankment is unrestricted, there was
reason to speculate that the school buildings, and perhaps, the students,
have been exposed to these hazardous chemicals.
U-IS and ATSDR tested employee and student blood lead levels as part of
an exposure evaluation. The testing included 10 employees who work in
the boiler or shop areas of the maintenance building; about 250 children,
ages 0 - 6, who attend the school or pre-school program or live in the
neighborhood abutting the school (children are most at danger from the
risk of lead poisoning when younger than 6 years old); and about 25 older
children with access to the shop area. ATSDR also scanned painted
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Appendix D. Breakout Group Flip Charts and Posters
D-1
-------
Day 1 Breakout Group Flip Charts
Case Studies
D-2
-------
QUESTION 1: What were the central issues in the case?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for
the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental
Justice: Chester,
Pennsylvania
Environmental
Risk Study
Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
Health effects (birth
defects)
________________________
Permitting of multiple
sources within a small
geographical area
(cumulative impact)
Exposure to
pollution and the
health effects
Central issues depend on the
group.
Solving transportation
problems (identi1 ’ing
locations)
Health effects led to
community concern over
pollutant exposure
The community had no say
in what was going on in
their own neighborhood
Disproportionate
exposure to
pollution
Community: would plant be
built?
Addressing community
issues (noise, air quality,
accidents, homes)
Not safe
Community
empowerment
Legal: did state violate Title
VI?
Minimizing and
mitigating impacts
How do you address
cumulative risk?
Excessive number
of waste sites
Technical: define and measure
adverse impacts, disparity, and
risk of accidents.
Children’s health
Lack of trust in government
Health issues
Bearing an unfair share of
the environmental burden
Central traffic issues
Subsistence fishing
D-3
-------
QUESTION 2: Flow did you determine what the questions were?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for
the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
The approach was to look
at environmental
risk/exposure and
environmental health
Petition from citizens
Listened to citizens’
health, environmental,
and public safety
concerns
Nature of complaint
Environment
Overview study of the
area and community;
talking with the people in
the community
The stakeholders were
very organized and
focused. The scope
broadened (Chicago)
Identified fairness issue of
cost/benefit
Legal Framework
Traffic numbers
Large public meetings
Political captive of the
machine
Citizen interviews
Mapping
EPA was looking for an
area, a community of
interest
EPA staff/management
discussions
Public health
Cumulative exposure
project
Injuries
Tax data
Socio-economic status
data
D-4
-------
QUESTION 3: To what extent was the community Involved?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for
the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental
Justice: Chester,
Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the
1964 CivIl
Rights Act:
Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna Valley
Transportation Impact Analysis
(NEPA)
Community identified
perceived problems and
raised initial concern
Citizens only in Chicago (II
groups)
The community
initiated this
Community filed
the complaint
Very
Community involved in
designing study
(participants as subjects)
Petitioners started the
process
The community
continued with
persistence
Community
interviewed
Public officials’ meetings
Community went to
meetings; part of door-to-
door study
Academics were involved in
Brooklyn
Repeatedly exposed to
state government
ineptitude
Community
commented on
plans
Maps
Industry and businesses
were involved in Baltimore
along with residents
Maintains a high level
of activism
Community
commented on
draft results
Door-to-door
City health department
became a player in
Baltimore (and the Dept of
Public Works)
Engaged partners
from outside of
stakeholders
Informal neighborhood meetings
locused on agenda
Community Advisory Committee
meetings
Helped frame questions
Valuable information from the
community helped to identify other
significant issues
The state led public outreach to
garner support
D-5
-------
QUESTION 4: How did the community focus affect assessment methods and the outcome?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for
the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, PennsylvanIa
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the
1964 Clvii Rights
Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquebanna Valley
Transportation Impact
Analysis (NEPA)
Design of door-to-door
residential survey,
communications strategy
The community wants the
focus on air toxics
Community working with
other agencies aided in the
design and the
identification of additional
concerns
Helped define some
elements of the
investigation
Kept focus on the important
issues: greenway between
communities; don’t take
developable land;
suggest/modify alternatives;
housing concerns; historic
preservation issues
Brought state and other
agency methods into
assessment
There were threats of
leaving the process
Helped with
geographic
specificity
Participation of the community
enhanced assessment methods
and outcomes
Community agreed to be
surveyed, added
information; state-funded
projects
The interests of the
community are important
Cumulative
assessment
Traffic concerns
Gave investigators access
to households
In Chicago, a consensus
was attempted
Not just TRI
The public identified
alternatives
Committees set the
agendas
Disparity relative to
state
In flrooklvn. the
community added
emphasis on subsistence
fishing and lead
Expanded scope
Reviewed and commented
on draft outputs
D-6
-------
QUESTION 5: What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used?
The Transboundary
Air Monitoring Study
for the Lower Rio
Grande Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964
Civil Rights Act:
Convent, Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
Residential pilot study,
multiple pathways,
cross border air study
Peer Review, Progress reports,
Benchmark levels, Screening,
Sampling (Baltimore)
Data: TRI, Dunn &
Bradstreet, State mobile
sources, EPI data (disease
registry), AIRS
RSEI (OPPT)
GIS
Test air, water,
factories, agriculture,
use risk methods
State, city, facility data,
State/local databases, State/city
emissions/permit data
Monitoring: Blood lead,
ambient air
GIS
GPS
Food sampling, air
monitoring, housedust
and soil samples
ISC and SIP (model), TRI,
AIRS, RAPIDS, TAPs (state
monitoring), ICST3 (air
dispersion),
Interviews with citizens
Statistics
Field data
Ambient air monitoring,
public health database
(incident mortality)
CEP (air, water, food)
Tools: Modified Superfund
“additive” assessments,
GIS
TM
Photos
Household visits,
survey, public meetings
GES, SARA Title III
TED! (Louisiana)
Tax/census data
.
Community as source,
Partnerships led to new sources,
Census
State historic site lists
Reg. 3 reference concentration
database
Pre-RMP reports
Endangered species data
Applying national model to
local conditions
Permit and company
release estimates
Ecosystem data
!SC
State/EPA data
Maps
D-7
-------
QUESTION 6: Were there other approaches that could or should have been used?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for the
Lower Rio Grande Valley
(Rural)
Urban Cases
(Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964 Clvii
Rights Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
Social assistance to define
community and
representatives
IDEA database
(integrated database
for enforcement
analysis) - spot
potential enforcement
cases
Assessment represented
the initial effort
Health outcomes
Other road options
(trains)
Acute/direct exposure
More complete
community risk
characterization
Assessment led to
awareness that more
resources were needed
for: more sampling and
air monitoring, better
identification of pollution
sources, more
comprehensive analysis of
public health and data,
stressor information, and
exposure monitoring
Air monitoring
Consider other
economically feasible
methods for distribution
other than trucks
Additional sampling beyond
pilot and a follow-up
Community profile
Alternate models
Coordination
Start with health endpoints
and work backwards
View the full
community picture
Nonpoint sources
(planned)
Monitoring whenever
possible
Plant-specific accident
consequence scenarios
D-8
-------
QUESTION 7: From the Agency’s perspective, what lessons were learned?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for
the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
Ambient outdoor and
indoor air is OK
Fit EPA contributions into
the broad public health
campaign; EPA work can
miss the basic public
health concerns
Involve all of the
stakeholders
It’s not an easy process
Community involvement
should be “early, often,
and always”
More investment needed
Explain what you can and
can’t do clearly
Take time to listen
It’s uncertain
Reach out to the
community
The expense of
community follow-
through was
underestimated
Patience and flexibility
are needed
Acknowledge limitations
Not enough data
(especially for accidental
releases)
Regular community
involvement is critical
Exposure is important to
people
The agency can learn
from the community; talk
to the community early
and often
Build effective
partnerships
Tools can’t answer all
questions
The process takes time
but it’s worth it
Stakeholders have to
participate
Find facility data beyond
the “usual suspects”;
sources beyond big point
sources are important
Prioritization aids in
resource development
Need for poI cy calls
•
Outreach challenges
include low income
versus high income divide
D-9
-------
The Trausboundary Air
Monitoring Study for
the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964 Civit
Rights Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
It’s an expensive effort
Use general models for
scoping but not for the
final answers; CEP model
didn’t answer all of the
questions on a small
community scale
Need to faster methods
Partnerships have
unexpected results
Involve agencies with
other responsibilities;
Outreach to the medical
community
Community involvement
is important
More comprehensive
assessment
Community views are
different than EPA’s
There is a need for a
multidisciplinary process
Bilingual situations are
expensive
There is a need to define
the community; determine
the number of segments in
the community
D-1O
-------
QUESTION 8: Were the stakeholders’ issues addressed and answered?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for
the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act : Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
Yes, health studies
showed no correlation
EPA may be addressing
issues beyond the
community’s interest
Some issues were
addressed but not all
issues were answered
Yes, the plant was not
built (yet)
1dentif ’ing issues and
whether issues are being
addressed
Industry’s concerns were
addressed
In Baltimore, some groups
were not satisfied
Yes, from the
community’s perspective,
EPA found evidence of
disparity
Some compromises are
inevitable
It seems the community
gained some assurance
At least some of the
committee’s issues were
satisfied
No, accidental releases
not addressed
Continue to look
for/address concerns
The community may have
wanted more extensive
efforts
Unplanned outcomes can
be positive (Baltimore
wildlife)
No, cancer clusters not
addressed
Viable alternatives were
studied
Stakeholders efforts were
partially answered
Spinoffs from the project
dealing with other
stakebolder issues
Addressed but not
conclusively answered
It runs the gamut
New information may be
available to the
community
D-Ii
-------
QUESTION 9: From the State and community perspective, what worked and what didn’t?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for the
Lower Rio Grande Valley
(Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
Worked: stakeholder buy-
in
There was not sufficient
information for any
environmental justice
conclusions
Community. involvement
was key to identifying
problems and assessment
and new public health
initiatives
Community: filing
complaint stopped the
plant
Informal neighborhood
meetings worked
Worked: state programs
increase
Lead is not a big
problem in this instance
Conflict between political
leadership and the citizens
in Chester exists; the
community does not trust
the state
Community: new plant
using more participation
The door-to-door
approach worked
Worked: data gave fairly
conclusive answer
“Bad surprises”: Mobile
plus the area sources are
the problem, not the
facilities
State: No Title VI finding
Digitizing maps worked
Worked: interaction
between EPA and state and
community
Partnerships enabled
progress
Visualization worked
Worked: good partnerships
and participation
The community didn’t
like the results
Maps in general worked
D-12
-------
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for the
Lower Rio Grande Valley
(Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
Worked: identifying the
community representatives
Partnerships can work
but not always
The standard public
involvement approach
(factsheets, ads in the
paper, general public
meetings) did not work
Worked: some
interventions introduced
Openness and
transparency are
important
Didn’t work: needed to be
more health-driven
The community was
surprised by the results
Didn’t work: information
repositories
Information on
corn mun ities may prove
helpful to enforcement
It is too soon to tell
D-13
-------
QUESTION 10: What issues were unique in this case? Which will recur in other cases?
The Transboundary Air
Monitoring Study for
the Lower Rio Grande
Valley (Rural)
Urban Cases (Chicago,
Greenpoint, and
Baltimore)
Environmental Justice:
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk
Study
Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act: Convent,
Louisiana
Central Susquehanna
Valley Transportation
Impact Analysis (NEPA)
Unique: transnational
issue
Unique: highly organized
and focused
Unique: data on health
problems
Unique: no precedents
Recurring: different
priorities, values,
community differences
Unique: no clear cause
Recurring: need to change
priorities and focus
Unique: political realities
Unique: large ammonia
concentration sources
Recurring: long time
frame involved
Unique: high level of
support (Reilly)
Recurring: the role of
political dynamics
Recurring: trust issue
Unique: local politics
Recurring: political
pressures, politics vs.
common sense
Unique: health endpoints
Recurring: cumulative
risk assessment/health
questions
Recurring: permit
discrepancies
Recurring: cumulative
assessment gaps
Recurring: “Not in my
backyard”
Recurring: community
concern about health
impacts
Recurring: need to define
community
Recurring: cumulative
assessment
Recurring: Title VI cases
Recurring: education,
cohesion, natural
resources
Recurring: major
differences in
understanding risk
Recurring: multiple
exposures
Recurring: habitat vs.
community (people)
Wealthy/low-income
divide
D-14
-------
Day 2 Breakout Group Flip Charts
Question Groups
D-15
-------
QUESTIONS 1 AND 2
QUESTION 1: What were the central
issues in the case?
QUESTION 2: How did you determine
what the questions were?
Problem: Health Risk - Assessment of risks
(did it occur)?
Stakeholder input (multiple means)
Problem: Health Risk - Communication of
risk (how to measure risk, adverse impacts,
disparity)
Legal (TSCA, permitting, Title VI)
Issue: Lack of trust
Data/science (data availability, science
capability)
Issue: Community’s perception of the
problem
Management willingness (resources, political
will)
Issue: Unfair share of the burden
Political climate
Issue: Community
involvement/empowerment
Issue: Resolution - minimize/mitigate impacts
D-l6
-------
QUESTIONS 3 AND 4
QUESTION 3: To what extent was the
community involved?
QUESTION 4: How did the community
focus affect assessment methods and the
outcome?
Involve the community as early and as often as
possible (“early, often, and always”)
Framing/focusing questions
The key role for the community is in the
beginning of the process (public came to EPA)
Provides information not readily available
(values, activity patterns, etc.)
Framing questions
Determines the need for other agency
involvement (quality of life)
Focusing agenda
Community values set the screening criteria
and outcome (what risks/alternatives are
acceptable)
A variety of stakeholders were involved
The community can help develop data
collection methods and processes
The community is a good source of
information
Assessment is more accurate and effective
The community serves as a reality check for
the process
Design/framework
Getting the community involved with
qualitative data collection, “real-time”
monitoring gives the community a sense of
control
Determines the extent/location of sampling
and assessment
The community should be full partners in the
process (EPA, facilities, community);
example: EPA’s common sense initiative (but
EPA can’t give up the decision-making role)
Influences the design tools so that they can
be used by others without EPA help
(example: technical outreach services for
communities)
EPA believes community involvement is
essential because: ownership, better results
(better framing of questions), information and
data, unique information available, reality
check, more resources, more sustainable, long-
term dividends
D-17
-------
To what extent should the community be
involved? There is a range of participation.
depending on the project. Voluntary = full
partners; regulatory = fully involved but EPA
retains decision-making control; it depends on
what the community wants
QUESTIONS 5 AND 6
QUESTION 5: What approaches, methods, tools, and databases were used?
QUESTION 6: Were there other approaches that could or should have been used?
Integrating national, state, and community level data is an area that needs work
Care should be taken in matching tools to needs
Enable better communication within the development community and the users of data (this is
important for understanding; is EPA prepared for the community to come back with questions )
Identify regulatory tools
Stressor tools: Default assumptions may not represent reality
There is a need for tools to develop EPA’s communication with the public
There is a need for risk communication tools
D-l8
-------
QUESTIONS 5 AND 6 (Continued)
Issue
Data
Tools I
Siressors
.
National Data:
IDEA, Enviro-Facts Data
• Toxic Release Inventory
• Pcs
• AIRS Facility
• RCRIS
• CERCLIS
Other
• NT! (on-going)
• RMP ’
State, Local, and Regional Data:
• RAPIDS
• TED!
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) Reports’
• Socio-Economic Data
• Dunn & Bradstreet
• Census
• TaxData
• Default emission
factors and stack
parameters
Exposure/Conditions
National Data:
• AIRS Monitors
• STORET
• Drinking Water Contaminant C
• Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP) Air Results
• Remote Sensing-Based Data
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Ecosystem Data
• NHANES
State, Local, and Regional Data:
• Ambient Monitoring
• Blood Lead Levels
• EMPACT
• ISCM (and other
AIR models)
• RSEI
• BASINS
• IEUBK
• ASPEN (CEP)
• MMEM
Receptors
• CENSUS
• Socio-economic and Demographic Data (e.g.,
community 2020 updated population estimates)
• NOAA and FWS Ecosystem Data
• State Endangered Species Data
• Historical Sites Information
• SOWIS
• Exposure Factors Data
PECT (proximity
analysis)
• RSEI (proximity
analysis and levels of
exposure)
• IE UBK
D-19
-------
Effects
• NCHS Cancer Mortality (County level data)
• IRIS
• Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (e.g., Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registiy (ATSDR),
toxics profiles, STARS)
• HEAST
• RSEI Toxics Data
• CEP
• State/Local/Regional Health Records
General
• Geographic Information System
• Global Positioning Satellite
• Statistical Multi-level Analysis
• Krigging Tools (e.g., Geo-ease)
• Statistical Multi-
level Analysis
• CIMAS-Type
Applications
* TIGER (Census)
D-20
-------
QUESTIONS 7 AND 8
QUESTION 7: From the Agency’s
perspective, what lessons were learned?
QUESTION 8: Were the stakeholders’
issues addressed and answered?
EPA has to facilitate the government process
to deliver to the community (i.e. links to
housing, public health, etc.)
Consensus across cases
When science can’t answer the questions,
EPA needs to make policy calls and be clear
that it is policy and not science
Cases only presented EPA’s perception of a
community’s view; there was no idea of what
the community actually thought
Invest up front; up-front costs are high but the
long-term payoff is worth it
No united stakeholder perspective
Passive community input is inadequate;
aggressive outreach is necessary
Reframe the question: How to measure
success?
Trust/relationships; consensus with
stakeholders on issues (e.g. community’s
value-laden concerns)
All key players involved
Identify the needs, goals, and concerns of
stakeholders; let that drive the use/choice of
the tools/science needed
Have a feedback ioop from community
assessment
D-21
-------
QUESTIONS 9 AND 10
QUESTION 9: From the State and
community perspective, what worked and
what didn’t?
QUESTION 10: What issues were
unique in this case? Which will recur in
other cases?
Worked: mapping/visualization, openness, and
transparency
Trust issues (us vs. them)
Worked: really involving the community
through both formal and informal means
Cumulative risk assessment (multiple
exposures/sources)
Worked: partnering with other relevant agencies
(i.e. state, local, public health)
Data, tool, and science gaps
Worked: defining the community and identifying
its representatives
Health concerns
Worked: other benefits for the community as a
result of activity include: a cross transfer of
knowledge; parks and recreational development;
medical testing; community empowerment;
increased environmental and health awareness;
increased resources and political attention
Political realities
Worked: flexibility
Different values, perceptions, and concerns
from different parts of the community
Worked: previous community organization can
aid progress
Concern about disproportionate share of
pollution sources
Worked: regular progress reports
Little EPA experience at this early stage
Didn’t work: standard, indirect communication
and public involvement
With time, priorities and focus will change
Didn’t work: pre-existing lack of trust
EPA’s response will be tailored by the
general type of case
Didn’t work: lack of understanding of issues and
positions
Unique: International/cross-border issues
Didn’t work: conveying unpopular results (need
to avoid surprises)
Unique: High profile cases
Didn’t work: failure to address critical
community issues
Unique: Case specific info
Didn’t work: facts and science aren’t always
sufficient to reach clear results
D-22
-------
Community Assessment Questions Summary Report 4/27/99
Appendix E. Community Assessment “Questions” Summary
B-i
-------
DRAFT Revision 4128199
Community Assessment “Questions”
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the first Community Assessment Workshop was to identif ’: “What are
the environmental assessment questions communities are asking EPA to address?” A working
list of these questions is presented below for discussion, and for use in the second Community
Assessment Workshop as we look into which of these questions we currently have means to
address.
In general, there are still large gaps in the kinds of tools and information available to
communities to help them answer these questions (in whole or in part), and thereby move more
in the direction of sustainability. Our work is part of a long term attempt to develop and provide
the tools and information that will be needed to support sustainable development at the
community level. The six Community Assessment Workshops will, as a whole, look into the
challenges that face EPA in trying to work with communities to address community assessment
questions. The focus for the second workshop will be on the tools and information available to
understand and address the basic questions concerning environmental impacts on a local
environment, including impacts on both the human and ecosystem aspects of the environment.
The second Workshop’s focus on the tools that the Agency and communities will need to
assess the environmental impacts and risk questions means that not all issues raised in the
context of Community Assessment will be dealt with directly in this Workshop. Issues such as
where communities will get the resources to do assessments, what the best way is to get
community participation, how the assessments can be used to make improvements, and how
governments can work together to help communities, are important to the community but they
will be addressed later in our Workshop series.
Finally, the scope of the issues that communities raise and the way environmental
concerns are understood in communities often includes areas that are beyond the scope of EPA
capacity or authority. Rather than eliminate community questions to fit our purpose, we will
keep the community perspective and determine which questions our tools can help answer. This
approach will make us cognizant of the limits of our abilities and encourage us to seek
partnerships with other organizations or governments. Ultimately, our capabilities can be fit into
a larger effort (with other organizations) that can begin to answer community questions.
SUMMARY OF “QUESTIONS”
As developed and discussed in our first Workshop, here are some questions that communities
have asked the Agency. This list of questions is a starting point for discussion purposes, not an
Page -1-
-------
DRAFT Revision Date 4/28/99
all-inclusive list. The questions can be broken out into four major categories, with some overlap.
These categories are as follows: (1) Is there a threat to our health or our local environment?; (2)
How can we characterize the risks within our community?; (3) How do the risks in our
community compare to other communities?; and (4) How can we improve our environmental
quality of life?
1.15 there a threat to our health or our local environment?
I) What are the environmental risks in our homes and schools?
2) Does the poor health in our community, e.g. child birth defects, have anything to do with
environmental exposures?
3) Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year, such as during summer heat
inversions?
4) Is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all sources adversely impacting our health and
the health of the ecosystem?
5) Are the exposures to the pollutants released from all the industrial and commercial facilities
in and around our community affecting our health?
6) Are the permitted levels safe for children and other sensitive populations?
7) Are we at risk from acute exposures, accidents and episodic releases?
8. Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together to adversely impact our health?
9. Is it safe for my children to swim or wade in the local pond or river?
10. Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if there are the basis for my diet? What
fish should I avoid and why? How much would be considered safe to eat?
11. Is the water from my well safe to drink?
12. Will the creation of this new highway adversely affect our environment or is there a better
location to build it?
13. Are there areas that we protect, i.e., either have no development or limit our use?
Page -2-
-------
DRAFT Revision Date 4/28/99
2. How can we characterize the risks within our community?
1) What environmental information is available for my local community (including
information on EPA-regulated and permitted sources)?
2) What are the potential impacts of local environmental pollutants and how can we know if
environmental impacts are increasing or decreasing in our community?
3) What is the cumulative impact of total and/or permitted environmental exposures in my
community, including “background exposure?”
4) How do we get a complete inventory of all the sources of environmental impacts on our
community?
5) How can we assess the impact that our businesses, community households and schools
have on our environment?
6) How can we be sure that facilities are not exceeding their permitted releases?
7) What can we use to directly measure our exposure to toxics so we can test the adequacy of
the permitting process?
8) What information do we need in order to judge if the pollutants from a new facility
planning to open in our community will have an adverse impact on us?
9) How do we assess the potential for accidents in the facilities in and around our community?
10) How do we learn about the impact of synergy with mixtures of chemicals or the impact of
endocrine disruptors, and how can obtain an adequate assessment of such issues?
11) What is the relationship of toxic pollutants to disease clusters in my community and how do
I focus on these health outcomes to understand what is causing them?
12) What information is available that is specifically related to subpopulations of concern, e.g.,
children, and will risk assessment adequately address these sensitive subpopulations?
Page -3-
-------
DRAFT Revision Date 4/28/99
3. How do the risks in our community compare to other communities?
1) Is there an unusually high incidence of disease in our community (cancer clusters, asthma,
adverse reproductive outcomes, etc.), and might it be the result of environmental
exposures?
2) Do we have more than our share of environmental stresses in our community?
3) Are there disproportionate impacts (race, income, children, etc.) within my community or
compared to other communities?
4. How can we improve our environmental quality of ljfe?
1) How can we get an overall picture of all of our environmental impacts so we can set
priorities for making improvements?
2) What is the condition of my community’s natural resources (parks, surface waters, wildlife,
etc.)? What are the sources of the impacts on these resources?
3) What information is available that can improve the economic situation in my community
and its quality of life?
4) What information is available regarding traffic, general safety, noise, dust, bad odors, etc.?
5. How do we track our progress so that we know how to proceed in the future?
Page -4-
------- |