EPA Region 4 Environmental Justice (EJ) Policy


EPA REGION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) POLICY

EJ Policy (Cross-Divisional) Work Team

Team Sponsor: The Environmental Accountability Division and
the Executive Management Team

Submitted for Regional Review: 7/1/98

-------
Acknowledgments:

The EJ Policy Work Team would like to credit the contributions of the following team
individuals for volunteering and composing the initial draft EJ Policy Document: Natalie
Ellington [Team Leader, Section 1 (Introduction), Section 2 (Purpose and Use of this Policy),
and the PPA/Grants discussion]; Catherine Fox [Section 3 (Basic Tools for Understanding and
Implementing EJ) and Section 4 (Conducting an EJ Assessment)]; Brian Holtzclaw [Section 5
(Implementing EJ in Enforcement Activities), Section 6 (Implementing EJ in Permitting
Activities); Section 8 (EJ and Community Involvement)]; Eddie Wright [Section 7 (Implementing
EJ in Remediation and Other Activities), and Contact List]; Kathleen Curry [(EJ Intake Form and
Demographics request Form)]; Becky Allenbach [EJ examples and NEPA/EJ discussion]. Natalie
Ellington and Brian Holtzclaw were the primary editors of the initial draft.

The following individuals outside the team were very helpful in the draft peer review
process: Scott Gordon, and Roosevelt Childress (both from the Water Management Division).

We also respectfully thank the other EJ Policy Work Team members for their support and
for editing this draft document, which included: Connie Raines, Priscilla Oliver, Rosalind Brown,
Robert Bookman, Jewell Harper, Colin Mclsaac, Louis Salguero, and Cathy Winokur.

The EJ Policy Work Team would like to greatly acknowledge EPA Region 5 and their
Office of Environmental Justice (EJ), who broke new ground by creating an extremely useful
Regional Policy Guidance Document that was referred to and adapted upon.

-------
	TABLE OF CONTENTS	

Subject	Page#

1.	Introduction	2

2.	Purpose and Use of this Policy

3.	Basic Tools for Understanding and Implementing	4
Environmental Justice

4.	Conducting an Environmental Justice Assessment	9

5.	Implementing Environmental Justice in Enforcement	11
Activities

6.	Implementing Environmental Justice in Permitting	19
Activities

7.	Implementing Environmental Justice in Remediation and	25
Other Activities

8.	Environmental Justice and Community Involvement	30
Appendix:

r.-'Jtrc.! C: su.

a.	Presidential Executive Order#12898	,iV

' '•Ti I Q * V

b.	EJ Intake Form	1

c.	Chart with Region 4 Relative Thresholds Percentages (%) of
low-income and minorities by state

d.	Process Flow Chart

e.	EJ Demographics Request (GIS)

f.	Frequently Asked Questions

g.	EPA Region 4 Organizational Charts

h.	EPA Contacts (names, phone, E-mail, Fax): Environmental
Justice, Geographic Information System (GIS), Community
Relations (Involvement) Coordinators, Tribal, and
Community-based Environmental Protection (CBEP)
project contacts

Bibliography List

1

-------
1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, environmental justice has emerged as a national and regional policy issue
thanks to several milestones being achieved. In 1994, the Presidential Executive Order on
Environmental Justice #12898, set EPA on a new road to prioritize the issues of environmental
justice (EJ). It stated:

"each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and
possessions..." Section 7-7, Executive Order No. 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Since the issuance of the Executive Order, EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices have
dedicated more attention and resources into EJ issues. Offices of Environmental Justice were
created across the country by various federal agencies. In 1995, the EPA Administrator
chartered a diverse council to address these EJ issues, the National Environmental Justice
Advisory council (NEJAC). NEJAC has become a vital force which meets bi-annually and
supplies policy advice so that EPA can better serve the public.

Within Region 4 borders, there continues to be a growing interest in EJ issues. New
interim policies released on Title VI [Civil Rights Act] on permitting by EPA Headquarters, has
also increased the national visibility, awareness and responsibility that local, state, federal
government, as well as industry, has to the mission of achieving EJ.

In May 1998, a cross-divisional team, the Environmental Justice Policy Work Team,
began meeting to develop a clear, streamlined policy implementing EJ into all Region 4 activities.
Tasked by the Environmental Accountability Division (EAD), the team agreed upon the working
definition in EPA Region 4 as:

"Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."

In these few weeks, the work team crafted a variety of tools and policy recommendations
to create a conceptual framework of EJ for EPA Region 4 employees. The EJ Policy Document
is designed for the functional and cross-divisional roles EPA employees participate in. This
policy's overall goal is to help enhance the implementation of EJ throughout the Agency.

From the start, the policy familiarizes the users with some key terminology and concepts.
Some of the terminology defined in the policy includes target area, reference area,
disproportionate effects, and actual versus potential EJ area of concern. This policy also suggests
methods for defining minority and low-income populations and the appropriate way to conduct an
EJ assessment.

-------
Once the basic definitions and concepts are introduced, the policy delves into how the user
can implement EJ in enforcement, permitting, remediation, and other activities of EPA Region 4.
These sections of the policy address EPA Region 4 practices whereby fair treatment of
environmental laws and meaningful involvement of communities can be carried out. It also
prompts the user to explore other opportunities to help achieve "win-win" results for all parties
involved. At the conclusion of each chapter, the policy includes examples of actual EJ practices in
Region 4 related to the functional area.

This policy includes a comprehensive discussion on community involvement which we
believe is at the center of EJ. If we (Region 4) involve the affected community into our decision-
making process early on, there exists a greater possibility to enhance trust and partnership
between EPA and local communities on these diverse issues. Most importantly, more effective
solutions are borne from this collaborative environmental decision-making.

As attachments, we included several items to supplement an understanding for all
employees embarking on a potential EJ project or EJ case. The Frequently Asked Questions are
most useful. Other items consist of the EJ Intake form, the EJ Demographic Request form, a
chart of Relative Thresholds for Minority and Low-income populations, and an EJ Contact list,
just to name a few. In the bibliography, a list of EJ resources that supports this policy's
recommendations on conducting appropriate EJ activities and assessments is included. Many
resources will be available on the LAN or they can be obtained from the Divisional EJ
Coordinator(s) or the Regional Office of EJ.

2. PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS POLICY

The purpose of this Regional Environmental Justice Policy is to provide clarification on
the concept of environmental justice (EJ) to Region 4 staff. It outlines a process to help
determine whether a case 1 should be considered a potential EJ case, and if so, what course of
action should be taken. It accomplishes this by explaining the necessary tools to properly define a
potential EJ area of concern and it sets forth a process to gather baseline information to conduct
an EJ analysis. It is intended that awareness and integration of EJ across all functional levels of
Region 4 will be increased.

This policy is intended to enhance and supplement the existing Draft Interim
Environmental Justice Protocol (Spring, 1997) for Region 4. The Protocol contains specific
Divisional procedures on how EPA Region 4 can address and incorporate EJ into their
programmatic activities.

This EJ Policy is a "handbook" or a "ready guide," which can be used by all EPA
programs. It is a condensed, streamlined version of the protocol that is based on functional
activities (i.e., enforcement, permitting, etc.). This policy summarizes general actions to execute

1 "Case" broadly means any site, project, community, area, enforcement action, inspection,
regulated facility permitting action, administrative case, or judicial case.

-------
when staff is working in a potential EJ community, regardless of the program. The policy can be
used to reinforce how Region 4 is to implement EJ considerations into its daily activities.

Overall, the policy was created to fulfill an immediate need to provide Region 4 staff with
a firm guidance to:

¦ Identify potential EJ areas of concern consistently;

¦ Address meaningful community involvement;

¦ Answer frequent EJ-related questions;

¦ Introduce the recommended state-by-state thresholds; and

¦ Provide a roadmap for all staff to integrate EJ into daily functions.

It is important to recognize that there are inherent limitations of this policy. Although it is
possible to determine an actual EJ area of concern, the policy goes as far as national policy
allows. Since policy issues are still emerging, we will only refer to "potential EJ area of
concern' for this policy. The Sections 3 and 4 reference the very latest in policy evolution from
the EPA Headquarters Risk-Based Targeting Work Group, re: defining an actual EJ area of
concern.2 Appendix C and D shows a valuable state-by-state reference which lists the current
"relative thresholds" to help determine if a respective EPA case is within a community that is a
potential EJ area. Due to this natural progression on EJ methodologies and technical
developments, our Region 4 EJ policy does not include any details on defining disproportionate
effects-, which is a key factor of EJ, Title VI [Civil Rights Act], and the Executive Order on EJ.
The policy does mention the consideration of cumulative impacts as it relates to siting of
hazardous waste facilities. However, it does not provide the methodology for determining what
are the cumulative impacts from one additional siting.

The policy allows the user to define the project area, perform a precursory EJ assessment,
and consider alternative actions which may lessen the impact to the affected community. The
Region 4 EJ Policy workgroup believes this policy will serve as a useful guide for all employees to
make some significant steps toward implementing EJ into functional activities, and as a result,
help make a difference in the lives of many depending on us to protect human health and the
environment.

3. BASIC TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING
REGION 4 EJ POLICY

EPA employees need to know when their regulated facilities, enforcement cases,
permitting actions, or place-based projects fall within potential EJ areas of concern. This section
of the document presents a consistent set of terms, definitions, and thresholds to go about making

2 "Guidance for Conducting EJ Analyses," Interim Draft, Risk-Based targeting working group,
Office of EJ, U.S. EPA Headquarters, May 29, 1998.

-------
that determination, as well as clarify understanding of EJ concepts within this document.3 A
consistent use of these terms can help EPA Region 4 more effectively address EJ in the normal
course of work and EJ assessments. The definitions are not intended to carry legal significance,
but simply to be a useful way to consistently describe the issues and ideas pertinent to EJ analyses
and their resulting uses in program activities.

A. Key Concepts and Terminology

Target Area

A target area (study area) is a geographical area that is potentially affected by an action
falling under Presidential Executive Order No. 12898. A target area is usually proximate to and
may surround a source(s) of potential adverse environmental and/or human health effects, often
including, but not restricted to, a polluting facility. Other sources of possible effects include
motor vehicles, overflowing sewers, ozone or particulate levels resulting from many sources, and
actions of other agencies subsequent to EPA intervention.

Target Population

The target population includes the potentially affected residents of the target area.
Depending upon the objective and context of the analysis, the target population may also include
transient residents such as migrant workers, commuters, and seasonal visitors. A target
population may constitute an entire population or a subset within the population (children, or low-
income fishermen, for example). Exposure of the target population to an environmental hazard,
may be the result of a source(s) within the target area or a source external to the target area
(consumers of a contaminated drinking water or persons doing subsistence fishing on a polluted
body of water, for example).

Reference Area/Reference Population

A reference area is the area that is used as a benchmark of comparison when determining
whether a target area suffers from a disproportionate effects to its minority and/or low-income
populations. A reference population includes the residents of the reference area. Therefore, both
the reference area and population provide a context for the interpretation of data from the target
area and population.

Disproportionate Effect

A disproportionate effect is an incidence (or prevalence) of an effect, a risk of an effect, or
likely exposure to environmental hazards potentially causing such adverse health effects on a
minority and/or low-income population, or sub-population such as children, that significantly
exceeds that experienced by a comparable reference population. Both the Executive Order No.
12898 and the latest EPA interim Title VI [Civil Rights Act] guidance, speak to the need to
prevent and remediate disproportionate effects. Although a critical piece in addressing EJ, the

3 Recommendations are being made to institutionalize this function, so that in the future, EPA
Region 4 may have centralized person(s) to proactively identify and inventory which regulated facilities
reside within potential EJ areas.

-------
technical approaches for determining disproportionate effects are still under development, and as
such are not refined and presented herein. When EPA Headquarters policy is generated on the
subject of these effects, they will be incorporated into this EJ Policy.

In estimating effects, the possible cumulative nature of these effects should be considered.
For example, if the effect of concern is the level of truck traffic from a proposed facility, the fact
that the local streets are already carrying the traffic from several similar facilities could be
significant. The concept of disproportionate effect on sub-populations (such as high numbers of
minority children) is discussed later in this document.

Potential EJ Area of Concern

A potential EJ area of concern is a target area that contains a significant minority and/or
low-income population but the existence of disproportionate effects has not yet been shown.
Depending on the objective of the study, further analysis to determine which, if any, potential EJ
areas of concern are actual EJ areas of concern, may not be necessary (e.g. broad scale area
characterization). This is the common and more conservative expression for EJ areas. Please
refer to Appendix C, "Relative Thresholds" to assess whether a community meets our new state-
by-state standards for EJ demographics.

EJ Area of Concern

An EJ area of concern is a target area that has been demonstrated to experience
disproportionate effects and has a significant minority and/or low income population relative to an
appropriate reference area. Please refer to Appendix C, "Relative Thresholds" to assess whether
a community meets our new state-by-state standards for EJ demographics.

Potential EJ Case

This refers to a "case" (broadly meaning any site, project, community, area, enforcement action,
regulated facility permitting action, administrative case, or judicial case) that falls within a potential EJ
area of concern. This is the common and more conservative expression for cases that may have EJ
considerations.

EJ Case

This refers to a "case" (broadly means any site, project, community, area, enforcement
action, regulated facility permitting action, administrative case, or judicial case) that falls within an
target area that has been demonstrated to be within an EJ area of concern.

Population Areal Unit

A population areal unit is a geographic unit containing populations which in aggregate are
used to define a target area. The sum of the populations of these units comprise the target
population. Examples of areal units include Census blocks, block groups, tracts and sometimes
zip codes or counties. In some analyses a single population areal unit is assumed to define the
target area.

-------
B. Recommendations for Defining Minority and Low-income Populations

It is important for EPA Region 4 staff to become familiar with Appendix C, "Relative
Thresholds" to assess whether a community meets our new state-by-state standards for EJ
demographics (minority and low-income populations).

Defining "Minority Population"

An inclusive definition of "minority" is most appropriate and common practice in
geographically based EJ studies and should be used in Region 4 analyses. This method
incorporates the Census category called, Other races as a portion but does not double-count
Hispanics. This can be conceptualized as the sum of the populations identified as members of
American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and Other races together
with Hispanics with a listed idee of White. This is equivalent to an alternate calculation of total
population minus White non-Hispanics.

The advantage to using this definition is that it is similar to most EPA and other
geographically based EJ studies, and that it incorporates the "other" category which is being used
more often by individuals to classify themselves in the Census count. In addition, the data are
available for most geographic summary levels.

Defining "Low-Income Populations"

There are two options for defining low-income populations in Region 4 analyses and
program applications. These definitions should be used at the analyst's discretion, given the
particulars of the EJ assessment being conducted and the attributes of the data being used in the
analysis. Some of the advantages and drawbacks to using the different benchmarks along with
each recommendation.

Below Poverty Status - An advantage of using the poverty status as a benchmark for low-income
status is that the associated data adhere to a Federal statistical standard. The data are available in
a variety of geographic levels; block group, tract, MCD, county, MSA, place, state, Census
region, U.S., zip code, and tribal land. In addition, the data are available in a wide range of cross
tabulations, such as race and age, and will facilitate some types of assessments, e.g., young
children below poverty as an indicator of potentially high lead paint exposure. Poverty data are
also adjusted for family size and number of dependents. A drawback to using poverty status is
that the associated data are adjusted for cost of living on a national basis but not for regional,
state or local variations. The common units for this statistic, is percent of households in the
target area that is in below poverty status.

Below $15,000 - The main advantage to using the set income ranges in STF3A as benchmarks
for low-income status is that the associated data are updated for population counts more
frequently than poverty data and thus are more current. In addition, the data are available for
most of the same geographic summary levels and cross tabulations of poverty thresholds. A
drawback to using income ranges is that associated data are not adjusted for family size or cost of

-------
living by geographic area. The common units for this statistic, is percent of households in the
target area with below $15,000 income.

C. Determining Potential EJ Areas of Concern

For both the minority and iow-income data discu^ion to follow, use of bom an absolute
and relative threshold in EJ analyses are generally recommended for use in determining significant
minority and low-income populations, i.e. potential EJ areas of concern. Use of an absolute
threshold is beneficial because it allows the results to be compared across studies (within and
between EPA Regions as well as in national studies) although its use may result in a higher level
of uncertainty. This greater level of uncertainty may be acceptable depending upon the purpose
of the project. Use of a relative threshold is beneficial because the results generated may be
characterized as having less uncertainty because the analysis includes consideration of the
demographic characteristics of the specific geographic area being evaluated.

Minority Thresholds - For general screening assessment projects, the absolute thresholds
recommended for determining if a target area contains a significant minority population is 50%.
In other words, if the percent of minority individuals in a target area is equal to or greater than
50%, the target area is considered a potential EJ area of concern. The recommended relative
threshold for use in Region 4 EJ analyses is 1.2 times the state average. This approach assumes
that the distribution of minorities is the same in all references areas (e.g. Region 4 states). A more
conservative relative threshold approach to be used in analyses requiring a low-degree of
uncertainty is to calculate the distribution of minority data in each state and use a relative
threshold of the state average plus 1-3 standard deviations (a higher number of standard
deviations results in a higher probability of being correct). Note that the recommended absolute
and relative thresholds for Region 4 states are presented in Appendix C and D of this
document.

Low-Income Thresholds - As discussed above, an analyst may use either income ranges or
poverty status to determine significant low-income populations. The absolute threshold
recommended for general screening assessment projects for determining if a target area contains a
significant low-income population is 20%. In other words, if the percent of households in a target
area with incomes below $15,000 (or the percent of persons in a target area for whom poverty
status is determined) is equal to or greater than 20%, the target area is considered a potential EJ
area of concern. The use of a relative threshold is recommended, however, in both screening and
site-specific EJ assessments that require a lower level of uncertainty. The relative threshold is
defined as the percent of households with incomes below $15,000 (or the percent of persons in a
target area for whom poverty status is determined) in a state. In other words, if the percent of
households in a target area with incomes below $15,000 (or the percent of persons in a target
area for whom poverty status is determined) is equal to or greater than the percent of households
in a state with incomes below $15,000 in the state, the target area is considered a potential EJ
area of concern. Note that the recommended absolute and relative thresholds for Region 4
states are presented in Appendix C and D of this document.

-------
***

These EJ Policies are for the use of U.S. EPA Region 4 personnel. Region 4 reserves the right
to change this policy at any time, without prior notice, or to act at variance from these policies.
These policies do not create any rights, duties or obligations with respect to any third parties.

4. CONDUCTING AN EJ ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this section is to present an overview of the procedural issues associated
with conducting an Environmental Justice (EJ) assessment, as well as to provide a brief
description of the two most common types of EJ assessments. It is important to reference
Appendix C, "Relative Thresholds" and Appendix D, "Process Flow Chart" to assess whether a
community meets our new state-by-state standards for EJ demographics.

It is assumed that the reader is familiar with topics frequently encountered in the
consideration of environmental issues and has a working knowledge of the statutory and legal
conditions that prevail. In addition, experience with the tools employed in the assembly, display,
and analysis of demographic and environmental data, ecosystem processes, and related effects on
human health will also be an asset to understanding and applying the information presented in this
document. For more detailed information on how to conduct an EJ assessment, see the draft
"Guidance for Conducting EJ Analyses."4

Recognizing the variety of possible applications of EJ analysis, this policy does not
recommend any single approach but explores the types and nature of approaches one may adopt
in different applications, while working within a common conceptual framework. This section
provides an EJ analyst with some procedural guidance through the identification and evaluation of
the following steps:

1. Establish the purpose and significance of the decision-making activity the EJ assessment is
expected to support;

2. Determine the 'level of uncertainty' appropriate for that decision-making activity, i.e., how
accurate does the result have to be in order to support the nature of the decision being
made; and

3. Identify resource limitations for conducting the EJ assessment, e.g., time, money, data
availability, required hardware and software, etc..

4 "Guidance for Conducting EJ Analyses," Interim Draft, Risk-Based targeting working group,
Office of EJ, U.S. EPA Headquarters, May 29, 1998.

-------
Establishing the purpose and significance of a decision-making activity involves identifying
contextual issues associated with the consequences of the decision. Possible contextual issues to
be considered include: the magnitude of the potential adverse effects and the number of people
potentially affected; the potential for legal challenge or in the context of a court case; the level of
pi'blic awarenes^media co,,erage; the direct and indirect economic factors of investment and
development issues (e.g., land or property value, cost of the project, new jobs generated, etc.);
and the scope of the project (e.g., national, state, county, etc.). It may be appropriate to loosely
quantify the significance of the decision-making activity for comparative purposes, e.g., ranking
the significance of different projects in relation to each other.

Based on the significance of the decision-making activity, a 'level of uncertainty' may be
determined for the related EJ assessment. The level of uncertainty concept refers to the
confidence an analyst has in the accuracy of the assessment leading to the eventual decision. A
level of uncertainty is dependent on factors influencing the validity of that assessment, such as the
accuracy of data, the rigorousness of the methodology, or the level of effort. For example, if the
decision-making activity were likely to generate considerable public interest, the assessment
methods that lead to the decision would likely be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Under those
circumstances, a relatively low level of uncertainty (i.e., high level of accuracy) would be
appropriate. As such, the data and methodologies used in the assessment would need to be both
accurate and defensible. On the other hand, if the decision-making activity was an internal initial
review of a broad geographic area, the level of uncertainty in the result could be higher since the
analysis would be supporting the development of general working knowledge of possible EJ
issues. In this case, the precision and accuracy of the data and methodologies are not likely to be
critical to the outcome.

Once the level of uncertainty is determined, it is necessary to assess the feasibility and
options for conducting the EJ analysis, given the available resources. It is at this point that an
analyst may decide to plan and implement the assessment requested, modify the scope of the
assessment, or not move forward at all. This decision is entirely dependent on the resource
limitations involved and the allowable level of uncertainty. For example, if the assessment
requires a low level of uncertainty, but the time allowed to complete the assessment is not
sufficient for a rigorous in-depth analysis, the analyst may not be able to comply with that request
within the specified constraints.

Types of EJ Analyses

The two most common types of EJ assessments are targeting/screening assessments and
site specific assessments.

Targeting/screening assessments - These are proactive analyses aimed at characterizing
possible areas in need of assistance. These assessments support, for the most part, EPA
internal decision making practices such as allocating resources, increasing enforcement

-------
targeting, or qualifying communities for grants. These assessments are usually high level
studies with the objective of broadly describing a geographic area and its associated
population. Generally, they have high levels of allowable uncertainty and as such, involve
the use of few, if any, demanding quantitative methodologies and could be performed with
minimal lead time.

Site specific assessments - These are analyses performed in reaction to a known source(s)
of potential adverse environmental and/or human health effects, or any number of other
possible effects, such as economic, social, nuisance, etc., often including, but not restricted
to, a polluting facility. Some other sources of possible effects include motor vehicles,
overflowing sewers, ozone or particulate levels resulting from many sources, and actions
normally associated with other Federal agencies such as new roads or other transport
projects, various actions taken on Federal lands, etc.. The decisions hinging on these
assessments may include determining the need to reassess agency policies, regulations, or
the need for legislative changes; Title VI [Civil Rights Act] cases; EPA or a state approval
or modification of a permit; etc.. As mentioned previously, these assessments may be
highly visible and potentially controversial. As such, they may require low levels of
uncertainty (or high levels of accuracy) and high quality data and rigorous methodologies.

***

5. IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

EPA Region 4 enforcement personnel should ensure that potential EJ cases are prosecuted
vigorously and expeditiously. Since EJ communities typically suffer disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects of pollution, it is important to return violating
facilities to compliance as quickly as possible.

In addition, as the case is prosecuted, the enforcement team should be certain to keep the
community informed of developments and should seek community input into the resolution of
cases in an appropriate matter. Since every enforcement case is different, and the level of
community interest will vary depending upon the case, there is no single technique for ensuring
that community members are kept adequately informed and their views solicited.

This EJ Enforcement policy sets forth ideas for the enforcement team to consider in the
initiation, prosecution and resolution of an enforcement matter in order to accomplish this

-------
enhanced community involvement. It provides a menu of ideas which can be employed to ensure
that the Region meets its obligations under the Executive Order No. 12898 to carry out its
activities so as to achieve the goal of EJ.

1. Identifying Potential Environmental Justice Cases:

The litigation team should determine whether a particular matter is a potential EJ case.
Demographic research assistance should be gained from the Divisional EJ Coordinator(s) and
other resources within the Division.5 This should be done by using the criteria set forth in Section
3 (Basic Tools for Understanding and Implementing EJ), Section 4 (Conducting an EJ
Assessment), Appendix C and D. The lead program assignee on the case should ensure that this
determination of an EJ case is conducted.

The results of this analysis of demographic material and any other information available to
the enforcement team concerning community interest in the enforcement action should be
summarized in the referral package (in the case of judicial matters) or in a separate memorandum
accompanying the sign-off of administrative cases.

Specifically, the referral or sign-off memorandum should include answers to the following:

•	What are the demographic characteristics of the population adjacent to the facility of
concern. Has the census block group in which the facility is located or other potential
block groups (e.g. from a reasonable radii from the facility) been looked into?

•	Are there any other factors known to the enforcement team which suggest that the
potential EJ area of concern may be exposed to disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects, such as the number of other sources in the area or
information about health concerns within the community?

•	Should the case or matter be considered within an EJ area of concern based upon the
definitions and criteria in this EJ Policy in Sections 3,4, Appendix C and D?

•	Is the enforcement program staff person(s) aware of local citizens or community groups
who have expressed interest in the facility or area in question 6 and what is the nature of

5	Recommendations are being made to institutionalize this function, so that in the future, EPA
Region 4 may have centralized person(s) to proactively identify and inventory which regulated facilities
reside within potential EJ areas.

6	It may be useful to dialogue with the Divisional EJ Coordinators), Community Involvement
Coordinator(s) or other staff who may know of local groups or citizens who have previously contacted
EPA or have raised complaints, concerns, and interests before.

12

-------
that interest?

• What steps are contemplated at the present time for responding to potential EJ areas of
concern?

• Is the facility on or near an Indian reservation? Is the facility owned or operated by an
Indian Tribe? Is the facility located in Tribal ceded territory? (Ceded territory is any area
where a Tribe retains a treaty right to hunt, fish or gather resources. Maps of ceded
territory can be obtained from the EPA Region 4 Tribal Coordinator, as listed in Appendix
H.)

2. Implementing Environmental Justice in the Enforcement Process:

Once a case has been determined to be a potential EJ matter, the enforcement team should
recognize the need to give priority attention to the prosecution and resolution of the case. Also,
EPA Region 4 should act promptly to return violating facilities to compliance as quickly as
possible in order to minimize the continuing impacts of pollution or risk of pollution to such
communities.

In addition to giving priority to EJ matters, the enforcement team should consider
enhanced public outreach at the three stages in the enforcement process discussed below. It is
recognized that not all cases will be the same; in other words, minor administrative matters may
not call for the same degree of activity as larger cases involving considerable community interest.
However, the enforcement team should exercise its judgement about the kinds of activities which
are appropriate to the case, recognizing its responsibility under the Presidential Executive Order
No. 12898 on EJ, as well as Agency policy to promote EJ in all aspects of the performance of our
duties.

A. Initiation of Enforcement Actions. It is strongly encouraged that EPA Region 4
employees proactively help target enforcement in potential EJ areas of concern with the
annual Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) process with EPA Headquarter's Office of
Compliance and Enforcement (OECA). This MOA process allows an opportunity for
EPA Region 4 to help provide input on targeting manufacturing sectors that have a high
percentage of communities that fit EJ demographics, or list more specifically facilities that
reside in potential EJ areas of concern.7

Once a facility has been determined to have a significant enforcement action, ordinarily

7 For instance, a study generated from EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) for the Automobile
Sector (1998) found that a high majority of the neighboring communities could be classified having EJ
demographics (using 3-Mile Radius Demographic Profiles). The report can be accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/oar/opar/auto/

-------
EPA issues a press release announcing the commencement of significant enforcement
actions. The litigation team should consider going beyond this practice when there is
actual or potential interest in the matter, particularly for a potential EJ area of concern
This could include:

Making contact with the Divisional EJ Contacts (refer to Appendix H) and other
appropriate persons who will assist in public outreach during the course of the
litigation.8

Ensuring that persons or groups (e.g. local citizen or EJ groups) are aware of and
are informed of the commencement of the action. The EPA's original Notice of
Violations (NOV's) against the facility should be timely announced and forwarded
upon request to any interested community-based groups. Contact information of
known EJ and environmental groups/networks throughout the Southeast are
obtainable from the Regional Office of Environmental Justice and Divisional EJ
Coordinators.

For press releases, such as the initialization and finalization of enforcement actions,
consult with the Office of External Affairs, Press & Media Relations staff. This
OEA group can assist in customizing notice to particular groups and individuals
who may be interested in the action.9

B. Prosecution of Enforcement Actions. During the course of litigation, every
effort should be made to keep concerned citizens informed of significant
milestones in the litigation. At a minimum, since EPA has a responsibility to
respond to inquiries from the public, the litigation team should provide public
information about the litigation to members of the community, including the date
and nature of court hearings and the like. For matters with known community
interest, the litigation team should consider working with the Divisional EJ
Coordinators to provide regular updates on the litigation to interested persons and
groups.

Settlement discussions are a particularly sensitive aspect of litigation with
respect to community outreach. It is always appropriate to reveal that settlement
discussions are occurring. However, the specific terms of settlement discussions
are generally confidential and ordinarily should not be discussed with the general

8 The Divisional EJ Contacts may recommend collaboration with other resources, such as the
Office of External Affairs, Community Involvement Coordinators (otherwise known as Community
Relations Coordinators), etc.

9 It should be remembered that Agency personnel may neither confirm or deny the existence of any
criminal investigation.

-------
public. However, as discussed below, there are techniques for obtaining public
input into settlement terms when appropriate.

C. Resolution of Enforcement Actions. EJ should be considered in each aspect of
the resolution of an enforcement action: penalties; injunctive relief; and
Supplemental Environme : \l Projects (SFPs).

Penalties. As far as penalties are concerned, it should be recalled that the
Agency has been criticized for collecting lower penalties in EJ communities. In
calculating a penalty, the litigation should employ Agency penalty policies. These
policies allow for enhanced penalties for factors such as "sensitivity of surrounding
area" or other discretionary factors. In addition, the enforcement team should
consider, using relevant statutory and penalty policy criteria, whether penalty
amounts should be increased due to the seriousness of the violation given existing
burdens in the community (e.g. public health and environmental). Where
appropriate, the litigation team should consider these factors in calculating the
original penalty amount.

Injunctive Relief. Where a facility cannot immediately come into
compliance, the schedule for compliance may be a matter of intense public
concern. Community concerns about compliance issues may be magnified if public
health threats are perceived to be high (e.g. after a serious chemical accident, etc.)
Similarly, depending on the nature of the case, other aspects of injunctive relief
may have an impact upon the community. In these cases, it is appropriate (without
revealing the nature of settlement discussions) to solicit community input from
key, interested individuals on positions which EPA may take in the course of the
litigation (such as compliance schedule etc.).

The litigation team should also consider creative provisions which can
involve the community in injunctive relief at the facility. It is recognized that the
degree to which EPA can obtain agreement on these points is subject to
negotiation. Some examples could include:

•	Requirements that the company provide information or other outreach to
the community.

•	Requirements which provide a role of the community in monitoring
compliance at the facility.

•	Provisions for technical assistance to the community.

•	Provisions to facilitate citizen information committees for ongoing

15

-------
community involvement in longer-term remedies.

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). The litigation team should
endeavor to involve the community in SEP discussions with the defendant, EPA
Region 4 and the state or tribes (if applicable). SEPs are beneficial projects (local
pollution prevention or otherwise) to be performed by the regulated facility, in
order to substitute for some of the monetary penalties that would have otherwise
gone to the U.S. Treasury. SEPs are excellent opportunities for securing tangible
results to benefit the public health and environment for an EJ area of concern.

Any SEPs should be developed in accordance with the Agency "Supplemental
Environmental Projects" Guidance. The degree of involvement will depend on the
range of potential SEPs feasible for the enforcement action. Some methods for
obtaining community input include:

•	The Interim revised EPA "Supplemental Environmental Projects" Guidance
should be consulted both for the types of projects appropriate for SEPs and
suggestions for community involvement. This is located at
http://es.epa. gov/oeca/sep/.

•	Consider SEPs which have been used in other cases.

1. Consult with the Office of Environmental Assessment (OEA,

Environmental Accountability Division at 404-562-9669 or Becky
Allenbach at 404-562-9687), which is developing an EPA Region 4
"SEP Library" which will include ideas for possible SEPs that have
been generated in the course of other activities.

1. Consult the EPA HQ's Office of Regulatory Enforcement's SEP
internet site which serves as an aid to enforcement staff and to
regulated entities. The internet address is
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/sep/ The site provides access to SEP
Guidance Documents and the SEP National Database. The
guidance documents include the Interim Revised SEP Policy, a
"model" settlement decree and information on administrative
procedures involving SEPs. The national database contains
information about SEPs that have previously been included in
environmental enforcement settlements. You can search the
database on such parameters as the environmental statute, the
specific type of violation, the technical description of the SEP, and
the estimated cost of the project and the database will list SEPs that
match these criteria.

16

-------
2. Some examples of how SEPs involving EJ areas of concern have
been used in the past include establishing a SEP advisory board to
ensure that EJ issues are considered and monitored; testing
low-income and minority children' blood-lead levels and drinking
water supply lead levels; providing education to EJ communities
regarding issues of environmental concern, etc.

o If the enforcement matter is within a locality that contains a EPA Region 4
initiative (e.g. Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP)

Project area or others)10 consult with that project's Team Manager to
obtain other ideas for community projects which have been developed
through Team efforts.

o Consult directly with community groups who meaningfully represent the
impacted or affected community. Also consult with leaders who are a
resource for understanding the interests of a particular community. It's
important to involve interested members of the community in the process
of developing SEPs because members of the community may recognize
pollution sources and points of concern that will have a real impact on the
future well being of the community, which EPA could not otherwise assess.
Educational outreach concerning SEPs may be appropriate in some
communities.

The SEP policy actively encourages the use of creative settlement
approaches in enforcement actions, particularly where violations have been
identified in communities disproportionately impacted by environmental problems.
As always, the enforcement team has broad discretion in determining how to settle
cases. For EJ cases, this discretion is guided by the Executive Order No. 12898
and EPA to favor settlements that will address community concerns. The SEP
policy encourages the Regions to obtain SEPs which promote pollution prevention
and remedy environmental damage to reduce long-term exposures within affected
communities.

D. Actions Involving Indian Tribes. Whenever a potential enforcement action

involves an Indian tribe in any way, special procedures must be followed to ensure
that EPA fulfills its trust responsibility and "government-to-government"
relationship with Tribes. This policy applies when: 1) a facility is located within or
near an Indian reservation (even if owned and operated by non-Indians); 2) a
facility is owned or operated by an Indian Tribe; 3) a facility is located within
Indian ceded territory. Situations involving any of these factors should be brought

10 Other place-based initiatives include the Children's Health Initiative, Urban Initiatives,
Brownfields, and others which may have an emphasis on EJ.

-------
to the immediate attention of the EPA Region 4 Tribal Coordinator and the
program division's Tribal Coordinator.

E. Citizen Suit Provisions. Congress deliberately included citizen suit enforcement
provisions in federal environmental protection laws because of its awareness that
government resources may be insufficient to establish the enforcement presence or
threat needed to promote compliance. EPA staff are encouraged to pass on
general information about Citizen Suits to citizens and EJ groups in potential EJ
areas of concern."

F. Other Enforcement-Related Actions

1. Debarment and Suspension. The enforcement team should recognize the
need to consider a referral to the Office of Debarment when appropriate in
potential EJ areas of concern. The Office of Suspension & Debarment
includes an effective administrative tool to environmental noncompliance or
other misconduct. Suspension and Debarment actions prevent negligent
companies and individuals from participating in government contracts,
subcontracts, loans, grants and other assistance programs. The effect of
suspension and debarment by a Federal agency is government wide.12

2. Overfiling. As part of its oversight role, EPA enforcement teams should
recognize the need to evaluate state-based enforcement program actions in
potential EJ areas of concern. If a state-delegated enforcement activity is
deemed insufficient in EJ communities, if appropriate, the EPA should
consider overfiling. Such "overfiling" reflects the EPA's judgment that the
state enforcement is inadequate with respect to prosecution or resolution of
a case against a regulated facility.

G. Examples. Awaiting input.

*~*

11 A small pamphlet on Citizen Suits for distribution to community-based groups, may be
forthcoming, as a recommendation is being made.

12 See 48 C.F.R. Subpart 9.4 and 40 C.F.R. Part 32. Suspension and debarment actions protect
the government from doing business with individuals/companies/recipients who pose a business risk to the
government.

-------
19

-------
6. IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN
PERMITTING ACTIVITIES

This policy provides permitting staff with guidance on how to consider environmental
justice (EJ) in the context of EPA-lead pe; fitting decisions. Permitting decisions include new
permits, permit modifications (except administrative modifications), and permit renewals.
Following the steps outlined below will help to ensure that EPA's permitting decisions are
consistent with Executive Order No. 12898, and that these decisions meet the minimum
requirements identified by the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). 13

For State or Tribal-lead permitting matters, EPA permitting staff should encourage the
States and Tribes to consider EJ during its permitting process. Moreover, these federal funding
recipients should take into account EPA's Title VI [Civil Rights Act of 1964] Interim Guidance
for Permitting. This Guidance outlines the details of EPA's process for handling a Title VI [Civil
Rights Act] complaints against a federally funded agency, such as a State. Compliance with Title
VI is mandatory. The outcomes of a Title VI complaint filed by a citizen may include dismissal,
mitigation (permit modification) or even the withholding of federal funding. EPA and the State
agency should seek heightened coordination with one another when a permitting action for a
particular facility is perceived as having disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on a potential EJ community.

As of this time, there is currently no proven methodology for conducting a direct,
scientific assessment of disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects (disproportionate effects). However, EPA has access to extensive information about
demographics and about known sources of pollution through the GIS mapping system and various
databases. These databases should be supplemented with information obtained directly from
community members and through site visits, tribal, state and local units of government, and input
from CBEP teams. When analyzed, this information provides an indicator of actual impact to the
extent that this impact cannot be directly measured and modeled.

The first step is to determine whether the demographics of the impacted population may
raise EJ concerns because of the percentage of low-income and/or minority individuals in that
population. (An EJ Assessment can be conducted using Sections 3, 4, Appendix C and D.) If the
demographic analysis indicates a potential EJ area of concern, the permitting team should then
look at other specific sources of impact on that community, and evaluate whether the cumulative
impact of those sources is likely to create a disproportionate effect. Risks that may seem
acceptable in isolation may be more properly seen as being unacceptably high when the broader
social context, including associated health and environmental risks, are accounted for in a total

13 One good bibliographic reference is the "Draft Memorandum on Integrating EJ into EPA
Permitting Authority (7/18/96)," prepared by the Enforcement Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), which reports to the EPA Administrator (located at the
NEJAC web site, http://www.prcemi.com/nejac/publicat.html).

-------
aggregation. The appropriate response to a finding of disproportionate effect will rarely be permit
denial; and this should be clearly explained to the public. But in nearly every case where EPA
finds a disproportionate effect, the response should include increased public participation and
strengthened permit conditions.

1.	EPA Identification of P^ential Environmental Justice Permitting Cases:

The threshold question is whether the impacted population is within the scope of
Executive Order No. 12898. A demographic analysis and determination should be completed
prior to the initial public notice regarding the permit application, and should be made publicly
available no later than the time of the initial public notice. If the demographics indicate a potential
EJ community, the environmental and human health burden experienced by that community
should receive heightened scrutiny during the decision-making process.

A.	Screening and analysis: Use the EJ Policy Sections 3, 4, Appendix C and D to
determine if the permitting decision presents potential EJ concerns. In some cases
(i.e. cases involving air facilities) the impacted community may be different from or
extend beyond the community where the facility is located. The permit writer(s) or
reviewer(s) should determine the area of the demographic analysis based upon
his/her knowledge of the type and effect of the facility or source.

1.	Include the results of the demographic analysis in the Administrative
Record and other publicly available records.

2.	If the facility/source is on or near tribal lands, or may impact and American
Indian population, notify your Division Tribal Coordinator and the
Regional Tribal Coordinator (refer to Appendix H).

3.	Where demographic analysis indicates a potential EJ community, consider
the potential for disproportionate effects on the c< >mmunity.

B.	Public Involvement: Where the demographic analysis indicates a potential EJ
community, refer to Section 8 of this Policy document on EJ and Community
Involvement.

2.	Consideration of Surrounding Facilities With Respect To Permit Decision-Making:

The permitting writer(s) or reviewer(s) should consider known sources of potential
pollution exposure together with knowledge gained from community input and site visits. Based
upon this information, the permitting staff can estimate the actual level of risk experienced by a
potential EJ area of concern. This results in an evaluation of whether a community may face
disproportionate effects. This Section outlines three stages of review which are necessary to
determine potential impacts and to identify EPA's available resources.

A. Determine whether there are any other current or pending permits in this area administered
by the same Division.

21

-------
1. List name, ID number of any other permits.

2. Identify when each current permit will be up for renewal.

3. Identify facilities or sources for which a permit decision is pending (including
modifications). If known, identify when a final decision is expected.

4. Identify the permit writer and any assigned permitting staff. To the extent feasible,
collect information on the types, amounts and media of releases from each facility
or source.

5. Provide this information (#1-4 above) to all other affected permit staff, and
coordinate your efforts with your Divisional EJ Coordinator (s) and Divisional EJ
Work Team (if applicable). Meet as a team and jointly evaluate whether there is a
disproportionate effect on the community from these facilities. Have the team
consider the cumulative impacts from the universe of localized facilities and
pollution sources. If the team finds a disproportionate effect, the program should
consider developing a coordinated strategy to address EJ issues raised by
permitting in the impacted area.

B. Determine whether there are any other current or pending permits in this area administered
by other Divisions.

1. Complete #1-4 above.

2. Ask your Divisional EJ Coordinator to help you facilitate a joint inter-Division
decision determining if there is a disproportionate effect on the community from
these facilities. If the evaluation indicates a disproportionate effect, consider
developing a multi-media strategy to address EJ issues raised by permitting in the
impacted area.

C. Consider other environmental stresses which may contribute to disproportionate effects in
the community. Some possible sources of information are GIS mapping and a variety of
EPA databases, site visits, community input, tribal, state and local units of government,
and input from CBEP teams. Consider the cumulative effect of these sources of potential
exposure, and evaluate whether the community experiences disproportionate effects from
these sources of potential exposure. To the extent feasible, develop permit conditions
which will address adverse effects identified by the permitting team. Relevant factors may
include:

1. Emissions/ effluents: Point and nonpoint sources, including permitted and non-
permitted (violating) releases 14

14 Where appropriate, the permitting writer(s) or reviewer(s) should alert enforcement personnel to
the need for compliance inspections or enforcement actions. For example, for older facilities without any
history of having state or federal permitting review (except for CAA, Title V) a plant-wide audit may be
suggested. In addition, the permitting staff may take into consideration the facility's compliance record
(e.g. using the IDEA database) and the chemical accident record (e.g. using the ERNS database) in the

-------
2. Toxics: Presence of or exposure to highly toxic pollutants

3. Exposures: Multiple exposure sources and/or paths for the same pollutant

4. Pollutants: Potential exposure to multiple pollutants

5. Pesticides: Potential exposure to pesticides and to misuse of pesticides

6. Locations: Potential exposure through multiple locations (e.g., workplace,
schools, ambient) and proximity to populations

7. Concentrations: Potential exposure to emissions from concentrated locations

8. Health data: Health data for population in question which indicates abnormal
levels or 'clusters' of environmentally-influenced diseases. Such data may indicate
historical hazards and health risks which the contemplated permit could
exacerbate.

9. Other factors: Factors that are unlikely to pose a significant human health risk but
will affect the community should also be considered to the extent feasible. For
example, these factors may include odors, noise, increased vehicular traffic, and
decreased property values.

3. Community Self-Identification Of Permitting Case As EJ:

EPA should seek enhanced public participation where a community raises EJ concerns. If
a citizen or community group identifies EJ concerns in an area potentially impacted by EPA's
permit decision, the permitting writer(s) or reviewer(s) should respond to this self-identification.
Adequate community participation is an EJ issue whether or not the permitting staff identifies a
disproportionate effect.

Community self-identification should prompt the permitting staff to reconsider his/her
demographic analysis in light of specific information about the community. However, keep in
mind that if a self-identified community does not meet the demographic requirements for a
potential EJ area of concern, then it is not an EJ community. Also, self-identification as EJ by a
non-EJ community should not be allowed to unduly delay EPA's permitting decision.

See the EJ and Community Involvement Section 8, for guidance on implementing public
participation.

4. Responding to Disproportionate Effects Evaluations and Community Concerns:

This Section identifies specific responses which may be appropriate, based upon the
permitting staffs evaluation and public input. Every permitting situation is unique, and the
permitting writer(s) or reviewer(s) must exercise its best judgement.

Decisions by the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) indicate the core ingredients of an

permit issuance process. There may also be opportunities to institute voluntary emissions reduction
programs.

-------
effective response to EJ issues in the permitting process. The EAB has identified two broad areas
in which EPA should exercise its discretion to achieve EJ with regard to a permit.15 These areas
are: (1) public participation, and (2) the omnibus authority - EPA's authority under various
statutory and regulatory provisions to set conditions as it determines necessary to protect human
health and the environment.

A.	Enhance public participation. The EAB has held that "when the Region has a
basis to believe that operation of the facility may have a disproportionate effect on
a minority or low-income segment of the affected community, the Region should,
as a matter of policy, exercise its discretion to assure early and ongoing
opportunities for public involvement in the permitting process." 16 Early and
ongoing public participation helps achieve EJ by ensuring that citizen concerns and
information about the community have a meaningful influence on EPA's decision-
making process.

Public participation is a two-way process. EPA receives information,
comments and advice, and disseminates information, analyses, and decisions.
Established public participation procedures are not always adequate in minority or
low-income communities, where there may be additional barriers to
communication. These may include: language barriers; difficulty in traveling to
meeting locations or in meeting at particular times; failure to reach community
members through normal EPA communications; failure to identify the level of
education in a specific community, and a lack of trust which results in apathy or
loss of communication. Most of these barriers are easily overcome once they are
identified.

In general, the permitting staff should provide public participation

opportunities beyond the required minimum. The permitting staff should also seek
the advice of local groups and individuals on how to gain meaningful participation
within a specific community. Refer to the EJ and Community Involvement,
Section 8, for specific guidance on enhancing public participation.

B.	Consider exercising authority to set permit conditions. The omnibus authority
provided in various statutes and regulations gives EPA the discretion to write
permits that take disproportionate effects in to account.17 Permitting personnel

15	See In re: Chemical Waste Management of Indiana, Inc., RCRA Appeal Nos. 95-2 & 95-3
(June 29, 1995)

16	Id., at 17-18.

17	Consult with the EPA Region 4's Office of Legal Support to determine sources of omnibus
authority in particular permitting situations, if necessary. Authorities identified by the EAB include RCRA
Section 3005 (c)(3) (for TSD facility permits) and the SDWA, 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9) (for UIC

24

-------
should consider the following issues when developing permit conditions:

1. Monitoring. It may be appropriate to include permit conditions that set
additional monitoring requirements, or require the permitted facility to make
monitoring data more readily accessible to the impacted community.

2. Risk Reduction. Any additional steps which will reduce risk from a permitted
activity are appropriate, where the impacted population already faces a heightened
risk of harm to human health and the environment. The team may include
improved or more stringent standard operating procedures (SOPs) to reduce
releases, and therefore exposures. For example, SOPs may include surface facility
construction and material handling procedures to reduce air emissions.

3. Release Preparedness. Additional requirement for emergency preparedness
may be appropriate to address the risk from an accidental or unpermitted release.

EPA can also play an important role in encouraging the parties to reach separate
agreements outside the scope of the agency's permitting authority. For example,
the permit applicant and community members may be able to negotiate truck
routes or operating hours to eliminate the impact of a facility on that community.

C. Active Dialogue Between States, Tribes and EPA. As most permitting
programs are delegated, it is recommended that the EPA and the federally funded
agency have open discussions for permits in potential EJ areas of concern.
Collaborative dialogue on a draft or renewed permit, may be suggested if it
appears that it would be beneficial to modify permit conditions to increase the
protection of public health and environment in these potential EJ areas of concern.
In the course of the permitting process, thoughtful EJ consideration and discretion
may help avoid disproportionate high and adverse human health and environmental
effects of pollution, as well as help prevent Title VI [Gvil Rights Act] complaints.

D. Examples. Awaiting input.

***

permits). Other relevant provisions include 40 C.F.R. § 761.60(e) (for alternate PCB disposal under
TSCA); CAA Section 173(a)(5), 42 U.S.C. § 7503(a)(5) (for permits in nonattainment areas); and CWA
Section 402(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1) (for NPDES permits).

-------
7. IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN
REMEDIATION AND OTHER ACTIVITIES

This policy provides regional staff engaged in remedial, removal, site investigation and
othei non-permittmg/non-e>\ jrcemer: activities [e.g. the annual state-based Performance
Partnership Agreement (PPA) process, environmental impact statements under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)] with general policy guidance on how to integrate
environmental justice (EJ) into these activities.

This Section's policy, like other sections, was not developed to address each and every EJ
opportunity or situation that EPA staff may encounter; rather, its purpose is to establish an EJ
framework for decision-making. In certain instances of cleanup or site remediation activities,
those involving an immediate threat or actual endangerment to human health or the environment
may require some deviation from this guidance. Some emergency situations, in which time is of
the essence, may not present opportunities for high level of community involvement in
environmental decision-making. In those instance, the high priority may be a timely community
notification which triggers an evacuation. In the activities of NEPA, the scoping, and subsequent
processes naturally lends itself to having citizens in potential EJ areas of concerns fully participate
in environmental decision-making on matters concerning impacts from construction and other
projects. As for PPA's, this agreement lends itself to meaningful community involvement, as the
EPA/state process is one of planning, dialogue and making annual environmental commitments.

By following the steps outlined below, as well as being familiar with the Section 8 (EJ and
Community Involvement), staff can do their part to ensure that these kinds of non-enforcement
and non-permitting activities are consistent with the Presidential Executive Order on EJ, No.
12898, as well as national EPA and regional EJ strategies and policies.

A. Remediation-Related Activities

For EPA-lead remediation activities for Superfund, regional staff should take advantage of
the in-house infrastructure that has Community Involvement (or Relations) Coordinators and
Divisional EJ Coordinators. Remedial and Removal personnel should also ensure that the
environmental laws are being treated in a fair manner and that meaningful involvement is carried
out for all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income.

For state-lead remediation activities, regional staff should encourage the state agency to
consider EJ in its decision-making processes. EPA Region 4 and the state agency should seek to
heighten the level of coordination with one another when remediation actions may be perceived to
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on an EJ area of
concern.

-------
1. Identification of Potential E.T Remediation Cases:

The threshold question is whether the impacted population is within the scope of

Executive Order No. 12898. A demographic analysis would be the best tool to make this
determination. The results of this analysis should be made publicly available during the
initial stages of remediation or during the initial public meeting. If the demographics
indicate a potential EJ community, the environmental and human health burden
experienced by that community should receive heightened scrutiny during the decision-
making process.

A. Screening and analysis for Demographics: In some cases the impacted community
may be different from or extend beyond the community boundaries where the
remediation activity is occurring. In such cases, the regional project manager
should determine the area of the demographic analysis based upon his/her
knowledge of the site and sampling results.

1.	The first step is to determine whether the demographics of the impacted
population raise EJ concerns because of the percentage of low-income
and/or minority individuals in that population. The outline in Sections 3, 4,
Appendix C and D should be followed.

2.	Make the results of the demographic analysis and sampling publicly
available as soon as these have been obtained.

3. If the site is on or near tribal lands, or may impact an Indigenous

population, the regional project managers should notify the Regional Tribal
Coordinator.

B. Screening and analysis for Disproportionate Effects: If a demographic analysis
screen indicates potential EJ concerns, the regional project manager should then
look at other specific sources of impact on that community (Le., RCRA facilities,
pesticide facilities, air emissions, NPL sites, etc.) and evaluate whether the
cumulative impact of those sources is likely to create a disproportionate effect.
The results of this evaluation should be incorporated into the remediation decision-
making, and the finding of disproportionate impact should result in increased
public participation and outreach.

As stated in Sections 3 and 4, due to emerging policies, there is currently no
proven methodology for conducting a direct, scientific assessment of
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects.
However, regional staff should take a preliminary step to assess possible
disproportionate effects by accessing extensive information about demographics
and about known sources of pollution through the GIS mapping system and

27

-------
various databases. These databases should be supplemented with information
obtained directly from community members through site visits and input from
CBEP, Brownfields or other place-based teams. When analyzed, this information
should provide an indicator of actual impact to the extent that this impact cannot
be directly measured and modeled.

2. Community Self-Identification Of Remediation Site As E.I:

The Region should seek to enhance public participation and outreach where a
community raises EJ concerns. If a citizen or community group identifies EJ concerns in
an area potentially impacted by the clean-up activity, the regional project manager should
respond to this self-identification. Adequate community participation is an issue whether
or not the project manapr identifies that the community officially falls within the
threshold demographic values (see Appendix C and D) or is officially found to have
disproportionate effects.

3. Responding to Community Concerns:

Public participation is a two-way process. EPA Region 4 staff have the capability
to foster this by having intimate knowledge of the progress on a remedial activity. Staff
are obliged to provide customer service of this information by sharing it with community
constituents in a timely and proactive manner, and in a manner that can be understood.
Draft work plans or progress reports that are shared by (or with) responsible parties doing
the clean-up may be also be shared with leaders of local community groups that have
shown a real interest in being informed of incremental steps of progress. The use of
"carbon copies" can be used as a practice to regularly inform citizens when the Superfund
process or other EPA processes are making headway. Providing thorough answers in
layperson terms and follow-up to community inquiries, questions, concerns are essential to
maintain EPA Region 4's credibility. (See Section 8, EJ and Community Involvement, for
more detailed information.)

Besides this information distribution, EPA Region 4 staff should look for
opportunities for meaningful community involvement in decision-making. Community
involvement revolves around the principles that "People should have a say in decisions
about actions which affect their lives" and that "Public participation includes the promise
that the public's contribution will influence the decision." 18 Project managers should be
alert to issues that potential EJ communities of concern raise, particularly off-site pollution
migration (e.g. air pollution fall-out or surface water run off, etc.) beyond the traditional
fence-lines of Superfund or other EPA sites. In the long run, a community-based

18 These values are adapted from the "The Model Plan for Public Participation" publication by
EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) (found at this internet web site,
http://www.prcemi.com/nejac/publicat.html.)

-------
consensus decision is often one that will stand the test of time. Early "buy-in,"
consideration and incorporation of citizen concerns aid in the creation of better
environmental solutions.

Ensuring adequate public participation may be a challenge in minority or low-
income communities where there may be additional barriers to communication. These
may include difficulty in traveling to meeting locations, lack of sufficient notice of
meetings, language barriers, etc. These barriers in and of themselves may result in a lack
of trust which could lead to a loss of communication. Therefore, EPA staff should make
decisions that will limit these barriers, if possible.

4. Responding to Grants/Economic Development-Related Concerns in the
Remediation Process:

This section identifies specific responses which may address grants/economic
related questions, based on the project manager's evaluation and the public request for
grant/economic development information. Every remediation situation is unique, and
regional project managers must exercise his/her best judgement when providing
grant/economic development related information.

A. Economic development and the availability of grants often is an underlying concern
faced by EJ communities involved in an environmental remediation. The general
information provided below should aid regional project managers in responding to
questions on this subject matter.

1.	Grants. Regional project managers should make EJ community groups or
individuals aware of the availability of such funding small grant funding
tools such as: EJ Small Grants, EJP2 Grants, and the Environmental
Education Grant. Many of these have grant application windows in the
Spring of each year. Other worthwhile grants include Lead Abatement and
Technical Assistance Grants (TAG). Each division may also award grants
on a discretionary basis for specific EJ projects mandated by that Division's
senior leadership. To obtain information on specific EJ projects, the
regional project manager should contact the appropriate division's EJ
coordinator.

2.	Economic Development. The Worker Training, CBEP and Brownfields
programs are tools for achieving economic development in EJ
communities. The regional project manager should refer concerned groups
or individuals to the appropriate regional contacts responsible for managing
these programs. (Refer to Appendix H.) If an economic development
project is underway in the community, the regional project manager should
take steps to include appropriate staff in public meetings, etc.

29

-------
B.

Environmental Assessment or Impact Activities

EPA can apply EJ considerations during the review or composing environmental assessments
(EA's) or environmental impact statements (EIS). These activities are covered under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) for its: research and development activities; facilities construction;
wastewater treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act and under certain
Appropriations Acts; and EPA-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for new sources subject to new source performance standards. A guidance document entitled
"Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance
Analyses" is available to assist EPA staff responsible for developing EPA NEPA compliance
documentation, including EISs and EAs.

This EJ-related guidance is intended to 1) heighten awareness of EPA staff in addressing EJ
issues within NEPA analyses and considering the full potential for disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; 2) present basic
procedures for identifying and describing junctures in the NEPA process where environmental justice
issues may be encountered; 3) present procedures for addressing disproportionately high and adverse
effects to evaluate alternative actions, and; 4) present methods for communicating with the affected
population throughout the NEPA process.

This guidance should be considered when conducting NEPA compliance analyses.

C.	Performance Partnership Agreements (PPA's)

Region 4 participates in the National Environmental Performance Partnership System through
the development of Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) and Performance Partnership
Agreements, (PPAs), with states/tribes. The PPA is a strategic document with negotiated
environmental priorities and goals agreed to by the Regional Administrator and the State/Tribe which
may also be used as a workplan for a grant (i.e., PPG). The PPA will identify EPA roles and
responsibilities, state-EPA initiatives, and special focus areas as well. Because this document outlines
the environmental commitments/initiatives of a State/Tribe, it is imperative that all EJ stakeholders
participates in the development of this strategy.

Region 4 staff should encourage states/tribes using the PPA/PPG process or the traditional
categorical workplan process to include EJ components in their environmental protection activities.
In the creation of these annual agreements, EJ organizations/groups should be invited to participate
in the public dialogues before these agreements become final. A listing of EJ organizations/groups
located in Region 4 can be obtained from the Divisional EJ Coordinator or the Regional Office of EJ.

D.	Examples: Awaiting Input

30

-------

8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT

PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to provide EPA Region 4 guidance when assisting
communities affected by environmental injustice. Whether it's a permitting, enforcement,
remediation or other EPA activity, this policy should be implemented in potential EJ areas of
concern. For assistance, please be sure to contact the appropriate Divisional EJ Coordinator(s)
and Tribal Coordinators (if appropriate). (Refer to Appendix H for a list of helpful contacts.)

The core values for the practice of community involvement19 include:

• People should have a say in decisions about actions which affect their lives;

• Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will
influence the decision;

• The community involvement process communicates the interest and meets the
process needs of all participants;

• The public participation process seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those
potentially affected;

• The process involves participants in defining how they participate;

• The community involvement process communicates to participants how their input
was, or was not, utilized; and

• The public participation process provides participants with the information they
need to participate in a meaningful way.

This policy will assist the "case team" in selecting kinds of community involvement and
outreach for the potential EJ area of concern. Becoming familiar with the outlined checklist
below is a very good start. The Public Participation Model" publication by EPA's National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), supplements this checklist and can be obtained

19 These values are adapted from the "The Model Plan for Public Participation" publication by
EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) (found at this internet web site,
http://www. prcemi.com/nejac/publicat. html.)

-------
from the Region 4 Office of Environmental Justice. (This also can be located at the NEJAC web
site, under publications at httD://www.prcemi.com/neiac/publicat.htmU

WHO DO I CONTACT ?

To obtain assistance, contact your Divisional EJ Coordinator(s) and other community-based staff
(e.g. Community Involvement Coordinators, if applicable). Community involvement is a
customer service responsibility that every EPA Region 4 staff is empowered to provide and
promote.

COMMUNITY CHECKLIST
I. Identify Stakeholders

Developing a relationship with community organizations and residents is essential for
successful public participation. Consider placing a higher priority on involving groups and
individuals who actually reside within the EJ area of concern and who may be at higher risk to
exposure to environmental hazards, versus those stakeholders which live farther away.

Conducting community interviews helps EPA identify interested stakeholders. In addition,
contacting EJ networks (e.g. the non-profit Southern Organizing Committee) can place you in
touch with small community grass-roots groups in different Southeast localities. The interviews
also provide the EJ stakeholders and community leaders an opportunity to offer input into
decisions that may affect their health, property values and lifestyles. The stakeholders include:

-	Grassroots!community-based organizations

—	Environmental organizations

—	Homeowner and resident organizations

-	Civic/public interest groups

-	Medical community

—	Indigenous people

-	Not-for-profits and non-governmental organizations

—	Religious and spiritual community

—	Business and trade organizations

—	Industry

—	Government Agencies (federal, state, county, local and tribal)

-	Local institutions and foundations

-	Educational institutions and academia (Minority Academic Institutions)

-	Medial Press

32

-------
The community interviews are conducted to assess the potential EJ area of concerns
through one-on-one conversations, small group meetings and/or telephone. The interview
process allows the case team to relay what the Agency may like to do, inform the community on
how they can become involved, and request when and how the community would prefer to
receive information. Examples of questions which should be asked during the interviews are:

•	When did you first become aware of environmental problems in your community?

•	Do community residents believe their health, or their children's health, may be affected by
local pollution?

•	What are your current concerns, and how have you acted on these concerns?

•	How sensitive is the public in the area to environmental issues?

•	How does the community typically perceive the presence of federal/state officials in the
community?

What kinds of issues have attracted the most public attention?

•	Are you interested in receiving more information about environmental issues in your
community? If yes, what's the best way to provide that information to you?

•	What kinds of information do you need?

•	Has an active vocal group leader (or leaders) emerged in the community?

•	Can you suggest other individuals or groups that should be contacted for additional
information?

2. Prepare a Community Involvement Plan or Communications Strategy

After conducting the community interviews, the case team should consider developing a
Community Involvement Plan (CIP) or Communications Strategy to identify the community's
concerns and outline the planned community involvement activities. If devised and implemented,
these plans or strategies can successfully build community-based environmental solutions and help
minimize disputes or conflicts later on. An effective and thorough CIP should include the
following items:

•	describe the environmental process and programs involved

•	address EJ and community-based environmental protection issues
site or area description and history

•	depict community profile and demographics

•	highlight key community concerns

•	chronology of expected community involvement activities detailing the areas
where the community can participate

•	define timelines and techniques (fact sheets, update letters, flyers, meetings)

•	lists of contacts and interested parties

•	locations for information repositories and administrative record

•	potential locations for public meetings

33

-------
newspaper articles

Identify ways to communicate pertinent information to the community. Ensure language
and cultural barriers are overcome by translating documents into various languages to best meet
the community's needs; provide technical assistance as necessary; address literacy, access to
information and privacy issues; and reconfirm the community's preferred types of
communications. Consider creating a mailing list encompassing the surrounding community
(within one or two mile radius of the potential EJ area of concern).

3.	Establish Local Forums for Community Input or Resolutions

Community Advisory Groups (CAG) are a way to seek out representatives of diverse
community interests, and facilitate their involvement. Some programs (e.g. Superfund and
Community-Based Environmental Projects) have proven CAG's are worthwhile where there is
sufficient and sustained interest. By establishing CAG's, they provide a setting in which
representatives of the local community can receive up-to-date information about the status of
activities (e.g. cleanups, etc.) by state and federal agencies. In addition, CAG's have proven
themselves as effective vehicles to surface other localized environmental problems (outside EPA's
jurisdiction), so that problem identification and solving on a local level can occur.

The CAG should definitely have a makeup of impacted community residents, as well as
local public interest groups which have as a high priority the public health and environment of the
community. The CAG nomination and selection process should ensure that people with these two
goals in mind are balanced against residents with a heavy emphasis on economic priorities. In
addition, resources may be leveraged by ensuring representation of local expertise for technical
and science reviews. The CAG can be an effective public forum in which all affected and
interested parties can have a voice and actively participate in the case resolution.

In potential EJ areas of concern where a certain case or situation raises serious conflicts
between citizens and states or citizens and industry, EPA staff may elect to apply environmental
dispute resolution practices. EPA Region 4 staff should be aware that the annual EPA Region 4
budget contains appropriated funds for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training and
interventions. In controversial, high profile or complex cases, staff should consider the benefits of
applying ADR skills. Conflicts may be resolved by finding constructive solutions with community
involvement.

4.	Host Public Meetings and Availability Sessions

Public participation is encouraged through public meetings and availability sessions.

These meetings help educate the community and provide a means for the community to influence
EPA's decisions and actions. A public meeting is a more formal meeting in a large group setting
with an outlined agenda and presentations, whereas an availability session is an informal meeting
which allows the community to ask questions of federal representatives on a one-to-one basis.

34

-------
An important point is to advertise public meetings in the affected community's local paper.
Distribute notifications (i.e. flyers) announcing public meetings and availability sessions to the
mailing list to encourage active public participation. Every notification will have a phone number
and address for communities to contact regarding meetings, pending issues, entering concerns,
seek participation and/or add items to the meeting agenda. Issue press releases to the local media
announcing the meeting. The Office of External Affairs (OEA) Press and Media Relations staff
will be accessible to the writing/'iaiting press releases, ariu supporting press conferees and
media events. The Press and Media Relations staff will also assist with writing/editing press
releases, and supporting press conferences and media events. Contact local television and radio
stations when meetings are scheduled. Develop public service announcements to announce
activities occurring in the community.

When scheduling public meetings ensure time frames do not conflict with work schedules,
rush hours, and other community commitments that may decrease attendance. Where appropriate
translators will be provided for limited-English speaking communities.20 Where majority of
potentially affected audiences speak a language other than English, EPA will find a translator.
However, in fragmented communities with multiple ethnic backgrounds, English will be the
language of choice. Below are some items to remember when planning a public meeting:

•	Meeting should accessible (close to public transportation and adequate parking).

•	Meeting should be held in a neutral location (public library, local church,
community center, local school, etc.).

•	Visual aids should be used to reiterate the work and allow for more effective
communication (flip charts, maps, poster boards, overheads, slides, handouts, etc.)
Graphics, posters exhibits and software materials may also be used to increase
participation of EJ stakeholders.

•	Create an accepting environment (i.e., avoid use of panels and head tables as room
layouts.).

•	Meeting timeliness (time of day and year - evenings and weekends accommodate
working people, and careful scheduling can avoid conflicts with other community
or cultural events).

5. Follow-Up After Public Meetine

Follow-up is considered essential for maintaining EPA credibility in potential EJ areas of
concern. After holding a public meeting/availability session, establish and maintain a procedure to
follow up with concrete actions to address the communities' concerns, particularly if questions
arise which are not answered at the meeting. Examples include, but are not limited to: letters, fact

20 For translating some EPA written publications (e.g. meeting notices, press releases, etc.) from
English to the foreign language (e.g. hispanic, Asian languages, etc.) within Superfund potential EJ areas of
concern, call the Superfund Technical Support Center at (703) 603-8901, Romega Dugger. OSWER
currently has a contract with the U.S. State Department for these kinds of services.

35

-------
sheets, phone calls, and site visits. Workshops, seminars and grants are an effective mechanism to
develop partnerships between agencies, workers and community groups. Formation of
cooperative agreements can be beneficial to all parties involved.

The Divisional EJ Coordinators, Community Relations and other communications staff
will assist in prpoaring and exploring otVler options including:

• Repository of EPA documents at local library

• Surveys and or Internet feedback

• Telephone Hotline

• Notification of EPA Small Grants and Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
programs

• Training and Education Programs, Workshops and Materials

• Public database and Bulletin Boards

• Participation in Civic and Community Activities

• Formation of Community Advisory Groups (CAG)

For creating sustaining technical support links to the community, it may be effective for
EPA to contact local institutions and foundations. Contact, as appropriate, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutes (MI), Hispanic Serving Colleges and
Universities (HSCU), Indian Centers and other groups. Some HBCU's have been very effective
in lending technical support to deserving community groups.

Grants can be an effective tool for empowering and expanding the capacity of the
community to organize, monitor and play a continuing role in environmental decision-making.
Contact the Office of EJ and the Divisional EJ Coordinators to understand the current selection,
availability and deadlines of grants (most of which proposals are due in Spring of 1998). EPA
Region 4 is planning to provide a Grant Writing Support Training for potential grantees. The
purpose of the workshop will be to assist communities in writing grants, present tips for
developing competitive grant applications, and to provide an overview of the small grants
programs (e.g. EJ, Environmental Education, EJ and Pollution Prevention). These $20,000 (or
less) small grants can go a long way to help build community education on environmental and
public health issues. Technical Assistance Grants (available from the Superfund program) are
$50,000 grant which help communities with technical assistance on long-term cleanups. Grants
are an effective tool to help foster collective participation in decisions that affect a communities'
well being.

***

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 12898

FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN
MINORITY POPULATIONS AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS

By the authority vested in me President by the Constitutor and the laws of the UrL.^u
States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1-1. Implementation

1-101. Agency Responsibilities. To the greatest extend practicable and permitted by law, and
consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review,
each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana
Islands.

1-102. Creation of an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, (a) Within 3
months of the date of this order, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
("Administrator") or the Administrator's designee shall convene an interagency Federal
Working Group on Environmental Justice ("Working Group"). The Working Group shall
comprise the heads of the following executive agencies and offices or their designees: (a)
Department of Defense; (b) Department of Health and Human Services; (c) Department of
Housing and Urban Development; (d) Department of Labor; (e) Department of Agriculture;
(f) Department of Transportation; (g) Department of Justice; (h) Department of the Interior;

(1)	Department of Commerce; (j) Department of Energy; (k) Environmental Protection
Agency; (1) Office of Management and Budget; (m) Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(n) Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy; (o) Office of the
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; (p) National Economic Council; (q) Council of
Economic Advisers; and (r) such other Government officials as the President may designate.
The Working Group shall report to the president through the Deputy Assistant to the
President for Environmental Policy and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

(b) The Working Group shall: (1) provide guidance to Federal agencies on criteria for
identifying disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on
minority populations and low-income populations;

(2)	coordinate with, provide guidance to, and serve as a clearinghouse for, each Federal
agency as it develops an environmental justice strategy as required by section 1-103 of this
order, in order to ensure that the administration, interpretation and enforcement of programs,
activities and policies are undertaken in a consistent manner;

(3)	assist in coordinating research by, and stimulating cooperation among, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and other agencies conducting research or other activities
in accordance with section 3-3 of this order;

1

-------
(4)	assist in coordinating data collection, required by this order;

(5)	examine existing data and studies on environmental justice;

(6)	hold public meetings as required in section 5-502(d) of this order; and

(7)	develop interagency model projects on environmental justice that evidence cooperation
among Federal agencies.

1-103. Development of Agency Strategies, (a) Except as provided in section 6-605 of this
order, each Federal agency shall develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy, as
set forth in subsections (b)-(e) of this section that identifies and addresses disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities
on minority populations and low-income populations. The environmental justice strategy shall
list programs, policies, planning and public participation processes, enforcement and/or rule
makings related to human health or the environment that should be revised to, at a minimum:
(1) promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority
populations and low-income populations; (2) ensure greater public participation; (3) improve
research and data collection relating to the health of and environment of minority populations
and low-income populations; and (4) identify differential patterns of consumption of natural
resources among minority populations and low-income populations. In addition, the
environmental justice strategy shall include, where appropriate, a timetable for undertaking
identified revisions and consideration of economic and social implications of the revisions.

(b)	Within 4 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall identify an internal
administrative process for developing its environmental justice strategy, and shall inform the
Working Group of the process.

(c)	Within 6 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall provide the Working
Group with an outline of its proposed environmental justice strategy.

(d)	Within 10 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall provide the
Working Group with its proposed environmental justice strategy.

(e)	Within 12 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall finalize its
environmental justice strategy and provide a copy and written description of its strategy to the
Working Group. During the 12 month period from the date of this order, each Federal
agency, as part of its environmental justice strategy, shall identify several specific projects that
can be promptly undertaken to address particular concerns identified during the development
of the proposed environmental justice strategy and a schedule for implementing those
projects.

(f)	Within 24 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall report to the
Working Group on its progress in implementing its agency-wide environmental justice
strategy.

(g)	Federal agencies shall provide additional periodic reports to the Working Group as
requested by the Working Group.

1-104. Reports to the President. Within 14 months of the date of this order, the Working
Group shall submit to the President, through the Office of the Deputy Assistant to the

2

-------
President for Environmental Policy and the Office of the Assistant to the President for
Domestic Policy, a report that describes the implementation of this order, and includes the
final environmental justice strategies described in section l-103(e) of this order.

Section 2-2. Federal Agency Responsibilities for Federal Programs

Each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially
affect human nealth or t' . environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies,
and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) from
participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons
(including populations) to discrimination under, such programs, policies, and activities,
because of their race, color, or national origin.

Section 3-3. Research, Data Collection, and Analysis

3-301. Human Health and Environmental Research and Analysis, (a) Environmental human
health research, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall include diverse segments of the
population in epidemiological and clinical studies, including segments at high risk from
environmental hazards, such as minority populations, low-income populations and workers
who may be exposed to substantial environmental hazards.

(b)	Environmental human health analyses, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall identify
multiple and cumulative exposures.

(c)	Federal agencies shall provide minority populations and low-income populations the
opportunity to comment on the development and design of research strategies undertaken
pursuant to this order.

3-302. Human Health and Environmental Data Collection and Analysis. To the extent
permitted by existing law, including the Privacy Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. section 552a): (a)
each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and
analyze information assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks borne by
populations identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent practical and
appropriate, Federal agencies shall use this information to determine whether their programs,
policies, and activities have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations;

(b)	In connection with the development and implementation of agency strategies in section
1-103 of this order, each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall
collect, maintain and analyze information on the race, national origin, income level, and other
readily accessible and appropriate information for areas surrounding facilities or sites
expected to have a substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect on the
surrounding populations, when such facilities or sites become the subject of a substantial
Federal environmental administrative or judicial action. Such information shall be made
available to the public, unless prohibited by law; and

(c)	Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and
analyze information on the race, national origin, income level, and other readily accessible and
appropriate information for areas surrounding Federal facilities that are: (1) subject to the
reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act,
42 U.S.C. section 11001-11050 as mandated in Executive Order No. 12856; and (2)

3

-------
expected to have a substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect on
surrounding populations. Such information shall be made available to the public, unless
prohibited by law.

(d) In carrying out the responsibilities in this section, each Federal agency, whenever
practicable and appropriate, shall share information and eliminate unnecessary duplication of
efforts through the use of existing data systems and cooperative agreements among Federal
agencies and with State, local, and tribal governments.

Section 4-4. Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife

4-401. Consumption Patterns. In order to assist in identifying the need for ensuring protection
of populations with differential patterns of subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife,
Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze
information on the consumption patterns of populations who principally rely on fish and/or
wildlife for subsistence. Federal agencies shall communicate to the public the risks of those
consumption patterns.

4-402. Guidance. Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall work in a
coordinated manner to publish guidance reflecting the latest scientific information available
concerning methods for evaluating the human health risks associated with the consumption of
pollutant-bearing fish or wildlife. Agencies shall consider such guidance in developing their
policies and rules.

Section 5-5. Public Participation and Access to Information

(a)	The public may submit recommendations to Federal agencies relating to the incorporation
of environmental justice principles into Federal agency programs or policies. Each Federal
agency shall convey such recommendations to the Working Group.

(b)	Each Federal agency may, whenever practicable and appropriate, translate crucial public
documents, notices, and hearings relating to human health or the environment for limited
English speaking populations.

(c)	Each Federal agency shall work to ensure that public documents, notices, and hearings
relating to human health or the environment are concise, understandable, and readily
accessible to the public.

(d)	The Working Group shall hold public meetings, as appropriate, for the purpose of
fact-finding, receiving public comments, and conducting inquiries concerning environmental
justice. The Working Group shall prepare for public review a summary of the comments and
recommendations discussed at the public meetings.

Section 6-6. General Provisions

6-601. Responsibility for Agency Implementation. The head of each Federal agency shall be
responsible for ensuring compliance with this order. Each Federal agency shall conduct
internal reviews and take such other steps as may be necessary to monitor compliance with
this order.

6-602. Executive Order No. 12250. This Executive order is intended to supplement but not

4

-------
supersede Executive Order No. 12250, which requires consistent and effective
implementation of various laws prohibiting discriminatory practices in programs receiving
Federal financial assistance. Nothing herein shall limit the effect or mandate of Executive
Order No. 12250.

6-603. Executive Order No. 12875. This Executive order is not intended to limit the effect or
mandate of Executive Order No. 12875.

6-604. Scope. For purposes of this order, Federal agency means any agency on the Working
group, and such other agencies as may be designated by the President, that conducts any
Federal program or activity that substantially affects human health or the environment.
Independent agencies are requested to comply with the provisions of this order.

6-605. Petitions for Exemptions. The head of a Federal agency may petition the President for
an exemption from the requirements of this order on the grounds that all or some of the
petitioning agency's program" or activities should not be subject to the requirements of this
order.

6-606. Native American Programs. Each Federal agency responsibility set forth under this
order shall apply equally to Native American programs. In addition, the Department of the
Interior, in coordination with the Working Group, and, after consultation with tribal leaders,
shall coordinate steps to be taken pursuant to this order that address Federally-recognized
Indian Tribes.

6-607. Costs. Unless otherwise provided by law, Federal agencies shall assume the financial
costs of complying with this order.

6-608. General. Federal agencies shall implement this order consistent with, and to the extent
permitted by, existing law.

6-609. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the
executive branch and is not intended to, nor does it create any right, benefit, or trust
responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the
United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. This order shall not be construed to
create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or non-compliance of the United
States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with this order.

William J. Clinton
The White House
11 February 1994

-------
APPENDIX B

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMPLAINT INTAKE FORM

[Please Print or Type]

Date of Intake:

EJ Tracking #:

May EPA disclose this information?
~ YES	~ NO

Interviewer's Name

Office/Division 	

Tele Ext. 	

OEJ Contact Person _
Telephone Extension

Division EJ Coordinator
Telephone Extension	



Intake via: ~ Telephone ~ Fax ~ Letter O Other

(explain
below)

Complaint referred to EPA Lead Prog nun Contact Person:

IDate]

EPA Lead Contact Name
Office/Division	

Tele Ext

Complainant's Name

Representing Communitj/OrguiiiaUon Name

Street Address

/

City

/

County

State Zip Code

Home Telephone Number

Office

Fax

Location of Problem:

Company/Facility Name or Impacted Geographical Area

Street Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Telephone Number

Predominant Racial/Ethnic Makeup of the Community (Check one of the following)

~	African-American/Black ~ Caucasian/White (not of Hispanic origin)
~ Asian/Pacific Islander ~ Native American

~	Of Hispanic Origin	~ Other (Please Specify)	

Source of Information:

Census Statistics

[Year]

~ Complainant ~ Other
[Explain Below]

TYPE OF INTAKE: [Check all that apply]

~	Environmental Justice ~ Title VI

~	Individual Complaint	~ General Information

~	Community/Organization Complaint

Nature of the Problem: (Check all thai apply)

HI Air mi Water D Soil O Multi-media

D Solid/Hazardous Waste	D Pestlcidesft'oxins

D Other	

Specify)

hen Did You First Notice Pleblem?	

ow long has the problem existed?	

YeaHs) 	Month(s) 	Week(s) 	

_Day( s)

(COMPLAINT SUMMARY-- DESCRIBE BELOW)

(Attach additional pages if necessary)

EJCIF(Rev 4 -Side 1)6/11/98

-------
EJCIF(Rev 4-Side 2)6-11-98

-------
APPENDIX C

-------
Relative Thresholds for EPA Region 4

For additional explanation, please refer to Section 3 (Basic Tools for Understanding and
Implementing EJ) and Section 4 (Conducting an EJ Assessment). The following "relative
thresholds" should be used when determining EJ demographics within target areas for EPA
cases.1 "Absolute thresholds" are listed in Appendix D.

The relative threshold values below were derived from the 1990 Census of Population and
Housing, Summary Tape File 3 (STF3) data. The specific definitions for each of the relative
thresholds are as follows:

Minority Threshold - The percent of minority persons, by state, multiplied by a factor of 1.2.

Low-Income Threshold (15K) - The percent of households below the 15K income level, by
state.

Low-Income Threshold (Poverty) -The percent of persons below the poverty level, by state.

State

Minority Threshold

Low-Income
Threshold (15K)

Low-Income
Threshold (Poverty)

Alabama

32.10%

33.13%

18.34%

Florida

31.99%

25.01%

12.69%

Georgia

35.72%

25.45%

14.65%

Kentucky

9.95%

34.61%

19.03%

Mississippi

44.30%

39.24%

25.21%

North Carolina

29.89%

27.00%

12.97%

South Carolina

37.68%

28.26%

15.37%

Tennessee

20.89%

30.49%

15.70%

Revision #1; 7/1/98

1 "Case" broadly means any site, project, community, area, inspection, enforcement
action, regulated facility permitting action, administrative case, or judicial case.

-------
APPENDIX D

-------
Process Flow Chart
for

Identifying Potential Areas of Concern

Determine
the type of EJ
assessment,
e.g., targeting
or site-
specific, and
the allowable
level of
uncertainty.

Defi^ target



ana reference



areas and



aggregate

	

demographic



data



accordingly.



Is the K'v-income
or minority
population
percentage of the
target area
greater than the
absolute or
relative threshold
selected? **

No

Target area is not
considered a
potential EJ area
of concern.

Target area is considered
a potential EJ area of
concern.

State

Absolute
Minority
Threshold

Relative

Minority

Threshold

Absolute

Low-Income

Threshold

Relative
Low-Income
Threshold
(15K)

Relative
Low-Income
Threshold
(Poverty)

Alabama

50.00%

32.10%

20.00%

33.13%

18.34%

Florida

50.00%

31.99%

20.00%

25.01%

12.69%

Georgia

50.00%

35.72%

20.00%

25.45%

14.65%

Kentucky

50.00%

9.95%

20.00%

34.61%

19.03%

Mississippi

50.00%

44.30%

20.00%

39.24%

25.21%

North Carolina

50.00%

29.89%

20.00%

27.00%

12.97%

South Carolina

50.00%,

37.68%

20.00%

28.26%

15.37%

Tennessee

50.00%

20.89%

20.00%

30.49%

15.70%

** In selecting a threshold for determining the significance of low-income or minority populations in a target area,
an analyst should consider the type of assessment being conducted, the allowable level of uncertainty, and the attributes
of the data being used in the analysis. For more information regarding the use of recommended thresholds see Section 3
(Basic Tools for Understanding and Implementing EJ) and Section 4 (Conducting an EJ Assessment).

-------
APPENDIX E

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)REQUEST FORM

[Please Print or Type]

DATE OF REQUEST:

JATE PRODUCT NEEDED BY:

J TRACKING #:

EPA CONTACT PERSON:

Of! cj/Divisio.i

Tele. Ext.

SITE/FACILITY NAME or SPECIFY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA;

(STREET ADDRESS or RURAL ROUTE)

CITY/TOWN)

(COUNTY)

(STATE)

(ZIP CODE)

ITE LATITUDE

SITE LONGITUDE

MILES RADIUS AROUND SPECIFIED POINT -- (HOW MANY MILES?)

>THER FACILITIES TO BE PLOTTED: 	

V1AP TITLE[S]:	

~ URBAN ~ RURAL

,IAP[S] REQUESTED: ~ YES ~ NO

IOW MANY COPIES?
-VHITE

~ COLOR ~ BLACK &

IZE

~ 8.5" x 11" ~ 11x17 ~ OTHER

ADDITIONAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS or INSTRUCTIONS:

•EMOGRAPHICS INFORMATION: [Please Provide data where applicable]
A.pproximate Size of Population:

City 	 ~ County 	

~ Community/Impacted Area

Percent of Minority

~ Percent of Low-Income

~ Percent of at or below Poverty

Source of Information: ~ [Year]

Census Statistics ~ Other [Explain Below]

oIS CONTACT PERSON:

Tele. Ext.

EJGISRF(Revl)6-ll-98

-------
APPENDIX F

-------
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
RELATED TO THE EPA REGION 4 EJ POLICY

What is Environmental Justice (EJ)?

There is no single definition for EJ. However, Region 4 defines EJ as follows: "EJ is the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies." Fair treatment means that no group of
people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups should bear disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects resulting from Federal agency
programs, policies, and activities.

What are U.S. EPA's general responsibilities under Executive Order 12898 "Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations"1

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued this Executive Order and an
accompanying Presidential memorandum to focus Federal attention on the environmental
and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. To
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, EPA must make achieving EJ part of
its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States and its territories.

The identification of a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effect on a minority population or low-income population does not preclude a proposed
agency action from going forward, nor does it necessarily compel a conclusion that a
proposed action is environmentally unsatisfactory. Rather, the identification of such an
effect should heighten agency attention to alternatives (including alternative sites),
mitigation strategies, monitoring needs, and preferences expressed by the affected
community.

Q3. What are the guidelines for 'Identifying and Addressing an Environmental Justice
Case" and when do I use them?

A3. Please refer to Sections 1-7 of this Policy Document. These particular sections focus on
demographic analyses: Sections 3 and 4, as well as Appendix C and D. The policy
guidelines were developed by the EJ Policy Work Team and outline a process for
identifying and addressing potential EJ cases. They include criteria for identifying
potential EJ cases with respect to low-income populations and minority populations and
provide recommendations for taking EJ into account in enforcement, permitting, and
community involvement matters.

These guidelines should be used by U.S. EPA Region 4 staff whenever they are trying to
determine whether their case is a potential EJ case and what actions to take (on EPA-lead
activities) if this designation is made. Each Region 4 program will determine those cases

Ql.
Al.

Q2.

A2.

-------
for which an EJ assessment should be conducted (e.g., new cases, existing cases, per
community self-identification, etc.).

Q4. Have national EJ guidelines been developed? Have other Regions developed
guidelines?

A4. National EJ guidelines ?se still being developed 5PA Headquarters will be officially
releasing an Interim Draft document called, "Guidance for Conducting EJ Analyses," Risk-Based
Targeting Working Group, Office of EJ on May 29, 1998. Until national guidelines are
finalized, Region 4 will use its own guidelines, some which have been adopted from this
latest Headquarters Guidance. Other Regions have developed or are in the process of
developing guidelines, including Regions 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9.

Q5. Why does this EJ Policy Document have limitations?

A5. This EJ Policy was created to fill an immediate need to provide Region 4 staff with a
methodology for identifying and addressing potential EJ cases. There are inherent
limitations in these guidelines in that they are based primarily on an assessment of
demographics and do not involve a complex analysis of risk or disproportionate effects (a
key factor in EJ assessment). This approach has benefits because it allows for expediency
in identifying potential EJ cases. The guidelines will be further developed to reflect
experience and methodological improvements.

Q6. Can I share these EJ Policy guidelines with the States and other external partners?

A6. Yes. Although this EJ Policy is primarily to assist EPA management and staff in assessing
and addressing EJ cases, they may be shared with other partners. Keep in mind, however,
that these guidelines apply only to those activities where U.S. EPA Region 4 has direct
authority. States and other external partners are not required to follow them but are
encouraged to take them into consideration.

Q7. What is meant by "disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects" (disproportionate effects)?

A7. In Appendix A of the guidance pertaining to EJ and the National Environmental Policy
Act2, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has established the following
definitions:

- When determining whether human health effects are disproportionately high and
adverse, agencies are to consider the following: (a) whether the health effects, which may
be measured in risks and rates, are significant (as employed by the National Environmental
Policy Act - NEPA), or above generally accepted norms. Adverse health effects may
include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death; and (b) whether the risk or rate of
hazard exposure by a minority population, low-income population or Indian tribe to an

2 " Environmental Justice - Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act",
developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1997. The CEQ, which is part of the
Executive Office of the President, oversees the Federal government's compliance with Executive
Order 12898.

-------
environmental hazard is significant and appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciable
exceed the risk or rate to the general population or other appropriate comparison group;
and (c) whether health effects occur in a minority population, low income population, or
Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental
hazards.

- When determining whether environmental effects are disproportionately high and
adverse, agencies are to consider the following: (a) whether there is or will be an impact
on the natural or physical environment that significantly (as employed by NEPA) and
adversely affects a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe. Such
effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts on
minority communities, low-income communities, or Indian tribes when those impacts are
interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment; and (b) whether
environmental effects are significant (as employed by NEPA) and are or may be having an
adverse impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes that
appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population or
other appropriate comparison group; and (c) whether the environmental effects occur or
would occur in a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe affected by
cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards.

Q8. Why isn't an assessment of "disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects" (disproportionate effects) included in the guidelines as a
criteria for identifying potential EJ cases?

A8. A methodology for assessing disproportionate effects is still evolving. To date, there is no
proven methodology for conducting this type of assessment and what can be done is a
very labor intensive and costly effort. To include this assessment as an integral part of the
guidelines would mean the Region could achieve very little toward identifying its potential
EJ cases because of the complexity of the assessment. The guidelines do, however,
contemplate such an assessment on a case-by-case basis as the need or availability of
required information exists. As currently written, the guidelines offer a user-friendly
methodology for management and staff seeking a quick assessment of whether a case is
potentially EJ based primarily on demographic information.

Q9. What are "cumulative effects" or "cumulative exposures"?

A9. Total effects from exposures to one or moTe chemical, biological, physical or radiological
agents across environmental media (e.g., air, water, soil) from single or multiple sources.

Q10. What is considered "Minority" or "People of Color"?

A10. Minority individuals, as classified by the U.S. Census Bureau, are members of the
following populations groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific
Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

For the purposes of this EJ Policy, an area is considered to be minority if its minority
population percentage exceeds the State minority population percentage. The minority
population percentages for the Region 4 States (according to the 1990 Bureau of the

-------
Census' Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty) are: Alabama -
26.75%, Florida - 26.66%, Georgia - 29.76%, Kentucky - 8.29%, Mississippi - 36.92%,
North Carolina - 24.91%, South Carolina - 31.4%, Tennessee - 17.41%.

This EJ Policy uses the term "minority" rather than "people of color" in order to remain
consent with ! e langu j:e in Executive Order No. 12898, but EPA Region 4 is mindful
and supportive of many communities' preference for the term "people of color".

Q11. Why is a different minority population threshold being used for each State, instead
of a single Regionwide figure?

All. These guidelines use a different minority population threshold for each Region 4 State
because each State has unique characteristics, in terms of the composition of its
population. There is no single regionwide figure that could be used fairly and equitably
for every State. The Appendix D shows a table for the absolute and relative thresholds
(minority) for each state.

Q12. What is the "poverty threshold/level"?

A12. The Bureau of Census' poverty statistics are based on a definition originated by the Social
Security Administration in 1964, subsequently modified by the Federal interagency
committees in 1969 and 1980 and prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget in
Directive 14 as the standard to be used by Federal agencies for statistical purposes.

The national poverty thresholds are revised annually to allow for changes in the cost of
living as reflected in the Consumer Price Index. These guidelines use the 1989 poverty
threshold for a family of four persons ($12,674). This is the threshold upon which the
1990 census poverty data is based.

Q13. What is "Low-income"?

A13. For the purpose of these guidelines, low-income is defined as less than 2 times the poverty
threshold/level. An area/community will be considered "low-income" when its low-
income population percentage exceeds the State low-income population percentage for
the State in question.

According to the 1990 Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on
Income and Poverty, the low-income population percentages for the Region 4 States are:
Alabama - 18.34%, Florida - 12.69%, Georgia - 14.65%, Kentucky - 19.03%, Mississippi
- 25.21%, North Carolina - 12.97%, South Carolina - 15.37%, Tennessee - 15.70%.

The Appendix D shows a table for the absolute and relative thresholds (low-income) for
each state.

Q14. Why is a "greater than the State (low-income or minority) percentage used as an
indicator of a potential EJ case? What is the significance of "2 times the State
percentage" in potential EJ case evaluation?

A14. In Appendix A of the guidance pertaining to EJ and the National Environmental Policy

-------
Act, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) establishes a minimum numeric
measure of minority population at 50% of the affected area. The guidance goes on to
explain that a minority population may be present if the minority population of the affected
area is "meaningfully greater" than the minority population in the general population or
other "appropriate unit of geographic measure."

We have defined "meaningfully greater" as any value above the State low-income and
minority population percentages. Therefore, any case where low-income or minority
population percentages of a case exceed the percentages of the State in which it is located,
is considered potentially EJ. The absolute minority thresholds are 50% minorities and the
absolute low-income is 20%.

Since this represents a very large portion of Region 4, for FY98 priority setting purposes
we use relative thresholds. We determine these relative priority levels as "1.2 times the
State minority and any level below the State low-income population percentage" as an
indicator of the worst potential EJ cases and will focus attention on these cases. This
scenario is considered the "Priority Setting Proactive Track" as it may reflect the "worst"
cases in the Region and those that the Region would target to address first. All other
potential EJ cases will be addressed in response to community and stakeholder
recommendations, or if other compelling circumstances exist.

This scenario is considered the "Responsive Track" as it may not reflect the "worst" cases
in the Region.

Q15. What is a "Tribe"?

A15. All federally recognized tribal entities, such as American Indian tribes (including Alaskan
Native Villages), pueblos, and rancheros.

Q16. What is an EJ Community?

A16. A minority community OR low-income community that bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects.

Q17. What is demographic information and how do I obtain it?

A17. Demographic information is the statistical data describing characteristics of a population
(e.g. race, gender, ethnicity, income). This information can be obtained via Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) by submitting a request to your Division/Office GIS expert or
the Office of Information Services. See the GIS Request Form for more information on
how to obtain demographic information.

Q18. What is Geographic Information Systems (GIS)?

A18. The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of EJ uses the National Spatial Data
Library System (NSDLS). GIS is used to provide map products and tables summarizing
EJ demographic parameters in the vicinity of sources. The NSDLS layers commonly used
in EJ analysis includes the 1990 Bureau of Census block group polygons with the 1990
Bureau of census demographic files, the Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding
and Referencing (TIGER) 92 data on roads, railroads and hydrography, and the

-------
Envirofacts Points. Envirofacts contains attribute data for EPA regulated facilities for the
major media programs.

Q19. Why is 1990 census data being used? Is more current data available?

A19. Our files currently contain complete sets of 1990 census data. Occasionally, we receive
updates for later years. However, the updates may not include information for all the
areas we need to assess. For this reason, we will use the 1990 census information until
data from the upcoming 2000 census is available.

Q20. What is meant by "Cases"?

A20. For the purpose of these guidelines, the term "case" is meant in its broadest, most general
sense and refers to any site, project, community, area, enforcement action, inspection,
regulated permitting action, administrative case or judicial case.

Q21. What happens to a case once it is identified as a "potential EJ case"?

A21. What happens to a case once it is identified as a potential EJ case is program dependent.
Please consult your Divisional EJ Coordinator for specific direction.

Q22. What is a census block group and why obtain demographic information for the
census block group?

A22. A census block group is a defined expanse or area of land utilized by the U.S. Census

Bureau in demographic studies. Census block groups vary greatly in size and are smaller
and more densely populated in urban areas than in rural areas.

The use of the census block groups in demographic analysis is common because it is the
smallest data unit for which all parameters needed to conduct an EJ assessment are
available. In addition, information can be obtained on cases even in the absence of certain
information (e.g. latitude and longitude information).

The disadvantages of using census block groups are apparent when a pollution source is
located near the boundary of the census block group and may, in fact, affect the
population of the adjacent block group; and in less densely populated areas (e.g. rural
areas) where the block group is so large that it may not provide meaningful information.
In both of these cases, the reviewer/assessor should use his/her best judgement (e.g. obtain
demographic information for every potentially affected block group or for an area smaller
than a block group).

Q23. The 'Implementing EJ in Enforcement Activities" discusses how to handle a

particular case if it is located in an EJ area. What about targeting of enforcement
actions in these areas?

A23. It is important for the Region to target enforcement resources in EJ communities since
these are communities which bear disproportionate effects. We will be working with the
enforcement programs to develop ways accomplish this — such as the annual EPA
Headquarters OECA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) process. In the meantime, the
attached enforcement protocol provides an outline of what Regional enforcement

-------
personnel can do now to promote EJ in cases assigned to them.

Q24. What is the relationship between EJ and Title VI [Civil Rights Act] ?

A24. EJ is a broad policy which directs the Agency to use, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, its resources and authorities to address disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects on low-income and minority populations.
As explained earlier (see Introduction), this policy does not create new legal authorities.
This means that the Agency carries out its EJ mandate by using existing authorities and
programs, but using them in different ways so as to achieve EJ.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an anti-discrimination law which prohibits the
recipients of federal financial assistance (such as most State environmental agencies) from
discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin (but not income) in the
conduct of their programs. Several complaints have been filed with the Agency's Office
of Civil Rights alleging that permits issued by the state agency have resulted in
discriminatory effects on the basis of race, color or national origin. To provide guidance
on the processing of these complaints, the Agency has recently issued "Interim Guidance
for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits."

While there is a relationship between EJ and Title VI, there are still many issues still to be
resolved in ensuring that the administration of environmental laws is carried out in a way
that does not conflict with the pre-existing civil rights laws. These issues will be clarified
as the Agency processes the complaints which have been filed. In addtion, a new Federal
Advisory Committee has been established, consisting of state and local environmental
officials, environmental activists, and academics, which is charged with providing
recommendations on Title VI issues.

*~*

These EJ Policies are for the use of U.S. EPA Region 4 personnel. Region 4 reserves the right to change
these policies at any time, without prior notice, or at variance from these guidelines. These guidelines
do not create any rights, duties or obligations with respect to any third parties.

-------
APPENDIX G

-------
Awaiting input...

-------
APPENDIX H

-------
EPA Region 4 Environmental Justice Contacts

Office of Environmental Justice

Connie Raines

Phone: (404) 562-9671
Fax: (404) 562-

Email:Raines.connie@epamail.epa.gov

Air, Pesticides and Toxic Management
Division

Robert Bookman

Phone: (404) 562-9222
Fax: (404) 562-9164
E-mail: bookman.robert@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Science Division

Louis Salguero

Phone: (706) 355-8732
Fax: (706) 355-8744
E-mail: salguero.louis@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Accountability Division

Becky Allenbach

Phone: (404) 562-9687
Fax: (404) 562-9598
E-mail: allenbach.becky@epamail.epa.gov

Office of Policy and Management

Matthew Robbins

Phone: (404) 562-8371
Fax: (404) 562-8370
E-mail: robbins.matt@epamail.epa.gov

Waste Management Division

Brian Holtzclaw

Phone: (404)562-8868
Fax: (404) 562-8628
E-mail: holtzclaw.brian@epamail.epa.gov

Eddie Wright

Phone: (404) 562-8669
Fax: (404) 562-8628
E-mail: wright.eddie@epamail.epa.gov

Water Management Division

Natalie Ellington

Phone: (404)562-9453
Fax: (404) 562-9439
E-mail: ellington. natalie@ epamail.epa.gov

-------
EPA Region 4 Community Relations (Involvement) Coordinators

North Site Management Branch

\

Diane Barrett

Phone: (404) 562-8830
Fax: (404) 562-8788
E-mail: barrett.diane@epamail.epa.gov

Cindy Gibson

Phone: (404) 562-8808 1
Fax: (404) 562-8788 B
E-mail: gibson.cindy@epamail.epa.gov B

Cynthia Peurifoy jj

Phone: (404) 562-8798
Fax: (404) 562-8788
E-mail: peurifoy.cynthia@epamail.epa.gov

South Site Management Branch

;

Rose Jackson

Phone: (404) 562-8940
Fax: (404) 562-8898
E-mail: jackson.rose@epamail.epa.gov

Angela Leach

Phone: (404) 562-8947
Fax: (404) 562-8896
E-mail: leach.angela@epamail.epa.gov

Carlean Wakefield

Phone: (404) 562-8915
Fax: (404) 562-8896
E-mail: wakefield.carlean@epamail.epa.gov

Emergency Response and Removal

Sherryl Carbonaro

Phone: (404)562-8742
Fax: (404) 562-8693
E-mail: carbonaro.sherryl@epamail.epa.gov

Michael Henderson

Phone: (404) 562-8724
Fax: (404) 562-8693
E-mail: henderson.michael@epamail.epa.gov

Federal Facilities

Tiki Whitfield

Phone: (404) 562-8530
Fax: (404)562-8518
E-mail: whitfield.tiki@epamail.epa.gov

Other Programs

-------
EPA Region 4 Regional Tribal Coordinator/Contact

Mark Robertson (Regional Indian Program Coordinator)
Phone: 404-562-9639
Fax: 404-562-9598
E-mail: robertson.mark@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 4 Regional Brownfields Coordinators

EPA Region 1

John Podgurski

Phone: (617) 573-9681
Fax: (617) 573-9662
E-mail: podgurski.john@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 2

Larry D'Andrea

Phone: (212) 637-4314
Fax: (212) 637-4360
E-mail: dandrea.larry@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 3

Tom Stolle

Phone: (215) 566-3129
Fax: (215) 566-3001
E-mail: stolle.tom@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 4

Mickey Hartnett

Phone: (404) 562-8661
Fax: (404) 562-8628
E-mail: hartnett.mickey@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 5

Jim Van der Kloot

Phone: (312)353-3161
Fax: (312) 886-0753
E-mail: vanderkloot.james@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 6

Stan Hitt

Phone: (214) 665-6736
Fax: (214) 665-6460
E-mail: hitt.stan@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 7

Susan Klein

Phone:(913) 551-7786
Fax: (913)551-7063
E-mail: klein.susan@epamail.epa.gov

-------
EPA Region 1

John Podgurski

Phone: (617) 573-9681
Fax: (617)573-9662
E-mail: podgurski.john@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 8

David Ostrander

Phone: (303) 312-6931
Fax: (303)312-6071
E-mail: ostrander.david@epamail.epa.gov !

EPA Region 9

Jim Hanson j

Phone: (415)744-2237
Fax: (415)744-1796
E-mail: hanson.jim@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 10

Lori Cohen

Phone: (206) 553-6523
Fax: (206) 553-0124
E-mail: cohen.lori@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Regional Environmental Justice (EJ) Contacts/Coordinators

EPA Region 1 9 Rhona Julien

1 Phone: (617) 565-9454
jFax: (617)565-3415
| E-mail: julien.rhona@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 2

Melva Hayden

Phone: (212) 637-5027
Fax: (212)637-5024
E-mail: hayden.melva@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 3

Reginald Harris

Phone: (215) 566-2988
Fax: (215)566-2901
E-mail: harris.reggie@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 4

Connie Raines

Phone: (404) 562-9671
Fax: (404) 562-9664
E-mail: raines.connie@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 5

Karla Johnson

Phone: (312) 886-5993
Fax: (312) 886-2737

| E-mail: johnson.karla@epamail.epa.gov |

-------
EPA Region 1 1

Rhona Julien

Phone: (617) 565-9454
Fax: (617) 565-3415
E-mail: julien.rhona@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 6

Shirley Augurson

Phone: (214) 665-7401
Fax: (214)665-7446
E-mail: augurson.shirley@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 7

Althea Moses

Phone: (913) 551-7649

Fax: (913) 551-7976

E-mail: moses.althea@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 8

Elisabeth Evans

Phone: (303) 312-6053
Fax: (303) 312-6558
E-mail: evans.elisabeth@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 9

Willard Chin

Phone: (415)744-1204
Fax: (415)744-1605
E-mail: chin.willard@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 10

Joyce Crosson-Kelly

Phone: (206)553-4029
Fax: (206) 553-8338
E-mail: kelly.joyce@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Justice Contacts - Headquarters

Office of Environmental Justice

Robert Knox, Acting Director
Phone: (202) 564-2515
Fax: (202) 501-0742
E-mail: knox.robert@epamail.epa.gov

Office of Air and Radiation

Wilbert Wilson

Phone: (202) 260-5574
Fax: (202) 260-0253
E-mail: wilson.wil@epamail.epa.gov

Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance

Sherry Milan

Phone: (202) 564-2619 j
Fax: (202) 501-0284 j
E-mail: milan.sheny@epamail.epa.gov |

-------
Office of Environmental Justice

Robert Knox, Acting Director
Phone: (202) 564-2515
Fax: (202)501-0742
E-mail: knox.robert@epamail.epa.gov

Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic
Substances

Caren Rothstein

Phone: (202)260-0065
Fax: (202)260-1847
E-mail: rothstein.caren@epamail.epa.gov

9 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
9 Response

Kent Benjamin

Phone: (202)260-2822
Fax: (202) 260-6606
E-mail: benjamin.kent@epamail.epa.gov

Office and Water

Alice Walker

Phone: (202)260-1919
Fax: (202) 269-3597
E-mail: walker.alice@epamail.epa.gov

-------
EPA Regional Geographic Information System (GIS) Contacts

EPA Region 1

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

EPA Region 2

Harvey Simon

Phone: (212) 637-3594
Fax: (212)

E-mail: simon.harvey@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 3

David West

Phone:(215) 814-5361
Fax: (215) 814-5251
E-mail: west.david@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 4

Rebecca Kemp

Phone: (404)562-8027
Fax: (404) 562-8053
E-mail: kemp.rebecca@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 5

Stephen Goranson

Phone: (312)886-3445
Fax: (312) 353-4135
E-mail: goranson.stephen@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 6

David Parrish

Phone: (214) 665-8352
Fax: (214)665-7446
E-mail: parrish.david@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 7

Vickie Damm

Phone: (913) 551-7247
Fax: (913)551-7863
E-mail: damm.vickie@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 8

Paul Riederer

Phone: (303) 312-6635
Fax: (303) 312-7554
E-mail: riederer.paul@epamail.epa.gov

EPA Region 9

Warren Beer

Phone: (415)744-1803
Fax: (415)744-1474
E-mail: beer.warren@epamail.epa.gov

-------
EPA Region I

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

EPA Region 10

Ray Peterson

Phone: ^06)553-1682
Fax: (206)553-0119
E-mail: peterson.ray@epamail.epa.gov

-------